Link
So, is the NPP now a useless relic, only fit to be traded around like a token favor?
Has the world been so successfully won over by the global warming crowd?
Is it a political statement aimed at Bush's refusal of the Kyoto treaty, despite the claims to the opposite?
Whatever the actual reason, I still say it's officially invalidated the award in my book.
Have to agree there. What a joke. How you can pat someone on their back when what they are doing is based on sketchy evidence and is not agreed on within the scientific community. Strange world eh!
It seems odd that you can get a peace prize for something that is not related to making peace.
Yeah. It always was the most nebulous and useless of the Nobel awards. I guess I should just be thankful he'll never win a science award, eh? 
Most peace in the world comes from stability and prosperity, and we're actually moving into a world with fewer people who're in the high-risk level of poverty.
Climate Change is actually related to peace, because Climate Change is one of the few things that could actually delay the departure from poverty for much of the world.
I know we tend to think about war in terms of fighter jets, et al., but there's also a component to barbarity that includes people so desperate and displaced that they're willing to use machetes on their neighbours just to maintain their subsistence-level of living.
Think about last year's peace prize, where the winner was being recognised for so much work on lifting people out of poverty. These two peace prizes have more focused on getting people less likely to use machetes to stave off starvation.
Climate Change is actually related to peace, because Climate Change is one of the few things that could actually delay the departure from poverty for much of the world.
I know we tend to think about war in terms of fighter jets, et al., but there's also a component to barbarity that includes people so desperate and displaced that they're willing to use machetes on their neighbours just to maintain their subsistence-level of living.
Think about last year's peace prize, where the winner was being recognised for so much work on lifting people out of poverty. These two peace prizes have more focused on getting people less likely to use machetes to stave off starvation.
Gore gets a NPP related to his pushing of AGW as an important issue caused by excessive personal use of energy while he flies around the country giving these lectures in a private jet and lives in a house with a $3,000/month electric bill.
Gotta love the irony.
Gotta love the irony.
I didn't expect for someone like you to fall for a hatchet-piece of propaganda.
Isn't Gore's house also his business headquarters with a staff? What's the average electricity bill for an office that has a staff as large as his? And, if I recall, he flies commercially now and buys carbon credits for his travels.
More generally, I find it funny that people are accussing the Nobel process of playing politics. Maybe they are, but the people doing the complaining seem to be the people who hate Gore for political reasons. I'm having a hard time not suspecting that the complainers are merely biased.
Isn't Gore's house also his business headquarters with a staff? What's the average electricity bill for an office that has a staff as large as his? And, if I recall, he flies commercially now and buys carbon credits for his travels.
More generally, I find it funny that people are accussing the Nobel process of playing politics. Maybe they are, but the people doing the complaining seem to be the people who hate Gore for political reasons. I'm having a hard time not suspecting that the complainers are merely biased.
Its his PRIVATE home.
Only him and Tipper work out of it.
He has a gas heated pool.
His twenty-room home and pool house consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006.
You do the math.
Arthur
Only him and Tipper work out of it.
He has a gas heated pool.
His twenty-room home and pool house consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006.
You do the math.
Arthur
QUOTE
Climate Change is actually related to peace, because Climate Change is one of the few things that could actually delay the departure from poverty for much of the world.
I'm not sold that we are effecting this current warming trend more than natural events, but something did happen this year that has not happened in at least 5,000, and perhaps as long as 100,000 years: The oft sought/never found Northwest Passage through the Arctic opened up on 8/14 and remained open and fully navigable until 9/18, when a small area froze over. It corresponds to the net loss of September polar sea ice in 2007 that equaled the net loss of September polar sea ice of the last 28 years combined. No matter what, that's notable. Full details and this interesting article are here: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMaste...6&tstamp=200710
Just scroll down till you see "Arctic Ice..."
Looking at this from one point of view, the prospect of a usable Northwest Passage will save gigornus amounts of money for lots of nations.
Maybe's it's just the worlds way of saying yeah well I guess someone from the us who totes global warming should get it for teaching the world terraforming. I mean hey that's just simple logic right. I'd hate to see it go to the wrong person and all and everything I mean for their hard work at fixing our worlds biggest problem and taking the full brunt of all of the scientific field scrutinizing your ideas about the issues and testing every single one in front of your eyes to the point where you get to watch devastation they cause because they are too stupid to listen to you in the first place. Yep definatly deserved that one. Money can buy you anything...
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 12 2007, 11:52 PM)
Its his PRIVATE home.
Only him and Tipper work out of it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house - it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area.Not knowing the nature of their business needs, what does his PRIVATE home have to do with it?
Only him and Tipper work out of it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
QUOTE
A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house - it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house - it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area. |
Not knowing the nature of their business needs, what does his PRIVATE home have to do with it?
His twenty-room home and pool house consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...&show_article=1
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.
The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.I'll admit Gore wont' win the neighborhood energy conservation competition, but that's not why he received a share of the NPP.
His twenty-room home and pool house consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...&show_article=1
QUOTE
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.
The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. |
I'll admit Gore wont' win the neighborhood energy conservation competition, but that's not why he received a share of the NPP.
You do the math.
You do the math.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 12 2007, 10:07 PM)
Gore gets a NPP related to his pushing of AGW as an important issue caused by excessive personal use of energy while he flies around the country giving these lectures in a private jet and lives in a house with a $3,000/month electric bill.
Arthur
Arthur
$3000/month, where does that math come from?
The $3,000/mo was the average for his Natural Gas AND Electric bill. The house and POOL are heated with Natural Gas.
I love the justification that Al and Tipper work out of the house though.
What part of this didn't you understand?
What part of this didn't you understand?
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Then you present a Pretty Piss Poor analogy of how "carbon offsets" work.
The fact is, the "carbon offsets" approach is nothing more than saying that its OK to build a house 4 times larger than the already high US normal and then use 10 times the amount of energy to run it, as long as you can find some other 3rd world "Whipping Boy" to forgo use of a Diesel powered irrigation pump and live in a subsistance manner by using a human powered treadle pump instead.
Clearly the SAME (ethically) as the use of INDULGENCES were.
Like I said, if you believe in offsets, then the solution is SIMPLE.
No need to make any change PERSONALLY as to how we use energy, just buy a half dozen GIGATONS of these carbon offsets each year.
Arthur
Because it's similar to others of their income/living style. Which doesn't compare with those he is targeting. And as has been mentioned, he offsets it by his agenda, and his agenda is not destructive even if human-induced GW has been exaggerated. The bottom line to me is that Gore has shown himself to be a really decent guy, with class, and a lot of people won't admit it. Didn't anybody see the C -Span coverage of the Congressional proceedings that occurred after Bush's Appointment? The ones Gore presided over? The ones concerning him? Class. And not to be taken away by slings of hypocracy because he lives like millions of other Americans; not with what he's managed to do. I've no problem with him getting the Nobel, and I think not a shred less of the Nobel committee for their decision.
Because it's similar to others of their income/living style. Which doesn't compare with those he is targeting. And as has been mentioned, he offsets it by his agenda, and his agenda is not destructive even if human-induced GW has been exaggerated. The bottom line to me is that Gore has shown himself to be a really decent guy, with class, and a lot of people won't admit it. Didn't anybody see the C -Span coverage of the Congressional proceedings that occurred after Bush's Appointment? The ones Gore presided over? The ones concerning him? Class. And not to be taken away by slings of hypocracy because he lives like millions of other Americans; not with what he's managed to do. I've no problem with him getting the Nobel, and I think not a shred less of the Nobel committee for their decision.
Look, I'm not the one who is claiming that CO2 is the root of all evil.
But I sure do agree with this and the rest of the post. Although I do support alternative energy research.
This may very well be true; it's the pollution that we need to and can mitigate.
it doesn't mean the entire offset industry is worthless.
What part of this didn't you understand?
What part of this didn't you understand?Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
I love the justification that Al and Tipper work out of the house though.
QUOTE (Capracus+)
I'll admit Gore wont' win the neighborhood energy conservation competition, but that's not why he received a share of the NPP.
Yeah, I guess being a hypocrite doesn't disqualify you.
Arthur
Yeah, I guess being a hypocrite doesn't disqualify you.
Arthur
I thought this other house description was interesting in comparison.
The Prarie Chapel Ranch ranch home owned by George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, an associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. As the Chicago Tribune described the house in a 2001 article:
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.
From other articles:
"By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home.
Constructed from a local limestone, the house has eight rooms in a long, narrow design to take advantage of views and breezes. A porch stretches across the back and both ends of the house, widening at one end into a covered patio off the living room.
The tin roof of the house extends beyond the porch. When it rains, it's possible to sit on the patio and watch the water pour down without getting wet. Under a gravel border around the house, a concrete gutter channels the water into a 25,000-gallon cistern for irrigation. In hot weather, a terrace directly above the cistern is a little cooler than the surrounding area.
Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called "gray water," and one tank for "black water" from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.
The Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume. Several holes were drilled 300 feet deep, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees. Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground, then back up and through the house, heating it in winter and cooling it in summer. The water for the outdoor pool is heated with the same system, which proved so efficient that initial plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.
Arthur
The Prarie Chapel Ranch ranch home owned by George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, an associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. As the Chicago Tribune described the house in a 2001 article:
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.
From other articles:
"By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home.
Constructed from a local limestone, the house has eight rooms in a long, narrow design to take advantage of views and breezes. A porch stretches across the back and both ends of the house, widening at one end into a covered patio off the living room.
The tin roof of the house extends beyond the porch. When it rains, it's possible to sit on the patio and watch the water pour down without getting wet. Under a gravel border around the house, a concrete gutter channels the water into a 25,000-gallon cistern for irrigation. In hot weather, a terrace directly above the cistern is a little cooler than the surrounding area.
Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called "gray water," and one tank for "black water" from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.
The Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume. Several holes were drilled 300 feet deep, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees. Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground, then back up and through the house, heating it in winter and cooling it in summer. The water for the outdoor pool is heated with the same system, which proved so efficient that initial plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 12 2007, 11:07 PM)
Gore gets a NPP related to his pushing of AGW as an important issue caused by excessive personal use of energy while he flies around the country giving these lectures in a private jet and lives in a house with a $3,000/month electric bill.
Gotta love the irony.
In this case though, the ends might justify the means.
Which is better :
1. Gore jets around the world, particularly the US and China, telling people in a clear and understandable manner about global warming and the impact they are having (particularly China and the US). He uses an amount of carbon but persuades enough people to turn off lights and walk to work to save 1,000,000 amounts of carbon.
2. Gore sits on his arse in his warm pool and 1,000,000 amounts of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere because fewer people know about the issues at hand.
In this case, you should crack a few eggs to make a few omelettes.
Gotta love the irony.
In this case though, the ends might justify the means.
Which is better :
1. Gore jets around the world, particularly the US and China, telling people in a clear and understandable manner about global warming and the impact they are having (particularly China and the US). He uses an amount of carbon but persuades enough people to turn off lights and walk to work to save 1,000,000 amounts of carbon.
2. Gore sits on his arse in his warm pool and 1,000,000 amounts of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere because fewer people know about the issues at hand.
In this case, you should crack a few eggs to make a few omelettes.
Well we're all glad he's living so lavishly to do his part... Maybe I could get the new Nobel prize winner then to maybe drop a neurofeedback specialist that wants to remain nameless so he doesn't get patients a line saying i could use the alternative therapies he can provide....
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 13 2007, 01:17 PM)
The $3,000/mo was the average for his Natural Gas AND Electric bill. The house and POOL are heated with Natural Gas.
I love the justification that Al and Tipper work out of the house though.
If your going to criticize Gore's home life, which I'm sure you know very little about, then at least be honest about the fact that he works out of his house and makes an attempt to mitigate his energy usage with offsets.
And make an attempt to use some legitimate numbers, I thought you were better at checking the facts.
I love the justification that Al and Tipper work out of the house though.
If your going to criticize Gore's home life, which I'm sure you know very little about, then at least be honest about the fact that he works out of his house and makes an attempt to mitigate his energy usage with offsets.
And make an attempt to use some legitimate numbers, I thought you were better at checking the facts.
QUOTE
Yeah, I guess being a hypocrite doesn't disqualify you.
Do you know something I don't? Did I win a share of the award too? What's my cut?QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 13 2007, 10:05 AM)
In this case though, the ends might justify the means.
Which is better :
1. Gore jets around the world, particularly the US and China, telling people in a clear and understandable manner about global warming and the impact they are having (particularly China and the US). He uses an amount of carbon but persuades enough people to turn off lights and walk to work to save 1,000,000 amounts of carbon.
2. Gore sits on his arse in his warm pool and 1,000,000 amounts of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere because fewer people know about the issues at hand.
In this case, you should crack a few eggs to make a few omelettes.
My point wasn't that he jetted around the world telling the GW story, its that he did it in a PRIVATE JET.
As to the house, if he believes, as he says, that the FATE OF THE EARTH HANGS IN THE BALANCE, then it is EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL to have a SECOND house that is FOUR times the average size of a home built in the US in 2006 (note how home sizes have been increasing) and then use TEN TIMES the amount of energy to run it.
Actually Gore was a Kyoto supporter, (though the Gore/Clinton admin never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification) and Kyoto SPECIFICALLY excludes China, India, Mexico, Brazil etc.
Which is why, when Bush went to Asia recently and proposed that China join in with reductions in GW gas emissions, he was told that China PREFERS THE UN POLICY (Kyoto).
Arthur
Which is better :
1. Gore jets around the world, particularly the US and China, telling people in a clear and understandable manner about global warming and the impact they are having (particularly China and the US). He uses an amount of carbon but persuades enough people to turn off lights and walk to work to save 1,000,000 amounts of carbon.
2. Gore sits on his arse in his warm pool and 1,000,000 amounts of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere because fewer people know about the issues at hand.
In this case, you should crack a few eggs to make a few omelettes.
My point wasn't that he jetted around the world telling the GW story, its that he did it in a PRIVATE JET.
As to the house, if he believes, as he says, that the FATE OF THE EARTH HANGS IN THE BALANCE, then it is EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL to have a SECOND house that is FOUR times the average size of a home built in the US in 2006 (note how home sizes have been increasing) and then use TEN TIMES the amount of energy to run it.
Actually Gore was a Kyoto supporter, (though the Gore/Clinton admin never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification) and Kyoto SPECIFICALLY excludes China, India, Mexico, Brazil etc.
Which is why, when Bush went to Asia recently and proposed that China join in with reductions in GW gas emissions, he was told that China PREFERS THE UN POLICY (Kyoto).
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 13 2007, 02:02 PM)
I thought this other house description was interesting in comparison.
The Prarie Chapel Ranch ranch home owned by George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, an associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. As the Chicago Tribune described the house in a 2001 article:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
The Prarie Chapel Ranch ranch home owned by George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, an associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. As the Chicago Tribune described the house in a 2001 article:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
So we can let Bush be an example of home energy efficiency, and let Gore set world and national environmental policy. Sounds like a good trade to me.
Sure, as soon as someone explains how "Carbon Offsets" are anything more than what was sold in the middle ages as "indulgences", or if you prefer, later in royal households which employed "wipping boys"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11...?nclick_check=1
Arthur
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11...?nclick_check=1
Arthur
Do you think that the offset system, in principal, can work? That one could actually spend money to reduce the effective amount of CO2 they emit?
Or do you think that people concerned about Climate Change have to embark on some communist style program of not emitting more than our per capita CO2 allowance? Else they be hypocrites?
Or do you think that people concerned about Climate Change have to embark on some communist style program of not emitting more than our per capita CO2 allowance? Else they be hypocrites?
MY BAD.
I can't imagine why ANYONE is at all worried about the many GIGATONS of CO2 being produced when the OBVIOUS solution is to simply BUY a few GIGATONs of FRIGGIN OFFSETS.
As for Gore, considering the message he is putting out, you think he might have tried being a POSITIVE EXAMPLE of what is possible and just maybe considered a GREEN solution or two for generating some of his own heat/power and just maybe heating his pool via SOLAR collectors instead of by Natural Gas.
Arthur
I can't imagine why ANYONE is at all worried about the many GIGATONS of CO2 being produced when the OBVIOUS solution is to simply BUY a few GIGATONs of FRIGGIN OFFSETS.
As for Gore, considering the message he is putting out, you think he might have tried being a POSITIVE EXAMPLE of what is possible and just maybe considered a GREEN solution or two for generating some of his own heat/power and just maybe heating his pool via SOLAR collectors instead of by Natural Gas.
Arthur
Well you either care about your world or not. You must communicate your ideas. I would hope people would be smart enough not to make themselves extinct. Then again they play who's smarter than a 5th grader... Least here in the U.S. on T.V for the average AmeriKan with their edumacation they are afforded by their government. Less than basic math and reading skills in most cases will graduate you high school.
If this makes us commune together for a cause then i don't think that makes it communistic in essence. I do see how it could be viewed like that and I do see how that we could definatly say that and even follow through with that ideaology. However, I at present don't see a group of humans on this planet that are capable of running a "True Communistic" system so therefore I cannot endorse it in any way for anyone. Until it is understood then maybe I would think the same way, but until then I doubt that will be the case either as it won't be the case no matter what happens at this point. There is one group who is close.
Not on topic, but on topic of topic...no one seems to remember the third data set.
If this makes us commune together for a cause then i don't think that makes it communistic in essence. I do see how it could be viewed like that and I do see how that we could definatly say that and even follow through with that ideaology. However, I at present don't see a group of humans on this planet that are capable of running a "True Communistic" system so therefore I cannot endorse it in any way for anyone. Until it is understood then maybe I would think the same way, but until then I doubt that will be the case either as it won't be the case no matter what happens at this point. There is one group who is close.
Not on topic, but on topic of topic...no one seems to remember the third data set.
The fact he's a former US VP has clout. Very good. I agree with many things he says, but as far as global warming; be it man made, based on natural cycles, or a combination, I think the evidence points to the later...The idea is to address the problem and have some response that deals with it . And yes, we do need to take economics into account and I don't believe in giving the Chinese and Indians a pass because" they are so less developed technological then the US." Both are incredibly ancient cultures, been there, done that. I will not insult these people by saying "they just cant handle it!" They need more time! No they don't. We treat each others as equals, now. Then since we all live on the same planet it makes sense to me that we work together, but nobody gets a free pass...
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 13 2007, 03:38 PM)
Sure, as soon as someone explains how "Carbon Offsets" are anything more than what was sold in the middle ages as "indulgences", or if you prefer, later in royal households which employed "wipping boys"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11...?nclick_check=1
Arthur
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11...?nclick_check=1
Arthur
Some of the examples of offsets in the FT article could be likened to indulgences, which in some cases were essentially fraud perpetrated by the Vatican. But fraud and exploitation exist to some degree in all forms of business, it doesn't mean the entire offset industry is worthless.
The whipping boy analogy applies to the offset system as it is intended to work. The whipping boy benefits from the arrangement in that he agrees to receive punishment in exchange for a privileged upbringing. The energy offset allows the planet(the whipping boy), to take another dose of punishment now, but avoid future punishment due to the policies resulting from the offset. I would much prefer that Al Gore and the rest of us bite the bullet and take our punishment, rather than playing games and avoiding the relevant issues.
The whipping boy analogy applies to the offset system as it is intended to work. The whipping boy benefits from the arrangement in that he agrees to receive punishment in exchange for a privileged upbringing. The energy offset allows the planet(the whipping boy), to take another dose of punishment now, but avoid future punishment due to the policies resulting from the offset. I would much prefer that Al Gore and the rest of us bite the bullet and take our punishment, rather than playing games and avoiding the relevant issues.
QUOTE
it doesn't mean the entire offset industry is worthless.
What part of this didn't you understand?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it doesn't mean the entire offset industry is worthless. |
What part of this didn't you understand?
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Then you present a Pretty Piss Poor analogy of how "carbon offsets" work.
The fact is, the "carbon offsets" approach is nothing more than saying that its OK to build a house 4 times larger than the already high US normal and then use 10 times the amount of energy to run it, as long as you can find some other 3rd world "Whipping Boy" to forgo use of a Diesel powered irrigation pump and live in a subsistance manner by using a human powered treadle pump instead.
Clearly the SAME (ethically) as the use of INDULGENCES were.
Like I said, if you believe in offsets, then the solution is SIMPLE.
No need to make any change PERSONALLY as to how we use energy, just buy a half dozen GIGATONS of these carbon offsets each year.
Arthur
This just proves these ceremonial accolades are nothing but a political facade. I can imagine the crusaders on either side of GW sing curses and hymns for him, but if he really deserved the prize according to the selection, then the prize is obviously only available for a select few of the worlds billions of populace and judged totally subjectively in both principle, category and agenda. All hail American "Pretty Piss Poor" dunderheads.
Poor Gore.
He wins an election by popular vote which doesn't mean anything.
He loses the electorate in his own state because of his President's shenanigans; the only whipped loser in the whole scandal.
The Supreme Court does not appoint him as President based on scurrilous Florida botched results.
The doc based on his book wins an Oscar, but it's director, not Gore, is the one who takes it home.
He wins the Nobel based on his tireless dedication to his cause, and gets reviled for it by living similar to everyone else with his tier of income, as if he's not allowed to BECAUSE he works harder than anybody else for his cause.
Does he fly in a private aircraft because the SS doesn't want him flying publicly or in Cessnas? Poor Gore. I may not be a GW advocate, but Gore's solutions, even if he is wrong, are still the solutions needing to be employed to reduce pollution anyway. What is the big deal with downgrading this man? He didn't ask for the Nobel. If he didn't get it, nothing would be different since he gave the money away anyway. But because he did win it, he gets more degradation. Meanwhile, what are his detractors doing to contribute their part to not soiling this planet? Anything? Does anyone here think he/she is doing more than Gore is, even taking in the ratio? Should Gates live third-world BECAUSE he donates billions to their cause? Self-sacrificing types like the extremely wealthy late Mother Theresa are very rare. So we should revile anyone who doesn't sacrifice to her extent, while we hypocritically carry on? And Arthur, Bush has more environmental integrity than Gore because of ONE of his houses? Maybe we should check out every McMansion of every member of Congress AND their monthly energy usages AND all their private flyings about. Ever since Monicagate Gore has had a bullseye on him. I didn't vote for him in the election, but by God I now wish he won...or, er... got appointed.
He wins an election by popular vote which doesn't mean anything.
He loses the electorate in his own state because of his President's shenanigans; the only whipped loser in the whole scandal.
The Supreme Court does not appoint him as President based on scurrilous Florida botched results.
The doc based on his book wins an Oscar, but it's director, not Gore, is the one who takes it home.
He wins the Nobel based on his tireless dedication to his cause, and gets reviled for it by living similar to everyone else with his tier of income, as if he's not allowed to BECAUSE he works harder than anybody else for his cause.
Does he fly in a private aircraft because the SS doesn't want him flying publicly or in Cessnas? Poor Gore. I may not be a GW advocate, but Gore's solutions, even if he is wrong, are still the solutions needing to be employed to reduce pollution anyway. What is the big deal with downgrading this man? He didn't ask for the Nobel. If he didn't get it, nothing would be different since he gave the money away anyway. But because he did win it, he gets more degradation. Meanwhile, what are his detractors doing to contribute their part to not soiling this planet? Anything? Does anyone here think he/she is doing more than Gore is, even taking in the ratio? Should Gates live third-world BECAUSE he donates billions to their cause? Self-sacrificing types like the extremely wealthy late Mother Theresa are very rare. So we should revile anyone who doesn't sacrifice to her extent, while we hypocritically carry on? And Arthur, Bush has more environmental integrity than Gore because of ONE of his houses? Maybe we should check out every McMansion of every member of Congress AND their monthly energy usages AND all their private flyings about. Ever since Monicagate Gore has had a bullseye on him. I didn't vote for him in the election, but by God I now wish he won...or, er... got appointed.
I truly believe that Al Gore means it when he says, "Global Warming is not political issue, but a moral issue."
By the way, the Nobel Peace Prize has more to do with an honor for human advancement, than peace. Sometimes throughout history, the only human advancement at the time is peace itself. (Martin Luther King Jr. for example)
By the way, the Nobel Peace Prize has more to do with an honor for human advancement, than peace. Sometimes throughout history, the only human advancement at the time is peace itself. (Martin Luther King Jr. for example)
QUOTE (soundhertz+Oct 14 2007, 12:33 PM)
Poor Gore.
He wins an election by popular vote which doesn't mean anything.
He loses the electorate in his own state because of his President's shenanigans; the only whipped loser in the whole scandal.
The Supreme Court does not appoint him as President based on scurrilous Florida botched results.
The doc based on his book wins an Oscar, but it's director, not Gore, is the one who takes it home.
He wins the Nobel based on his tireless dedication to his cause, and gets reviled for it by living similar to everyone else with his tier of income, as if he's not allowed to BECAUSE he works harder than anybody else for his cause.
Does he fly in a private aircraft because the SS doesn't want him flying publicly or in Cessnas? Poor Gore. I may not be a GW advocate, but Gore's solutions, even if he is wrong, are still the solutions needing to be employed to reduce pollution anyway. What is the big deal with downgrading this man? He didn't ask for the Nobel. If he didn't get it, nothing would be different since he gave the money away anyway. But because he did win it, he gets more degradation. Meanwhile, what are his detractors doing to contribute their part to not soiling this planet? Anything? Does anyone here think he/she is doing more than Gore is, even taking in the ratio? Should Gates live third-world BECAUSE he donates billions to their cause? Self-sacrificing types like the extremely wealthy late Mother Theresa are very rare. So we should revile anyone who doesn't sacrifice to her extent, while we hypocritically carry on? And Arthur, Bush has more environmental integrity than Gore because of ONE of his houses? Maybe we should check out every McMansion of every member of Congress AND their monthly energy usages AND all their private flyings about. Ever since Monicagate Gore has had a bullseye on him. I didn't vote for him in the election, but by God I now wish he won...or, er... got appointed.
Its real simple.
If you believe Al Gore BELIEVES what he has said about GW and as he says, the EARTH'S FUTURE HANGS IN THE BALANCE, and that its a MORAL issue
then
HOW can you say using ~ 200,000 KWH per year for your PRIVATE RESIDENCE and running a gas heated swimming pool is NOT being hypocritical?
At least be HONEST.
Arthur
He wins an election by popular vote which doesn't mean anything.
He loses the electorate in his own state because of his President's shenanigans; the only whipped loser in the whole scandal.
The Supreme Court does not appoint him as President based on scurrilous Florida botched results.
The doc based on his book wins an Oscar, but it's director, not Gore, is the one who takes it home.
He wins the Nobel based on his tireless dedication to his cause, and gets reviled for it by living similar to everyone else with his tier of income, as if he's not allowed to BECAUSE he works harder than anybody else for his cause.
Does he fly in a private aircraft because the SS doesn't want him flying publicly or in Cessnas? Poor Gore. I may not be a GW advocate, but Gore's solutions, even if he is wrong, are still the solutions needing to be employed to reduce pollution anyway. What is the big deal with downgrading this man? He didn't ask for the Nobel. If he didn't get it, nothing would be different since he gave the money away anyway. But because he did win it, he gets more degradation. Meanwhile, what are his detractors doing to contribute their part to not soiling this planet? Anything? Does anyone here think he/she is doing more than Gore is, even taking in the ratio? Should Gates live third-world BECAUSE he donates billions to their cause? Self-sacrificing types like the extremely wealthy late Mother Theresa are very rare. So we should revile anyone who doesn't sacrifice to her extent, while we hypocritically carry on? And Arthur, Bush has more environmental integrity than Gore because of ONE of his houses? Maybe we should check out every McMansion of every member of Congress AND their monthly energy usages AND all their private flyings about. Ever since Monicagate Gore has had a bullseye on him. I didn't vote for him in the election, but by God I now wish he won...or, er... got appointed.
Its real simple.
If you believe Al Gore BELIEVES what he has said about GW and as he says, the EARTH'S FUTURE HANGS IN THE BALANCE, and that its a MORAL issue
then
HOW can you say using ~ 200,000 KWH per year for your PRIVATE RESIDENCE and running a gas heated swimming pool is NOT being hypocritical?
At least be HONEST.
Arthur
I'm still under the impression that it's not fully a private residence. How many staff are there on a regular basis?
But still, you clearly don't respect the current offset systems. But do you think that it can be part of the solution?
Or, like I asked, do you demand a per capita system of CO2 emissions else the advocates be labelled hypocrites?
You sometimes fall into being too aggressive to communicate with, and this seems to be one of those times
But still, you clearly don't respect the current offset systems. But do you think that it can be part of the solution?
Or, like I asked, do you demand a per capita system of CO2 emissions else the advocates be labelled hypocrites?
You sometimes fall into being too aggressive to communicate with, and this seems to be one of those times
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 14 2007, 05:57 PM)
Its real simple.
If you believe Al Gore BELIEVES what he has said about GW and as he says, the EARTH'S FUTURE HANGS IN THE BALANCE, and that its a MORAL issue
then
HOW can you say using ~ 200,000 KWH per year for your PRIVATE RESIDENCE and running a gas heated swimming pool is NOT being hypocritical?
At least be HONEST.
Arthur
The honesty might be the acceptance of the reality of global warming with the acknowledgement that there is little that can be effectively done about it.
If you believe Al Gore BELIEVES what he has said about GW and as he says, the EARTH'S FUTURE HANGS IN THE BALANCE, and that its a MORAL issue
then
HOW can you say using ~ 200,000 KWH per year for your PRIVATE RESIDENCE and running a gas heated swimming pool is NOT being hypocritical?
At least be HONEST.
Arthur
The honesty might be the acceptance of the reality of global warming with the acknowledgement that there is little that can be effectively done about it.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 14 2007, 03:04 PM)
I'm still under the impression that it's not fully a private residence. How many staff are there on a regular basis?
But still, you clearly don't respect the current offset systems. But do you think that it can be part of the solution?
Or, like I asked, do you demand a per capita system of CO2 emissions else the advocates be labelled hypocrites?
You sometimes fall into being too aggressive to communicate with, and this seems to be one of those times
Even the Gore's didn't try to blame it on STAFF.
Look, I'm not the one who is claiming that CO2 is the root of all evil.
I think the planet, from a general health point of view, is doing BETTER than it has than anytime in the last several hundred years.
Polar bears included.
So, NO, I don't see any particular need to cut back on CO2 production.
However, we do need to cut back on POLLUTION.
Particularly in: Soot, Hg, U, CH4, NOx, SOx and CFCs.
Particularly in the high growth areas like CHINA.
The PRIMARY way to do that is to switch from our existing heavy dependence on coal to NUCLEAR POWER and/or CLEAN COAL technologies.
The plus side, for the GWers, is that the side effects of that switch would be greatly decreased CO2 production.
But, as we have seen on this board, there are many who think GW is an issue but who won't support either initiative.
They naively believe that increases in Wind and Solar will make a significant decrease in global emissions over the next several decades, not realizing that Wind and Solar together will not even account for the increased energy needs of a rapidly growing global population.
Arthur
But still, you clearly don't respect the current offset systems. But do you think that it can be part of the solution?
Or, like I asked, do you demand a per capita system of CO2 emissions else the advocates be labelled hypocrites?
You sometimes fall into being too aggressive to communicate with, and this seems to be one of those times
Even the Gore's didn't try to blame it on STAFF.
Look, I'm not the one who is claiming that CO2 is the root of all evil.
I think the planet, from a general health point of view, is doing BETTER than it has than anytime in the last several hundred years.
Polar bears included.
So, NO, I don't see any particular need to cut back on CO2 production.
However, we do need to cut back on POLLUTION.
Particularly in: Soot, Hg, U, CH4, NOx, SOx and CFCs.
Particularly in the high growth areas like CHINA.
The PRIMARY way to do that is to switch from our existing heavy dependence on coal to NUCLEAR POWER and/or CLEAN COAL technologies.
The plus side, for the GWers, is that the side effects of that switch would be greatly decreased CO2 production.
But, as we have seen on this board, there are many who think GW is an issue but who won't support either initiative.
They naively believe that increases in Wind and Solar will make a significant decrease in global emissions over the next several decades, not realizing that Wind and Solar together will not even account for the increased energy needs of a rapidly growing global population.
Arthur
QUOTE
HOW can you say using ~ 200,000 KWH per year for your PRIVATE RESIDENCE and running a gas heated swimming pool is NOT being hypocritical?
Because it's similar to others of their income/living style. Which doesn't compare with those he is targeting. And as has been mentioned, he offsets it by his agenda, and his agenda is not destructive even if human-induced GW has been exaggerated. The bottom line to me is that Gore has shown himself to be a really decent guy, with class, and a lot of people won't admit it. Didn't anybody see the C -Span coverage of the Congressional proceedings that occurred after Bush's Appointment? The ones Gore presided over? The ones concerning him? Class. And not to be taken away by slings of hypocracy because he lives like millions of other Americans; not with what he's managed to do. I've no problem with him getting the Nobel, and I think not a shred less of the Nobel committee for their decision.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HOW can you say using ~ 200,000 KWH per year for your PRIVATE RESIDENCE and running a gas heated swimming pool is NOT being hypocritical? |
Because it's similar to others of their income/living style. Which doesn't compare with those he is targeting. And as has been mentioned, he offsets it by his agenda, and his agenda is not destructive even if human-induced GW has been exaggerated. The bottom line to me is that Gore has shown himself to be a really decent guy, with class, and a lot of people won't admit it. Didn't anybody see the C -Span coverage of the Congressional proceedings that occurred after Bush's Appointment? The ones Gore presided over? The ones concerning him? Class. And not to be taken away by slings of hypocracy because he lives like millions of other Americans; not with what he's managed to do. I've no problem with him getting the Nobel, and I think not a shred less of the Nobel committee for their decision.
Look, I'm not the one who is claiming that CO2 is the root of all evil.
But I sure do agree with this and the rest of the post. Although I do support alternative energy research.
Edit.
Yeah but it's been rampant, both sides of the aisle, for many moons. Gore is not the biggest violator by a long shot, but he is certainly reviled as if he is. Notwithstanding his work.
Which I believe you agree with, yes?
Which I believe you agree with, yes?
QUOTE
The honesty might be the acceptance of the reality of global warming with the acknowledgement that there is little that can be effectively done about it.
This may very well be true; it's the pollution that we need to and can mitigate.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Oct 15 2007, 04:32 AM)
This may very well be true; it's the pollution that we need to and can mitigate.
The question is: How is that to be accomplished? Reduce the use of coal for energy. Maybe I’m being skeptical but do you believe we should share nuclear technology with countries like Somalia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe?
Perhaps we should do nothing. Ultimately what difference does it make if the sea level rises a couple of hundred feet or there are a few more severe hurricanes. Extinction is a part of the evolutionary process. Besides man has had a pretty good run. We landed on the moon and invented MTV.
The question is: How is that to be accomplished? Reduce the use of coal for energy. Maybe I’m being skeptical but do you believe we should share nuclear technology with countries like Somalia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe?
Perhaps we should do nothing. Ultimately what difference does it make if the sea level rises a couple of hundred feet or there are a few more severe hurricanes. Extinction is a part of the evolutionary process. Besides man has had a pretty good run. We landed on the moon and invented MTV.
I don't think global warming would extinct us. An ice age may. But it's a race between finding/applying the technology to save us from the current technology that is dooming us. Like any other species, we'll fight to continue until the last breaths of the last, even if the last is a cynic 
So blame me for being cynic 
Al Gore really does deserve a lot of credit though for fighting for this as he has put some work in it... There are a lot of others though too that seem to go totally unnoticed that are living a much greener lifestyle than he will ever dream of living. I'm not trying to say he's a bad man because of that I'm just saying that he lives a much richer lifestyle than many people do in this world and that effects many aspects of what he would deem acceptable "sleeping arrangements." I mean hey what's a few weeks off the year right....
Al Gore really does deserve a lot of credit though for fighting for this as he has put some work in it... There are a lot of others though too that seem to go totally unnoticed that are living a much greener lifestyle than he will ever dream of living. I'm not trying to say he's a bad man because of that I'm just saying that he lives a much richer lifestyle than many people do in this world and that effects many aspects of what he would deem acceptable "sleeping arrangements." I mean hey what's a few weeks off the year right....
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 14 2007, 03:50 PM)
QUOTE
it doesn't mean the entire offset industry is worthless.
What part of this didn't you understand?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it doesn't mean the entire offset industry is worthless. |
What part of this didn't you understand?Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Widespread doesn't equate to a majority, as noted by the statement;"suggesting SOME organizations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place".
What part of this statement don't you understand?
What part of this statement don't you understand?
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 14 2007, 01:14 PM)
I would much prefer that Al Gore and the rest of us bite the bullet and take our punishment, rather than playing games and avoiding the relevant issues.
I don't think that offsets are the ideal process to deal with excessive emissions, but if done legitimately, it is a step in the right direction.
Talk about bad analogies, offsets were not designed to make third world farmers into whipping boys. They work by investing in cleaner energy technology, or ways of sequestering carbon or other adverse emissions to offset the continued use of the offending current systems. It should be considered a transitional step to cleaner technology, not any kind of long term solution.
QUOTE
Then you present a Pretty Piss Poor analogy of how "carbon offsets" work.
The fact is, the "carbon offsets" approach is nothing more than saying that its OK to build a house 4 times larger than the already high US normal and then use 10 times the amount of energy to run it, as long as you can find some other 3rd world "Whipping Boy" to forgo use of a Diesel powered irrigation pump and live in a subsistance manner by using a human powered treadle pump instead.
What, libertarian Arthur is going to criticize the right of an individual to choose the size of their residence? and, how much power they consume? That's what your political philosophy is suppose to stand up for. If I had my way these problems wouldn't be dealt with on a voluntary basis.The fact is, the "carbon offsets" approach is nothing more than saying that its OK to build a house 4 times larger than the already high US normal and then use 10 times the amount of energy to run it, as long as you can find some other 3rd world "Whipping Boy" to forgo use of a Diesel powered irrigation pump and live in a subsistance manner by using a human powered treadle pump instead.
Talk about bad analogies, offsets were not designed to make third world farmers into whipping boys. They work by investing in cleaner energy technology, or ways of sequestering carbon or other adverse emissions to offset the continued use of the offending current systems. It should be considered a transitional step to cleaner technology, not any kind of long term solution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you present a Pretty Piss Poor analogy of how "carbon offsets" work. The fact is, the "carbon offsets" approach is nothing more than saying that its OK to build a house 4 times larger than the already high US normal and then use 10 times the amount of energy to run it, as long as you can find some other 3rd world "Whipping Boy" to forgo use of a Diesel powered irrigation pump and live in a subsistance manner by using a human powered treadle pump instead. |
What, libertarian Arthur is going to criticize the right of an individual to choose the size of their residence? and, how much power they consume? That's what your political philosophy is suppose to stand up for. If I had my way these problems wouldn't be dealt with on a voluntary basis.
Talk about bad analogies, offsets were not designed to make third world farmers into whipping boys. They work by investing in cleaner energy technology, or ways of sequestering carbon or other adverse emissions to offset the continued use of the offending current systems. It should be considered a transitional step to cleaner technology, not any kind of long term solution.
Clearly the SAME (ethically) as the use of INDULGENCES were.
Talk about bad analogies, offsets were not designed to make third world farmers into whipping boys. They work by investing in cleaner energy technology, or ways of sequestering carbon or other adverse emissions to offset the continued use of the offending current systems. It should be considered a transitional step to cleaner technology, not any kind of long term solution.
Clearly the SAME (ethically) as the use of INDULGENCES were.
Indulgences had no practical effect on anything but the psyches of the superstitious parishioners and the coffers of the clergy. One the other hand offsets do encourage cleaner energy technology where it otherwise would not have flourished.
Do you try to offset your carbon footprint with all of the travel you do?
QUOTE
Like I said, if you believe in offsets, then the solution is SIMPLE.
No need to make any change PERSONALLY as to how we use energy, just buy a half dozen GIGATONS of these carbon offsets each year.
Like it or not, under our present conditions, offsets do reduce the increase in the rate of offending emissions. Ideally it would be investment and usage of alternate technology in place of offsets, but half a solution is better than no solution. No need to make any change PERSONALLY as to how we use energy, just buy a half dozen GIGATONS of these carbon offsets each year.
Do you try to offset your carbon footprint with all of the travel you do?
Wow, quite the discussion went on over the weekend without me! 
<$0.02>
<$0.02>
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Because it's similar to others of their income/living style. Which doesn't compare with those he is targeting.
I certainly won't dispute that, but isn't it fair to say that putting yourself in such a limelight for such a volatile topic places you under a heavier scrutiny? Perhaps if he's campaigning for GW and carbon emissions, then he has a responsibility to live cleaner than his peers, not equally to them. Being in front puts a higher responsibility on you, and that's something that we need to learn in this country.
Political statement.
It's bogus science giving an excuse to invade any oil producing nation around the world (at least those that they can't blame an invasion on terrorism). It's all part of the pressure to monopolize global energy resources. I'm certain Bush, Blair and buddies will be leading the charge to stop global warming soon (and enforcing restrictions on any competing energy producer around the world) and it never was a change of heart for Bush (he just had to lie long enough to get votes, as has been predictable throughout most all his term - I was making statements years ago that it made no sense that Bush shouldn't support a war against global warming, and I was right). People predicted well before he ever even got in office that we would invade Iraq if he became president, and the reliability of information claiming Bush was a crook has proven quite accurate. (Environmentalists have both encourage recycling of organic material, which helps keep carbon in the environment as well as denied much of atomic energy alternatives which would have lessened the need for oil, so environmental pressures have likely had quite a significant influence on any carbon issues that could exist - not that it's really a legitimately significant issue IMO, but all we'd need to do is just reverse half of what's already been done in the name of environmentalism and a decent part of the issue could be solved simply - foresting is a good industry to remove carbon as faster growing trees used for lumber extract carbon faster and landfills provide a natural way to remove carbon for an extended period of time as well).
Al turns out to be a disappointing Greenie so now you resort to America Bashing.
Pretty Pathetic.
But typical.
Arthur
No, you bash Al for being an American Greenie.
Typical American rationalization, faced with the truth and you're being bashed. Poor Arthur.
I certainly won't dispute that, but isn't it fair to say that putting yourself in such a limelight for such a volatile topic places you under a heavier scrutiny? Perhaps if he's campaigning for GW and carbon emissions, then he has a responsibility to live cleaner than his peers, not equally to them. Being in front puts a higher responsibility on you, and that's something that we need to learn in this country.
QUOTE (Capracus+)
I don't think that offsets are the ideal process to deal with excessive emissions, but if done legitimately, it is a step in the right direction.
Perhaps, but I do have to say that I personally don't like the system one bit. I think the buying of offsets, while it may help, removes personal responsibility. And I also believe the latter issue is more important than carbon emissions will ever be.
I can't say I have much against the guy as a person. Indeed, he has shown himself to have far more class and professionalism than 90% of capitol hill. I just don't like his politics, but that's just one man's opinion. In this case, however, I stick to my original point that the Nobel Prize (especially for Peace...) being given for global warming, in the face of pretty much all scientific evidence, is lunacy. If, in the future, it turns out he's been right all along, give him a science medal for the awareness run. But save the humanitarian awards for a humanitarian. Like it or not, Gore's got an agenda with all this, and I don't think that qualifies him for a Nobel.
</$0.02>
Perhaps, but I do have to say that I personally don't like the system one bit. I think the buying of offsets, while it may help, removes personal responsibility. And I also believe the latter issue is more important than carbon emissions will ever be.
I can't say I have much against the guy as a person. Indeed, he has shown himself to have far more class and professionalism than 90% of capitol hill. I just don't like his politics, but that's just one man's opinion. In this case, however, I stick to my original point that the Nobel Prize (especially for Peace...) being given for global warming, in the face of pretty much all scientific evidence, is lunacy. If, in the future, it turns out he's been right all along, give him a science medal for the awareness run. But save the humanitarian awards for a humanitarian. Like it or not, Gore's got an agenda with all this, and I don't think that qualifies him for a Nobel.
</$0.02>
Ahhh! Someone actually had some brain and decency compared with many other nations: dailytech.com/An+Inconvenient+Truth+Ruled+Unfit+for+British+Schools/article9250.htm (add www.)
Not wasting my time on regurgitated GW tosh which those with too much time and nothing to do seem to love to dabble incessantly about, but from the various evidence available I believe there is a certain 'effect' of mankind on this "global warming" phenomena, but to no where near the extent dangerous nor problematic, neither more than when the Industrial Revolution absolutely infuriated the climatic and atmospheric conditions.
I 'aint a crusader against <x> political side nor a servile follower of one over the other to say this though. It's based on science. Simple.
Not wasting my time on regurgitated GW tosh which those with too much time and nothing to do seem to love to dabble incessantly about, but from the various evidence available I believe there is a certain 'effect' of mankind on this "global warming" phenomena, but to no where near the extent dangerous nor problematic, neither more than when the Industrial Revolution absolutely infuriated the climatic and atmospheric conditions.
I 'aint a crusader against <x> political side nor a servile follower of one over the other to say this though. It's based on science. Simple.
Anytime politics and scientific research are mixed there is a risk the results will be ignored.
Quite true :)
I learned about Gorians on this site btw ::))
I learned about Gorians on this site btw ::))
I was under the impression that to win a NPP, you actually had to do something.
And when I say "something", I mean something scientific, that generated results, or actually helped to solve or repair a problem. I would not have thought creating a documentary and/or being an outspoken political activist accomplishes these requirements.
(And by the way, the term "documentary" is used in the loosest sense of the word when referring to the motivational drama An Inconvenient Truth.)
Maybe they should give the NPP to Michael Moore as well for demonstrating to us that guns kill on their own. That's certainly more related to "peace" than Global Warming.
-- My 2 cents.
And when I say "something", I mean something scientific, that generated results, or actually helped to solve or repair a problem. I would not have thought creating a documentary and/or being an outspoken political activist accomplishes these requirements.
(And by the way, the term "documentary" is used in the loosest sense of the word when referring to the motivational drama An Inconvenient Truth.)
Maybe they should give the NPP to Michael Moore as well for demonstrating to us that guns kill on their own. That's certainly more related to "peace" than Global Warming.
-- My 2 cents.
So to be a member of the "one true faith"he should only ride a bike, walk, live in an organically built house constructed with hand tools only, of course, eat only organic food... I do quibble about a peace prize given for something else, but we already kill each other over access to water. And that's only going to get worse. If you can raise peoples awareness that a problem exists in the first place, one can argue about the nuance, but we have to know about a problem before we begin to deal with it. I don't agree with Al Gore on a number of things, but with name recognition he will get peoples attention.
We're just saying the 500,000 and everything else that is afforded by this award should probably have been awarded to someone who is actually going to use it in the proper manner. That's why it was invented to help out struggling scientists with an extra grant not to advance political agenda's. This is the fact of the matter. It's too bad that the people over there in charge of this have lost sight of it's original goal and have decided that it doesn't deserve this. Maybe Al Gore will take heed of all of the things people say though that's entirely doubtful at best as I've heard all of this before on live network television watched by millions. The only parts I haven't heard are the fact that others actually did the science behind it and showed what the problems were and how to fix them. Not that they care about us normally it seems though sometimes they do. I guess we'll see...
I'm sure part of it is political. If Gore used the term 'pollution' instead of 'global warming', he'd have no audience at all. The solution to both, even though GW has clouds of doubt around it, is roughly the same...
And either way, the solution involves as much science as conscience.
And either way, the solution involves as much science as conscience.
Perhaps the whole point of this exercise is not to seek solutions but to affix blame and set a political agenda.
QUOTE
Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize, Defunct award, or political statement?
Political statement.
It's bogus science giving an excuse to invade any oil producing nation around the world (at least those that they can't blame an invasion on terrorism). It's all part of the pressure to monopolize global energy resources. I'm certain Bush, Blair and buddies will be leading the charge to stop global warming soon (and enforcing restrictions on any competing energy producer around the world) and it never was a change of heart for Bush (he just had to lie long enough to get votes, as has been predictable throughout most all his term - I was making statements years ago that it made no sense that Bush shouldn't support a war against global warming, and I was right). People predicted well before he ever even got in office that we would invade Iraq if he became president, and the reliability of information claiming Bush was a crook has proven quite accurate. (Environmentalists have both encourage recycling of organic material, which helps keep carbon in the environment as well as denied much of atomic energy alternatives which would have lessened the need for oil, so environmental pressures have likely had quite a significant influence on any carbon issues that could exist - not that it's really a legitimately significant issue IMO, but all we'd need to do is just reverse half of what's already been done in the name of environmentalism and a decent part of the issue could be solved simply - foresting is a good industry to remove carbon as faster growing trees used for lumber extract carbon faster and landfills provide a natural way to remove carbon for an extended period of time as well).
Do you think global warming is the result of the last five or six years of driving SUV’s ?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 16 2007, 03:59 PM)
Do you think global warming is the result of the last five or six years of driving SUV’s ?
Obviously not because it was hotter in the 30s (or was it 50s?) than now and that was long before SUVs. We haven't even set a record high in global terms in over 50 years.
Obviously not because it was hotter in the 30s (or was it 50s?) than now and that was long before SUVs
. We haven't even set a record high in global terms in over 50 years.
Many organizations will not admit Global Warming is a problem because they are owned and funded by the US government. NASA receives its funding primarily from the US government. Why would they find it plausible to counter what their supplier claims is right? This is an ideal example of "don't bite the hand that feeds you." The reason the government is skeptical about acknowledging global warming is because it would require change. Change in energy output. Change in jobs. Change in financial spendings. And most importantly, change in energy sources. All of these things require money which is used on other occupations, such as war. I am not praising peace on Earth, but lets face it, we need cleaner energy. Al Gore is an extremist, but his message is solid. There needs to be something done about polluting fossil fuels. And to say that the human element has no significant effect on the atmosphere is absolutely preposterous. With the amount of pollution that is dumped into the sky daily, its no wonder that it can accumulate overtime. If this is how you feel, you might as well come clean and announce that we need not think ahead and be precautious. "Don't worry about the atmosphere, it only happens to be the single most important constituent that life on Earth relies on." Without it we have no ozone, no breathable air and no life-support system. Think about the rate of human population. It is already past 6 billion, and is growing 1.3% per year. We are only growing in size, there's no denying that factor. To say that we have no impact on the atmosphere is ridiculous. What is your excuse for the ozone layer then? Is it ripping itself apart on its own? It couldn't be CFC's or other noxious gases? Do not look at me as if I am some kind of hard core Al Gore supporter. I'm not. I am just a person who actually cares about where he lives and where we are going as a species. We have so much to learn that it would be a shame if we destroyed it for ourselves. It is clear that a new, clean and abundant energy source is not a mockery of an idea anymore. It should be taken seriously.
How can you be certain the species that replaces us after our extinction won’t be superior? Maybe we should just go along and enjoy the ride.
QUOTE (MyNameisAlex+Oct 16 2007, 05:07 PM)
Many organizations will not admit Global Warming is a problem because they are owned and funded by the US government. NASA receives its funding primarily from the US government. Why would they find it plausible to counter what their supplier claims is right? This is an ideal example of "don't bite the hand that feeds you." The reason the government is skeptical about acknowledging global warming is because it would require change. Change in energy output. Change in jobs. Change in financial spendings. And most importantly, change in energy sources. All of these things require money which is used on other occupations, such as war. I am not praising peace on Earth, but lets face it, we need cleaner energy. Al Gore is an extremist, but his message is solid. There needs to be something done about polluting fossil fuels. And to say that the human element has no significant effect on the atmosphere is absolutely preposterous. With the amount of pollution that is dumped into the sky daily, its no wonder that it can accumulate overtime. If this is how you feel, you might as well come clean and announce that we need not think ahead and be precautious. "Don't worry about the atmosphere, it only happens to be the single most important constituent that life on Earth relies on." Without it we have no ozone, no breathable air and no life-support system. Think about the rate of human population. It is already past 6 billion, and is growing 1.3% per year. We are only growing in size, there's no denying that factor. To say that we have no impact on the atmosphere is ridiculous. What is your excuse for the ozone layer then? Is it ripping itself apart on its own? It couldn't be CFC's or other noxious gases? Do not look at me as if I am some kind of hard core Al Gore supporter. I'm not. I am just a person who actually cares about where he lives and where we are going as a species. We have so much to learn that it would be a shame if we destroyed it for ourselves. It is clear that a new, clean and abundant energy source is not a mockery of an idea anymore. It should be taken seriously.
Welcome to the forum.
I'd have to disagree that "Al Gore's messgae is solid". He's the one that's been talking about 20 feet rises in sea level etc. and the oceans have been rising at a constant rate for over 200 years at less than a tenth of an inch per year (and this rise has been due to us coming out of an Ice Age thousands of years ago).
So, yes, if someone laid down close to the edge of a beach somewhere and waited most their life, they might be in danger of drowning but that's hardly something either new or threatening (and when we swing toward the next Ice Age, the reverse will happen, so we might as well enjoy things while we can).
I'd admit that it's possible humans can affect the temperature on Earth, but water vapor is much more influencial in this than CO2 and agricultural should be a much more significant (no, I'm not suggesting running around the world harassing farmers instead, but simply that changes in water vapor are ~40 times more significant than CO2. Of course the question really boils down to, how much are people being harmed as well as how much benefit do people receive from various actions and whether or not there are really any legitimate grievances involved - there's so much hype and propoganda on this issue that it's hard to know how much of components are actually real concerns ... again, we haven't even set a global record high for temperatures in over 50 years, so obviously we're still within the typical range of global temperatures the Earth has experienced in the recent past and many of the changes should be due to the typical cyclic temperatures the Earth has experienced in the past and these include things well beyond human influence like solar variation as well).
Consider also that carbon and organic compounds are the building blocks of life on Earth - we're encouraged to recycle organic material and not dump it underground, yet if that organic material is brought up from underground and effectively recycled (though admittedly it's recycling over a larger scale of time), that's different?
Basically there are some double standards and hype and the issues aren't being looked at very closely but too much of the "10 second sound bite" is happening with politicians running around claiming a duty to knock around a few people to save the world (at the expense of everyone else once you tally it all up anyway) ... meanwhile we find things like the Enron energy scandal were effectively created and empowered by corrupt legislation that was also claimed to be aimed at improving the energy industry (I wish they'd stop trying to be so nice and leave people and the economy alone more often ... unless you truly do have some concrete evidence that people are being unjustly harmed, and even then I must admit I tend to be a bit skeptical of the benevolence of many of the resolutions generally taken in an attempt to resolve things - there are lots of power plays in politics, especially on such large issues, and many times, even if there are some legitimate needs for legal remedies, you'll find these are abused once the power to get involved is handed to politicians. We need a better system, and one with less centralized political power. If we ever see a strong global political structure arise, you can practically guarantee it'll be the focal point of more corrupting pressures than anything else in human history).
Again, I see this is your first post, so welcome to the forum.
Welcome to the forum.
I'd have to disagree that "Al Gore's messgae is solid". He's the one that's been talking about 20 feet rises in sea level etc. and the oceans have been rising at a constant rate for over 200 years at less than a tenth of an inch per year (and this rise has been due to us coming out of an Ice Age thousands of years ago).
So, yes, if someone laid down close to the edge of a beach somewhere and waited most their life, they might be in danger of drowning but that's hardly something either new or threatening (and when we swing toward the next Ice Age, the reverse will happen, so we might as well enjoy things while we can).
I'd admit that it's possible humans can affect the temperature on Earth, but water vapor is much more influencial in this than CO2 and agricultural should be a much more significant (no, I'm not suggesting running around the world harassing farmers instead, but simply that changes in water vapor are ~40 times more significant than CO2. Of course the question really boils down to, how much are people being harmed as well as how much benefit do people receive from various actions and whether or not there are really any legitimate grievances involved - there's so much hype and propoganda on this issue that it's hard to know how much of components are actually real concerns ... again, we haven't even set a global record high for temperatures in over 50 years, so obviously we're still within the typical range of global temperatures the Earth has experienced in the recent past and many of the changes should be due to the typical cyclic temperatures the Earth has experienced in the past and these include things well beyond human influence like solar variation as well).
Consider also that carbon and organic compounds are the building blocks of life on Earth - we're encouraged to recycle organic material and not dump it underground, yet if that organic material is brought up from underground and effectively recycled (though admittedly it's recycling over a larger scale of time), that's different?
Basically there are some double standards and hype and the issues aren't being looked at very closely but too much of the "10 second sound bite" is happening with politicians running around claiming a duty to knock around a few people to save the world (at the expense of everyone else once you tally it all up anyway) ... meanwhile we find things like the Enron energy scandal were effectively created and empowered by corrupt legislation that was also claimed to be aimed at improving the energy industry (I wish they'd stop trying to be so nice and leave people and the economy alone more often ... unless you truly do have some concrete evidence that people are being unjustly harmed, and even then I must admit I tend to be a bit skeptical of the benevolence of many of the resolutions generally taken in an attempt to resolve things - there are lots of power plays in politics, especially on such large issues, and many times, even if there are some legitimate needs for legal remedies, you'll find these are abused once the power to get involved is handed to politicians. We need a better system, and one with less centralized political power. If we ever see a strong global political structure arise, you can practically guarantee it'll be the focal point of more corrupting pressures than anything else in human history).
Again, I see this is your first post, so welcome to the forum.
QUOTE (MyNameisAlex+Oct 16 2007, 01:07 PM)
Many organizations will not admit Global Warming is a problem because they are owned and funded by the US government. NASA receives its funding primarily from the US government. Why would they find it plausible to counter what their supplier claims is right?
James Hansen, a LEADING GW supporter works for NASA (as do many other GW supporters).
Arthur
James Hansen, a LEADING GW supporter works for NASA (as do many other GW supporters).
Arthur
Here's an irony for you.
I'm in the pro AGW camp, however.
I despise Al Gore. "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with glaring inaccuracies. I happen to live in one of the pacific island nations that he refers to, and I can tell you that there's no flood of refugees.
I despise him because now people assume that if your pro AGW you can't think for yourself and fell for his inaccurate rhetoric.
I despise him because with his inaccuracies he has promulgated he has called aspects of the science into disrepute.
I agree with Adoucette that he is a hypocrite. In his movie he claims that if individuals make an effort, then we can make a difference, and then makes no effort himself.
Go figure.
I'm in the pro AGW camp, however.
I despise Al Gore. "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with glaring inaccuracies. I happen to live in one of the pacific island nations that he refers to, and I can tell you that there's no flood of refugees.
I despise him because now people assume that if your pro AGW you can't think for yourself and fell for his inaccurate rhetoric.
I despise him because with his inaccuracies he has promulgated he has called aspects of the science into disrepute.
I agree with Adoucette that he is a hypocrite. In his movie he claims that if individuals make an effort, then we can make a difference, and then makes no effort himself.
Go figure.
It occurs to me that I should probably clarify my position a little further, least people misunderstand me.
I say that I'm in the pro AGW side, but I don't, strictly speaking, think that anthropic causes are the only answer, but I do believe that they're exacerbating the issue.
As far as lag times go, assuming that the lag times are correct, I am of the opnion that the role of cabon dioxide as an effect does not rule out it's role as a cause.
There's other stuff as well, but I don't feel particularly compelled to go into that at this point.
I say that I'm in the pro AGW side, but I don't, strictly speaking, think that anthropic causes are the only answer, but I do believe that they're exacerbating the issue.
As far as lag times go, assuming that the lag times are correct, I am of the opnion that the role of cabon dioxide as an effect does not rule out it's role as a cause.
There's other stuff as well, but I don't feel particularly compelled to go into that at this point.
Even the worst AGW criers don't think it will make humanity extinct. At worst, it will just make life worse for a whole lotta people.
Are you sure about that?
Defunct award, or political statement? Neither. The award still has validity, and cash to go along with it. It is prestigious, few ever reach the level of acclaim or honor that is required. Recipients have reached a level of reverence few can attain. It is devoid of political influence. Gore should be honored and listened to, along with the I.P.C.C. report. Those hundreds of scientists are not barking up the wrong tree! The ice is melting even faster than most scientists predicted. Water is flowing down fissures and splitting the ice sheets and lubricating their movement toward an ever warming sea. Look at the satellite images, read the current literature. I spent hours flying over the Amazon basin and was never out of site of dozens of slash and burn fires devastating the rain forest at every smoke plume. I spent a month traversing China, by boat and by air and every day the pollution was worse than L.A. in the '80's! Coal burning smoke from household use to large industrial factories and power generation, cloaks even the most rural areas. I saw it first hand. Believe the scientists! Don't use your own political agenda to pull the wool over your own eyes. Even worse than China's pollution was the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The name translates as "good air", but it was not tan, but brown with chokingly thick pollution. So was Sao Paulo and Rio de Janiero. We have to clean up our act, we only have one atmosphere!
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 23 2007, 11:51 PM)
Defunct award, or political statement? Neither. The award still has validity, and cash to go along with it. It is prestigious, few ever reach the level of acclaim or honor that is required. Recipients have reached a level of reverence few can attain. It is devoid of political influence. Gore should be honored and listened to, along with the I.P.C.C. report. Those hundreds of scientists are not barking up the wrong tree! The ice is melting even faster than most scientists predicted. Water is flowing down fissures and splitting the ice sheets and lubricating their movement toward an ever warming sea. Look at the satellite images, read the current literature. I spent hours flying over the Amazon basin and was never out of site of dozens of slash and burn fires devastating the rain forest at every smoke plume. I spent a month traversing China, by boat and by air and every day the pollution was worse than L.A. in the '80's! Coal burning smoke from household use to large industrial factories and power generation, cloaks even the most rural areas. I saw it first hand. Believe the scientists! Don't use your own political agenda to pull the wool over your own eyes. Even worse than China's pollution was the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The name translates as "good air", but it was not tan, but brown with chokingly thick pollution. So was Sao Paulo and Rio de Janiero. We have to clean up our act, we only have one atmosphere!
Your point is well taken. Unilateral action by the United States would have a little long-term effect on the problem. A world effort involving all industrialized countries is necessary. Do you have any suggestions on how to accomplish this?
Your point is well taken. Unilateral action by the United States would have a little long-term effect on the problem. A world effort involving all industrialized countries is necessary. Do you have any suggestions on how to accomplish this?
Yes, listen to Al Gore and the I.P.C.C. report! Take their lessons to heart, for ours and succeeding generations. Individuals should act to reduce their "carbon footprint", businesses and corporations should streamline and make more efficient use of energy and concentrate on producing maintainable products and governments from the municipal level up to the national level should hire efficiency experts to enable huge energy and cost savings. Something I have been saying for over 20 years needs to be drummed into the heads of all business and corporate leaders, all government officials at every level in every country in the world... SUSTAINABILITY! That word and concept, when acted on with thoughts toward the environmental situation we all face, will go a long way toward improving the long-term outlook. Businesses should not be allowed to the environment virtually unchecked. Bush needs to be held accountable for his horrible environmental record and his programs need to be reversed. His concessions to logging, coal, big oil and the timber industries involving practical giveaways of public land have been among the most egregious of his damaging policies. Other countries need to reassess their policies as to their effect on the environment. Stewardship of this planet is everyone's responsibility and acting together, we can have an impact that will secure the future for generations to come. If we keep on the current path, a kind of "mutual self destruction" is the likely result. The choice is ours.
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 25 2007, 05:29 PM)
Yes, listen to Al Gore
Absolutely.
I think EVERY family should STRIVE to have a Carbon Footprint no larger than Al Gores.
So, EVERYBODY, if your Electric and Gas bill is OVER $3,000 per MONTH,
Then, watch 'An Inconvenient Truth" and then make changes in your personal energy use to get your energy consumption down to at least Al Gore's level.
Hey, if Al Gore can stay under 250,000 Kilowatt hours a year, then SO CAN YOU.
Arthur
Absolutely.
I think EVERY family should STRIVE to have a Carbon Footprint no larger than Al Gores.
So, EVERYBODY, if your Electric and Gas bill is OVER $3,000 per MONTH,
Then, watch 'An Inconvenient Truth" and then make changes in your personal energy use to get your energy consumption down to at least Al Gore's level.
Hey, if Al Gore can stay under 250,000 Kilowatt hours a year, then SO CAN YOU.
Arthur
Hey, what about carbon offsets?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 25 2007, 06:24 PM)
Hey, what about carbon offsets?
No Problemo,
Assuming you are a "High Net Worth Individual" then Generation Investment Management that Al Gore is Chaimen of will GLADLY (for a small fee) invest your money in firms that will provide said carbon offsets.
Don't think of them as INDULGENCES, however, that sorta spoils the whole 'feel good' theme.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_...res_inconv.html
Arthur
No Problemo,
Assuming you are a "High Net Worth Individual" then Generation Investment Management that Al Gore is Chaimen of will GLADLY (for a small fee) invest your money in firms that will provide said carbon offsets.
Don't think of them as INDULGENCES, however, that sorta spoils the whole 'feel good' theme.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_...res_inconv.html
Arthur
Kind of like buying one’s way out of conscription during the Civil War?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 25 2007, 07:18 PM)
Kind of like buying one’s way out of conscription during the Civil War?
Well it would be, particularly if you first campaign for years in favor of a war and set up a company that profits from the war.
Arthur
Well it would be, particularly if you first campaign for years in favor of a war and set up a company that profits from the war.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 25 2007, 11:00 PM)
No Problemo,
Assuming you are a "High Net Worth Individual" then Generation Investment Management that Al Gore is Chaimen of will GLADLY (for a small fee) invest your money in firms that will provide said carbon offsets.
Don't think of them as INDULGENCES, however, that sorta spoils the whole 'feel good' theme.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_...res_inconv.html
Arthur
Assuming you are a "High Net Worth Individual" then Generation Investment Management that Al Gore is Chaimen of will GLADLY (for a small fee) invest your money in firms that will provide said carbon offsets.
Don't think of them as INDULGENCES, however, that sorta spoils the whole 'feel good' theme.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_...res_inconv.html
Arthur
While we're at it, lets pretend that defense contractors don't profit from "defending our freedom," or that pharmaceutical companies are strictly not for profit, or that any other vital service in our society is performed for purely altruistic motives, otherwise it ruins that feel good, patriotic theme.
How else do you expect Big Al to behave, he's a capitalist, and apparently a pretty successful one at that. Do I sense a bit of jealousy Arthur?
How else do you expect Big Al to behave, he's a capitalist, and apparently a pretty successful one at that. Do I sense a bit of jealousy Arthur?
Jealous of Big Al?
No.
The issue is HYPOCRISY not CAPITALISM.
Arthur
No.
The issue is HYPOCRISY not CAPITALISM.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 26 2007, 12:33 PM)
Jealous of Big Al?
No.
The issue is HYPOCRISY not CAPITALISM.
Arthur
You accuse Big Al of being out of step with his ideological roots. Liberal or conservative, it's the American way to be selfish, wasteful, and to over consume, while at the same time rationalize that we're somehow doing the world a favor by our behavior.
Al's got you beat at you're own game. Get over it.
No.
The issue is HYPOCRISY not CAPITALISM.
Arthur
You accuse Big Al of being out of step with his ideological roots. Liberal or conservative, it's the American way to be selfish, wasteful, and to over consume, while at the same time rationalize that we're somehow doing the world a favor by our behavior.
Al's got you beat at you're own game. Get over it.
Society is divided not so much by racial or religious lines as by economic lines. Esoteric ecological issues are an affectation of the wealthy and some pseudo intellecturals. Feeding (and educating) one’s family is more important to the parents of that family than preserving a spotted owl. To tell a poor family to reduce the use of fuel in his vehicle by purchasing a more expensive hybrid vehicle is absurd. Unilaternally there is little to nothing that can be initated by the middle claas. Nor do they possess the finances to purchase carbon offsets.
The point is this. The only result that will be produced by this political sideshow will be a display of smugness and arrogance on the part of liberal polititicians and their Hollowywood friends.
The point is this. The only result that will be produced by this political sideshow will be a display of smugness and arrogance on the part of liberal polititicians and their Hollowywood friends.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 26 2007, 09:14 AM)
You accuse Big Al of being out of step with his ideological roots. Liberal or conservative, it's the American way to be selfish, wasteful, and to over consume, while at the same time rationalize that we're somehow doing the world a favor by our behavior.
Al's got you beat at you're own game. Get over it.
Al turns out to be a disappointing Greenie so now you resort to America Bashing.
Pretty Pathetic.
But typical.
Arthur
Al's got you beat at you're own game. Get over it.
Al turns out to be a disappointing Greenie so now you resort to America Bashing.
Pretty Pathetic.
But typical.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 26 2007, 01:54 PM)
Al turns out to be a disappointing Greenie so now you resort to America Bashing.
Pretty Pathetic.
But typical.
Arthur
No, you bash Al for being an American Greenie.
Typical American rationalization, faced with the truth and you're being bashed. Poor Arthur.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 26 2007, 10:44 AM)
No, you bash Al for being an American Greenie.
Typical American rationalization, faced with the truth and you're being bashed. Poor Arthur.
I got news for you, just because YOU believe this BS
Typical American rationalization, faced with the truth and you're being bashed. Poor Arthur.
I got news for you, just because YOU believe this BS
QUOTE (Capracus+)
it's the American way to be selfish, wasteful, and to over consume, while at the same time rationalize that we're somehow doing the world a favor by our behavior.
does not make it "the truth"
As for Al, as we say here, Al Talks the Talk, but doesn't Walk the Walk.
Arthur
As for Al, as we say here, Al Talks the Talk, but doesn't Walk the Walk.
Arthur
Interesting thread. I guess to get to the original point of the thread, I do find it strange that Climate change wins a nobel peace prize. To me, work on climate change doesn't really fit in with any of the categories of the Nobel, but I do not know much about the history of the Peace prize.
I used to be unconvinced about global warming. Over the past year or so however, in discussions with scientists, I have had many questions that I did not understand answered that have pushed me much closer to accepting global warming. We definately need to do something. One thing I did learn, which I found very interesting is that apparently the amount of soot and other particulates in the atmosphere from unclean energy sources has actually been hiding some of the effects of global warming by reflecting a significant amount of sunlight away from earth. I found this interesting, though I have not had time to look up more about it.
Someone earlier also made reference to water vapour being a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. This is true, however just stating this doesn't really say anything because the cycle of water vapour in the atmosphere is much different than CO2. Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long. It rains fairly frequently (over the whole earth). The change due to water vapour isn't long term and most likely averages out over the course of a year, or even a few months. Just think about how the temperature at night has changed on a hot day when it is cloudy, and it is not. On a cloudy night the temperature doesn't drop nearly as much as it does on a clear night. This can change from day to day and is not going to effect climate long term.
I also read in an editorial in the Journal Nature in february which said
I may not be an expert on climate change, nor have the time to become one. Fortunately I do know about the Journal Nature and how difficult it is to get published in it. I find it reasonable that if they claim it is pretty much a scientific concensus, then it most likely it is.
With all of that being said, through discussions with friends at different universities, apparently if we were to cut all green house emissions to zero right now, it would take 40-50 years for the warming to actually stop. So this means really, that even with what most people would consider drastic changes now, we still need to invest time and money into figuring out how to adapt to any temperature changes that may take place.
To share something that I found funny though, a comment by Stephen Colbert, from the Colbert Report "I now believe in Global Warming. Al Gore's movie made money. The market has spoken".
I used to be unconvinced about global warming. Over the past year or so however, in discussions with scientists, I have had many questions that I did not understand answered that have pushed me much closer to accepting global warming. We definately need to do something. One thing I did learn, which I found very interesting is that apparently the amount of soot and other particulates in the atmosphere from unclean energy sources has actually been hiding some of the effects of global warming by reflecting a significant amount of sunlight away from earth. I found this interesting, though I have not had time to look up more about it.
Someone earlier also made reference to water vapour being a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. This is true, however just stating this doesn't really say anything because the cycle of water vapour in the atmosphere is much different than CO2. Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long. It rains fairly frequently (over the whole earth). The change due to water vapour isn't long term and most likely averages out over the course of a year, or even a few months. Just think about how the temperature at night has changed on a hot day when it is cloudy, and it is not. On a cloudy night the temperature doesn't drop nearly as much as it does on a clear night. This can change from day to day and is not going to effect climate long term.
I also read in an editorial in the Journal Nature in february which said
QUOTE
Until quite recently (perhaps even until last week), the general global narrative of the great climate-change debate has been deceptively straightforward. The climate-science community, together with the entire environmental movement and a broad alliance of opinion leaders ranging from Greenpeace and Ralph Nader to Senator John McCain and many US evangelical Christians, has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. This requirement has been disputed by a collection of money-men and some isolated scientists, in alliance with the current president of the United States and a handful of like-minded ideologues such as Australia's prime minister John Howard.
I may not be an expert on climate change, nor have the time to become one. Fortunately I do know about the Journal Nature and how difficult it is to get published in it. I find it reasonable that if they claim it is pretty much a scientific concensus, then it most likely it is.
With all of that being said, through discussions with friends at different universities, apparently if we were to cut all green house emissions to zero right now, it would take 40-50 years for the warming to actually stop. So this means really, that even with what most people would consider drastic changes now, we still need to invest time and money into figuring out how to adapt to any temperature changes that may take place.
To share something that I found funny though, a comment by Stephen Colbert, from the Colbert Report "I now believe in Global Warming. Al Gore's movie made money. The market has spoken".
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 26 2007, 03:01 PM)
I got news for you, just because YOU believe this BS
QUOTE (Capracus+)
it's the American way to be selfish, wasteful, and to over consume, while at the same time rationalize that we're somehow doing the world a favor by our behavior.
Derek1148, For one, the middle class can do a lot!
I drive a four-cylinder Toyota truck, just awaiting the day they come out with a hybrid small pickup. The middle class can rid themselves of their huge, inefficient SUV's and purchase a more sensible vehicle. Carbon offsets should be considered immoral and only allowed for true mitigation of overuse in certain, very limited situations. The smugness and arrogance are fully on display by the fat, wealthy Republicans who will deny global warming even when there are no glaciers in Glacier National Park, which is predicted and known to happen very soon. 
People like adoucette will be denying it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, until they roast in their own "hell on earth" that they created through their own denials and inaction. They will take us down with them in their ignorance!
does not make it "the truth"
Yes, unfortunately it is the truth. We all exhibit this behavior to one degree or another, it's just that our addiction to consuming BS prevents us from acting sensibly. Your reaction to my statement of truth is not surprising, as denial is common among addicts.
QUOTE
As for Al, as we say here, Al Talks the Talk, but doesn't Walk the Walk.
Arthur
No, Al talks the talk, and walks the walk, you just don't agree with either. Al's is big on talk, but not equally strong in action, so what. The talk is what has the greatest impact, not what he does as an individual. If an MD advises you not to smoke or drink, but personally does both, is his advise hollow? Arthur
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 27 2007, 12:44 PM)
If an MD advises you not to smoke or drink, but personally does both, is his advise hollow?
If he condemns you for doing both, it would be hypocritical.
If he condemns you for doing both, it would be hypocritical.
QUOTE
Unilaternally (sic) there is little to nothing that can be initated (sic) by the middle claas (sic). Nor do they possess the finances to purchase carbon offsets.
The point is this. The only result that will be produced by this political sideshow will be a display of smugness and arrogance on the part of liberal polititicians (sic) and their Hollowywood (sic) friends.
Derek1148 quote.The point is this. The only result that will be produced by this political sideshow will be a display of smugness and arrogance on the part of liberal polititicians (sic) and their Hollowywood (sic) friends.
Derek1148, For one, the middle class can do a lot!
I drive a four-cylinder Toyota truck, just awaiting the day they come out with a hybrid small pickup. The middle class can rid themselves of their huge, inefficient SUV's and purchase a more sensible vehicle. Carbon offsets should be considered immoral and only allowed for true mitigation of overuse in certain, very limited situations. The smugness and arrogance are fully on display by the fat, wealthy Republicans who will deny global warming even when there are no glaciers in Glacier National Park, which is predicted and known to happen very soon. People like adoucette will be denying it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, until they roast in their own "hell on earth" that they created through their own denials and inaction. They will take us down with them in their ignorance!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unilaternally (sic) there is little to nothing that can be initated (sic) by the middle claas (sic). Nor do they possess the finances to purchase carbon offsets. The point is this. The only result that will be produced by this political sideshow will be a display of smugness and arrogance on the part of liberal polititicians (sic) and their Hollowywood (sic) friends. |
Derek1148 quote.
Derek1148, For one, the middle class can do a lot! I drive a four-cylinder Toyota truck, just awaiting the day they come out with a hybrid small pickup. The middle class can rid themselves of their huge, inefficient SUV's and purchase a more sensible vehicle. Carbon offsets should be considered immoral and only allowed for true mitigation of overuse in certain, very limited situations. The smugness and arrogance are fully on display by the fat, wealthy Republicans who will deny global warming even when there are no glaciers in Glacier National Park, which is predicted and known to happen very soon.
People like adoucette will be denying it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, until they roast in their own "hell on earth" that they created through their own denials and inaction. They will take us down with them in their ignorance!
One thing I did learn, which I found very interesting is that apparently the amount of soot and other particulates in the atmosphere from unclean energy sources has actually been hiding some of the effects of global warming by reflecting a significant amount of sunlight away from earth. I found this interesting, though I have not had time to look up more about it.
Derek1148, For one, the middle class can do a lot!
I drive a four-cylinder Toyota truck, just awaiting the day they come out with a hybrid small pickup. The middle class can rid themselves of their huge, inefficient SUV's and purchase a more sensible vehicle. Carbon offsets should be considered immoral and only allowed for true mitigation of overuse in certain, very limited situations. The smugness and arrogance are fully on display by the fat, wealthy Republicans who will deny global warming even when there are no glaciers in Glacier National Park, which is predicted and known to happen very soon. People like adoucette will be denying it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, until they roast in their own "hell on earth" that they created through their own denials and inaction. They will take us down with them in their ignorance!
One thing I did learn, which I found very interesting is that apparently the amount of soot and other particulates in the atmosphere from unclean energy sources has actually been hiding some of the effects of global warming by reflecting a significant amount of sunlight away from earth. I found this interesting, though I have not had time to look up more about it.
Steveo quote.
Fires and volcanoes act in somewhat the same way. The interplay of different elements have their effects both good and bad. The bad seems to be outweighing the good. I'm glad you "see the light" as I know you to be well referenced and studied in your responses.
I, also respect the validity of peer-reviewed scientific journals, having helped edit and index one myself. This is real science, not the harping of deniers and Republicans hell-bent on political bashing of reasonable scientists and concerned citizens. Wake up and smell the Rosaceae, before they are fried to a crisp on a desertified planet we call earth!
Fires and volcanoes act in somewhat the same way. The interplay of different elements have their effects both good and bad. The bad seems to be outweighing the good. I'm glad you "see the light" as I know you to be well referenced and studied in your responses.
QUOTE
I may not be an expert on climate change, nor have the time to become one. Fortunately I do know about the Journal Nature and how difficult it is to get published in it. I find it reasonable that if they claim it is pretty much a scientific concensus, then it most likely it is.
Steveo quote.I, also respect the validity of peer-reviewed scientific journals, having helped edit and index one myself. This is real science, not the harping of deniers and Republicans hell-bent on political bashing of reasonable scientists and concerned citizens. Wake up and smell the Rosaceae, before they are fried to a crisp on a desertified planet we call earth!
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 27 2007, 02:21 PM)
The smugness and arrogance are fully on display by the fat, wealthy Republicans who will deny global warming even when there are no glaciers in Glacier National Park, which is predicted and known to happen very soon.
People like adoucette will be denying it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, until they roast in their own "hell on earth" that they created through their own denials and inaction. They will take us down with them in their ignorance!
Listen up *** wad, I'm NOT fat.
Oh, and the glaciers in the Blackfoot–Jackson Glacier Basin of Glacier National Park, Montana, decreased in area from 21.6 square kilometers (km2) in 1850 to 7.4 km2 in 1979. Over this same period global temperatures increased by 0.45ºC (± 0.15ºC)
The MAJORITY of the decline of the glaciers (between 1850 and 1930) occurred before ANY buildup of CO2.
Arthur
People like adoucette will be denying it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, until they roast in their own "hell on earth" that they created through their own denials and inaction. They will take us down with them in their ignorance!
Listen up *** wad, I'm NOT fat.
Oh, and the glaciers in the Blackfoot–Jackson Glacier Basin of Glacier National Park, Montana, decreased in area from 21.6 square kilometers (km2) in 1850 to 7.4 km2 in 1979. Over this same period global temperatures increased by 0.45ºC (± 0.15ºC)
The MAJORITY of the decline of the glaciers (between 1850 and 1930) occurred before ANY buildup of CO2.
Arthur
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 27 2007, 06:21 PM)
I drive a four-cylinder Toyota truck, just awaiting the day they come out with a hybrid small pickup.
Hey, what can I say? Sure sounds like you’re doing your part.
Hey, what can I say? Sure sounds like you’re doing your part.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 27 2007, 05:49 PM)
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 26 2007, 03:01 PM)
If an MD advises you not to smoke or drink, but personally does both, is his advise hollow?
If he condemns you for doing both, it would be hypocritical.
If he convinces thousands to quit, it's commendable.
What is it called if he alienates millions?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 28 2007, 07:13 AM)
What is it called if he alienates millions?
Obviously he didn't alienate the Nobel Committee. I think that most reasonable people can distinguish between the man and the message, the remainder don't want to hear the message regardless of the source.
Al's not asking the world to be like him, just to listen to the well founded arguments he presents. It's not much different than George W. Bush asking young men to go to war, when he avoided it himself. If the cause is just, the messenger shouldn't matter.
Al's not asking the world to be like him, just to listen to the well founded arguments he presents. It's not much different than George W. Bush asking young men to go to war, when he avoided it himself. If the cause is just, the messenger shouldn't matter.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 28 2007, 06:59 AM)
Obviously he didn't alienate the Nobel Committee. I think that most reasonable people can distinguish between the man and the message, the remainder don't want to hear the message regardless of the source.
Al's not asking the world to be like him, just to listen to the well founded arguments he presents.
He makes TWO arguments.
One: That the globe is warming because of HUMAN activities.
Two: That by changing the way we live and reducing our INDIVIDUAL carbon footprint that we can SAVE the planet whos FATE, "Hangs in the Balance".
So, once again I say, in this case the messenger IS the message.
Clearly he is saying that HE has studied this and that HE has made the personal sacrifices that this WAR on CLIMATE calls for and that EVERY family should STRIVE to have a Carbon Footprint no larger than his own.
So, EVERYBODY, join Al's WAR on CLIMATE and if your Electric and Gas bill is OVER $3,000 per MONTH,
Then, watch 'An Inconvenient Truth" and then make changes in your personal energy use to get your energy consumption down to at least Al Gore's level.
Hey, if Al Gore can stay under 250,000 Kilowatt hours a year in each of his houses, then SO CAN YOU.
Arthur
Al's not asking the world to be like him, just to listen to the well founded arguments he presents.
He makes TWO arguments.
One: That the globe is warming because of HUMAN activities.
Two: That by changing the way we live and reducing our INDIVIDUAL carbon footprint that we can SAVE the planet whos FATE, "Hangs in the Balance".
So, once again I say, in this case the messenger IS the message.
Clearly he is saying that HE has studied this and that HE has made the personal sacrifices that this WAR on CLIMATE calls for and that EVERY family should STRIVE to have a Carbon Footprint no larger than his own.
So, EVERYBODY, join Al's WAR on CLIMATE and if your Electric and Gas bill is OVER $3,000 per MONTH,
Then, watch 'An Inconvenient Truth" and then make changes in your personal energy use to get your energy consumption down to at least Al Gore's level.
Hey, if Al Gore can stay under 250,000 Kilowatt hours a year in each of his houses, then SO CAN YOU.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 28 2007, 11:59 AM)
So, EVERYBODY, join Al's WAR on CLIMATE and if your Electric and Gas bill is OVER $3,000 per MONTH.
Even using some of slim Arthur's exaggerated figures, Al spent less than $2,300 on his monthly utility bill. Let's not forget that his home is also office space for he and his wife, and that he spends 20% of that bill on green power purchases that are used to offset carbon generation.
On Al's offsets. Let's pretend that Al's property is covered with solar panels, wind generators, and methane recovery systems, and that Al generates all of his energy on site and sends it back into the grid. How is that different than Al purchasing that same energy off site?
On Al's offsets. Let's pretend that Al's property is covered with solar panels, wind generators, and methane recovery systems, and that Al generates all of his energy on site and sends it back into the grid. How is that different than Al purchasing that same energy off site?
Our goal should be realistic solutions and not opportunistic politicizing of the issue.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 28 2007, 04:14 PM)
Even using some of slim Arthur's exaggerated figures, Al spent less than $2,300 on his monthly utility bill. Let's not forget that his home is also office space for he and his wife, and that he spends 20% of that bill on green power purchases that are used to offset carbon generation. On Al's offsets. Let's pretend that Al's property is covered with solar panels, wind generators, and methane recovery systems, and that Al generates all of his energy on site and sends it back into the grid. How is that different than Al purchasing that same energy off site?
(emphasis mine)
You may note that Al Gore created and OWNS the company that he "purchased" his offsets from. So his "cost" turns into his own income and profit. Wow, some martyr is he. And he will make money off of any of you idiots purchasing your "offsets" from him. No conflict of interest there...
Just like the Oscar's and every Hollyweird award being more about nutjob politics than talent, now the "Nobel" awards are no more than political Euro-trash awards given to stick a finger in the "evil american eye". Shameful, just Shameful
Al made a documentary with facts and figures so badly twisted to fit his agenda, when shown in schools it has to be with a "correction list". So he exaggerated, did none of the Science himself, just promoted this scam with a neat way for him to make a huge profit from it (see offset company above). What exactly did he do that deserves an award of ANY kind?
You laugh at "indulgences" from the catholic church, and swallow this BS wholesale?
And you wits of infinitesimal size, decrying the "1 meter" of ocean level rise. It has been rising and continues to rise, and the increase in rate of rise is far from alarming.
Unless you are the classic mathematical idiot that Al Gore is.
If he told you that the simulation of current birthrate of gerbils, if sustained at its current increasing levels, would result in us being 3 feet deep in Gerbils across every landmass by the year 2020, resulting in all plant mass dying (it would be covered in Gerbils and get no light) extinction of several endangered species (of land animals anyway), and be a terrible place to live, as our new masters would overcome our civilization and make us run in Giant wheels for their amusement and power generation? Would you believe that documentary? Probably.
Buncha mental midgets
At least he invented the Internet
(emphasis mine)
You may note that Al Gore created and OWNS the company that he "purchased" his offsets from. So his "cost" turns into his own income and profit. Wow, some martyr is he. And he will make money off of any of you idiots purchasing your "offsets" from him. No conflict of interest there...
Just like the Oscar's and every Hollyweird award being more about nutjob politics than talent, now the "Nobel" awards are no more than political Euro-trash awards given to stick a finger in the "evil american eye". Shameful, just Shameful
Al made a documentary with facts and figures so badly twisted to fit his agenda, when shown in schools it has to be with a "correction list". So he exaggerated, did none of the Science himself, just promoted this scam with a neat way for him to make a huge profit from it (see offset company above). What exactly did he do that deserves an award of ANY kind?
You laugh at "indulgences" from the catholic church, and swallow this BS wholesale?
And you wits of infinitesimal size, decrying the "1 meter" of ocean level rise. It has been rising and continues to rise, and the increase in rate of rise is far from alarming.
Unless you are the classic mathematical idiot that Al Gore is.
If he told you that the simulation of current birthrate of gerbils, if sustained at its current increasing levels, would result in us being 3 feet deep in Gerbils across every landmass by the year 2020, resulting in all plant mass dying (it would be covered in Gerbils and get no light) extinction of several endangered species (of land animals anyway), and be a terrible place to live, as our new masters would overcome our civilization and make us run in Giant wheels for their amusement and power generation? Would you believe that documentary? Probably.
Buncha mental midgets
At least he invented the Internet
Al Gore
I thought the documentary was so full of misinformation and facts that it
made me want to nominate it for an Oscar also, comedy category.
Oh, dont forget Al G. invented the internet also, not.
He also has a cure for the common cold and cancer he plans on using
in his next comedy documentary.
Al claims to be the smartest man in the world and all creation comes from him.
i.e., he is god......................well atleast in his eyes.
I thought the documentary was so full of misinformation and facts that it
made me want to nominate it for an Oscar also, comedy category.
Oh, dont forget Al G. invented the internet also, not.
He also has a cure for the common cold and cancer he plans on using
in his next comedy documentary.
Al claims to be the smartest man in the world and all creation comes from him.
i.e., he is god......................well atleast in his eyes.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 28 2007, 12:14 PM)
Even using some of slim Arthur's exaggerated figures, Al spent less than $2,300 on his monthly utility bill.
ROTFLMAO
You're kidding, right?
DOE figures that the average US household consumes 10,656 kWh per year, but in 2006, Al's Nashville house used 221,000 kWh.
TWENTY times the national average.
Last August Gore used 22,619 kWh, thus using more than twice the electricity in one month than an average US house uses in an entire year.
Gore's average monthly electric bill was $1,360.
Worse, since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's electric consumption increased from 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh in 2006.
Gore's natural gas bills his house and HEATED POOL averaged $1,080 per month last year.
BUT,
Al also has a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. and another large home in Carthage, Tenn.
I don't have the exact figures for the other two houses, but given his EXTRAVAGENT use in Nashville, an average of $300 per month for each seems reasonable, so you might want to quibble, but clearly Big Al's Utility bills are ~ $3,000 per month.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
You're kidding, right?
DOE figures that the average US household consumes 10,656 kWh per year, but in 2006, Al's Nashville house used 221,000 kWh.
TWENTY times the national average.
Last August Gore used 22,619 kWh, thus using more than twice the electricity in one month than an average US house uses in an entire year.
Gore's average monthly electric bill was $1,360.
Worse, since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's electric consumption increased from 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh in 2006.
Gore's natural gas bills his house and HEATED POOL averaged $1,080 per month last year.
BUT,
Al also has a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. and another large home in Carthage, Tenn.
I don't have the exact figures for the other two houses, but given his EXTRAVAGENT use in Nashville, an average of $300 per month for each seems reasonable, so you might want to quibble, but clearly Big Al's Utility bills are ~ $3,000 per month.
Arthur
serial guys we gotta stop ManBearPig....
I guess there just handing out Nobel Peace Prizes.
Daily Show does it well...
video.google.com search "Live Earth Daily Show"
I guess there just handing out Nobel Peace Prizes.
Daily Show does it well...
video.google.com search "Live Earth Daily Show"
adoucette, Before there was ANY buildup of CO2? The industrial revolution started around 1850, and in cities like Birmingham, England and Pittsburg, PA. especially, smoke was spewing out of dozens to hundreds of smokestacks on a daily basis. Likewise in every major city of the industrialized world. I've seen the comparison pictures of the receding glaciers in G.N.P., and it has continued, unabated since 1930. Remember the dates of the Peppered Moth research? Kind of blows your claim away!
By the way, I didn't say YOU were fat, but are you feeling guilty like a Republican should? I saw an interesting sticker today on a car. It looked like the small white oval stickers with two or so letters identifying a foreign country and it had "RR" on it. When I got closer to it, I could see it said "Reformed Republican" on it! (())
The industrial revolution started around 1850, and in cities like Birmingham, England and Pittsburg, PA. especially, smoke was spewing out of dozens to hundreds of smokestacks on a daily basis. Likewise in every major city of the industrialized world. I've seen the comparison pictures of the receding glaciers in G.N.P., and it has continued, unabated since 1930. Remember the dates of the Peppered Moth research? Kind of blows your claim away! By the way, I didn't say YOU were fat, but are you feeling guilty like a Republican should? I saw an interesting sticker today on a car. It looked like the small white oval stickers with two or so letters identifying a foreign country and it had "RR" on it. When I got closer to it, I could see it said "Reformed Republican" on it! ((
))
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 29 2007, 05:32 AM)
adoucette, Before there was ANY buildup of CO2? The industrial revolution started around 1850, and in cities like Birmingham, England and Pittsburg, PA. especially, smoke was spewing out of dozens to hundreds of smokestacks on a daily basis. Likewise in every major city of the industrialized world. I've seen the comparison pictures of the receding glaciers in G.N.P., and it has continued, unabated since 1930. Remember the dates of the Peppered Moth research? Kind of blows your claim away!
GWer's, like Al Gore, predictable cherry-picking their facts and ignoring the huge amount of evidence that inconveniently does not support their cause.
Just look at the CO2 graphs again. Throughout history (including this time) the CO2 LAGS temperature increases. In other words, TEMPERATURE GOES UP BEFORE CO2. And when the Temperature falls CO2 LEVELS LAG and stay high for 300-600 years.
What that means is your "glacier data" and everything else shows warming PRIOR to any major output of CO2 or "greenhouse gases", and yet you expect us to swallow that the events afterward somehow "time-traveled" and caused the obvious trends that were well underway prior to them.
You may be that stupid, we are not.
If you are not smart enough to instantly see that one simple graph debunks the entire "CO2 footprint" myth, you my friend need to stay out of the discussion and let the adults talk.
Climate and weather CHANGES, every event that supports your theory you tout widely and loudly, but conveniently ignore the more prevalent events that directly oppose your views.
Those of us arguing against Big Al's program are not against protecting the environment and cleaning up the earth. We are simply tryinjg to prevent you lemming-like idiots from queuing up behind Big Al and his cronies to throw money into their pockets to fight an imaginary problem they invented.
We want to fight real problems like pollution, hunger, poverty. You want to throw as much of our treasure and resources as possible at an obviously cobbled-together politically and personal greed attack on our economy. They do not even say anything can be done about their imaginary problem, just that now suddenly the debate is over and we need to spend as much money as we can to attack it?
Why have there not been any lawsuits against governments by the greens involving CO2 and the current GW myth?
Because they can never win in a court where FACTS are necessary, and where the prevailing tide of evidence is against them.
The industrial revolution started around 1850, and in cities like Birmingham, England and Pittsburg, PA. especially, smoke was spewing out of dozens to hundreds of smokestacks on a daily basis. Likewise in every major city of the industrialized world. I've seen the comparison pictures of the receding glaciers in G.N.P., and it has continued, unabated since 1930. Remember the dates of the Peppered Moth research? Kind of blows your claim away! GWer's, like Al Gore, predictable cherry-picking their facts and ignoring the huge amount of evidence that inconveniently does not support their cause.
Just look at the CO2 graphs again. Throughout history (including this time) the CO2 LAGS temperature increases. In other words, TEMPERATURE GOES UP BEFORE CO2. And when the Temperature falls CO2 LEVELS LAG and stay high for 300-600 years.
What that means is your "glacier data" and everything else shows warming PRIOR to any major output of CO2 or "greenhouse gases", and yet you expect us to swallow that the events afterward somehow "time-traveled" and caused the obvious trends that were well underway prior to them.
You may be that stupid, we are not.
If you are not smart enough to instantly see that one simple graph debunks the entire "CO2 footprint" myth, you my friend need to stay out of the discussion and let the adults talk.
Climate and weather CHANGES, every event that supports your theory you tout widely and loudly, but conveniently ignore the more prevalent events that directly oppose your views.
Those of us arguing against Big Al's program are not against protecting the environment and cleaning up the earth. We are simply tryinjg to prevent you lemming-like idiots from queuing up behind Big Al and his cronies to throw money into their pockets to fight an imaginary problem they invented.
We want to fight real problems like pollution, hunger, poverty. You want to throw as much of our treasure and resources as possible at an obviously cobbled-together politically and personal greed attack on our economy. They do not even say anything can be done about their imaginary problem, just that now suddenly the debate is over and we need to spend as much money as we can to attack it?
Why have there not been any lawsuits against governments by the greens involving CO2 and the current GW myth?
Because they can never win in a court where FACTS are necessary, and where the prevailing tide of evidence is against them.
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 29 2007, 01:32 AM)
adoucette, Before there was ANY buildup of CO2? The industrial revolution started around 1850, and in cities like Birmingham, England and Pittsburg, PA. especially, smoke was spewing out of dozens to hundreds of smokestacks on a daily basis. Likewise in every major city of the industrialized world. I've seen the comparison pictures of the receding glaciers in G.N.P., and it has continued, unabated since 1930. Remember the dates of the Peppered Moth research? Kind of blows your claim away!
Its not like there wasn't industrialization before 1930, there was of course.
BUT, the amount of CO2 released is a function of both that AND of total population, and the population in 1850 was but 18% of current, and only 24% of current by 1900.
In 1850 the CO2 levels were ~ 280 ppm (it was of course BRUTALLY COLD up to this time as the LIA slowly came to an end)
We didn't start annual CO2 measurements until 1959 and the 1960 level was 316 ppm, thus in the 110 years since 1850 the CO2 had grown by ~ 13%. But since the atmospheric rate was slowly increasing per decade (as the globe warmed), and so extrapolating backwards we find that the CO2 rate in 1930 was a mere 7% greater than the background level in 1850.
1850 = ~280
1900 = ~290 = increase of 10 ppm or 3.6%
1930 = ~300 = increase of 20 ppm or 7.1%
1960 = 316
2005 = 385 ppm
Hard to blame this paltry increase for the DRAMTIC glacier shrinkage by 1930, considering that in the intervening years the CO2 levels have gone up 5 times as much and the glaciers are STILL HERE.
Of course a look at the ACTUAL temp records might help to understand why this happened.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=271879
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/year2005...ature-graph.gif
Arthur
The industrial revolution started around 1850, and in cities like Birmingham, England and Pittsburg, PA. especially, smoke was spewing out of dozens to hundreds of smokestacks on a daily basis. Likewise in every major city of the industrialized world. I've seen the comparison pictures of the receding glaciers in G.N.P., and it has continued, unabated since 1930. Remember the dates of the Peppered Moth research? Kind of blows your claim away! Its not like there wasn't industrialization before 1930, there was of course.
BUT, the amount of CO2 released is a function of both that AND of total population, and the population in 1850 was but 18% of current, and only 24% of current by 1900.
In 1850 the CO2 levels were ~ 280 ppm (it was of course BRUTALLY COLD up to this time as the LIA slowly came to an end)
We didn't start annual CO2 measurements until 1959 and the 1960 level was 316 ppm, thus in the 110 years since 1850 the CO2 had grown by ~ 13%. But since the atmospheric rate was slowly increasing per decade (as the globe warmed), and so extrapolating backwards we find that the CO2 rate in 1930 was a mere 7% greater than the background level in 1850.
1850 = ~280
1900 = ~290 = increase of 10 ppm or 3.6%
1930 = ~300 = increase of 20 ppm or 7.1%
1960 = 316
2005 = 385 ppm
Hard to blame this paltry increase for the DRAMTIC glacier shrinkage by 1930, considering that in the intervening years the CO2 levels have gone up 5 times as much and the glaciers are STILL HERE.
Of course a look at the ACTUAL temp records might help to understand why this happened.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=271879
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/year2005...ature-graph.gif
Arthur
QUOTE (deadbeat+Oct 28 2007, 11:56 PM)
(emphasis mine)
You may note that Al Gore created and OWNS the company that he "purchased" his offsets from. So his "cost" turns into his own income and profit. Wow, some martyr is he. And he will make money off of any of you idiots purchasing your "offsets" from him. No conflict of interest there...
Obviously one of Big Al's many disguises. Here he poses as the President and CEO of Nashville Electric Service, the company he purchases his green power blocks from.
http://www.nespower.com/president.aspx
As for Gore's offsets, they are provided to him and all of the employees of the investment firm he is part of:
You may note that Al Gore created and OWNS the company that he "purchased" his offsets from. So his "cost" turns into his own income and profit. Wow, some martyr is he. And he will make money off of any of you idiots purchasing your "offsets" from him. No conflict of interest there...
Obviously one of Big Al's many disguises. Here he poses as the President and CEO of Nashville Electric Service, the company he purchases his green power blocks from.
http://www.nespower.com/president.aspx
As for Gore's offsets, they are provided to him and all of the employees of the investment firm he is part of:
QUOTE
"We do not invest in any activity of carbon offset. That's nonsense. We are a fund management business that does sustainability research," he added.
The confusion, Campbell said, arose because GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore.
So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee, Campbell said.
GIM, which Gore started with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood in 2004, uses the Chicago Climate Exchange and the British-based Carbon Neutral Company to cover the high energy use of GIM and its employees.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20070307a.htmlThe confusion, Campbell said, arose because GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore.
So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee, Campbell said.
GIM, which Gore started with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood in 2004, uses the Chicago Climate Exchange and the British-based Carbon Neutral Company to cover the high energy use of GIM and its employees.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "We do not invest in any activity of carbon offset. That's nonsense. We are a fund management business that does sustainability research," he added. The confusion, Campbell said, arose because GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore. So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee, Campbell said. GIM, which Gore started with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood in 2004, uses the Chicago Climate Exchange and the British-based Carbon Neutral Company to cover the high energy use of GIM and its employees. |
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20070307a.html
Just like the Oscar's and every Hollyweird award being more about nutjob politics than talent, now the "Nobel" awards are no more than political Euro-trash awards given to stick a finger in the "evil american eye". Shameful, just Shameful
Just like the Oscar's and every Hollyweird award being more about nutjob politics than talent, now the "Nobel" awards are no more than political Euro-trash awards given to stick a finger in the "evil american eye". Shameful, just Shameful
Of the twelve Nobel prizes given this year, one half were given to Americans. So much for the finger given to the evil Americans.
QUOTE
Al made a documentary with facts and figures so badly twisted to fit his agenda, when shown in schools it has to be with a "correction list". So he exaggerated, did none of the Science himself, just promoted this scam with a neat way for him to make a huge profit from it (see offset company above). What exactly did he do that deserves an award of ANY kind?
He helped promote awareness of the message being sounded by real scientists who are qualified to make the assertions presented in Big Al's documentary.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Al made a documentary with facts and figures so badly twisted to fit his agenda, when shown in schools it has to be with a "correction list". So he exaggerated, did none of the Science himself, just promoted this scam with a neat way for him to make a huge profit from it (see offset company above). What exactly did he do that deserves an award of ANY kind? |
He helped promote awareness of the message being sounded by real scientists who are qualified to make the assertions presented in Big Al's documentary.
You laugh at "indulgences" from the catholic church, and swallow this BS wholesale?
You laugh at "indulgences" from the catholic church, and swallow this BS wholesale?
No, I laugh at people who try to equate legitimate science with religious fraud.
QUOTE
Unless you are the classic mathematical idiot that Al Gore is.
I don't need Al Gore to do my homework on climate change, but I do appreciate the effort he has made to raise awareness of the issue.
So lets see.
Al helps to create a PANIC about Global Warming.
Citizens PANICKED by Al's movie and lectures pressure their representatives to DO SOMETHING.
Ill conceived legislation is passed because of said PANIC.
AL creates an Investment Firm to make money on companies that do well because of legislation/fears caused by this PANIC.
Then the Investment firm covers Al (and other employees) EXTRAVAGANT use of energy by buying Carbon Offsets.
So Al can float around in his GAS heated outdoor pool in winter like a tropical WHALE.
Makes perfect sense.
So I guess, when Gore asks at the end of his movie: “Are you ready to change the way YOU live”?
I take it he doesn't include HIMSELF in that YOU.
Arthur
PS any purchase of "Green Power Blocks" has to be relatively recent, his 2006 electric bill comes out to a per KW charge of $0.0735, which is the nominal base rate in TN. Of course there are no Green Power Blocks to offset his Natural gas bills that averaged $1,080 per month.
Al helps to create a PANIC about Global Warming.
Citizens PANICKED by Al's movie and lectures pressure their representatives to DO SOMETHING.
Ill conceived legislation is passed because of said PANIC.
AL creates an Investment Firm to make money on companies that do well because of legislation/fears caused by this PANIC.
Then the Investment firm covers Al (and other employees) EXTRAVAGANT use of energy by buying Carbon Offsets.
So Al can float around in his GAS heated outdoor pool in winter like a tropical WHALE.
Makes perfect sense.
So I guess, when Gore asks at the end of his movie: “Are you ready to change the way YOU live”?
I take it he doesn't include HIMSELF in that YOU.
Arthur
PS any purchase of "Green Power Blocks" has to be relatively recent, his 2006 electric bill comes out to a per KW charge of $0.0735, which is the nominal base rate in TN. Of course there are no Green Power Blocks to offset his Natural gas bills that averaged $1,080 per month.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 29 2007, 03:52 AM)
ROTFLM(thin)AO
I don't have the exact figures for the other two houses, but given his EXTRAVAGENT use in Nashville, an average of $300 per month for each seems reasonable, so you might want to quibble, but clearly Big Al's Utility bills are ~ $3,000 per month.
Slim
I don't have the exact figures for the other two houses, but given his EXTRAVAGENT use in Nashville, an average of $300 per month for each seems reasonable, so you might want to quibble, but clearly Big Al's Utility bills are ~ $3,000 per month.
Slim
Slim, You haven't been using exact figures for this entire thread. That's what happens when a biased poster uses a biased source like the
Tennessee Center for Policy Research. The Associated Press examined Al's electric bill and came up with lower figures:
Al gore is a wealthy man, and large consumption usually goes with the territory. I think that Al thinks we can have it all, continued growth and consumption, along with an environmentally stable planet. I'm not sure that Al's world view, or most others, includes the necessary sacrifices to get the job done.
Tennessee Center for Policy Research. The Associated Press examined Al's electric bill and came up with lower figures:
QUOTE
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.
The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
We can all agree that a lot of power was consumed at Gore's Nashville residence. What we don't know are the specifics of the consumption at his Nashville home or any of his other properties. Big Al's net worth is over 160 times that of of the average household, I'm not surprised that his electric bill is 12 times the national average. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
Al gore is a wealthy man, and large consumption usually goes with the territory. I think that Al thinks we can have it all, continued growth and consumption, along with an environmentally stable planet. I'm not sure that Al's world view, or most others, includes the necessary sacrifices to get the job done.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 29 2007, 04:45 PM)
I'm not surprised that his electric bill is 12 times the national average.
You are forgetting his over $1,000 per month GAS bill when you are comparing average ELECTRIC bills that include plenty of ALL ELECTRIC homes.
And of course you are leaving out his other two homes.
As to his Greenness - (and since you think Tennessee Center for Policy Research is biased)
Here is a article from BEFORE TCPR broke the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
or
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalW...=2906888&page=1
or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
or
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/Nussb..._carbon_fo.html
etc etc
So the point is SIMPLE, when AL says at the end of his movie:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
or
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalW...=2906888&page=1
or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
or
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/Nussb..._carbon_fo.html
etc etc
So the point is SIMPLE, when AL says at the end of his movie:
“Are you ready to change the way YOU live”?
Is he being a HYPOCRITE or not?
Its a YES of NO question.
Arthur
You are forgetting his over $1,000 per month GAS bill when you are comparing average ELECTRIC bills that include plenty of ALL ELECTRIC homes.
And of course you are leaving out his other two homes.
As to his Greenness - (and since you think Tennessee Center for Policy Research is biased)
Here is a article from BEFORE TCPR broke the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
Peter Schweizer, the conservative author of the above opinion piece, is a perfect example of how the opposing side will exaggerate their points.
The rest of your links parrot the TCPR numbers.
You are forgetting his over $1,000 per month GAS bill when you are comparing average ELECTRIC bills that include plenty of ALL ELECTRIC homes.
And of course you are leaving out his other two homes.
As to his Greenness - (and since you think Tennessee Center for Policy Research is biased)
Here is a article from BEFORE TCPR broke the story:
QUOTE
For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
or
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalW...=2906888&page=1
or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
or
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/Nussb..._carbon_fo.html
etc etc
So the point is SIMPLE, when AL says at the end of his movie:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.) Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents. But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths. |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
or
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalW...=2906888&page=1
or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
or
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/Nussb..._carbon_fo.html
etc etc
So the point is SIMPLE, when AL says at the end of his movie:
“Are you ready to change the way YOU live”?
Is he being a HYPOCRITE or not?
Its a YES of NO question.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 29 2007, 07:46 PM)
So lets see.
Al helps to create a PANIC about Global Warming.
Citizens PANICKED by Al's movie and lectures pressure their representatives to DO SOMETHING.
Ill conceived legislation is passed because of said PANIC.
Al helps to create a PANIC about Global Warming.
Citizens PANICKED by Al's movie and lectures pressure their representatives to DO SOMETHING.
Ill conceived legislation is passed because of said PANIC.
Like that's not typical of every interest group in this country. It works both ways. one side will hype a threat, the other side will minimize it.
I'm really not sure why you feel threatened by the changes that would be imposed to deal with the potential threats of climate change. The climate change issues are only added incentive to follow through with changes that are needed anyway.
At least Al's not manufacturing a military threat so he and his associates can profit from the outcome.
I'm really not sure why you feel threatened by the changes that would be imposed to deal with the potential threats of climate change. The climate change issues are only added incentive to follow through with changes that are needed anyway.
At least Al's not manufacturing a military threat so he and his associates can profit from the outcome.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 29 2007, 08:52 PM)
You are forgetting his over $1,000 per month GAS bill when you are comparing average ELECTRIC bills that include plenty of ALL ELECTRIC homes.
And of course you are leaving out his other two homes.
As to his Greenness - (and since you think Tennessee Center for Policy Research is biased)
Here is a article from BEFORE TCPR broke the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
Peter Schweizer, the conservative author of the above opinion piece, is a perfect example of how the opposing side will exaggerate their points.
QUOTE
For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Extreme personal sacrifice? Living a more efficient lifestyle is an extreme sacrifice? Also Schweizer was unaware that Al's homes were covered by his firms offsets.The rest of your links parrot the TCPR numbers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. |
Extreme personal sacrifice? Living a more efficient lifestyle is an extreme sacrifice? Also Schweizer was unaware that Al's homes were covered by his firms offsets.
The rest of your links parrot the TCPR numbers.
Is he being a HYPOCRITE or not?
Its a YES of NO question.
The rest of your links parrot the TCPR numbers.
Is he being a HYPOCRITE or not?
Its a YES of NO question.
In Al's mind all of his energy was carbon neutral, so to him usage wasn't an issue. Did he meet his own standard? yes.
Could he have done more? yes. At some point in the future offsets will be meaningless, so at that point his behavior would be hypocrisy, but for now, it's not.
Could he have done more? yes. At some point in the future offsets will be meaningless, so at that point his behavior would be hypocrisy, but for now, it's not.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.