An Inconvenient Truth

[stumpbumper]

Al won the Oscar for best documentary.

[Paul Girouard]

Did he fly out, then drive up with a big motor cade of SUV's to deliever his fat arse to the show :D

Hey either way congrats Al;) You final won something:)

[LeeG]

strange how presidential incompetance is accepted with a shrug of the shoulders and a politician with an actual grasp on reality is ridiculed.

[stumpbumper]

Melissa Etheridge also won for the film's song, I Need to Wake Up.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

She thanked her wife. ;)

[Paul Girouard]

strange how presidential incompetance is accepted with a shrug of the shoulders and a politician with an actual grasp on reality is ridiculed.


Ya it's a real kick in the arse eh!:D

[stumpbumper]

Ya it's a real kick in the arse eh!:D

Whose?;)

[stumpbumper]

She thanked her wife. ;)

Well atleast she - No, No, I won't say it.:D :D

[TimH]

strange how presidential incompetance is accepted with a shrug of the shoulders and a politician with an actual grasp on reality is ridiculed.

How do you explain that one?
Good for Al.
The joke is on us (stuck with a dimwit for a leader).

[High C]

Have they given out the science fiction award yet?

[Memphis Mike]

Have they given out the science fiction award yet?

One of these days that Kool Aid is gonna poisen you, JT.;)

[LeeG]

nope, this kind of KoolAid is sustaining, the wmd are still out there, the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda are still waiting to be discovered and if GW has to kill Iranians well it must be for a good reason.

[George.]

... congrats Al;) You final won something:)


He's won before. This time he gets to keep it. :D

[PeterSibley]

I was having a beer at the local the other day .All the boys had seen it ,DVD or download and everyone was convinced .Not the usual suspects ...I was suprised (and heartened ).

[Steve Paskey]

He's won before. This time he gets to keep it. :D

Not so fast -- the Supreme Court is voting this morning. :D

[Vince Brennan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by George. http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?p=1511303#post1511303)
He's won before. This time he gets to keep it. :D
Not so fast -- the Supreme Court is voting this morning. :D
I've always preferred the Supreme Quart, meself...

[Leon m]

Man I wish Al would Run for president ! I'd vote for him in a heart beat!!! Not only do I like the fact that he has the stones to stand up for the environment...I also LOVE the job he did (Thats right HE) turning around the Reagan deffacite...looks like it's time to bring in the clean up crew again.

[TomF]

If no clear Dem contender emerges, and Hilary/Obama end up in a mutually assured destruction scenario, I could see Al emerging as a substantive choice.

But not unless. He'd respond to a "Draft Al Gore" groundswell, but prolly not much less than that.

[stumpbumper]

But not unless. He'd respond to a "Draft Al Gore" groundswell, but prolly not much less than that.

He's playing it very well at this point. We have only seen a hint of the Hillary/Obama crossfire. It's bound to turn into a real mud wrestle. Gore is settin' pretty.

[Leon m]

.

But not unless. He'd respond to a "Draft Al Gore" groundswell, but prolly not much less than that.


Well here we go then...Lets get this party started...http://www.draftgore.com/

Note: Don't forget to sign the petition while your there.

[George.]

Give up. Al's only gonna run when Miami goes under. He'll be named dicator to the world at that point. ;)

[High C]

Talk about an inconvenient truth! :rolleyes:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

And there are people who take this clown seriously?

[Keith Wilson]

Oh, now I see; he must be wrong since he has a big fancy house.

From the article HighC referenced:
Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

[High C]

Oh, now I see; he must be wrong since he has a big fancy house...

:D Come on, man. Admit it, even Gore doesn't believe his own BS! :rolleyes:

Al Gore is doing more to increase skepticism about GW than anyone else could've. :rolleyes:

[Dan McCosh]

Al won the Oscar for best documentary.

FWIW, the film was done by David Guggenheim. Gore didn't win anything.

[Keith Wilson]

HighC, you can post as many unflattering snippets about Al Gore as you like, but this is a matter of physical reality, and the truth will eventually be clear.

For a not-too-technical summary of the current state of the science, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is about as good as you get: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[Rick Starr]

The joke is on us (stuck with the lesser of two dimwits for a leader).

Fixed it for ya.

[Uncle Duke]

HighC says:

Talk about an inconvenient truth!
pointing to an article about Gore's utility bill for his houses (note the plural) in Tennessee....
You might want to check the other thread where some smart-a** noted this:

Quote:
Electric bills obtained by The Tennessean, however, showed that Gore is paying a premium on his bills to be part of the “green power” program. Gore purchased 108 blocks of “green power” for at least each of the last three months, according to a summary of bills from Nashville Electric Service.

That’s a total of $432 a month spent to pay extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. NES power – outside this program - is derived largely from coal, which emits carbon, a green house gas.

The green power purchased by Gore in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans, or recycling 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on the utility's Web site.
from:
http://tinyurl.com/2zbkxl

For a house that size (bigger, frankly, than I would want to keep clean) I think he's doing what he can. Pays a premium for renewable energy, drives a hybrid - more than I'm doing.

The article you point to also notes that their houses are old, which by definition means inefficient, and that they are refurbishing them to be more efficient. Not there yet, but still... they are probably doing more than most people here are. Are you doing as much? I'm not....

[TomF]

Actually, I've often wondered where the energy use thing balances out, regarding old houses.

Is the energy used in the manufacturing processes for the various things used to make old houses energy efficient less than the energy you'd "waste" by not insulating, and living with the higher heating costs?

[TimH]

the carbon cost of building a new house is pretty high too.
you guys wouldnt be satisfied of Gore lived in a tent.

[LeeG]

I'd be satisfied if a new version of Beverly Hillbillies came out with Al Gore and other popular icons. Of course they'd have to be talking in an early 18th century regional dialects from different parts of the US.

Maybe a talking farm animal that sounds like Carl Sagan.

[Uncle Duke]

Is the energy used in the manufacturing processes for the various things used to make old houses energy efficient less than the energy you'd "waste" by not insulating, and living with the higher heating costs?
Darned good question. I'd guess that the answer is 'yes'. At some level the cost of making something relates to the energy used in manufacturing it plus the raw materials plus labor plus equipment plus etc... (plus some ancillary costs for pollution which you don't clean up immediately). I think that in general you cover your costs of upgrades (in houses) within 10 years or less (depending on tons of factors like how bad it was to begin with), so at that point the energy impact moves into the plus column.
(I asked a similar question here in the forum some time ago (but can't find it in the search) about the environmental/energy impact of trading in my SUV for something more economical - somebody there kindly gave a link to a study (Carnegie-Mellon?) which pretty much said the opposite, for cars. Better to drive your Hummer into the ground before you get a Prius. I wish I could find it now...)

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

:D Come on, man. Admit it, even Gore doesn't believe his own BS! :rolleyes:

Al Gore is doing more to increase skepticism about GW than anyone else could've. :rolleyes:


Bowling for Columbine won too, but nothing has changed in that area either. Oh well. Ignorance is apparently bliss for some.

[High C]

"Electric bills obtained by The Tennessean, however, showed that Gore is paying a premium on his bills to be part of the “green power” program. Gore purchased 108 blocks of “green power” for at least each of the last three months, according to a summary of bills from Nashville Electric Service."


Oh, I see, you can buy your way to virtue according to green thinking. :rolleyes:

Gore personally uses many times the energy (just in his home, not counting his extravagant travel) as does the average guy, and that's OK because he paid a cash penalty and somebody planted some trees with the money. :rolleyes:

It just gets sillier and sillier.

[TimH]

Plus his dad raised cows! what a hypocrite!

[Uncle Duke]

Oh, I see, you can buy your way to virtue according to green thinking.
Very cleverly phrased - I like the implication that he needs to obtain virtue, the implication that he has no virtue at this time.
Let's see - he is voluntarily paying 50% more than the average Joe so that his Utility Company purchases renewable power instead of burning coal and polluting - he's spending his own money (not your money, his own) to support clean energy and reduce pollution. Doesn't sound, to me, as if he's buying virtue - sounds as if he's exhibiting virtue.

Gore personally uses many times the energy (just in his home, not counting his extravagant travel) as does the average guy...
Almost exactly correct. Very nice. Except, of course, that it's more than one building - not just the personal home space, but garages, offices for him and his staff and Tipper and her staff, space for security teams, and (to me, at least) frivolous buildings like a pool house (which probably doesn't use much, but we should be complete.) Do you work? Any energy costs for your office? Your shop? What would a business with 20 employees spend on electricity each month? I don't know, but I guarantee that it's not zero. It's not just a house, it's a business headquarters.
And let's remember that he's not an average guy - he's a rich public figure who has a lot of irons in a lot of fires, and who can afford to have a nice house.
If that's silly to you, then you might look into a humor upgrade.:D

[High C]

...If that's silly to you, then you might look into a humor upgrade.:D

Duke, it's worse than silly. It's the most ridiculous thing I've come across in ages. If the goal is to consume less energy, we can't accomplish it by exempting our worst hogs in exchange for a cash payoff. I don't begrudge the guy his big house and staff, nor his luxury lifestyle, but when he makes his living preaching that the rest of us should suck it up and do with less, he should do likewise, lest he look the fool. He DOES look the fool. It's not the first time.

There are actually websites that will take your money and grant you "carbon neutral" absolution. Wish I'd thought of it first! Tell you what, you send me $386, and I'll plant trees and shrubs with the money, every cent, no personal salary off the top, right in the front yard. I'll even stick a little green sign in the ground with your name on it. That should balance out your own admitted failure to "do more" nicely. :rolleyes: :D And by not taking a salary, my return rate will be 100%. I bet the online absolvers can't match that!

[Keith Wilson]

If the goal is to consume less energy, we can't accomplish it by exempting our worst hogs in exchange for a cash payoff. I don't begrudge the guy his big house and staff, nor his luxury lifestyle, but when he makes his living preaching that the rest of us should suck it up and do with less, he should do likewise.He "preaches" not austerity, but the dangers of climate change caused by CO2 emissions. If he gets his electricity from wind power, he is doing exactly what he preaches.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Duke, it's worse than silly. It's the most ridiculous thing I've come across in ages. If the goal is to consume less energy, we can't accomplish it by exempting our worst hogs in exchange for a cash payoff. I don't begrudge the guy his big house and staff, nor his luxury lifestyle, but when he makes his living preaching that the rest of us should suck it up and do with less, he should do likewise, lest he look the fool. He DOES look the fool. It's not the first time.

There are actually websites that will take your money and grant you "carbon neutral" absolution. Wish I'd thought of it first! Tell you what, you send me $386, and I'll plant trees and shrubs with the money, every cent, no personal salary off the top, right in the front yard. I'll even stick a little green sign in the ground with your name on it. That should balance out your own admitted failure to "do more" nicely. :rolleyes: :D And by not taking a salary, my return rate will be 100%. I bet the online absolvers can't match that!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/rush.jpg

[Robmill0605]

Duke, it's worse than silly. It's the most ridiculous thing I've come across in ages. If the goal is to consume less energy, we can't accomplish it by exempting our worst hogs in exchange for a cash payoff. I don't begrudge the guy his big house and staff, nor his luxury lifestyle, but when he makes his living preaching that the rest of us should suck it up and do with less, he should do likewise, lest he look the fool. He DOES look the fool. It's not the first time.

There are actually websites that will take your money and grant you "carbon neutral" absolution. Wish I'd thought of it first! Tell you what, you send me $386, and I'll plant trees and shrubs with the money, every cent, no personal salary off the top, right in the front yard. I'll even stick a little green sign in the ground with your name on it. That should balance out your own admitted failure to "do more" nicely. :rolleyes: :D And by not taking a salary, my return rate will be 100%. I bet the online absolvers can't match that!

Why would anyone be surprised by thE buying of " green credits"?
It's a liberal's dream. They don't have to actually practise what they preach, demanding instead that YOU conserve electricity , park your private jet and SUV while they seek absolution by playing this game of buying "credits".
You want credibility Al?
Then park your private jet and consume what YOU expect us do.
Just more liberalism,
I care, you don't.....
I'm not going to change MY lifestyle but I'll pay a guilt tax to fend off one little word from you .
The word is:
HYPOCRITE.

[Uncle Duke]

HighC - those are fine opinions but you're not addressing any questions here - for example, what are the energy costs where you work? This isn't just a personal home, it's a business - an enormous home office with staff and all that implies.
The missing info here, in all the articles, is what is the per-square-foot energy usage, and how does it compare to average residential or business usage. I don't have the answer to that and I'm assuming that you don't either.
I still don't understand why you feel the need to castigate someone for encouraging/funding their local utility company to purchase renewable energy. That is not the same thing as you landscaping your yard on other peoples money.

edited to add:
Robmill0605,
Note that he is not buying 'offset credits' - he is paying more actual dollars each month to fund his utilities' purchase of actual energy from renewable source producers. That is a very different thing, as I'm sure you know.
And he does, by the way, drive a hybrid. A hybrid SUV, but still a hybrid.

[High C]

HighC - those are fine opinions but you're not addressing any questions here - for example, what are the energy costs where you work? This isn't just a personal home, it's a business - an enormous home office with staff and all that implies.
The missing info here, in all the articles, is what is the per-square-foot energy usage, and how does it compare to average residential or business usage. I don't have the answer to that and I'm assuming that you don't either....

What does Al do for a living these days?

Staff, servants, security? How many? Who are these people and what are they doing on Al's property?

Anyone who wants to better understand this "carbon credits" thing, have a look at this site: Yes, they're serious. http://www.terrapass.com/

I wish I'd thought of it first. :D

[Uncle Duke]

HighC says:

I wish I'd thought
Yes. Well. So do I.
Diversions, those you are good at. Analytical thought? Uhmm...maybe not so much. The fact that you can only "ask" and not "answer" is interesting. Also interesting is that you have to change the subject when asked to clarify or to address the subject at hand.
Nice, though, that you are agreeing about Al's energy costs - that they are NOT offsets. Thanks.

[High C]

HighC says:

Yes. Well. So do I.
Diversions, those you are good at. Analytical thought? Uhmm...maybe not so much. The fact that you can only "ask" and not "answer" is interesting. Also interesting is that you have to change the subject when asked to clarify or to address the subject at hand.
Nice, though, that you are agreeing about Al's energy costs - that they are NOT offsets. Thanks.

I see you give up. Just as well. You're trying to defend the indefensible.

[mdh]

President Bush's ranch house is "greener" than AlGore's house. Imagine that.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Aside from Kool Aid boy, does anyone doubt that Al Gore would have greater energy costs than the average person? I suppose he could forget his political standing in the world, renounce his former vice presidency, get his brain cleansed of national security information so he could send the Secret Service boys home, and just garden for the rest of his life...organically of course.

Hypocrisy? I think not, but who am I to question some fat dolt from Louisiana whose thinking resembles that of a poor student at the elementary level.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I for one congratulate Mr Gore on his work... Well done Al.:cool:

[High C]

...I for one congratulate Mr Gore on his work... Well done Al.:cool:

:D Al has been busted up one side and down the other. He's a laughing stock over this. Go ahead and try to defend it, dig away. :D

Whatsa matter Peter? Why can't you express yourself without resorting to childish name calling and insult? Perhaps if you'd stuck it out in school a bit longer you'd be better able to post some real zingers! :D

[WX]

Meanwhile the glaciers keep melting, doesn't matter whether you call it Gobal Warming or Climate Change....it's getting warmer and you better get use to it because the governments of the world are not going to do anything worthwhile about it. If you want to believe it's not happening, well that's your right...there's no law against stupidity.
But ask yourself this, if it is of no concern, why did Exxon lean on the Canadian government and stop them from introducing controls on carbon emissions?

[High C]

Meanwhile the glaciers keep melting, doesn't matter whether you call it Gobal Warming or Climate Change....it's getting warmer....If you want to believe it's not happening, well that's your right...

I haven't said it's not happening. I've said that Al Gore and countless others are whipping up unfounded hysteria and misusing the issue as a power and money grab. There was yet another report today, from some UN group, screaming that the sky will fall unless a NEW GLOBAL TAX is imposed.

Yep, new taxes equals cooler temperatures. :rolleyes: Sorry, I've read all the hype, the reports, the news articles 'til I'm blue in the face. While it is clear that there has been a very small warming of average temperatures in the past half century or so, it is not at all clear that there is anything unusual about it, or that man has caused it, or that man can change it. For every one of you who cries, "there is no longer any debate", I can bury you in well credentialed climatologists and meteorologists who say otherwise. So don't even bother going there.

And it always comes around to the same old thing, the same solution the left always has for everything...one size fits all...RAISE TAXES!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't be a chump.

[Keith Wilson]

Sorry, I've read all the hype, the reports, the news articles 'til I'm blue in the face.You could try reading the science. Oh, but it's merely a plot to whip up unfounded hysteria in order to frighten everybody into accepting increased government power and higher taxes. A communist plot, or something very like. Because capitalism alone cannot deal with problems of the commons, such problems therefore must be imaginary, and those who bring them up must have corrupt motives. :rolleyes:

It might be helpful to separate discussion of the nature of the problem from discussion of what should be done, at least a little. I'd really suggest you read the 2007 IPCC report that I referenced; it is as close to a consensus position as one gets, and it specifies what is known and what isn't VERY carefully.

[stumpbumper]

I don't begrudge the guy his big house and staff, nor his luxury lifestyle, but when he makes his living preaching that the rest of us should suck it up and do with less, he should do likewise, lest he look the fool. He DOES look the fool. It's not the first time.

I don't thinks it's so much that he's asking us to suck it up. He is just taking the the lead in encouraging changes in technology and conservation to limit greenhouse emissions, and feels there is some urgency involved. When he began putting this presentation together he was probably convinced his political career was over and had no motives in that direction. He probably still doesn't short of a severe "draft Gore" movement. It's ok to disagree, but perhaps you should also grow gills and web feet, or hope your descendants do.:rolleyes: :D

Lynn

[High C]

You could try reading the science....I'd really suggest you read the 2007 IPCC report that I referenced....

Sigghhhhh, as I said, I have read these reports until I'm blue in the face. I think the IPCC report isn't even out yet, just a summary, the whole thing due in March? Even this has been widely misreported. The new report (summary) actually LOWERS predictions of sea level increases compared to their previous report from what, two or three years ago? Have YOU read it?

Whenever these reports, these scientists, these activists, head inevitably to TAX increases as a way to control the weather, sorry, that shoots credibility all to hell. I realize the IPCC doesn't offer policy solutions, but others take their work and use it to do so. Today's UN group certainly did with yet another call for a NEW GLOBAL TAX.

It wouldn't hurt for them (ahem...Al) to practice what they preach, too, if they expect to be taken seriously.

[Bob Smalser]

Talk about an inconvenient truth! :rolleyes:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

And there are people who take this clown seriously?

The WSJ takes your report one further with a comparison to the Bush ranch. What a hoot. And what a phony Gore is.



"An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's global-warming horror flick, picked up an Oscar the other night for Best Documentary. Yesterday the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued an inconvenient report on Gore's own personal "carbon footprint." The center obtained utility records from Gore's mansion "located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville":

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

The Tennessean reports, however, that Gore is buying his indulgences:

Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. . . .

"Every family has a different carbon footprint," said Kalee Krider, a spokeswoman for Gore. The Gores' 10,000-square-foot house on Lynnwood Boulevard has a large one.

The Green Power Switch program isn't all that Gore and his wife, Tipper, are doing, Krider said.

They use compact fluorescent light bulbs and are in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption, she said.

Their car? A Lexis hybrid SUV.

"They, of course, also do the carbon emissions offset," she said.

That means figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power.

Not every wealthy politician lives in a vast private mansion, and TreeHugger.com reports on one who lives more simply:

Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive."

Of course we don't begrudge Gore his life of luxury--only his sanctimonious insistence that the rest of us sacrifice our comforts to the dubious god of global warming. And there's no reason he couldn't live in a smaller house and throw his money at solar power.

The New York Post, meanwhile, reports that some celebrities are getting their global-warming indulgences free:

Hollywood's wealthy liberals can now avoid any guilt they might feel for consuming so much non-renewable fossil fuel in their private jets, their SUVs, and their multiple air-conditioned mansions. This year's Oscar goodie bag contained gift certificates representing 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass, which describes itself as a "carbon offset retailer."

The 100,000 pounds "are enough to balance out an average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter," a press release from TerraPass asserts. "For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on commercial airlines, 20 hours in a private jet and a large house in Los Angeles.

The greenhouse gas reductions will be accomplished through TerraPass' [program] of verified wind energy, cow power [collecting methane from manure] and efficiency projects." Voila, guilt-free consumption!

Come to think of it, Gore was at the Oscars, so he probably got one of those "goodie bags" too.

Then there's this, from the New York Times:

Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.

Literal limousine liberals!

[The Bigfella]

There's five of us here and often six and we are under the US average - and we don't use any gas or oil heating. Methinks his street cred just took a beating.

[PeterSibley]

Bob ...stop laughing and THINK for a minute .It doesn't matter ,from a Global Warming /CO2 perspective how much energy you burn ....it's were it comes from ,how it's generated .If that doesn't make sense ...do some reading .

[The Bigfella]

I did some research work on mining a year or so back - did you know the average American's mining products consumption is just under 50,000lbs per capita per annum?

[LeeG]

I bet there's a picture of Jane Fonda near the house

[George.]

And it always comes around to the same old thing, the same solution the left always has for everything...one size fits all...RAISE TAXES!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



High C: you have it backwards.

What the Left wants to do is not a tax. A carbon tax is the proposal of conservatives and of orthodox, free-market economists. It involves the least amount of government interference - short of doing nothing, of course.

What the Left proposes is a heap of regulations, restrictions, and government-regulated carbon-trading schemes - a full platter for lobbies, special interests, regulators, and the sort of people who think that a 1000-page rule book is better than a one-page market-based solution.

If people like you let themselves become confused on that score, they will prevail.

[Milo Christensen]

Bob ...stop laughing and THINK for a minute .It doesn't matter ,from a Global Warming /CO2 perspective how much energy you burn ....it's were it comes from ,how it's generated .If that doesn't make sense ...do some reading .

Peter, with all due respect to your environmental principles, that's the stupidest response I've read about energy use, and this forum's chock full of really stupid responses on energy use. Look, I know it might be hard for you, but instead of guzzling the Kool-Aid while gazing raptly with religious adoration at a Powerpoint presentation, take a couple of days and a calculator and do the math on this guy's personal energy use extrapolated to whatever population you care to work with living at this level of conspicuous consumption. Feel free to call on a third or fourth grade student to help you with the math.

Al Gore's extravagant, exorbitant energy use is so incredibly hypocritical as to be despicable. But people are seriously calling on him to run for President?

[Bob Smalser]

Buckingham frigging Palace uses less energy.

If the Gore family hasn't heard about insulation, let's ask Chad to send a couple contractors over there to talk about retrofitting old mansions with vapor barriers and fiberglass. New windows, too.

The old house excuse is just that.

[TomF]

...The old house excuse is just that.Nope. Old houses can be made more energy efficient, sure. But not as efficient as a new build.

I've got a 150 year old house. Our walls have blown-in insulation, I've upgraded attic insulation and put in an ultra-high-efficiency boiler for our hot water heat. Replaced some of the rads too, with high efficiency units. And I've either replaced windows, or repaired/tightened/weatherstripped the original windows and their storms. FWIW, a well weatherstripped single pane window with the glazing and paint in good repair, with a well fitting and well maintained storm, is more energy efficient than the average double pane window.

I still pay much more for heat than a comparable sized new-build house designed with energy efficiency in mind.

[Keith Wilson]

Whenever these reports, these scientists, these activists, head inevitably to TAX increases as a way to control the weather, sorry, that shoots credibility all to hell. I realize the IPCC doesn't offer policy solutions, but others take their work and use it to do so. HighC, try, please try to separate discussion of the problem from discussion of what to do about it. They are really two very different questions, although obviously connected. Climate change from human CO2 emissions is something occurring in the physical world, and is either true or not despite what any of us think, and despite the virtues or vices of Al Gore or any other person on earth. The evidence is starting to look pretty good that it's real. The IPCC report, which as you correctly said, makes no policy recommendations at all, predicts pretty dramatic changes over the medium term with fairly high confidence. Yes, it's just a summary at this point, but even the summary is complex enough, and is probably all of the report that any of us will bother to read. Here it is again if anyone wants to look at it: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Let us assume just for the sake of argument that the problem is real and serious. Let us also assume that it will have a very significant economic as well as ecological impact over, say, the next 50 years. Do you think we should do anything now? Wait until the picture becomes clearer? Do nothing?

[Milo Christensen]

Keith: The data presented in the IPCC report contains a solution to the problem. Do you understand climate change well enough to tell us what it might be?

[ishmael]

Assuming climate change is the impending apocalypse some espouse, they surely couldn't have found a worse spokesman than Al Gore. He's personally hypocritical about the issue, and he's about as exciting as toenail clippings. Oscar here we come! Lord, there is something fundamentally wrong with this picture.

[High C]

...please try to separate discussion of the problem from discussion of what to do about it. ...

When those who are trying to convince us that there is a problem immediately make the absurd jump to taxation as the solution, they lose credibility.

If those who believe GW is being caused by man expect to be believed, they have to get the charlatans off the stage. Instead, they're being praised as heroes and visionaries. People like Al Gore, and the con men who sell "carbon credits" online to assuage the guilt of hypocritical energy hogs are doing more to increase skepticism than a battalion of Exxon PR people ever could.

If you really believe this is a man made problem and that man can make it better, you'd better reign in the con men, fast.

[Dan McCosh]

FWIW, here are the actual Oscar winners, the people who made the film:

“An Inconvenient Truth” (Paramount Classics and Participant Productions)
A Lawrence Bender/Laurie David Production
Davis Guggenheim

(from official Oscar web site)

Granted, this is a minor technicality, but it is interesting how the subject of the film has taken over the publicity.

[Keith Wilson]

Keith: The data presented in the IPCC report contains a solution to the problem. Do you understand climate change well enough to tell us what it might be?More smoke. ;) It has other disadvantages, however.
When those who are trying to convince us that there is a problem immediately make the absurd jump to taxation as the solution, they lose credibility.Whether or not a carbon tax is absurd, this is faulty logic. One can be completely right about the nature of the problem, but propose a bad solution.

A thought experiment: What if we instituted a revenue-neutral carbon tax? Let's say we eliminated all sales taxes, and replaced them with an equivalent tax on all goods proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted in their manufacture?

[Bob Smalser]

I've got a 150 year old house. Our walls have blown-in insulation, I've upgraded attic insulation and put in an ultra-high-efficiency boiler for our hot water heat. Replaced some of the rads too, with high efficiency units. And I've either replaced windows, or repaired/tightened/weatherstripped the original windows and their storms.

With Gore's money you could remove plaster and lath, seal the sheathing, add pinkboard and batt and do the job just as well as any new home.

I don't know why he didn't. Maybe the cost-benefit strung out farther than he plans on living there.

As I said, I suepect Queen E. does better. Bush certainly does.

[Milo Christensen]

Quote:
Keith: The data presented in the IPCC report contains a solution to the problem. Do you understand climate change well enough to tell us what it might be?



More smoke. ;)

Just checking. The significant temperature reducing effect of anthropogenic aerosols just sort of jumps out, doesn't it? Why doesn't anybody take this seriously?

I can think of several scenarios where having a climate altering aerosol program in place might be our only salvation. Particularly over the Arctic.

[Keith Wilson]

I agree. It might give us enough time to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions without huge disruptions. The Greens wouldn't like it, and there's always the risk of huge inintended consequences, but still . . . . .

[Uncle Duke]

Bob Smalser:

With Gore's money you could remove plaster and lath, seal the sheathing, add pinkboard and batt and do the job just as well as any new home.
I don't know why he didn't.
One of the articles referenced above indicates that they are in the process of renovating. I would assume that they are building in any improvements that they can. It would be interesting to see what the energy footprint is after they finish.

[TimH]

I dont think Gores household electricity use amounts to sh*t. How much energy is being wasted in a futile war over oil. The money being wasted there would pay everyone in the countries electricity bill forever.
Plus by paying extra for the green energy he isnt even contributing to the Co2 problem now is he?
We have that same program here and it aint cheap.

[Uncle Duke]

HighC states, yesterday:

There was yet another report today, from some UN group, screaming that the sky will fall unless a NEW GLOBAL TAX is imposed.
I've looked for information supporting this, but can't find anything. Can you provide a link?

[High C]

HighC states, yesterday:

I've looked for information supporting this, but can't find anything. Can you provide a link?

Happy to oblige... http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm

[Uncle Duke]

Thanks for the link. I was confused, I guess, because you seemed to indicate that this study recommended a global personal tax:

And it always comes around to the same old thing, the same solution the left always has for everything...one size fits all...RAISE TAXES!!!The study, as opposed to the IPCC one, actually recommends solutions (to a problem which you don't believe exists). First, that a global temperature ceiling be considered and, second, that a 'carbon tax' be implemented to encourage high polluters to lower the amount of carbon which they emit. It's a shame that this is always referred to as a 'tax', when it is really a 'fine' for exceeding limits. Economists and policy-wonks call this a 'tax' because it is a type of mechanism known as a "Pigovian tax" - one which addresses the costs to parties external to productive transactions, such as generating energy. This kind of tax says that producers are encouraged to lower their emissions through a penalty on exceeding negotiated limits - not through taxing the public - to address the damage caused. Very often these fines can be offset through 'trading schemes' (carbon emissions trading, in this case) so that you can 'buy' emissions 'goodness' from someone who is under the limit - directly rewarding low-emissions producers while still working toward limits which reduce pollution.

Yep, new taxes equals cooler temperatures.:rolleyes:Rephrase this as "fining heavy polluters equals reduced pollution" and it becomes more meaningful.
If you think of it as a 'fine', and not a 'tax', you'll be fine.

[ishmael]

The issue of Al. Frankly, if I'm gonna hear a man preach at me I'm gonna want him to be up and clear in his personal life. Gore isn't. I don't care what kind of credits he's buying, he lives in a mansion, rides around in SUVs, and is cossened from town to town in a private jet, all the while preaching to the peons that wasting energy is bad. The equation is missing an equal sign.

You want people who really changed the world because they were in the moment, and true to their convictions look to Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, or Joan of Arc. Gore is a harlequin by comparison. He may hold honest conviction, but I want to see it in his life, not in some idiot propaganda film.

[Uncle Duke]

Jack, I don't see anyone here who is comparing Al Gore to Joan of Arc or Mother Teresa - just some people saying that some of the things which he is doing are good. And I don't think that Al Gore compares himself to Joan or Abraham or Martin, either. Let's not go overboard on this.
Some corrections - (1) he is not buying credits, he is directly funding renewable energy sources and (2) yes, he does drive an SUV but it's a hybrid gas/electric SUV.

[High C]

Thanks for the link. I was confused, I guess, because you seemed to indicate that this study recommended a global personal tax:....

Don't try to play cute games with my words, Duke. The word "personal" is yours, not mine. Taxes are paid by taxpayers. I'm a tax payer. How 'bout you?

Call it penalties, fines, taxes, donations, whatever you like, it's the same thing. They call it a tax, BTW.

[TomF]

..Call it penalties, fines, taxes, donations, whatever you like, it's the same thing. They call it a tax, BTW.a carbon tax is called a carbon tax, true. But then economists use the word "rent" in ways that are uncommon for the rest of us too.

If I run a stop sign and have to pay a ticket, is that a tax?

[Keith Wilson]

HighC, once again, penalizing CO2 emissions does not require raising taxes. A thought experiment: What about a revenue-neutral carbon tax? Let's say we eliminated all sales taxes, and replaced them with an equivalent tax on all goods proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted in their manufacture or use?

[Uncle Duke]

HighC says:

Don't try to play cute games with my words, Duke. The word "personal" is yours, not mine.
I never said it was your word.
But you also say:

Taxes are paid by taxpayers...
So when you were venting about a "...NEW GLOBAL TAX..." you did not mean something to be paid by taxpayers? Either you believe that taxes are paid by taxpayers (persons) or perhaps you didn't understand what a 'carbon tax' really is?

Call it penalties, fines, taxes, donations, whatever you like, it's the same thing.
I'm sure that even you do not believe that "tax=donation=fine=penalty". I'm not surprised that you are saying it, though.

They call it a tax.
"They" are economists and the like. My previous post clearly explains why that is an incorrect phrase, at least in terms of lay-usage. Lots of words have slightly different meanings depending on the speaker and the intended audience.
I'm very surprised that you didn't find something cute to say about the word "pigovian'...it was a great opportunity for you, at no charge.:D

[Dan McCosh]

HighC, once again, penalizing CO2 emissions does not require raising taxes. A thought experiment: What about a revenue-neutral carbon tax? Let's say we eliminated all sales taxes, and replaced them with an equivalent tax on all goods proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted in their manufacture or use?

At what point in the process of manufacturing, growing, or building, would you collect the tax? And how would you get the whole world to participate?

[High C]

...So when you were venting about a "...NEW GLOBAL TAX..."

You're still at it, playing games. It's dishonest. I won't waste any more of my time on a game player beyond this brief correction.

The global tax term is not my invention. Those were the words of John Holdren, who was a member of the panel who did the report.

[Uncle Duke]

Holdren:

Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. "We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach," he said.HighC:

There was yet another report today, from some UN group, screaming that the sky will fall unless a NEW GLOBAL TAX is imposedfollowed by:

And it always comes around to the same old thing, the same solution the left always has for everything...one size fits all...RAISE TAXES!!!Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that your synopsis of Holdren's comments accurately reflect what he actually said. There's no game-playing in that. And just for precision, let's note that Holdren did not say "global tax" - the author of the article did.

[LeeG]

The issue of Al. Frankly, if I'm gonna hear a man preach at me I'm gonna want him to be up and clear in his personal life. Gore isn't. I don't care what kind of credits he's buying, he lives in a mansion, rides around in SUVs, and is cossened from town to town in a private jet, all the while preaching to the peons that wasting energy is bad. The equation is missing an equal sign.

You want people who really changed the world because they were in the moment, and true to their convictions look to Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, or Joan of Arc. Gore is a harlequin by comparison. He may hold honest conviction, but I want to see it in his life, not in some idiot propaganda film.



The inability to seperate out a message from the messager is a characteristic of children unable to hold conflicting abstractions in their head. Somewhere around age 11-14 kids learn to not judge a book by it's cover.

you see Gore is not presenting a religion worth following. If that's what you need then you really should not see the documentary for fear of being converted.

[Keith Wilson]

At what point in the process of manufacturing, growing, or building, would you collect the tax? And how would you get the whole world to participate?Haven't a clue. It was a hypothetical case, not a bill I'm going to introduce in the Senate. I doubt it would be any more complicated than our current income tax, however. Getting the rest of the world to sign on - yeah, that's a big problem. The point was that it is would not be necessary to raise taxes if we decide to penalize CO2, emissions, just move them around.

[Keith Wilson]

At what point in the process of manufacturing, growing, or building, would you collect the tax? And how would you get the whole world to participate?Haven't a clue. It was a hypothetical case, not a bill I'm going to introduce in the Senate. I doubt it would be any more complicated than our current income tax, however. Getting the rest of the world to sign on - yeah, that's a big problem. The point was that it is not necessary to raise taxes if we decide to penalize CO2 emissions. We could just move them around.

[PeterSibley]

Peter, with all due respect to your environmental principles, that's the stupidest response I've read about energy use, and this forum's chock full of really stupid responses on energy use. Look, I know it might be hard for you, but instead of guzzling the Kool-Aid while gazing raptly with religious adoration at a Powerpoint presentation, take a couple of days and a calculator and do the math on this guy's personal energy use extrapolated to whatever population you care to work with living at this level of conspicuous consumption. Feel free to call on a third or fourth grade student to help you with the math.

Al Gore's extravagant, exorbitant energy use is so incredibly hypocritical as to be despicable. But people are seriously calling on him to run for President?

Thanks for the compliments .:D The whole point of the argument is energy use ...true ? Not how much but where it comes from .Bob was comparing the Bush and Gore consumptions and saying they are equal .They're not .It's a matter of how the energy is generated .Please try to understand that , it's not that difficult .

Personally I don't care about Gore , he'll never be my President and Bush never has been .Its about 2 rich men and how they choose to spend their money .One buys coal generated electricity ...the other Green Power .You think thats the same thing ???? You give every indication of intelligence .Think about it .

[High C]

...Bob was comparing the Bush and Gore consumptions and saying they are equal....

Bob, is that what you were saying?

As for this "green power" business, would someone please explain how an individual home that is connected to the power grid can consume different electricity than the home next door?

[WX]

Have you heard of Frank Luntz?

Read on http://www.desmogblog.com/bushs-chief-climate-spinmaster-tells-harper-how-its-done

[TimH]

Bob, is that what you were saying?

As for this "green power" business, would someone please explain how an individual home that is connected to the power grid can consume different electricity than the home next door?
The power company takes the money and buys power from wind farms and the like.

Green power is electricity created from such as wind, solar, and biomass. Washington State law (RCW 19.29A.090 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.29A.090)) requires electric utilities to offer their customers renewable "green" power options.

From the power co. web site:

The electricity generated from the renewable resources that you support is put into the Northwest power-supply grid along with electricity from all of our other resources. Much like water or natural gas, it isn't possible to differentiate the sources at the point of delivery. By choosing Green Power, you are supporting the environment and helping to increase the proportion of renewable energy that is available to the entire system.


So Gore is contributing his 30k a year or whatever it was toward the adding of green power sources to the grid.

[BrianW]

So rich people can relax, and buy their way to green nirvana.

It's good to be King. :)

[PeterSibley]

Yup Brian ...it would be great to be King ...me I'm not , especially income wise .I buy green Power from my local electricity supply authourity who in turn buy that amount from a wind ,hydro or biomass burnering power supplier .Here the scheme is acredited by the government and kept honest by what used to be called SEDA http://www.deus.nsw.gov.au/index.asp

I reckon its a great way for greenies , like me , to put there money where their mouth is .It costs more but I'm willing to pay because I think it's something worth paying for .Capitalism in action.

[WX]

Who said wombats are stupid?

http://www.global-mindshift.org/memes/wombat.swf

[George Jung]

The electricity generated from the renewable resources that you support is put into the Northwest power-supply grid along with electricity from all of our other resources. Much like water or natural gas, it isn't possible to differentiate the sources at the point of delivery. By choosing Green Power, you are supporting the environment and helping to increase the proportion of renewable energy that is available to the entire system.


So Gore is contributing his 30k a year or whatever it was toward the adding of green power sources to the grid.


I thought this was pretty interesting, so I asked a friend who works for the local power company about it. He laughed, and noted that it looked like a great way to assuage some peoples guilt, and separate them from their bank accounts. His take - if the alternative sources for power are to be successful - is they will have to be efficient, and competitive; or there will have to be a large-scale commitment to use of these energy productions based on environmental impact. Small scale, with a few individuals buying or paying extra 'because' won't have an impact.

[TimH]

Small scale, with a few individuals buying or paying extra 'because' won't have an impact.

Thats why large scale individuals like Gore are helpful. His demand is worth several normal households.

[High C]

Thanks for that, Tim, 'twas very helpful. I can see that there might be some value to that approach, though not enough to overcome broadscale wasteful energy practices.

Somebody has to use less. Who is it going to be, AL and Arnold and other rich energy hogs, or just us po' folks?

It really is an incredible blind spot for Al that he uses so much. His electricity use is just the tip of that iceberg. His natural gas usage was almost again as much, and he has another home in the Washington area! Not to mention the jet travel..... I keep thinking of crusaders like Ralph Nader and Jerry "Moonbean" Brown. They made their point by example. They made it well.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

If I buy a shotgun and blow High C's head off. But as they are hauling me off to jail I announce that murder is wrong. Does it make murder any less wrong because I'm a hypocrite ?

[WX]

if you want to do something useful about power consumption, get a dozen or so Solar panels on your roof and feed the power back into the grid.

[Bob Smalser]

Bob, is that what you were saying?

As for this "green power" business, would someone please explain how an individual home that is connected to the power grid can consume different electricity than the home next door?

The Gore family consumes over 20 times the electricity of a typical family. Not two, three or five, but 20. An apology that says they are paying for "green" electricity is absurd, however sophisticated the Ponzi Scheme of credits. When my solar installation is complete on our new, super-insulated, wood-heated house, by law I get to sell electricity back to the power company...but that doesn't provide me any moral justification to waste any of it. Someone else needs it.

It doesn't matter whether it comes from wind, water, sun, oil, peat, wood or coal, energy costs significant amounts of scarce resources to produce and deliver, and always involves some environmental damage in the process, including even the indirect costs of mining copper and aluminum. To consume excessively is to waste resources that will be needed by others on this planet either today or in the future. To consume excessively while counseling others to do otherwise is hypocrisy.

But Gore has always been something of a huckster and charlatan, so why should I be surprised now?

[PeterSibley]

The electricity generated from the renewable resources that you support is put into the Northwest power-supply grid along with electricity from all of our other resources. Much like water or natural gas, it isn't possible to differentiate the sources at the point of delivery. By choosing Green Power, you are supporting the environment and helping to increase the proportion of renewable energy that is available to the entire system.


So Gore is contributing his 30k a year or whatever it was toward the adding of green power sources to the grid.


I thought this was pretty interesting, so I asked a friend who works for the local power company about it. He laughed, and noted that it looked like a great way to assuage some peoples guilt, and separate them from their bank accounts. His take - if the alternative sources for power are to be successful - is they will have to be efficient, and competitive; or there will have to be a large-scale commitment to use of these energy productions based on environmental impact. Small scale, with a few individuals buying or paying extra 'because' won't have an impact.
Probably true ...soooo , you're suggesting we wait for governments to legistlate for carbon neutral energy production? A very unfree market suggestion :D .
I agree individual action is unlikely to make a huge difference ,but I'm willing to pay so why not ? If wife beating were legal and I decided not to beat mine ...it would be useless from an overall statistical basis but she might be pleased :).Lousy analogy ,I know , but some illustration of my point .

[PeterSibley]

[quote=Bob Smalser;1513983]The Gore family consumes over 20 times the electricity of a typical family. An apology that says they are paying for "green" electricity is absurd, however sophisticated the Ponzi Scheme of credits. When my solar installation is complete on our new house, by law I get to sell electricity back to the power company...that doesn't provide me any moral justification to waste any of it. Someone else needs it.

It doesn't matter whether it comes from wind, water, sun, oil, peat or coal, energy costs significant amounts of scarce resources to produce and deliver, and involves some environmental damage in the process, including even the indirect costs of mining copper and aluminum. To consume excessively is to waste resources that will be needed by others on this planet today or in the future. To consume excessively while counseling others to do otherwise is hypocrisy.

/quote]
Some good points but the basic one of CO2 producing generation v non Co2 producing was not dealt with .I also dislike waste but that wasn't what I was talking about , just the equating of methods of generation .Personally I have no interest in Gore or any other presidential possibility , I am however inerested in the production and use of alternate power .Who uses it and how is another topic .

[WX]

Gore is a polititian...huckster and charlatan go with the turf, BUT he is trying to do something worth while. That's more than you can say for Bush.
There seems to be some interesting developments happening on the west coast of the US though.

[mdh]

Bush haters look at this from treehuggers.com




Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.” Hmm, back to that vote about the Greenest President? ::off Grid via ::EcoRazzi

[ishmael]

"The inability to seperate out a message from the messager is a characteristic of children unable to hold conflicting abstractions in their head. Somewhere around age 11-14 kids learn to not judge a book by it's cover.'

Lee,

Big messages are tied up with the messenger, almost always. As I said on another thread, Ralph Nader, though we disagree often, holds my attention and respect because he attempts to live what he preaches. Gore is an Elmer Gantry, and not even a very good one. When a man says one thing and does another, not by occasional mistake but by consistent habit, I call him a hypocrite. His message may be the next sliced bread, but no one with a sense of ethics is going to listen. That's not misreading a book because of its cover, that's not reading the book because the author is obviously a charlatan.

Let's be clear here, we ain't talking Twain's "Tom Sawyer", a nice bit of fiction by a self-confessed conflation artist who never pretended otherwise. We're talking the preaching of the end of the world by a man who claims to be factual and serious. That's okay too, but I'd like to know the last time he rode a bus.

Would that it were different. I think the issue needs some honest spokesmen. Putting the chips on Gore seems a very poor choice.

[BrianW]

I reckon its a great way for greenies , like me , to put there money where their mouth is .It costs more but I'm willing to pay because I think it's something worth paying for .Capitalism in action.

I'm all for capitalism Peter. You go brother!

[Dan McCosh]

Haven't a clue. It was a hypothetical case, not a bill I'm going to introduce in the Senate. I doubt it would be any more complicated than our current income tax, however. Getting the rest of the world to sign on - yeah, that's a big problem. The point was that it is not necessary to raise taxes if we decide to penalize CO2 emissions. We could just move them around.

It is an interesting concept, but like most of the debate on this issue, nobody seems to be thinking it through.

[Garrett Lowell]

Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion in Nashville and he owns a 4,000 square foot "McMansion" in Arlington, VA. He owns stock in Oxy Petroleum, and up until a few years ago he was receiving money from a Zinc mining company on his property-a mining company that has been cited for polluting rivers in Tennessee. Gore didn't sign up for "green" energy until after the story broke in the MSM that he wasn't actually signed up for "green" energy. Gore and Tipper are the epitome of Limousine Liberal ideology.

This is what you may call an inconvenient truth.

[hansp77]

IMO AG's high use of energy is more stupid, rather than hypocritical.
If he is wasting energy, Green or not, I disagree with that, but mainly, this just looks plain silly of him, and despite his balancing out of his GHG contribution by purchasing Green Power, and by carbon offsetting, it is stupid becuase he has presented a case that can be latched onto by people who deny global warming and/or fail/refuse to understand just what Green Power and carbon offsetting is.

The point has been made, and missed and missed again.
Green power is something very different to fossil fuel power (the materiality of the electricity that comes out of your socket is the same, but the results/repercussions/follow-on-effects of such are very different).

To try to demonstrate this, I will put it in a different analogy.
Lets say AG's message was only about water- in a water crisis world- about water use, conservation and recycling. Part of this message is of course, that people should use less water, however-
Lets now compare AG's water use to GWB's. For example, AG uses 100 megaliters a month, and GWB uses 30 megaliters a month.
However, while AG uses a lot more, everything that he uses is recylced and then used again- while GWB's is let off down the storm drain. AG chooses to recycle his water at a greater cost per megaliter than GWB buys it for. Of course in this analogy, we have to account for the cost in water (energy) that it takes for AG to recycle his water (the energy inputs required for the green energy generation- building a windmill etc). So lets say, in order for AG to recycle 100 megaliters, 10 megaliters of water needs to go to waste.
So while it would appear that AG is more wastefull of water than GWB, in this purely hypothetical example, the opposite is in fact true.

Now I don't know the exact break down of how much energy inputs are needed to create the infrastructure for renewable power generation- of course this would vary between different technologies, solar, hydro, wind, etc... and may not be relevant.
There would of course come a point where a Green Power consumer could through massive energy use consume more conventional power (via the inputs into the tech to make the Green Power) than a conservative conventional power consumer.

With available Green Power of course, comes the possibility that the energy inputs needed to build Green Power technologies and infrastructure, can be sourced from Green Power itself. So instead of a 10% input of conventional power (purely hypothetic figure) we would be down to 1%... and on, and on...

Basically, I like a few other of the Australians here, pay more for Green Power for a number of reasons. This aint a case of the rich buying absolution, this is me putting my very limited money where my mouth (and study) is.
It reduces my GHG emmision from electricity usage to close to zero (relatively speaking of course because the other option for my area is "old Hazelwood" an over 40 year old very dirty coal plant).
I also buy it because it acts as a social forcing to steer industry and government into building and developing more, and more efficient, renewable energy supplies and technologies.

AG is still pretty foolish to get caught out like this- but considering his primary message is that we need to reduce our emission of CO2- and his electicity use at his own cost does this, and his carbon offsetting makes up for in the other aspects of his life (eg, he is attempting/succeeding to live 'carbon nuetral' or negative) Hypocritical he is not.

[ishmael]

I think it was Everett Dirkson who said of Nixon early on in Nixon's career, "Here we have a man who would cut down a redwood then mount the stump and make a speech about conservation."

Gore has the same smarmy quality about him, though I don't think he's nearly as intelligent or conniving as Nixon was.

As a popular saying goes, you've got to walk the walk before you talk the talk.

[Garrett Lowell]

What if the CEO of PETA was caught eating veal and said "Oh, I offset that by eating broccoli"? Is there any credibility there?

hansp77, that was a very goot attempt at defending Gore. But how much "green" energy would be required to offset just one trip on the private jet? He's a hypocrite, plain and simple.

[Dan McCosh]

IMO AG's high use of energy is more stupid, rather than hypocritical.
If he is wasting energy, Green or not, I disagree with that, but mainly, this just looks plain silly of him, and despite his balancing out of his GHG contribution by purchasing Green Power, and by carbon offsetting, it is stupid becuase he has presented a case that can be latched onto by people who deny global warming and/or fail/refuse to understand just what Green Power and carbon offsetting is.

The point has been made, and missed and missed again.
Green power is something very different to fossil fuel power (the materiality of the electricity that comes out of your socket is the same, but the results/repercussions/follow-on-effects of such are very different).



To try to demonstrate this, I will put it in a different analogy.
Lets say AG's message was only about water- in a water crisis world- about water use, conservation and recycling. Part of this message is of course, that people should use less water, however-
Lets now compare AG's water use to GWB's. For example, AG uses 100 megaliters a month, and GWB uses 30 megaliters a month.
However, while AG uses a lot more, everything that he uses is recylced and then used again- while GWB's is let off down the storm drain. AG chooses to recycle his water at a greater cost per megaliter than GWB buys it for. Of course in this analogy, we have to account for the cost in water (energy) that it takes for AG to recycle his water (the energy inputs required for the green energy generation- building a windmill etc). So lets say, in order for AG to recycle 100 megaliters, 10 megaliters of water needs to go to waste.
So while it would appear that AG is more wastefull of water than GWB, in this purely hypothetical example, the opposite is in fact true.

Now I don't know the exact break down of how much energy inputs are needed to create the infrastructure for renewable power generation- of course this would vary between different technologies, solar, hydro, wind, etc... and may not be relevant.
There would of course come a point where a Green Power consumer could through massive energy use consume more conventional power (via the inputs into the tech to make the Green Power) than a conservative conventional power consumer.

With available Green Power of course, comes the possibility that the energy inputs needed to build Green Power technologies and infrastructure, can be sourced from Green Power itself. So instead of a 10% input of conventional power (purely hypothetic figure) we would be down to 1%... and on, and on...

Basically, I like a few other of the Australians here, pay more for Green Power for a number of reasons. This aint a case of the rich buying absolution, this is me putting my very limited money where my mouth (and study) is.
It reduces my GHG emmision from electricity usage to close to zero (relatively speaking of course because the other option for my area is "old Hazelwood" an over 40 year old very dirty coal plant).
I also buy it because it acts as a social forcing to steer industry and government into building and developing more, and more efficient, renewable energy supplies and technologies.

AG is still pretty foolish to get caught out like this- but considering his primary message is that we need to reduce our emission of CO2- and his electicity use at his own cost does this, and his carbon offsetting makes up for in the other aspects of his life (eg, he is attempting/succeeding to live 'carbon nuetral' or negative) Hypocritical he is not.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the reality that one person's "green" power could be used to replace someone elses "brown" power. The total consumption does matter, and large deviations from the norm are significant. Granted, Gore's consumption is largely symbolic, but it not only defies his philolsophy, it also defies his conception that cutting CO2 production will not impact economic consumption. Actually cutting his CO2 output would have a dramatic impact on his personal lifestyle--i.e., his wealth.

[TomF]

Imagine for a minute that I chose to use simply gobs and gobs of energy. Removed all the insulation from the house, left all the lights on 24/7 ...

If I lived off-the-grid and supplied all my home's needs via a private wind farm in the back 40 and an impressive solar array ... would I be hypocritical in preaching restraint in fossil fuel use, for the sake of global warming?

Now how about I connect to a hypothetical grid that ONLY runs to and from wind farms and big solar arrays, and buy all my power from them.

Now how about I connect to the actual grid, and pay enough extra for my power that the higher-cost energy from current green technologies can be bought from green producers, and fed into it at the rate that I draw power.

There's a distinction between wasteful energy use, and wasteful energy use that has a greenhouse effect. The first is stupid and expensive, but doesn't damage the environment. At this point, it seems to be where Gore's at.

[hansp77]

Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion in Nashville and he owns a 4,000 square foot "McMansion" in Arlington, VA. He owns stock in Oxy Petroleum, and up until a few years ago he was receiving money from a Zinc mining company on his property-a mining company that has been cited for polluting rivers in Tennessee. Gore didn't sign up for "green" energy until after the story broke in the MSM that he wasn't actually signed up for "green" energy. Gore and Tipper are the epitome of Limousine Liberal ideology.

This is what you may call an inconvenient truth.

:D :D
well if that is true, then I'll give you that, he is a bit of a hypocrate.

of course I could retreat to another position, that the effect of his life, his efforts, his campaigning and his book and Doco, will reduce more global emmissions (through the actions of the 'converted') than he himself ever could have.;) But I won't go there.

Maybe he feels justified by such.

One of my lecturers, a renound environmentalist, shared with the class her own ecological footprint. She lives in a small efficient house, she rides her bike to Uni, same as her Husband, they have one small hybrid car, they purchase green power, use every energy efficient technology they can, eat very little meat, etc, etc...
However, her ecolgical footprint is up there with the bigger of the Australian and American consumers, something like four planets (that would be required if everyone lived like her).
This footprint simply occurs due to her international travel to do lectures about environmentalism, economics, politics, conservation, etc..
This was something that she had conflicts with.
Myself, I believe that through her work and travel, she does more for the environment than she possibly could by staying home. I see it not about reducing negative effect, but by maximising positive affect. But then I guess I am a bit of an optimist, being not quite ready to throw in the towel, and this is my area of ongoing study, so I am probably pretty biased.

enough.
Gnight.

[Rick Starr]

Okay, I have a solar water heater over my head right now, I catch all the water for our use in a cistern beneath the house and reclaim our washing water for the plants. I live and breathe green. I wish there is something I could do about transportation. (on an island 27 miles long by 9 miles wide I've managed to put 60 k mmiles on my truck in 9 years--that's around the world 2 and a half times!!!)

But I have a HUGE problem with someone telling me how to live when they are unwilling to set their own example.

If there is a point to living green then it doesn't matter who you are. Or more to the point in the case of Gore, if you aren't willing to set your own example, then your point is pretty much useless.

[hansp77]

What if the CEO of PETA was caught eating veal and said "Oh, I offset that by eating broccoli"? Is there any credibility there?

hansp77, that was a very goot attempt at defending Gore. But how much "green" energy would be required to offset just one trip on the private jet? He's a hypocrite, plain and simple.

crossed posts with you Garrett.

Green energy does not 'offset' CO2 emission. Green energy is aiming towards producing no CO2 emission.
If you wanted to offset a flight on the private jet, you might do something like invest in a revegetation program, where forest is planted where there was none- so that the amount of emissions that were created from your jet trip, would be absorbed by the growing forest.
The amount of trees, or land to be covered, I don't know. I am sure you could find out, there are companies that specialize in this sort of thing.
For me it is late.
Gnight.

[Garrett Lowell]

If you wanted to offset a flight on a private jet, you could start by taking a mass-transit jet. And still plant your trees.

By the way, I wonder what are the "carbon costs" of constructing and maintaining a 10,000 square foot house (aside from the energy use required, neutral or not)? That's a lot of house for two people.

[Keith Wilson]

OK, let's all agree, for the sake of argument, that Al Gores's a bad boy, the scum of the earth, a vile repugnant hypocritical worm, a sh!t-eating scum-sucking ugly mephitic scrofulous cannibalistic necrophiliac pedophile, the perverse offspring of an impotent mole and a dissolute vampire bat.

That has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything he says. Changes in the climate are not significantly affected by Mr. Gore's personal virtue or lack thereof. CO2 concentrations are still rising. Wise or foolish policies are still wise or foolish.

[JimD]

If only George Bush or some other honourable and honest man had made the movie. Then I could believe it.

[TimH]

Gores whole premise is that we need changes in government regulation of energy sources like coal power plants and such. The vast majority of the co2 comes from industry, not individuals.
Anyway, this isnt a religion, its science. People act like this is some religion and Gore is a preist who just got caught molesting small boys. He isnt a preacher he is merely a messenger, and a good one at that. Nobody can deny that his message is changing the way people think and opening eyes to what should really be common sense.

[TimH]

OK, let's all agree, for the sake of argument, that Al Gores's a bad boy, the scum of the earth, a vile repugnant hypocritical worm, a sh!t-eating scum-sucking ugly mephitic scrofulous cannibalistic necrophiliac pedophile, the perverse offspring of an impotent mole and a dissolute vampire bat.


ROFL! :D

[Garrett Lowell]

Keith, very true. But if you're a preacher who's telling people that "gay is bad" and then it turns out that your 206-bone body occasionally has room for one bone more, then it becomes a credibility issue.

[Uncle Duke]

I wonder what are the "carbon costs" of constructing and maintaining a 10,000 square foot house
Just a quick correction - they didn't build it, they bought it like that. Includes large garages, guest house, pool house. Acts as home office for both Al and Tipper. They are in the process of renovating everything, including adding solar power. They just haven't finished yet.

[George.]

This thread is bull.

Once again, for those who still believe in Dick Cheney: you cannot do anything about global warming through private virture.

You can be in favor of banning pesticides while still eating foods laced with them. You can be in favor of the Democrats while still paying taxes to fund Bush's war. And you can be in favor of everyone paying their taxes while still attempting to legally minimize your own tax bill.

If Al Gore used NO CARBON, it would not make any difference to global warming. None at all. Not even in theory.

Wake up. This is a public policy issue - not an issue of private virtue.

[Keith Wilson]

This is a public policy issue - not an issue of private virtue.Oh, but its so much easier to make snide comments about hypocritical limousine liberal blatherskites. Then there's no need to deal with all that complicated and confusing math and charts and data , no need to deal with the difficult issues of how to reduce CO2 emissions, no need to think about any of that.

[ishmael]

You're missing the point. Al Gore is a lousy crusader for changing our habits. It doesn't mean he's incorrect, only that he's a divisive man without much personal substance on which to stand.

If he's the best the global warning Jeremiahs can muster, I have a hard time taking them seriously. A little something called personal integrity.

Let Gore start riding public transport to his multi-thousand dollar speaking gigs, move into a sensible house, start making sense with his actions as well as his mouth, and people in opposition might listen to him.

[Keith Wilson]

It doesn't mean he's incorrect,This is the essential point. Gore's personal habits are an excuse. The people in opposition wouldn't listen to him if he lived in a cave, grew all his own food, and rode a bicycle everywhere he went; they would make fun of him for that - "See what he wants us all to do? Do you want to live like that? He's a LWW! No credibility at all!" And it would STILL have absolutely no relevance to the problem.

[Garrett Lowell]

Who says I disagree with him? Hell, as soon as I can I'm getting my own 10,000 square foot house and private jet. I'll pay the electric company a few more pennies on the kilowatt-hour for "green" electricity for the house and every time I take a flight I'll plant some trees and bushes to absorb the pollution (sorry-I can't do anything about the non-replaceable fossil fuel the jet uses but we all do what we can, you know?). Of course I'll be sure to buy a pre-existing 10,000 square foot house (recycling is good), and a Cadillac Escalade hybrid or two.

See? I got the message.

[Rick Starr]

OK, let's all agree, for the sake of argument, that Al Gores's a bad boy, the scum of the earth, a vile repugnant hypocritical worm, a sh!t-eating scum-sucking ugly mephitic scrofulous cannibalistic necrophiliac pedophile, the perverse offspring of an impotent mole and a dissolute vampire bat.

No, he's a politician, and one with an average to below-average record, who is the son of same. (now i think of it, a lot like bush in that regard, but I digress.)


That has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything he says. Changes in the climate are not significantly affected by Mr. Gore's personal virtue or lack thereof. CO2 concentrations are still rising. Wise or foolish policies are still wise or foolish.

Are you kidding me? Do you read what you write?

See above.

Had anyone said the same thing about Bush they'd have been run off the forum, rightly so.

OK, here it is in bitesize bits.

Generally, but not unanimously, it is agreed that carbon emissions are bad for the environment. m'kay?

good.

Reducing carbon emissions can do no harm to the environment and is probably a very good thing. m'kay?

right.

Small carbon emitters can easily make small reductions in their carbon footprint and large emitters can, similarly, make large ones. make sense?

or to put it another way, if we all do a little together we can do a lot.

Why, for the love of pasta, do democrats believe they have the right to put the burden of their own reforms on others without doing their own share?

And why, for the love of cheese, do democrat voters so handily weasel out from taking any responsibility either on their own or on the part of their demogogues?

An Inconsistent Truth. pfffft.

[TomF]

Rick?


To avoid hypocrisy, Gore should minimize his contribution to greenhouse gases.
On the home front, that can mean reducing energy use overall, or changing the source of the energy to be a non-CO2 producing source. He's doing that.
On the travelling front, he should also reduce CO2 producing activity - and he's not doing that.
Whether his personal habits are hypocritical or not has no bearing on the accuracy of the science he talks about.

[ljb5]

Why, for the love of pasta, do democrats believe they have the right to put the burden of their own reforms on others without doing their own share?

Don't lump all the Democrats together.

I, for one, am a Democrat and I have absolutely no problem at all practicing what I preach.

Al Gore is a little different, but certainly not hypocritical or sinister.

There is a long standing tradition in our society of paying money to achieve goals.

Some people can't make a good pizza, so they happily pay the restaurant to make one for them.

Some people don't like to install plumbing fixtures, so they happily pay plumbers to do that for them.

Al Gore (for one reason or another) has decided that he'd rather pay others to reduce their carbon footprint than to do it himself.

A little something we call Capitalism. Ever heard of it?

The system works because it results in a net decrease in carbon footprint. The exact carbon use of any one person doesn't matter --- only the net use mattes. By operating in a market environment, the net use can be reduced.

By the way, Terrapass was founded by one of my best friends from childhood.

[Rick Starr]

The people in opposition wouldn't listen to him if he lived in a cave, grew all his own food, and rode a bicycle everywhere he went; they would make fun of him for that - "See what he wants us all to do? Do you want to live like that? He's a LWW! No credibility at all!" And it would STILL have absolutely no relevance to the problem.

The people in opposition don't listen to him now.

If he...
grew all his own food, and rode a bicycle everywhere he went;...most people I know would pay a hell of a lot more attention to him than they do now.

I continue to believe that anyone who acts as an advocate for a cause they are unwilling to adopt isn't credible, and anyone who champions such an advocate is, frankly, naive. I'll continue to live green and encourage others to do so too, but I'll be damned if it's because Gore said so, and I'll continue to scoff at Gorpies

[Rick Starr]

Tom, first it is absurd look to a politician for science. They aren't sinister, they are natural spin artists whose agendas are never what they say they are. It's just the nature of the biz.

That many scientists agree with him is great. And it is the scientists who should be followed. All the movies in the world cannot make Gore into a scientist, though. He's still a politician whose career depends on telling people what they want to hear.

[ljb5]

most people I know would pay a hell of a lot more attention to him than they do now. (ife he grew his own food and rode his bike everywhere.)

Hogwash!

There are thousands for environmental activists who do grow their own food and do ride their bikes everywhere.

Their critics don't listen to them because they say that lifestyle is too restrictive and requires too much sacrifice so most people will never do it.

The fact is that some people just plain don't want to hear the advice.

They don't want to hear it from Al Gore because he's not sacrificing enough. They don't want to hear it from some Berkeley hippy because he's sacrificing too much....

If Jesus Christ were to descend from the heavens and personally demonstrate how to drive a more efficient car, global warming deniers would say, "Of course it works for someone who can walk on water.... but what about for a normal person?"

Why don't you just admit that it's not about the messenger -- it's the message which you reject.

[ishmael]

So, let me ask you this. If Gandhi had ridden in Mercedes limos, and hadn't fasted and made salt, and woven native cloth, not necessarily in absolute sincerity(I'm sure the man wasn't a saint, but he understood that to be believed took personal responsibility, and out of that responsibility came the importance of symbolism ) do you think he would have freed India from colonial domination?

Why should any of our leaders be held to lesser standards? I recognize the difficulty, and Gandhi is a rare target. But Gore is an Elmer Gantry, replete with the tone. I WANT TO HEAR about this dammit. I just don't want to hear about it from a two bit politician who could stand some acting lessons. Sorry, he sets my teeth on edge

[TomF]

Gandhi was a more effective communicator because he lived the particular lifestyle he preached. What he preached would have been equally true, though, if he'd ridden in limos and worn Yves St. Laurent.

[George.]

Tom, first it is absurd look to a politician for science.

True.

We look to politicians for policy - preferably based on facts, e.g., science.

We do not look to politicians for examples of personal virtue.

At least some of us don't. I understand that there are countries where people elect all sorts of hypocrites based on their perceived personal "moral values," and independent of their public policy record...

[ljb5]

If Gandhi had ridden in Mercedes limos, and hadn't fasted and made salt, and woven native cloth, do you think he would have freed India from colonial domination?

Why should any of our leaders be held to lesser standards?

George Washington.
Thomas Jefferson.
James Madison.

I rest my case.

[Dan McCosh]

What would you think about a scientist who argued that the world can easily support a population of 60 billion people, despite any supposed problems with global warming?

[ljb5]

What would you think about a scientist who argued that the world can easily support a population of 60 billion people, despite any supposed problems with global warming?


I would be skeptical. I'd ask to see his data, hear his reasoning and question some other experts in the field.

[Rick Starr]

Gandhi was a more effective communicator because he lived the particular lifestyle he preached. What he preached would have been equally true, though, if he'd ridden in limos and worn Yves St. Laurent.

Funny you mention Gandhi. I was just thinking of a similar and far more apt parallel: Both Gandhi and Peewee Herman encouraged us to be nice to one another, but only one was a humanitarian.

You see, if you want to understand the climate/carbon tugofwar as Gore sells it, you have to pay as much attention to what he isn't saying as to what he is. And you have to hunt out his hidden agenda at every turn. Who has the time for that? Yeah, he may be right, but he's no hero. He's still peewee herman in my book and why people lionize him is beyond me.

[PeterSibley]

REMEMBER ...If you don't like the message ...concentrate on the messager ! It's a whole lot easier .....

[George.]

Both Gandhi and Peewee Herman encouraged us to be nice to one another, but only one was a humanitarian.



And both Gore and Bush encourage us to do something about oil - but only one is not an oil man.

[Dan McCosh]

I would be skeptical. I'd ask to see his data, hear his reasoning and question some other experts in the field.


This is a view held by Roger Revelle, the oceanographer who inspired the movie. He went on from ocean studies to head up a group at Harvard on population studies. The question is: does this belief undermine his work on global warming?

[Thad Van Gilder]

OK, you all have something to say about Gore...

He draws a wonderfull postage stamp, but leaves the rest of the sheet of stamps in the dark.

There are no mentions of the link of global warming to the cutting down of the rain forrest, the raising of massive amounts of cows producing methane, (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) or even the fact that global temperature averages varied as much as 50 degrees every century or two for hundreds of thousands of years... untill 10,000 years ago.

Nope... nothing like that.

-Thad

[Rick Starr]

My point is that Gore turns many people off climate change awareness simply because of who he is. He might have done greater service by doing a little/lot less self-promoting.

Well, I'm putting my money where my mouth is more than anyone else here, I'll bet. I fall distinctly on the side of being part of the solution. Gore leads a life that puts him squarely on the side of being part of the problem. You all might examine where you stand on that scale, and decide whether you're comfortable with what you find.

About the messenger thing, odd you should object to holding Gore to a far milder standard than you all have held pretty much anyone in the current administration. (edited to add, not that I object to the standard as long as it is consistent.)

[Rick Starr]

And both Gore and Bush encourage us to do something about oil - but only one is not an oil man.

BS. Both are invested in oil, apparently.

[George.]

There are no mentions of the link of global warming to the cutting down of the rain forrest,

OK, here is one.

Brazil is the FOURTH largest contributor to greenhouse gases. 70% of our contribution is due to burning the Amazon for no good reason.

And our current left-wing government has its head firmly up its ass on this issue.

[Thad Van Gilder]

It's a good reason! To raise cattle for fast food for us fat Americans!!!

Isn't that the best reason of all???

[PeterSibley]

[quote=Rick Starr;151501
About the messenger thing, odd you should object to holding Gore to a far milder standard than you all have held pretty much anyone in the current administration.[/quote]
I'm not holding any politician to any personal standard...Bush or Gore .I'm not really interested ...it's irrelevant. What we need is public policy .
Rick , like you my actions are as green as I can make them........I drive a car that gets 50 mpg etc ,etc .But this isn't about that ....the thread has become one about the messenger...Gore , not the reality of GW.It's a lot easier and a lot more convenient for those who find the whole thing toooo hard .

[George.]

It's a good reason! To raise cattle for fast food for us fat Americans!!!



No, that would be your Central American vassal states.

We in Brazil burn the rainforest for our own dumb reasons. You get no blame in this.

[George.]

BS. Both are invested in oil, apparently.

So am I. So are you, I bet. And we both own stuff made by exploited workers, and have PCBs in our fat cells, and eat food laced with pesticides.

But check out what your VP Cheney is invested in. Check out what you would be hoping for, if you had his investments. ;)

[Thad Van Gilder]

Maybe this is true and maybe not

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html#cattle

Nne the less, I have it on good authority from the owner of several fast food venues around here that much of the beef which is ground into indistinguishable patties is sourced from the Amazon Basin.

-Thad

[George.]

That would be good, as it would mean that at least some of that devastation is producing exports.

Most of what we destroy produces CO2 and soil erosion, and that is about it. But someone makes a few cents, and maybe gets to own the land at the end of the process... :(

[ljb5]

My point is that Gore turns many people off climate change awareness simply because of who he is.

Don't extrapolate from yourself to the rest of the world.

Judging by the massive popularity of his recent movie, including winning an Academy Award, it would seem that Gore has been very successful in promoting the cause.

Maybe he turns you off -- but that says as much about you as it does about him, perhaps more.

[High C]

I....the thread has become one about the messenger...Gore , not the reality of GW.It's a lot easier and a lot more convenient for those who find the whole thing toooo hard .

Problem is, Gore is not the only one. The opportunists are coming out of the woodwork trying to make a buck on the issue.

Kyoto is widely seen as the grand daddy of these movements. Even the entire US Senate, Dems and all, saw it as such when they voted unanimously NOT to ratify it.

The latest are these incredible outfits that sell offsetting "carbon credits" to airhead celebrities (and anyone else who falls for their act) so they can puff up their chests as they flit about the world in jets and limos. :rolleyes: Green hypocrites, they.

No, it's not all about Gore, it's about a long line of opportunists. Each one of them takes a bit of credibility away from the issue.

[stumpbumper]

Maybe he turns you off -- but that says as much about you as it does about him, perhaps more.

It's just like the author Willie Morris said, "Give a man a label, and you really never need to get to know him."

To say that Gore has not been a successful spokesman for creating concern over global warming is absurd. He has effectively brought the issue to the forefront. All the Gore bashing is used to mask doubts about the issue by politicizing it. Time to quit that.

I've been a democrat all my life, but I honestly believe if the main spokesperson on this issue was from the other party, with the evidence amassed about global warming, I would be foolish to deny the validity of it for political reasons.

[Donn]

My point is that Gore turns many people off climate change awareness simply because of who he is.

I'm not sure I could be more 'turned off' by Al Bore because of his excessive lifestyle. I didn't think much of him before the news came out.

The fact that his crockumentary was given an Oscar simply confirms my opinion of Hollywood.

[High C]

...To say that Gore has not been a successful spokesman for creating concern over global warming is absurd. He has effectively brought the issue to the forefront. All the Gore bashing is used to mask doubts about the issue by politicizing it....

I agree that Gore has been successful, as you say. But I think he just turned a corner where he may be doing more harm to the issue than good.

I don't understand the "masking" comment, I, and others who don't care about being shouted down, are very upfront about our doubts. I have doubts, doubts caused by contradictory science, doubts caused by the heavy handed censorship that befalls scientists who buck the tide, doubts caused by scams like the selling of guilt assuaging "carbon credits, doubts caused by Kyoto and its obvious financial motivation.

We're not masking anything. We're skeptical, open minded, taking it all in, but not hiding anything. If more people felt free to express their doubts you'd hear it a lot more. The shouting down thing is very real, and most folks don't want to put up with it.

[ljb5]

The opportunists are coming out of the woodwork trying to make a buck on the issue.

Lots of people sell sham cures for cancer....

..yet this does not mean cancer is a hoax.

...nor does it mean there are no real oncologists who do real work.

[erster]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

monday, Jun. 24, 1974 ,

Dateline Another Ice Age?


Time.com (http://www.time.com/time)
CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/)

n Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

[ljb5]

We're skeptical, open minded, taking it all in, but not hiding anything. If more people felt free to express their doubts you'd hear it a lot more. The shouting down thing is very real, and most folks don't want to put up with it.


I've heard this "shouting down" argument before... and when I've investigated it, I've found it to be complete bunk.

A couple of weeks ago, on this forum, some guy said that he had super-secret information about variations in Earth's orbit.... and that his astronomer friend wanted to bring it forward but was afraid of the 'politicized" atmosphere.

I was able to find literally thousands of published papers over the last three decades about the subject. Rather than being suppressed, the information was actually very well known.

Then, he said that it was a very recent occurrence -- appearing by surprise 6 years ago. I asked how a surprise event six years ago could explain a trend of data that started 40 years ago. No answer yet.

High C, I looked into the series of articles you posted called "the deniers." I found that most of them did not deny global warming at all. A few of them explicitly said they believed in it. A few had some minor quibbles about certain studies... and a few presented slightly different aspects of the same data. Some were totally unrelated.

It seems that when someone says they've been "shouted down" it really means their theories have been evaluated. They think that's unfair.

Many, many times, on this forum, people have claimed to have a deep, insightful understanding of something that the scientists have forgotten or failed to properly consider. I have encouraged them to present their findings at a major conference or submit an article to an academic journal.

No one has done this. I guess it's easier to complain about being "shouted down" than it is to actually speak up.

[High C]

I....High C, I looked into the series of articles you posted called "the deniers." I found that most of them did not deny global warming at all...

I rarely read or respond to your nonsense, and this is a perfect example of why. I respond this time only in hopes that you might come to understand why you often seem to be yelling into a void when you get so little response here. You have noticed this, I hope?

You have a technique of arguing against things which have not been said. You then proceed to tell us all how competent and correct you are, and declare victory. The term "strawman" comes to mind. :rolleyes: It's pretty transparent.

Neither I, nor the author of those articles claimed that those scientists were denying the existance of global warming. They were disputing the claim that the issue of man's potential role in GW is settled.

As for your failure to notice the "shouting down", just look at the goofballs on this forum who respond to me and others who dare to express skepticism with insults and derision. I see this all over the place. It is very common.

Please don't attempt to draw me into a long, drawn out argument about who said what, and when. I'm not interested in those games.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

The science of global warming is 99% irrefutable at this point. The rest is politics. I don't have much hope, but by the time it starts killing folks, I'll be dead anyway.

I think I've read maybe 10% of the science out there on the subject, and in a wide range of disciplines. As James Lovelock has said, I think we're pooched.

[ljb5]

you often seem to be yelling into a void when you get so little response here.

I guess that would make you the void. :eek:


look at the goofballs on this forum who respond to me and others who dare to express skepticism with insults and derision. I see this all over the place. It is very common.

The insults flow both ways. I've been called a "drooling Pavlovian dog."


Please don't attempt to draw me into a long, drawn out argument.

For a guy who posts a lot about global warming, you seem very reluctant to be drawn into a discussion of it.

It's real simple, High C: if you've got something to discuss, come right out and say it. Back it up with some facts and data and evidence and logic. Lay it out in the open for everyone to see.

Don't be afraid of open, honest discussion.

Your problem is that you start off by saying you won't discuss with anyone and you don't want to be dragged in to a conversation....

...and then you turn around and say that you've been "shouted down."

If you have anything valid to say, say it in a convincing, straight-forward manner and let it stand on its own merits.

[erster]

I rarely read or respond to your nonsense, and this is a perfect example of why. I respond this time only in hopes that you might come to understand why you often seem to be yelling into a void when you get so little response here. You have noticed this, I hope?

You have a technique of arguing against things which have not been said. You then proceed to tell us all how competent and correct you are, and declare victory. The term "strawman" comes to mind. :rolleyes: It's pretty transparent.

Neither I, nor the author of those articles claimed that those scientists were denying the existance of global warming. They were disputing the claim that the issue of man's potential role in GW is settled.

As for your failure to notice the "shouting down", just look at the goofballs on this forum who respond to me and others who dare to express skepticism with insults and derision. I see this all over the place. It is very common.

Please don't attempt to draw me into a long, drawn out argument about who said what, and when. I'm not interested in those games.

There is hopes and dreams with everyone. You can always hope that folks are interested in sitting about in their idle time and discuss the merits of any issues expressed by opposing points of view and personal opinions . Then there are also guarantees in life that we have no control over. Along with death and taxes, two other guarantees exist on this forum. Today we experienced these two guarantees in the form of people that are not interested in discussing anything with others.

Outside of having absolutely nothing else to do, its not worth the effort of typing a response. ;) You are guaranteed an insult, free of charge, and in many cases without provocation. By the way, did you see that right wing blog telling us about the up and coming ice age?

[stumpbumper]

By the way, did you see that right wing blog telling us about the up and coming ice age?

Or the left wing one that said we are consigned to flames of woe.:D

[WX]

REMEMBER ...If you don't like the message ...concentrate on the messager ! It's a whole lot easier .....

That is one of the main reasons why nothing truly constructive will be done until it is too late.

global temperature averages varied as much as 50 degrees every century or two for hundreds of thousands of years... untill 10,000 years ago.

Are you sure about that Thad? 50 degree variations? Even talking 50F we are still looking at temps in summer in Australia of 160F....I think not.
I have read somewhere that it would only take a mean variation of -2F to shutdown most of the major grain growing belts of the northern hemisphere.

[Bob Smalser]

I'm not arguing over carbon emissions, global warming, or nitrogen pollution of seawater. I'm arguing what a charlatan Al Gore is.

More Gore debunking from today's WSJ:




The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . .

But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . .

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . .

Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.)



Yesterday's Tennessean reported on a speech the erstwhile veep gave in Murfreesboro:

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly--and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias.

"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."

Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

Krumm notes that Gore was complaining as early as 1992 about excessive balance in the media. Yet in a speech at the October 2005 We Media Conference, Gore seemed to urge government-mandated balance, at least on other topics:

As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."

As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.--including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine--though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

Gore is mistaken on two out of three points: Although the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine (which regulated the presentation of "controversial issues of public importance") in 1987, the Public Interest Standard (which is part of the law that created the FCC) and the Equal Time Provision (which applies to political candidates) remain in force.

So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias?

[ljb5]

There is hopes and dreams with everyone. You can always hope that folks are interested in sitting about in their idle time and discuss the merits of any issues expressed by opposing points of view and personal opinions.

I am very interested in discussing the merits of this issue --- especially the opposing view points.

I've practically begged High C to describe his position in a clear, straight-forward way --- and to use lots and lots of facts and evidence and stuff to present his argument.

Let's have a real discussion. No name-calling. No twisted logic. Just pure reason.

Of course, he's not interested in that sort of thing.

He'd much rather complain about being shouted down than to stand up and speak.

[WX]

I personally think carbon offsets are a joke. In the 30 years I have lived here I have planted dozens of trees, not to mention the natural regrowth forest that has strung up, does that mean I can sell the carbon credits...wonder what they are worth? :D

[PeterSibley]

Bob ...I reckon attacking Gore is a pretty effective way of undermining the GW debate ...I wonder who would be willing to put money into an enterprise like that ?

[erster]

Bob ...I reckon attacking Gore is a pretty effective way of undermining the GW debate ...I wonder who would be willing to put money into an enterprise like that ?

Gore is the messenger selling snake oil if any rational person actually looks at his message. No logical person can sell something that they do not buy into with a straight face. This guy is laughing all the way to the bank.

As someone else has stated, any amount of warming of the earth has not been proven to be bad, or has been proven to be manmade. Trends and even song and dances such as the article I posted from the 1970s by a well recognized source, surely not some right wing wacko rag in print, shows clearly that we continue to get a lot of songs that also changes with each year that goes by. One year is was the hole in the ozone, and next year it was acid rain and so forth.

Continuing to use fossil fuels in excessive amounts while sending money to some feel good charity does not change the climate or the upper atmosphere.

The people that are selling the polution credits are not using the fuels anyway, and the ones buying hasn't cut back their use and helping the planet while asking others to cut back and change their way of life. How hard is it to see that he is selling snake oil and making millions while living his plush and excessive lifestyle. Now tell me where I am wrong in my analysis?

[Ron Joslin]

Al won the Oscar for best documentary.

Is this not interesting, Ronald Regan was first in films then a politican. Big Al was first a politican and is now in films.

SO WHAT, do as I say and not as I do does not cut it with me. If you want to save the world you have to stop burning oil. Not burn some oil, plant some trees , and stick your head in the sand.

[Rick Starr]

All the Gore bashing is used to mask doubts about the issue by politicizing it.

I just don't understand.

On one hand we have a number of people who say that Gore's character is irrelevant to his advocacy of global climate issues. I disagree with this generally because character and integrity drive motivation, and it's Gore's motives that I question. It seems to me that half-truths and political expediency have gotten us into some pretty awful messes in the past. (eg. 25 years of Iraq policy)

On the other hand there are a number of people who cannot seperate the message from the messenger. These people seem to identify Gore with climate issues to such an extent that they equate any criticism of Gore-as-advocate equates in their minds to an assault on the environment. With these too I strongly disagree. Only through an informed analysis of both the plot and the players do I believe any intelligent movement forward can take place.

You know, there are lots of good people out there with sound information and a spectrum of reasonable analyses on warming etc. My wife is one of them--as I've mentioned an embarrassing number of times she was featured in a sidebar in National Geographic in the global warming issue. These are the people who have real traction with climate issues and who should be looked to as a group as we move forward to protect the environment. Thankfully none of these people feels that the movies are the right venue for promoting public awareness. Politics and popcorn just don't mix.

[George.]

I'm not arguing over carbon emissions, global warming, or nitrogen pollution of seawater. I'm arguing what a charlatan Al Gore is.

Global warming is not real.

If it is, it is not serious.

If it is, it is not caused by CO2.

If it is, it is not caused by man.

If it is, there is nothing we can do about it.

If there is, we can't afford it.

If we can, then change the subject to Al Gore's personal life.

[Rick Starr]

George no one has said anything like that.

It's pretty pathetic that you should have to put words into other people's mouths before you can argue with them.

[George.]

George no one has said anything like that.

You are kidding, right?

Not only has your current administration been saying exactly that - in that order, as the previous argument collapsed. Some of their sycophants have been parroting those lines in this very bilge.

Most appear to have moved on to "shoot the messager," as in this thread. But some are still at stage 1 - see Oyster's post at the top of this page.

[erster]

You can place a robot with an automated voice with it, spreading the message that humans should cut back especially on fossil fuels to cut back on green house gases which is being sold as the harmfull ingredient. Then you can place this robot on an airplane along with many of the brightly painted movie stars that also sing the same song and fly across the planet and land anyway on earth.

Then these same people can go plant trees to get rid of the guilt trip of obsessive use of fossil fuels. Even the terminator is doing it too. You have not done anything to save the planet and cut back the use of fossil fuels while these robots ask others to cutback on driving, electric uses with alternative light bulbs, solar panels and promoting wind turbines while themselves filing suit to forbid them being placed in their face. Now explain that one. The premise of the message that you have done your part for the planet by still using fossil fuels and using some unused credits of others, supporting an extravagant lifestyle by any comparison to the average guy, is flawed logic and snake oil salesmanship. The salesman is not even using his own snake oil.

[Rick Starr]

George I don't know what stage one means but the climate is under careful and increasing scrutiny to find answers to what is happening. Mike's post demonstrates that ongoing inquiry. If you think you have the answers we'd love to hear them, but understand that, like Al Gore, your past track record, both personally and as a Brazillian, leave big questions about your credibility. On the other hand if further skepticism and inquiry interferes with your agenda of hate, then I suggest you get a new agenda.

[Ron Joslin]

You are kidding, right?

Not only has your current administration been saying exactly that - in that order, as the previous argument collapsed. Some of their sycophants have been parroting those lines in this very bilge.

Most appear to have moved on to "shoot the messager," as in this thread. But some are still at stage 1 - see Oyster's post at the top of this page.

SPIN SPIN SMOKE SPIN SPIN Where can I get off? :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

[George.]

Stage 1 = Global warming is not real.

See not only oyster's post equating it with the alleged "global cooling" story of the 1970s, but also one of your Republican senators publically calling it a hoax.

[Uncle Duke]

supporting an extravagant lifestyle by any comparison to the average guy, is flawed logic and snake oil salesmanship
I'm not using this quote to pick on anyone in particular, just to give context to these questions:
1) Is the contention that there are standards of perceived behavior for a messenger beyond which the message itself becomes unimportant?
2) If so, in this case, where would you draw the line - no private planes? no airplanes at all? No house larger than the national average? World average?
3) If said messenger is currently perceived as at or beyond that line, but is actively moving in that direction, does that change anything?
Please note - I'm not trying to poke at any one side, I'm really interested in member's answers to these. This isn't 'game playing' and it isn't 'shouting down', either.

[George.]

... like Al Gore, your past track record, both personally and as a Brazillian, leave big questions about your credibility.

What do you know about my track record? What do you know about my posture as a citizen of Brazil?

Obviously very little. I already was made to discuss this with Sam. I am not here to act the "holier than thou," so I will not repeat it. Look it up before you spout off. It is in a recent thread about global warming.



...your agenda of hate...

No, Rick. The only agenda of hate here is by those who want to change the subject from global warming to "I hate Al Gore."

[erster]

Stage 1 = Global warming is not real.

See not only oyster's post equating it with the alleged "global cooling" story of the 1970s, but also one of your Republican senators publically calling it a hoax.

The story I posted was not written by me. The story received high aclaim from many well established in the scientific community much like that is being touted now. Am I wrong in this observation? Please correct me if you think the article was written at that time by some Republican operative for a pointed agenda.

[George.]

Am I wrong in this observation?

Oyster: the "coming ice age" was never predicted by scientists. Scientists only pointed out that there had been a cooling trend for the past few decades - which was true.

They did NOT predict that it would continue, much less bring on an ice age. The popular press did that.

OTOH, scientists - practically all scientists looking at the issue - ARE predicting that global warming will get worse. And they have evidence to prove it.

So yes, you are wrong.

[erster]

I'm not using this quote to pick on anyone in particular, just to give context to these questions:
1) Is the contention that there are standards of perceived behavior for a messenger beyond which the message itself becomes unimportant?
2) If so, in this case, where would you draw the line - no private planes? no airplanes at all? No house larger than the national average? World average?
3) If said messenger is currently perceived as at or beyond that line, but is actively moving in that direction, does that change anything?
Please note - I'm not trying to poke at any one side, I'm really interested in member's answers to these. This isn't 'game playing' and it isn't 'shouting down', either.
I am only saying that the many items that the voices of doom and gloom have ask others such as myself to cut back on, is being used in excess by the recent voices of doom and gloom. What part of that is so hard to conprehend? The lowlifes such as myself are ask to park our trucks, by dim light bulbs, turn down the heat and cut off air conditioning, actually discontinuing using air conditioning since many of the older units use poluting freons,,,,,

The list can be as large as you wish,,,, you make the call. You see nothing wrong with this picture, I take it? This is why there can be no real discussion dealing with the message which I have purposely addressed this morning using robots and an automated voice box, as the messenger.;) I am blind when it comes to the messenger. I am only looking at what the messengers are doing.

[Rick Starr]

The only agenda of hate here is by those who want to change the subject from global warming to "I hate Al Gore."

Which is PRECISELY what you are doing.

[George.]

Oh, I am doing it. OK, I'll stop. :rolleyes:

[hansp77]

As someone else has stated, any amount of warming of the earth has not been proven to be bad, or has been proven to be manmade. Trends and even song and dances such as the article I posted from the 1970s by a well recognized source, surely not some right wing wacko rag in print, shows clearly that we continue to get a lot of songs that also changes with each year that goes by. One year is was the hole in the ozone, and next year it was acid rain and so forth.


Oyster,
It is hard to take anything you say on this matter seriously when you so clearly misunderstand the issues, the science and the history.
The story of acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer, and the way that we studied, gained consensus upon, and multilaterally agreed upon solutions, are probably the single most successfull events in global environmental management.
I suppose you think that because they are not hyped on about as still pressing problems, that they never were problems in the first place?
Wrong again.

[erster]

Oyster: the "coming ice age" was never predicted by scientists. Scientists only pointed out that there had been a cooling trend for the past few decades - which was true.

They did NOT predict that it would continue, much less bring on an ice age. The popular press did that.

OTOH, scientists - practically all scientists looking at the issue - ARE predicting that global warming will get worse. And they have evidence to prove it.

So yes, you are wrong.

You are really pulling my leg now. :rolleyes: Are you able to keep a straight face after that post? Increased ice packs, migrations of animals south, hum,





Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Let me ask you about the real ice age that claimed Greenland that happened a few years ago and have not reversed itself, yet.;)

Oh well, I am still awaiting a reply on how any of those blind robots will save the planet while doing everything in their power each day to continue their extravagant lifestyle while asking us lowlifes to do without. Thats the question for today from this camp. :cool:

[erster]

Oyster,
It is hard to take anything you say on this matter seriously when you so clearly misunderstand the issues, the science and the history.
The story of acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer, and the way that we studied, gained consensus upon, and multilaterally agreed upon solutions, are probably the single most successfull events in global environmental management.
I suppose you think that because they are not hyped on about as still pressing problems, that they never were problems in the first place?
Wrong again.

SOme of your folks need to address my words, not add words to my posts. Until you address the central issue in this topic, I am done. Go back and read my posts dealing with excessive use of our resourses while asking others to cut back. Thats the key issue in this thread is about the movie, the followup back drops at the Oscar awards and not some sceintific research project of a group of sceintists.

If we have consensus, then all the research projects are done. Time to move on to addressing the issues that has been learned from the consensus reports. Guess what, the voices that are the loudest are not doing it. The voices are doing what is none as blood money, or payoffs, which is continuing to allow these most vocal folks to live lifestyles at the expense of us lowlifes that are being ask to cut back.

[Rick Starr]

Oh, I am doing it. OK, I'll stop. :rolleyes:

Yes, you and almost everyone else in the Gore camp respond with tiresome monotony every time someone brings healthy skepticism and a hunger for inquiry to the issue. "You just hate al gore! You don't agree so you kill the messenger!" Pathetic. The science is never settled, people, and anyone who says it is should be viewed skeptically.

[George.]

Oyster, please note that the article you posted is all in the past and present tenses.

NO PREDICTIONS. It merely describes what has been going on.

How hard is that to understand?

[Uncle Duke]

I am blind when it comes to the messenger. I am only looking at what the messengers are doing
Erster - I was purposefully not identifying the messenger also - much like your hypothetical robot. But someplace you, and others, have a line of behavior beyond which the messenger becomes perceived as a 'snake oil salesman'.
I'm hoping to get some real indication here of where various people place that line - some specifics. This has been poked at before, here, in passing, but only in throwing out extremes - "live in a cave" vs. "rape the planet". Most people's actual decisions are not based on extremes, but on some balance of issues between the extremes. I'd like to find out where in the middle ground those lines are drawn.
Could you take another shot at it? Your response does not really tell me much about where, in the middle ground, you would draw the line.
Maybe you could set the tone, such that others here would chime in also.;)

[George.]

Yes, you and almost everyone else in the Gore camp respond with tiresome monotony every time someone brings healthy skepticism and a hunger for inquiry to the issue.


Healthy skepticism?

Comparing the science of global warming to the "coming ice age" popular press stories is "healthy skepticism"?

Arguing that because Al Gore flies on jet planes what he says about global warming is not true is "healthy skepticism"?

Arguing that global warming can be resolved through private virtue alone is "healthy skepticism"?

[Milo Christensen]

...The science is never settled, people, and anyone who says it is should be viewed skeptically.

Wrong. The science is settled. The solutions are ethical, political and economic and are most certainly not settled.

But when the main messenger is making economic and political profit while engaging in personal behaviours that hypocritically belie the message, his ethics, and the ethics of his supporters, has to be called into question.

We have to oppose Gore's personal profiteering from the GWOW at the same level we oppose Cheney's profiteering from the GWOT.

[Uncle Duke]

Just a historical note: a 'snake oil salesman' is someone who sells a product which is useless, generally to solve a problem which does not exist.
From Wikipedia, on 'snake oil':

...the most common usage of the words is as a derogatory term for compounds offered as medicines which imply they are fake, fraudulent, or ineffective. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with exaggerated marketing but questionable or unverifiable quality. In short, it refers to a product sold as one part of a hoax.
So if anyone wants to use 'snake oil' as a part of the discussion about global warning and what should be done, please have the grace to point out what part of the 'global warming product' you spot as a hoax.
Thanks.

[Rick Starr]

People cannot be blamed for being skeptical of everything Al "I invented the internet" Gore says. It is for this reason that I'm pretty sure he's doing the study of climate change and repair more harm than good.

Further, politicians sell themselves, period. To do so they use (and discard) other issues as they see fit. Some people feel that Al Gore's product (himself) is "fraudulent and ineffective" and base their analysis of him accordingly.

[erster]

Erster - I was purposefully not identifying the messenger also - much like your hypothetical robot. But someplace you, and others, have a line of behavior beyond which the messenger becomes perceived as a 'snake oil salesman'.
I'm hoping to get some real indication here of where various people place that line - some specifics. This has been poked at before, here, in passing, but only in throwing out extremes - "live in a cave" vs. "rape the planet". Most people's actual decisions are not based on extremes, but on some balance of issues between the extremes. I'd like to find out where in the middle ground those lines are drawn.
Could you take another shot at it? Your response does not really tell me much about where, in the middle ground, you would draw the line.
Maybe you could set the tone, such that others here would chime in also.;)

My replies have addressed the specific topic and followup views posted by many members that have discounted people including myself for looking deeper into the panic stricken issue, including running ads now with children in front of freight trains with global warming written across the screen. I am not a scientist. I am a consumer.


The United Nations, along with many vocal members and high profile members on the national and international scene, have ask selectively for us to conserve, cut back, alter many of our lifestyles, modifying heating and cooling of our homes, while these voices continue to do exactly the opposite.

These same voices now wish to tax selectively one single country that has so many regulations now on energy related businesses and products while exempting many of the world's other countries and giving these folks a pass, as they continue on raping the worlds resources and consume at an increasing rate, placing more of a strain on the worlds resourses.

I personally take issue at these listed issues. Make it uniform across the board, and the message is a workable message and more in tune with legitimate discussion for the entire universe. People will be more receptive to address this, when the hysterical and hypocritical marketing is no more. Until this happens, you will gain the replies that you are reading from me. You may accept my replies as being irrational. But I ain't buying the snake oil in its present packaging.

[hansp77]

extravagant lifestyle itself does not damage the planet, rather it is the consequences of particular forms of extravagant lifestyle.
If you reduce to zero the emmissions and other impacts by changing the form of and sources of an extravagant lifestyle, then in theory (for most and practice for a rich very few) extravagance could be maintained with NO damage to the planet- so long as they are willing to pay more for the pleasure. (EDIT TO ADD- here I am talking speicifically only in terms of global warming, not consumption of scarce resources etc.)
This is about including into the cost of the extravagance environmental externalities- costs which previously have gone unaccounted for.

Let me put it another way. Lets look at something like a Nike running shoe. You could even call it a lifestyle extravagance. One could make an argument that through the labour practices that Nike operates under, this extravagance causes social damage (in that it forces people to work in awful conditions, for crappy wages, with few rights, little hope for a future, and not time for the qualities of life, family etc). Now to put it into the terms of the argument presented about AG, this is essentially saying that all running shoes are extravagances (maybe, maybe not) AND that by definition anyone wearing running shoes is by their actions socially damaging, and compromised in terms of advocating responsible consumption and greater corporate responsibility for the conditions of their workers.
BUT, what if someone is wearing a pair of "sweat free" or "fair-trade" running shoes? The same product, which creates very different consequences for the workers who make them? They pay more for them, and this is a way of incorporating into the economic factoring (and paying for) social externalities that Nike is profiting from (and unwilling to pay for).

In a sense this is the same as AG. Sure enough, in this analogy, the runners he is (or claims to be) wearing are made under fair work conditions, by people paid a living wage, etc. That does not mean that having 300 pairs of these shoes is a good thing to do. However this does not compromise his efforts or integrity at advocating corporate responsibility, better working conditions within EPZ's, and fair trade.

Don't get me wrong, I think extravagance such as this should be curtailed by consumers.

But what seems to be happening here is that some people are conflating extravagance as the problem.
This is not the problem. The problem is the what various forms of extravagance are doing to the planet. Through market environmentalist developments, we now have the creation of a possible form of extravagant lifestyle that does not have the GW problems of the past.
Carbon neutral is carbon neutral. If the problem is carbon, then essentially extravagance that creates no carbon is not the issue.

AG comes from the school of "we can have our cake and eat it too".
At present that is fine for people who can afford the magic pudding of a extravagant high flying carbon neutral life. For me, and ideally anyway, I prefer in myself and my friends a much more simple and relatively frugal life.

[Milo Christensen]

...AG comes from the school of "we can have our cake and eat it too"....

Wrong. The school he comes from is "we can have our cake and eat yours too."

[Rick Starr]

Hans extravagance is exactly the problem. I prefer to call it consumption without conscience, though.

Whenever a resource is used without consideration to the effect of the loss of that resource or of the byproducts of the consumption, you have potential for big problems.

People need to realize that we are a part of the environment, not outside it. The earth is not merely a crop of which we are stewards. We are intrinsicly part of a huge system, large both physically and in terms of its longevity. It will outlast us both as individuals and as a species. We owe it to ourselves and to the system which has sustained us to treat it respectfully in every way we can.

[hansp77]

Wrong. The school he comes from is "we can have our cake and eat yours too."

lol:D

[High C]

All this criticism of "attacking the messenger" is misdirection. I'm attacking a bunch of messengers. It's not just Gore. Add Arnold to the list. He's doing the same nonsense with "credits" when he flies his Gulfstream jet. That plane dumps something like as much CO2 into the air in an hour as the average family does in a year. Yet he's now the green Governor. Pfffttt.

Carbon credits for sale on the Internet? Oh please, another hit on credibility.

Next we have the Hollywood airheads who babble on and on about "we only have ten years left", and "save the planet" as they cruise by in a 50' limo on the way to their idling Gulfstreams. There are a lot of these bozos, and they are giving the issue a contemptible face.

It's time to knock off the "shoot the messenger" crap. GW has a terrible messenger problem.

[George.]

Amazing.

All this, from the same folks who think that a bunch of draft evaders have the required credibility to lead a nation into war...

[hansp77]

Hans extravagance is exactly the problem. I prefer to call it consumption without conscience, though.

Whenever a resource is used without consideration to the effect of the loss of that resource or of the byproducts of the consumption, you have potential for big problems.

People need to realize that we are a part of the environment, not outside it. The earth is not merely a crop of which we are stewards. We are intrinsicly part of a huge system, large both physically and in terms of its longevity. It will outlast us both as individuals and as a species. We owe it to ourselves and to the system which has sustained us to treat it respectfully in every way we can.

Rick, I agree with everything you say here accept the beginning.:)
For me, a hot bath is pretty extravagent. We live under drought here, with water restrictions, so this is particularly true with regard to the environmental implications. Every bath I have is a heavy drain on our limited water catchments. But what about a swim in the ocean. This is also pretty extravagent- but has no impact on our current water crisis.
Tonight as I sit here, I type away on my computer, in a room with a light and a TV on, and all of them are powered by renewable energy. I consider this pretty extravagent, yet it is also consumption with conscience. I choose to pay more for renewably generated electricity that powers my extravagences, rather than choose to turn off the fossil fuel powered electricity, go to bed and twiddle my thumbs in the dark.

Yes I agree generally, extravagence is a huge problem in our world- especially in regards to waste and overconsumption, but again I will restate it,
The problems with extravagence are the problems associated down-stream in regards to waste and pollution, and up-stream in regards to the consumptions and productions that occur along every node of its chain of material provisioning and production.
How much of a problem is a person extravagently pigging out on a huge bowl of fresh organic strawberry's that they grew in their own back yard?
Compare this to a person doing the same, off season, with a bowl of conventional strawberry's flown in from another country?

Same extravagence, very different associations and effects.

And I agree, consumption without conscience is a good way of describing it. But once you are consuming with conscience, where do you draw the line? And importantly, would you be be happy for someone else to draw it for you?
I feel good about buying renewable power, yet I still try (and not just for economic reasons) to use as little as possible.

[High C]

Amazing.

All this, from the same folks who think that a bunch of draft evaders have the required credibility to lead a nation into war...

I was not a Bill Clinton supporter.

[Thad Van Gilder]

"The science of global warming is 99% irrefutable at this point. The rest is politics. I don't have much hope, but by the time it starts killing folks, I'll be dead anyway. "

No, The existance of global warming is irrefutable at this point.
What causes it or affects it is still open.

Ask any paleoclimatologist at any college with meteorology or geology depatrtment. They will tell you how common in Earth's history major climatic shifts where... That is untill about 10,000 years ago. That calm period which encouraged the developement of human societies may be at it's end.

We could have done it. We could have accelerated it. or maybe we didn't have anything to do with it.

I can't be the only one here who has an academic background in the Earth's history...

-Thad

[Thad Van Gilder]

Oh, and talk about an extravagant life...

I haven't owned a TV in over ten years, I don't own a computer (I am at work), I produce a grocery bag's worth of trash a month, and I am working on getting a diesel truck to run off used veggy oil.

Is this a sustainable lifestyle? still not completely!... I am working on a solar heat setup for my home.

So, yes, I am qualified to pick on people that live as though they are the only human on Earth that matters, such as Gore.

-Thad

[erster]

And I agree, consumption without conscience is a good way of describing it. But once you are consuming with conscience, where do you draw the line? And importantly, would you be be happy for someone else to draw it for you?

The real issue begins right here and its not being done anywhere throughout this whole topic with its "messengers" which includes the world body at the United Nations. Its becoming more of a political issue, cutting down a selected country, the US., even exempting portions of the U.S. community such as the high profile figures that are pushing this hype and movie. The movement has a perceive credible attachment to it in the form of "scientific" community.

Its also unfortunate that there are parts of the scientific community that have expressed reservations about the specifics of the latest craze, and ar being drowned out, scorned in the same manner as people on this forum that question some of the legitimancy of this latest movement.


Make it uniform across the board, and the message is a workable message and more in tune with legitimate discussion for the entire universe. People will be more receptive to address this, when the hysterical and hypocritical marketing is no more. .

[Milo Christensen]

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." Mother Teresa

[hansp77]

Thad,
At my university (judged within or at the top of the the two best Universities is Australia), in an earth sciences subject I am doing RIGHT NOW the three lecturers (geologist, climatologist and hydrologist) disagree with this.
For them, global warming is irrifutable.
However, the cause is also irrifutable- for the largest part the current warming is irrifutably resulting from antrhopogenic release of GHG's.


We could have done it. We could have accelerated it. or maybe we didn't have anything to do with it.

I can't be the only one here who has an academic background in the Earth's history...

I don't know your background nor your current profession, I don't mean any insult, but maybe your academic background is a little out of date in this regard, a little historical itself?

What I am saying is that, while there are a few rebellious disenters left scattered through a few departments (commonly the slightly off-centre type who love to aim for controversy just for the hell of it), the way you have presented this does not come close to reflecting the reality of consensus on this issue in my university right now.

[Thad Van Gilder]

My BS is from Temple University In Earth and Space Science and Physical Science In 2000.
Currently I am working on an interdisciplinary masters in the philosophy of science and technology at West Chester University, and as a Earth and Space Science high school teacher, I take in lectures at U of Penn, Temple U., West Chester U, and Penn State U. as I have time in my interest areas.

Is that recent enough? I'm only 30 years old!!!

-Thad

[Rick Starr]

Amazing.

All this, from the same folks who think that a bunch of draft evaders have the required credibility to lead a nation into war...



http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/40/c0/3096916LESS1154-resized200.jpg

[George.]

The existance of global warming is irrefutable at this point.
What causes it or affects it is still open.

Global warming is not real.

If it is, it is not serious.

If it is, it is not caused by CO2.

If it is, it is not caused by man.

If it is, there is nothing we can do about it.

If there is, we can't afford it.

If we can, then change the subject to Al Gore's personal life.

Good job, Thad. You have made it to Stage 4. :D

[Thad Van Gilder]

I try...

[hansp77]

Thad,
I didn't mean to challenge out your credentials,:)
thank you though,
I am 29 over here, and just a little behind you in terms of my study as well.
My main area has been in the History and Philosophy of Science (with some 'hard science', and development studies)
Interesting the difference in opinion regarding the certainty on this issue. Quite a difference of opinion.

[Thad Van Gilder]

Oh, I agree...
But, Isn't that what most of science is?

-Thad

[Nels]

The international scientific community recognizes global climate change as anthropogenic - caused by man's activity.

AND

It doesn't matter what you think about Al Gore. No one really cares what you think about him...

[Uncle Duke]

Quotes from erster:

I personally take issue at these listed issues. You may accept my replies as being irrational.

I have to assume that you are referring to the questions I raised. First - they were questions, not issues. If you think that the questions are phrased badly, then you can say so. If you think that there is some hidden agenda in asking those questions, then you can say that also. If you are referring to some other list of issues, then let me know.

People will be more receptive to address this, when the hysterical and hypocritical marketing is no more.
The questions I raised specifically had to do with this point - what constitutes "hysterical and hypocritical marketing". Your replies certainly say what you think is "extreme", but don't address what would be "acceptable" - and that is what is being asked.

Until this happens, you will gain the replies that you are reading from me.
So I guess that you are specifically saying that all that you will talk about is extremes.

But I ain't buying the snake oil in its present packaging.
"Snake Oil", implying "hoax"? Or some new meaning?
Erster, I was carefully trying to bring an opportunity for some reasoned middle-ground discussion here - this would benefit you (as well as others) by encouraging a more in-depth discussion which you could sink your teeth into. But never mind.

[hansp77]

"Interesting the difference in opinion regarding the certainty on this issue. Quite a difference of opinion."

"Oh, I agree...
But, Isn't that what most of science is?"

mmm...

IMO, no- not exactly. I would say that most of science is not people disagreeing with each other, challenging opinions and such, but rather that science is done within, and only within, a firm foundation or environment of agreement (the paradigm). After this, within this, and in no contradiction to the terms of such, comes this disagreement and challenge.


IMO it would appear as if the 'reality' of anthropic climate change has, or is in the final stages, solidified into a multidisciplinary (Khunian) paradigm of sorts. We all know the problems with paradigms (I assume), however, again IMO it appears as if serious challenges to this paradigm (in any of its most fundamental aspects) are virtually absent (or disapearing and weakening day by day), and disagreement upon the details, often spouted as challenges to the paradigm, are simply the natural work of 'normal scientists' doing what they do, disagreeing, theorising, testing, etc.. working out the details, filling out the gaps and expanding within the paradigm itself.
A true challenge may come, the paradigm may fail to overcome it, and a new paradigm around a new consensus may be built.
I just don't see that happening at the moment. I see it growing stronger and stronger, with a growing array of disciplines work building, reinforcing, correlating with, expanding upon, and further developing the paradigm.

But this is just my opinion.

[Dan McCosh]

Global warming is not real.

If it is, it is not serious.

If it is, it is not caused by CO2.

If it is, it is not caused by man.

If it is, there is nothing we can do about it.

If there is, we can't afford it.

If we can, then change the subject to Al Gore's personal life.

Good job, Thad. You have made it to Stage 4. :D


Might add a stage eight. The growth in the world's population and the demand for food and housing will consume all available energy, including fossil fuels and all the alternatives. There is no social system (including war) capable of reversing this. Efforts at conserving energy will be driven by the need to do more with less, but the aggregate consumption will continue to grow along with the population.

[Popeye]

energy is neither created nor destroyed

[erster]

But someplace you, and others, have a line of behavior beyond which the messenger becomes perceived as a 'snake oil salesman'


Uncle Duke, you prejudiced your request by telling me that you have already made a prequalifying judgement about me. I also take it, as most folks will also do that my thoughts and opinions are a bit off base and [B]will be looked at through less than an open mind.

My statements today stand in plain view for one and all to read. I used mindnumbing robots to address the issues, making the replies about the message of conservation.

It is up to you to decide if you are willing to accept the idea that I have placed in full view for one and all to consider. The global warming issue that is being presented to the world selectively chastises a very small portion of the civilized world.

The global warming issue is also being campaigned to the world by well known people that are not living by the same set of guildlines, including the world community that resides at the United Nations and most of their own countries. These voices are asking you and me to live by a different set of rules and that is to reduce, reduce, reduce, cut back, cut back, conserve, give up, accept a tax that also has an affect on the working class in this country that cannot afford the many perks afforded the vocal voices of the movement to save the planet by reductions, and giveaways.

I would also venture out on a limb and say that if I had to purchase even one polution credit, that the polution credit which seperates more money from my pocketbook, will not reduce the greenhouse gases in the outer limits of my surrounding air that I am now breathing.

The movement is flawed when we see these people single out[used as a general discription] a very small portion of the worlds population to reduce, cut back giveup, accept a world tax and so forth while the same ones are doing nothing more than scorn people that challenge the many issues associated with this takeover of our lives in an effort to control us further while they continue on their merry way.

Yes in your initial request, you have already told me what you think of my time spent on this issue of global warming and postings and that is being behavior out of the mainstream.


I ask you kindly to please be more specific and point out what you perceive to be out of the mainstream here. Is it that I have taken a few moments to express a different point of view that you do? My understanding, and especially from reading the forum in the last few weeks, many on the forum have expressed that this forum has always enjoyed strong opinions. I do not waiver from even my boat convictions after six plus decades on Earth. Place whatever label you wish upon reveiwing my own point of view. I read and make up my own mind given all the evidence in each and every life issue.

Yes, I guess we can now conclude that my strong and civil opinions do not rise to the proper strong opinions that are well received here. There are also other words that can describe this too.


As a side note, I live to protect mother nature in my small and measured way. If you would be a bit open minded, and actually follow my most of my recent threads, each day I get up I make every attempt to enjoy Mother Earth, reaping the rewards of what she offers me, sailing, planting, fishing responsibly, composting, natural fertilizers, reclaiming woods for boat projects, donate to many of the terminally ill patients, donate to the veterans and their families on a year round as need basic.

SO feel free to call me out of the mainstream if you wish. If I am out of the mainstream, I for one, am proud to wear their label across my chest, proudly.


And I say again, the global warming issue and its campaigners for reductions will do well if instead of calling for a compromise by such as small amount of people on this, they will lead the way and
People will be more receptive to address this, leaving the hysterical and hypocritical marketing iat the door or login in this case.

Let me add just one more tidbit to this discussion as it pertains to this forum as an example of extreme daily behavior that weakens the credibilty further here.

You have exempted this type of behavior from your set of standards asking for a middle of a road approach of discussions. Funny how that always seems to be the case with one side here. :D



George.Amazing.

All this, from the same folks who think that a bunch of draft evaders have the required credibility to lead a nation into war...

[Uncle Duke]

erster says in post #225:

Quote:
But someplace you, and others, have a line of behavior beyond which the messenger becomes perceived as a 'snake oil salesman'

Uncle Duke, you prejudiced your request by telling me that you have already made a prequalifying judgement about me. I also take it, as most folks will also do that my thoughts and opinions are a bit off base and [B]will be looked at through less than an open mind.
Let's address your complaints one at a time, and let us start with this one.
First - I did not prejudice my request with the statement above (post #195) - the request preceded that statement. My original request (#183) had no references to 'snake oil' and no prejudice implied, as you will see if you re-read it.
Secondly, the opinion above is not inaccurate, especially with regard to you. You have very clearly stated that there is a limit of 'messenger behavior' which taints the message.

Post # 173 by erster:
Gore is the messenger selling snake oil if any rational person actually looks at his message.

Post #173 by erster:
How hard is it to see that he is selling snake oil and making millions while living his plush and excessive lifestyle.

Post #179 by erster:
The premise of the message that you have done your part for the planet by still using fossil fuels and using some unused credits of others, supporting an extravagant lifestyle by any comparison to the average guy, is flawed logic and snake oil salesmanship. The salesman is not even using his own snake oil.
My questions in #183 were directly addressing at what point does perceived behavior make the actual message flawed. You have clearly stated, in your posts above, that you believe this to be true. I was merely asking (you and others) how that mechanism worked. There was no finger pointing and no prejudice. As you know.

[Uncle Duke]

erster also says:

Yes in your initial request, you have already told me what you think of my time spent on this issue of global warming and postings and that is being behavior out of the mainstream.
I ask you kindly to please be more specific and point out what you perceive to be out of the mainstream here.
This it patently untrue and you can validate that simply by reading both the original request (post #183) and the follow-up to it (#195). If you can find anywhere, in those or other posts, where I have defined a mainstream or stated or implied that you are not in it, please post that and if appropriate I will easily apologize. In fact if you can find anywhere where I have told you what I think of your time spent, then please point that out also.
If you can't do that - then you should apologize to me, for mis-representing my statements and questions for your own purposes.
There is, of course, no possible way for me to "point out what I perceive to be out of the mainstream here" because that is never an issue which I've addressed. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else. If so, please correct that.

[Uncle Duke]

Finally, erster also says:

As a side note, I live to protect mother nature in my small and measured way. If you would be a bit open minded, and actually follow my most of my recent threads, each day I get up I make every attempt to enjoy Mother Earth, reaping the rewards of what she offers me, sailing, planting, fishing responsibly, composting, natural fertilizers, reclaiming woods for boat projects, donate to many of the terminally ill patients, donate to the veterans and their families on a year round as need basic.
A "bit more open minded"? Gee - maybe you would be kind enough to show me where I'm closed-minded. I may be an annoying fan of specificity, but I'd venture that I'm about as open-minded as anyone. And if you could point out where I have suggested that you don't do good things, I'd appreciate that also.

Please, oh sir, show me the error of my ways.
Or - give up insulting me. Thanks.

[erster]

I have not insulted anyone. Al Gore is not subscribing to his own medicine that he is prescribing for others. The numerous countries in United Nations are calling for the U.S. to cut back while giving a pass to other developing nations. In the days gone by, it use to be called Snake Oil. No one is solving the preconceived nothion that excess consumption and use of fossil fuel is causing the planet to warm, which as of yet has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is displaying what is known as hypocricy. He is consuming while asking others to give up many things. All of this is well known.

Now where do we end up here, right back where we started long ago. If a person is passionate enough to go around the country and preach that the world needs to conserve, buying someone elses surplus so that you can continue on your merry ways poluting discredits the message that is being portrayed nightly on the news. This is not my fault that the message falls on death ears of many people. You cannot blame me for being irrational about this issue. I do not force Al Gore to consume, He pays for the privilage to consume over and is very prooud of it by buying others nonconsumption rights. Thank you for your time.

edited to add since I was typing and have now read you followup. Yes you have predetermined that my views are extreme since my posts differ from your perception of the problem and issues. They are no more off the wall than any other posts that buy into the myth that buying polution credits are saving the enviroment as is being done by Hollywood and Al Gore..

[Uncle Duke]

I have not insulted anyone.
I see myself as one of the most open-minded people on this forum, based merely on other postings, so when you tell me to 'become more open-minded' without any background to suggest that you have reason to believe that, then I (personally) find that to be an insult. I asked for an apology for these specific reasons:
1: You incorrectly state that I've "already made a prequalifying judgment about [you]", and then use that incorrect statement as a part of a further argument.
2: You incorrectly complain that I have stated that you are "out of the mainstream" when, in fact, I did not say or imply that ever. Then you vaguely waver around saying that I am 'labeling' you, when no such thing has happened.
3: You state that I am not "open-minded" based on absolutely zero facts.
4: Now - to add to it - you refuse to address the issues above (despite ample opportunity) and continue blindly throwing around baseless accusations.
You are making up fictions, attributing them to real people, and using them for your own purposes. You should not be surprised if those real people have objections to that, and if they ask for an apology.

You edited what you said to add:
edited to add since I was typing and have now read you followup

Really? So.... you saw "give up insulting me" from the post immediately preceding yours, begin yours with "I have not insulted anyone" and now you are saying that the posts overlapped and you never read mine? It's magic!

[Uncle Duke]

Just for the record, let me state some personal positions here:
1: I believe that global warming is real. There may be some discussion about what percentage of what causes what, but it's real.
2: It is moral and ethical for the largest contributors to that to take the lead on helping to mitigate the problem. This primarily means companies which generate energy, but also includes consumers of energy. In that category, the largest consumers (industry) should do more.
3: I think that Al Gore's estate is too big - certainly bigger than I would ever want or am likely to need. And I'm sure that is using too much energy. I'm glad that they are remodeling it to help that problem - that's probably a better energy usage than tearing it down and starting from scratch. And it's certainly better than it being sold to some rich guy who would not do anything. It will be interesting to see what energy footprint it will have after.
4: I do wish that he flew on commercial airlines more. That would be nice.
5: Glad that he drives a hybrid.

[LeeG]

Duke, Duke, Duke. If this is the first time you've crossed words with Erster I'd like to suggest most respectively that you're wasting your time. The words look like English but that's about it.

[Uncle Duke]

Thanks, Lee - I'm aware. I have very low expectations and they are being fulfilled. Sometimes it is fun to feel like the "truth shark chasing a school of argument fish" - no nutrition, but decent exercise.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[George.]

I have not insulted anyone. Al Gore is not subscribing to his own medicine that he is prescribing for others. .

Bull.

Al Gore is prescribing collective action. If it is adopted, he will have to submit to it too - be it a carbon tax or whatever other scheme.

It is Big Dick Cheney that prescribes medicine he does not take. He is the one prescribing "private virtue" as a solution to pollution. How much does his estate pollute? How virtuous is he in his private life?

Bunch of hypocrites...

[erster]

I'd like to find out where in the middle ground those lines are drawn.


Middle ground is acheived by compromising. People's views, for the sake of argument, can only be perceived middle ground when there are two strong sides of opposition come together with compromises. Let me just say when I see you at middle ground or a few other more vocal folks, then we can have a dialogue. This is no difference than being in real life on this issue. The global warming professors are making every attempt to silence anyone that speaks out with any sketism , and is exhibited in this very thread.

I have already arrived at middle ground by responding past a couple of posts simply because I was awaiting for the weather to clear today. . I knew long ago that common ground is not to be achieved whether it be here or in real life.

The very idea that a person is saving the enviroment while "buying" fossil fuels and burning it is as absurb as can be. You cannot consume and preserve anything at the same time. This is exactly what is being done with these stupid credits. One guy burns less and the another guy comes along and says hey I will pay some advocy group money for your unused portion so I will not feel guilty of over indulgence according to the perceived footprint.

A gallon burned is a gallon burned, whether it be one guy burning more and another guy burning less. Its not a gallon of oil conserved, part of the ongoing preaching by so many of the Al Gore types, because you have paid another guy for his unused gallon.


Now its does not take a lot of common sense to understand that if a rocket scientist or anyone in for that matter in one hand tells me that fossil fuels are creating global warming, and in the other breath crank up his plane, car or air conditioning and then consume the "surplus"oil that the other fellow did not use and then tell me that he is concerned about global warming and we should conserve ourselves.

If you consider these simple explanations insults its just because the facts are not on the sides of the perceived do gooders in this perticular issue, no what the temperature maybe on this planet.

Now I will yield my time to the majority of the forum members that have never known middle ground. My presence is requested outdoors in the sunshine and blue skies. Later.

[Uncle Duke]

Now its does not take a lot of common sense to understand that if a rocket scientist or anyone in for that matter in one hand tells me that fossil fuels are creating global warming, and in the other breath crank up his plane, car or air conditioning and then consume the "surplus"oil that the other fellow did not use and then tell me that he is concerned about global warming and we should conserve ourselves.
Is this a sentence?:D

[TomF]

In some factual things, there's not middle ground. Collapse of the cod fishery, for instance. The fish aren't there - fact. What are the factors that could have prevented it, or made the loss turn around ... could be middle ground on that one.

The globe's warming - the scientific data says that's a fact.

The warming's very likely (like 90-98% likelihood) caused by human activity, says each of the major reports on climate change released recently. That percentage is pretty close to fact, not supposition.

The middle ground comes in what to do about it - what policies to enact, how to best bring about change in behaviour while not doing ourselves in in other ways.

But I don't think there's a middle ground for whether the climate's warming or not. The data says it is, full stop.

[Rick Starr]

Duke, Duke, Duke. If this is the first time you've crossed words with Erster I'd like to suggest most respectively that you're wasting your time. The words look like English but that's about it.

HaHaHaHaHa!

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

[erster]

The warming's very likely (like 90-98% likelihood) caused by human activity, says each of the major reports on climate change released recently. That percentage is pretty close to fact, not supposition.


Its also very lightly that when clouds are present in the sky, it could possibly rain, but no guarantee that it will rain or conditions are favorable to rain just because clouds are present in the sky.

Its also very likely that when the sun comes across the equator, it will get hotter in the northern hemiphere than it will be in the southern hemisphere, too. How hot depends on several factors. One big factor is the area that you may reside in and also if clouds are present in your area. Can we guarantee that it will be 90 degrees in New York or even Canada just because we know that the sun has come across the equator, on a certain day next year?

We do know that its pretty much a guarantee that it will be warmer as the sun moves across the equator to the northern hemiphere but we cannot predict that when the sun comes across the equator that it will cause a problem next year, or even in twenty five years.

So in conclusion, the consensous is only that its a guarantee, given past experiences that it will be warmer after the sun comes across the equator in the northern hemiphere next year. Can you predict that on June 1 that it will be 90 degrees and that no cold fronts will hinder the temperature from being a normal average of around 90 degrees?

Can we also predict that there will be clouds in the area that will also hinder the beach goers from getting a nice tan on the beach on June 1 of next year?

NO to all the above

Now we ae learning that in fifty years the earth will warm another degree or two and it will be divastation like we have never seen before, simular to train wrecks in the middle of major metropolitan cities, out of the blue killing everyone in its path.

Thank you alarmists for warning us in advance for this doom and gloom. There are really superior beings, all of a sudden, that are able to read the stars and moon alignments ions ahead in time from the compounds and bunkers that provide safety for the elites so that they will be the only ones to survive us ignent rednecks. . .:D

All this song and dance about global warming makes just as much sense as the mindset of the bunker babies fear of the ending of time if we do not send money to the United Nations .

[erster]

The globe's warming - the scientific data says that's a fact.

Okay I must ask what this all means? Does it mean all bad? Who has determined that its bad and when and how was this determined? If so when in the history of the world has it been ideal in climate terminology?


What makes the particular climate that you and the sceintists have concluded to be just right or ideal? And how does one determine the ideal situation? What gauge or formula is being used and where did the gauge or formula to predict total divastation come from that has lead us to conclude that we are actually heading in the wrong direction? Inquirying minds want to know. Don't tell me its because people in the science field has told us so.

[hansp77]

Inquirying minds want to know. Don't tell me its because people in the science field has told us so.
as if beating my head against a very thick wall,
I will enter discussion with you:D

seriously though, if you are not happy with "people in the science field" informing us that climate change or GW is going to be a problem,
WHO WOULD YOU ACCEPT HEARING IT FROM?

seriously Oyster.

(I could of course go on about how our ecosystems and our civilisations are adapted to and built around the current form and shape of our climate, rainforest where it rains, agriculture where suited, coastal development EVERYWHERE, etc- and how the more our climate changes, with expected changes in our weather patterns and engines, the less and less suited our ecosystems and civilisations and infrastructure are going the new conditions they inhabit.... I could say that ecologically, while climate change has been a given in the past, and ecosystems have migrated with it, the rate of climate change we are experiencing and predicting will likely be unprecedented, let alone the fact that most of our ecologies now exist in bordered islands where there is nowhere to go.... I could talk about.... but what is the point, most of this comes from professionals working and studying "in the science field")

[erster]

WHO WOULD YOU ACCEPT HEARING IT FROM?


First off, you snipped part of my request and context of the comment off. Please do not misrepresent my words like Uncle Duke had done all day, okay? So I see that you are truely do accept scientists words about Global Warming. Are you truely going to admit this, being a believer that the world is warming and man is the reason, to us in open forum? I think you need to retract your premise that all scientists agree with you. If not I can provide you a list of card carrying scientists that you may not want to hear their thoughts on the issues pertaining to this propaganda campaign dealing with global warming. I think there are others that have already done so, and we know what has been stated about those card carriers, too.
Now again are you saying that if a scientist says it, then we must accept it as gospel? ;) I will await your answer to provide you the list to save you having to retract the idea that the sceintific community agrees with you.

Let me state in advance so you won't have to, yes these scientists are all paid by the oil companies and George Bush and Cheney.:p ;)

And also have you read about Al Gore whining this week about the mainstream press and its reporting of both ideas and not just his version or agenda? Most people with any confidence in their product will not have to shoot people down or make attempts to silence them right?;)

This guy is really confident in his snake oil for sure.:eek:


Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02

I may not be able to get back to you until the first of the week. I have some unfinished business on the water this weekend. I am making an attempt to only discuss boats on the weekend, and issues pertaining to boats. Cheers and beers.

[ljb5]

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02



Wow, that's a great story. Thanks for posting it, Mlke.

So, basically it boils down to this: Nearly all scientist agree about global warming, but rather than report the facts, corporate media decided to muddy the issue.

As if a bunch of journalists know more than all the scientists in the world.

Al Gore is smart enough to see this and tough enough to stick it to the "journalists" for their shoddy, biased reporting.

[erster]

Nearly all hand picked or selected scientist agree about global warming,

Now you can edit your post to display the truth.:rolleyes:

[ljb5]

A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists.

That's the article you posted. Doesn't say anything about being "hand picked."

Sorry, Mike. You'll have to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[ljb5]

Let's see... on the one hand we have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 10-year study by the University of California and the American Society for the Advancement of Science....

...all of whom have come out and said there is substantial agreement.

On the other hand, we have a guy on the internet who calls himself "Oyster" and can't spell or write in complete sentences.

Are you really sure you're up for this?

[hansp77]

What makes the particular climate that you and the scientists have concluded to be just right or ideal? And how does one determine the ideal situation? What gauge or formula is being used and where did the gauge or formula to predict total divastation come from that has lead us to conclude that we are actually heading in the wrong direction? Inquirying minds want to know. Don't tell me its because people in the science field has told us so.

is that a little better Oyster? (or would like the whole thing?:rolleyes: )
I am not into misquoting people, and certainly didn't aim to. Normally quoting at the begging of a sentence and ending at the end of one would not be considered snipping the quote- especially the way I did it, which basically covered the idea that
1. You have an inquiring mind (that wants to know among other things why climate change would be bad)
2. Any answers or reasons why, provided, cannot come from 'people in the science field'.

I did also try to address the first queery in the other bit of the quote

You still haven't answered my question, because I genuinely would like to know.
WHO WOULD YOU ACCEPT HEARING IT FROM?
Is it the messenger, ie the scientist that is the problem, and is there another messenger who you would listen to, or is it the message?- as you seem quite happy to quote, and place heavy reliance upon the opinion those few renegade or compromised (bought off?) scientists who are making their careers by raising doubt and uncertainty about climate change and mans role in it.

[erster]

You still haven't answered my question, because I genuinely would like to know.
WHO WOULD YOU ACCEPT HEARING IT FROM?
Is it the messenger, ie the scientist that is the problem, and is there another messenger who you would listen to, or is it the message?- as you seem quite happy to quote, and place heavy reliance upon the opinion those few renegade or compromised (bought off?) scientists who are making their careers by raising doubt and uncertainty about climate change and mans role in it.

I personally have no problem and have stated that climate temperatures may show a slight increase. What I take issue is that that actual automobile and business is completely to blame while discounting many other factors that have also taken place over the last 100 years. This figure seems to be the amount of time that has been highlighted when we see reports that states that the temp has increased.

There are also reports that before the initial increase, there was also cooling taking place. This not only helps distorts the real truth, painting more of a bleak picture if warming is indeed bad, its just a version of an outright lie. This creates the idea without using this bit of information that we must turn back parts of our lifestyle which is what is being called for, ever so selectively I might add.

And I say again, the messengers buying up someone elses unused "fossil fuel" use and then consuming, completely discredits the message. There is just no other way around it. We as a nation and as a world will not clean up the air, if selectively certain people are to conserve, reduce, cut back, and chastised for a certain lifestyle while others use in excess according to some stupid formula created to relieve the guilt feeling such as the tree planting crap. I have wasted too much time for something that has no common ground here. When the messengers and the messages carry some uniform standards to them, people are much more receptive to discussing the merits.

Shouting down anyone that challenges this notions on how to in theory fix the problem that is perceived to be one if the people offer up other thoughts and ideas, does nothing but waste a lot of energy and time, accomplishing nothing as this whole conversation has done.

I can go through and pull out the insults in this thread, alone, lodged at the few that have attempted to offer up words that go a bit further than the single issue of a raised temperature. We all know that there ar more humans on the planet. But one thing for sure, the regulations are pretty darn stringent now on businesses in the United States while the the rest of the world gets a pass. Good night.

[hansp77]

Oyster,
you really baffle me as to how you have gained the understanding you appear to have, of the larger issue, and of the discussion in this thread.

I don't know what I could say to adress your complaints here, other than repeating things that have already been said in this thread, No matter,

Good night (afternoon).

[PeterSibley]

I personally have no problem and have stated that climate temperatures may show a slight increase. What I take issue is that that actual automobile and business is completely to blame while discounting many other factors that have also taken place over the last 100 years. This figure seems to be the amount of time that has been highlighted when we see reports that states that the temp has increased.


You certainly right there , there has been a lot more CO2 emitting human activvity over the last 100 years than just cars and manufacturing .The main has probably been the lose of soil carbon ..humus, from soils as a result of modern farming ....over absolutely huge areas.Combine that with burning biomass ,forests , cultivating native grass lands and you have figures that may equal the emissions from coal.

(Sorry ..I can't find the reference to support this .)