Al Gore: Energy Hypocrite

[1951Campbell]

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I eagerly await the "yeah, but..." arguments on this one. Also: crying "Drudge is biased and wrong!" does not count as an argument.

Full disclosure: my monthly electric bill averages about $85 a month. That includes heat and cooking. Then again, I don't have a 20-room, 8-bathroom "house." However, I seem to be evil, because I own a car and I am not ashamed of it. :D

[Joosh]

Hey, the electricity might look bad, but the natural gas part is so blown out of proportion. It takes a lot of natural gas to heat a house that big!! :thumbsup:

[Palehose13]

:eek:

He makes my $188/month budget from WE energies look like peanuts. I have no guilt for driving a gas guzzling jeep. :cool:

[fquaye14ten]

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I eagerly await the "yeah, but..." arguments on this one. Also: crying "Drudge is biased and wrong!" does not count as an argument.

Full disclosure: my monthly electric bill averages about $85 a month. That includes heat and cooking. Then again, I don't have a 20-room, 8-bathroom "house." However, I seem to be evil, because I own a car and I am not ashamed of it. :D


So he's a hypocrite. Ok.....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

so was Lincoln, most likely. Oh and Thomas "All Men Are Created Equal" Jefferson.

Still waiting for the point.....

[SABRSox]

Come on... First, I don't read anything off the Drudge Report. That guy is a tool.

Second, the article fails to mention that Gore offsets all his and his families CO2 output. In other words, he pays for his carbon emissions (and most likely then some) and that money is used toward constructing renewable energy sources like wind farms, methane farms, etc.

It's not completely about reducing energy. It's about evening out your emissions, from everything, electricity, auto emissions, etc, and while things like hybrid cars and fluorescent lights get you part of the way there, it's not enough. Carbon offsetting is key to getting the rest of the way there.

Of course, why would Drudge give you all the facts? Oh yeah, because then he couldn't spin any of his anti-liberal stories.

[fquaye14ten]

Come on... First, I don't read anything off the Drudge Report. That guy is a tool.

Second, the article fails to mention that Gore offsets all his and his families CO2 output. In other words, he pays for his carbon emissions (and most likely then some) and that money is used toward constructing renewable energy sources like wind farms, methane farms, etc.

It's not completely about reducing energy. It's about evening out your emissions, from everything, electricity, auto emissions, etc, and while things like hybrid cars and fluorescent lights get you part of the way there, it's not enough. Carbon offsetting is key to getting the rest of the way there.

Of course, why would Drudge give you all the facts? Oh yeah, because then he couldn't spin any of his anti-liberal stories.

And of course if Gore weren't a member of one of the major parties Campbell would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But he's not, so he gets the Ringo treatment from 1951

[StockdaleforVeep]

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

I eagerly await the "yeah, but..." arguments on this one. Also: crying "Drudge is biased and wrong!" does not count as an argument.

Full disclosure: my monthly electric bill averages about $85 a month. That includes heat and cooking. Then again, I don't have a 20-room, 8-bathroom "house." However, I seem to be evil, because I own a car and I am not ashamed of it. :D



ALL THIS and hes up for the nobel peace price?

No wonder con ed rose rates, Gore is using up all the power for his gold plated jacuzzi

[cbotnyse]

"Drudge is biased and wrong!"

oh wait that doesnt count. :(

[samram]

Of course, why would Drudge give you all the facts? Oh yeah, because then he couldn't spin any of his anti-liberal stories.

Drudge linked from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research- it's not his story. If Gore is doing other things to reduce emissions, that's fine, but the fact remains that his wealth allows him to do that while not really sacrificing his own comforts, which is the message he's delivering to everyone else.

[fquaye14ten]

Drudge linked from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research- it's not his story. If Gore is doing other things to reduce emissions, that's fine, but the fact remains that his wealth allows him to do that while not really sacrificing his own comforts, which is the message he's delivering to everyone else.

so that makes his message incorrect?


and what does this have to do with the nobel prize? I suppose everyone who has ever won the nobel prize has had his personal life taken into account(like, for instance, hemingway)

[samram]

so that makes his message incorrect?

Not in the least, but that's not the point. Thing is, he won the "Most Fellated" Award on Oscar night and has been made into some sort of environmental messiah when he can't be bothered to reduce his own consumption. In other words, he's just like any other politician whose motto is "do as I say, not as I do."

[fquaye14ten]

Not in the least, but that's not the point. Thing is, he won the "Most Fellated" Award on Oscar night and has been made into some sort of environmental messiah when he can't be bothered to reduce his own consumption. In other words, he's just like any other politician whose motto is "do as I say, not as I do."

Like I say, earlier in Lincoln's career he was a staunch anti-abolitionist. It is very much within the realm of likelihood that he only adopted the abolitionist stance to get elected and...as an excuse to go to war. Furthermore, he was one of the greatest violators of the constitution in history during the civil war.

Yet he is one of the most roundly fellated presidents (and rightly so).


Thomas Jefferson....well what needs to be said about his hypocrisy? He was still a great man.

If Gore's message is accurate (and I tend to believe it is) I think it's ridiculous to throw up straw men like this, especially if, as SABRSox pointed out, it's not really accurate that he's fucking up the environment with his excess.

[1951Campbell]

If Gore is doing other things to reduce emissions, that's fine, but the fact remains that his wealth allows him to do that while not really sacrificing his own comforts, which is the message he's delivering to everyone else.

And that's my problem. SABRSox points out that Gore purchases carbon credits to offset his energy usage. Well, bully for Gore, but most of us can't afford to run up that kind of electric bill and then spend even more money to ease our conscience by buying carbon credits.

[CaptainBallz]

It's my guess that Campbell is up in arms about Pelosi's travel arrangements too... because, well, that's important. I'm just glad it isn't a slight-of-hand tactic used by people that realize they have been historically wrong to offset their ignorance.:rolleyes:

I offer this straw man to make this argument more ridiculous-- I'll take Gore's environmental hypocrisies to task when I see every pro-war American enlist. Irrelevant enough? Thought so.

But yeah, Gore is involved in numerous other activities that others have pointed out that render his gas bill insignificant.

Would it help Gore's cause if he lived in a log cabin? Yes. Would people like Drudge then rally the monkeys about how many trees Gore used to make the cabin? You know it.

Point: :jagoff:

[fquaye14ten]

It's my guess that Campbell is up in arms about Pelosi's travel arrangements too... because, well, that's important. I'm just glad it isn't a slight-of-hand tactic used by people that realize they have been historically wrong to offset their ignorance.:rolleyes:

I offer this straw man to make this argument more ridiculous-- I'll take Gore's environmental hypocrisies to task when I see every pro-war American enlist. Irrelevant enough? Thought so.

But yeah, Gore is involved in numerous other activities that others have pointed out that render his gas bill insignificant.

Would it help Gore's cause if he lived in a log cabin? Yes. Would people like Drudge then rally the monkeys about how many trees Gore used to make the cabin? You know it.

Point: :jagoff:

cb ftw

[samram]

And that's my problem. SABRSox points out that Gore purchases carbon credits to offset his energy usage. Well, bully for Gore, but most of us can't afford to run up that kind of electric bill and then spend even more money to ease our conscience by buying carbon credits.

Right. I would also like to know if he's purchasing enough to offset $30,000 a year in energy consumption just at his home.

It's not the message- it's the guy delivering it. Find someone else.

I guess the message of Gore's defenders is if you're rich, you can buy your way out of making sacrifices. Strange considering most of them aren't exactly fans of the rich.

[1951Campbell]

Like I say, earlier in Lincoln's career he was a staunch anti-abolitionist. It is very much within the realm of likelihood that he only adopted the abolitionist stance to get elected and...as an excuse to go to war. Furthermore, he was one of the greatest violators of the constitution in history during the civil war.

Yet he is one of the most roundly fellated presidents (and rightly so).


Thomas Jefferson....well what needs to be said about his hypocrisy? He was still a great man.

If Gore's message is accurate (and I tend to believe it is) I think it's ridiculous to throw up straw men like this, especially if, as SABRSox pointed out, it's not really accurate that he's fucking up the environment with his excess.

There's no straw man argument here, except for Lincoln. Going from anti-abolitionist to abolitionist is changing a position. Now, if he had actaully owned slaves while advocating abolition, that would be another story.

Anyway, Gore is rich and lives and consumes profligately. He has stated in the past that overpopulation is an environmental problem, yet he has four kids when replacement level is two kids. I live five blocks from my office, plan to have no more than two kids, and spend around $90 a month on electricity--and he's wagging his finger at me?

Also, what do you see his message as?

[fquaye14ten]

There's no straw man argument here, except for Lincoln. Going from anti-abolitionist to abolitionist is changing a position. Now, if he had actaully owned slaves while advocating abolition, that would be another story.

Anyway, Gore is rich and lives and consumes profligately. He has stated in the past that overpopulation is an environmental problem, yet he has four kids when replacement level is two kids. I live five blocks from my office, plan to have no more than two kids, and spend around $90 a month on electricity--and he's wagging his finger at me?

Also, what do you see his message as?

you're absolutely right the lincoln analogy is weak. the jefferson is not.

Like Jefferson working to establish personal liberties, Gore has worked for almost his entire political career to protect the environment.

So he owns a big home and has four children. And furthermore we find out that any greenhouse pollution his house produces is offset. And this is supposed to effect how we view what he says about the environment?

Christ, for instance, preached tolerance and forgiveness. However even he went batshit at the moneylenders in the temple.......

why are you taking gore's message so personally? You act like the dude called you up and told you you're ruining the environment.

[1951Campbell]

It's my guess that Campbell is up in arms about Pelosi's travel arrangements too... because, well, that's important. I'm just glad it isn't a slight-of-hand tactic used by people that realize they have been historically wrong to offset their ignorance.:rolleyes:

I offer this straw man to make this argument more ridiculous-- I'll take Gore's environmental hypocrisies to task when I see every pro-war American enlist. Irrelevant enough? Thought so.

But yeah, Gore is involved in numerous other activities that others have pointed out that render his gas bill insignificant.

Would it help Gore's cause if he lived in a log cabin? Yes. Would people like Drudge then rally the monkeys about how many trees Gore used to make the cabin? You know it.

Point: :jagoff:

I don't give a shit about Pelosi's plane, she didn't ask for it, she was told "this is how it's gonna be" by the Sgt. at Arms or whoever's in charge of travel, and that's that.

As for enlisting in the war, let's pretend you could still pay $300 to send a repalcement to Iraq, like in the Civil War. If pro-war Americans did so, wouldn't that be okay if I accept the premise you've laid down in re Gore? Think of it as a "cannon-fodder offset credit."

And if you want to argue that saying the right thing is more important than doing the right thing, be my guest. But it's unpersuasive.

[fquaye14ten]

And if you want to argue that saying the right thing is more important than doing the right thing, be my guest. But it's unpersuasive.

have fun being a father. i don't envy you, never being able to say "do as i say, not as i do"

[1951Campbell]

why are you taking gore's message so personally? You act like the dude called you up and told you you're ruining the environment.

Heh, I don't know.

[1951Campbell]

have fun being a father. i don't envy you, never being able to say "do as i say, not as i do"

:D

[fquaye14ten]

:D

i'm wiretapping your home. in 5 years when you say it about scratching your balls while watching tv i'm totally going to start a thread about it:cool:

[1951Campbell]

i'm wiretapping your home. in 5 years when you say it about scratching your balls while watching tv i'm totally going to start a thread about it:cool:

I'm having a girl.
:cool:

[fquaye14ten]

I'm having a girl.
:cool:

eep.

FAUX PAS:o

[1951Campbell]

eep.

FAUX PAS:o


Don't sweat it. :thumbsup:

[CaptainBallz]

I don't give a shit about Pelosi's plane, she didn't ask for it, she was told "this is how it's gonna be" by the Sgt. at Arms or whoever's in charge of travel, and that's that.

As for enlisting in the war, let's pretend you could still pay $300 to send a repalcement to Iraq, like in the Civil War. If pro-war Americans did so, wouldn't that be okay if I accept the premise you've laid down in re Gore? Think of it as a "cannon-fodder offset credit."

And if you want to argue that saying the right thing is more important than doing the right thing, be my guest. But it's unpersuasive.

The point is that the entirety of what Al Gore has been advocating (and supporting/ adopting in various aspects of his personal life, 4 kids or none) for his entire political career, does not all of a sudden become a non-fact or not as important because the guy has a big house. What people like Drudge love to do is take a problem, point out a flaw in the messenger, thereby discrediting the message. I would think you'd be able to spot the flawed reasoning there. And if it didn't work so well, he wouldn't do it. I can hear it now... "Why should I listen to what Al Gore says... Look at his UTILITY BILL!!" It really doesn't make much sense.
It's like someone's #1 problem with the Iraq war being that Bush went AWOL from the national guard. It makes him a buttfucker, but it's not why the Iraq war is idiotic.
It's a waste of digital breath to sit here and try to defend Al Gore's personal consumer choices, because guess what-- none of us have a clue what they are. And so what if he happens to have money to do what some of us can't. He's not suggesting that we do everything. Actually, he's quite realistic about the consumer choices he recommends other people make.
And Campbell, based on what you've already said about your life situation, Gore's not even addressing you. So, why the hullabaloo?
Would it help if Gore got a more efficient hybrid car? More carbon offsets? Less? Or are you waiting for the log cabin? What kind of wood would not make him a hypocrite?

[1951Campbell]

Would it help if Gore got a more efficient hybrid car? More carbon offsets? Less? Or are you waiting for the log cabin? What kind of wood would not make him a hypocrite?

When he sells the mansion and gets a modest apartment somewhere where he can walk to work, and when he starts to fly commercial, then I may begin to take him seriously. Until then he's just another member of the ruling class suggesting things to the peasants that he'll never himself adhere to. You can wave the bloody shirt of a Drudge link all you want, but again, you're coming out in favor of someone proscribing behavior they themselves will not adopt. If you can't see why that gives people pause, I can't help. :shrug:

On a semi-related note, I think Ralph Nader is an educated fool, but he is concerned about envionmental issues, and he would never live as Gore does, even if he had Gore's money.

[CaptainBallz]

You can wave the bloody shirt of a Drudge link all you want, but again, you're coming out in favor of someone proscribing behavior they themselves will not adopt. If you can't see why that gives people pause, I can't help. :shrug:



I can see definitely see why people would call him on it, but I can't agree with using that as a reason to disregard the message. It's shooting the messenger at it's worst, which is a tactic which many people that, for some reason, take people like Drudge seriously have a hard time detecting.
Plus, I honestly don't think a utility bill dismisses everything that Al Gore has done for environmental causes and doesn't at all address the consumer choices he makes (some known/some not known) to actually make a judgement on if he, not to mention the bulk of the scientific community, should be taken seriously.

[fquaye14ten]

When he sells the mansion and gets a modest apartment somewhere where he can walk to work, and when he starts to fly commercial, then I may begin to take him seriously. Until then he's just another member of the ruling class suggesting things to the peasants that he'll never himself adhere to. You can wave the bloody shirt of a Drudge link all you want, but again, you're coming out in favor of someone proscribing behavior they themselves will not adopt. If you can't see why that gives people pause, I can't help. :shrug:

On a semi-related note, I think Ralph Nader is an educated fool, but he is concerned about envionmental issues, and he would never live as Gore does, even if he had Gore's money.

Would it be better if he lived more modestly? Yes, but CB has pointed out well that this has little to no bearing on what he's actually saying.

As a lit student, I read a lot of authors who I find horrible people. But the first question to ask is: "is what they're saying true? Or not?"

[JohnBasedowYoda]

For anyone keeping track the Druudge were an evil race in the computer game Star Control II.

Coincidence?

[Unreal!]

That's really no surprise. His movie didn't deserve an Oscar, his voice is extremely boring, most of the people that claimed to love that movie are feign environmentalists that are convinced by the liberal media that global warming is the biggest issue on the planet. I'm a republican that doesn't mind Gore as a person but hates him as a politician. A lot of people would say that I waste energy, but Gore is wasting more than me?!?!? C'mon, that's just ridiculous.

[StockdaleforVeep]

That's really no surprise. His movie didn't deserve an Oscar, his voice is extremely boring, most of the people that claimed to love that movie are feign environmentalists that are convinced by the liberal media that global warming is the biggest issue on the planet. I'm a republican that doesn't mind Gore as a person but hates him as a politician. A lot of people would say that I waste energy, but Gore is wasting more than me?!?!? C'mon, that's just ridiculous.

we are wasting precious joules of energy by being on this board rather than other things, think about it

[StockdaleforVeep]

The point is that the entirety of what Al Gore has been advocating (and supporting/ adopting in various aspects of his personal life, 4 kids or none) for his entire political career, does not all of a sudden become a non-fact or not as important because the guy has a big house. What people like Drudge love to do is take a problem, point out a flaw in the messenger, thereby discrediting the message. I would think you'd be able to spot the flawed reasoning there. And if it didn't work so well, he wouldn't do it. I can here it now... "Why should I listen to what Al Gore says... Look at his UTILITY BILL!!" It really doesn't make much sense.
It's like someone's #1 problem with the Iraq war being that Bush went AWOL from the national guard. It makes him a buttfucker, but it's not why the Iraq war is idiotic.
It's a waste of digital breath to sit here and try to defend Al Gore's personal consumer choices, because guess what-- none of us have a clue what they are. And so what if he happens to have money to do what some of us can't. He's not suggesting that we do everything. Actually, he's quite realistic about the consumer choices he recommends other people make.
And Campbell, based on what you've already said about your life situation, Gore's not even addressing you. So, why the hullabaloo?
Would it help if Gore got a more efficient hybrid car? More carbon offsets? Less? Or are you waiting for the log cabin? What kind of wood would not make him a hypocrite?

So peta is against animal uses and exploitation. Does that mean they can attack and scream at people for using shampoo and other objects that were tested on animals yet the VP of PETA is on insulin for diabetes, which was trialed with animal testings and it does not make them hypocritical? It shows they are not as strong on their stance. They both want people to adapt their lifestyles to fit their motives, be it animal cruelty or stop harming the planet, yet they benefit from it and think its ok. Why is it ok for them and not us

[3D23]

So peta is against animal uses and exploitation. Does that mean they can attack and scream at people for using shampoo and other objects that were tested on animals yet the VP of PETA is on insulin for diabetes, which was trialed with animal testings and it does not make them hypocritical? It shows they are not as strong on their stance. They both want people to adapt their lifestyles to fit their motives, be it animal cruelty or stop harming the planet, yet they benefit from it and think its ok. Why is it ok for them and not us

Yeah, what he said. :thumbsup:

It pisses me off to NO END that the gay ass song from the movie (no pun intended) beat out a fabulous soundtrack from any of the three songs nominated from Dreamgirls. That Melissa Ehtridge didn't go all Ving Rhames with her Oscar is atrocious. She knew that the award was the 'Brokeback' for the night, didn't she? DIDN'T SHE?!?!?!?

[SABRSox]

That's really no surprise. His movie didn't deserve an Oscar, his voice is extremely boring, most of the people that claimed to love that movie are feign environmentalists that are convinced by the liberal media that global warming is the biggest issue on the planet. I'm a republican that doesn't mind Gore as a person but hates him as a politician. A lot of people would say that I waste energy, but Gore is wasting more than me?!?!? C'mon, that's just ridiculous.

did you see the other nominees in the category? can you make such a proclamation? doubtful.

liberal media, what are you smoking?

[SABRSox]

Yeah, what he said. :thumbsup:

It pisses me off to NO END that the gay ass song from the movie (no pun intended) beat out a fabulous soundtrack from any of the three songs nominated from Dreamgirls. That Melissa Ehtridge didn't go all Ving Rhames with her Oscar is atrocious. She knew that the award was the 'Brokeback' for the night, didn't she? DIDN'T SHE?!?!?!?

They never should have nominated 3 songs from the same film. Of course they were going to split the vote among each other.

[CaptainBallz]

So peta is against animal uses and exploitation. Does that mean they can attack and scream at people for using shampoo and other objects that were tested on animals yet the VP of PETA is on insulin for diabetes, which was trialed with animal testings and it does not make them hypocritical? It shows they are not as strong on their stance. They both want people to adapt their lifestyles to fit their motives, be it animal cruelty or stop harming the planet, yet they benefit from it and think its ok. Why is it ok for them and not us

Because your problem is essentially with certain messengers and not particularly the message. PETA has taken some rather extreme, to put it lightly, actions to get their message out there. There is no debate about that. It does hurt their cause because they don't realize the reactionary tendencies of certain people who they'd like to reach.
It's like shock rock, kids love it because they get it -- stale adults and Pat Robertson hate it because they don't get it nor do they seem particularly interested in getting it.
But I can guarantee that for every VP of Peta taking insulin for diabetes, there's one trying his/her damndest to adhere to their principles and in the meantime shed some light on a situation that (FACT) most people don't realize is occurring. That's the point. It's probably safe to assume that those people don't persuade you as much as the one whose diabetes has justified your point of view.

[CaptainBallz]

Well, as expected, there's more to the story than what the right wing noise machine would want you to believe...

Here's a pretty decent blog (yes, liberal) entry that covers it and then some.

http://www.attytood.com/2007/02/breaking_news_al_gore_uses_ele_1.html

[Efilnikufesin]

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=15245fb5-9c50-4bb8-8377-4f6915c65da2&f=imbot_us_default&fg=rss

HMM misguided facts?

After that americna idol thing they go into the Gore thing.. where it is revealed that the person who happen to give the facts actually works for the same people who downplay global warming.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Well, as expected, there's more to the story than what the right wing noise machine would want you to believe...

Here's a pretty decent blog (yes, liberal) entry that covers it and then some.

http://www.attytood.com/2007/02/breaking_news_al_gore_uses_ele_1.html


So AKA, if yer rich and have security needs and rich persons' needs, its ok to say people shouldnt waste power and such but use up a shit ton yourself

Alternative energy sources are already low due to the slow development of it. I forget how many windmills per sq\ft are needed to power an area, but if the majority of it is going to his home, how does it benefit anyone else?

[CaptainBallz]

So AKA, if yer rich and have security needs and rich persons' needs, its ok to say people shouldnt waste power and such but use up a shit ton yourself

Alternative energy sources are already low due to the slow development of it. I forget how many windmills per sq\ft are needed to power an area, but if the majority of it is going to his home, how does it benefit anyone else?

If we really want to switch this conversation to rich vs. poor class inequities and how that relates to the distribution of vital resources let's please, PLEASE do so.

But, it's not about merely using power. Power is a good thing. It's the type of energy sources that are being used.
Your right that the development of alternative energy sources has been painfully slow. The implementation and feasibility of them has faced opposition every step of the way. I'll give you three guesses as to which side of the aisle has typically tried to railroad attempts to make its use widespread and affordable, but that's besides the point. Alternative energy does, though, sound like something you'd support and that's good.

But I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that Al Gore is not hogging all of the alternative energy.:rolleyes:

[Palehose13]

You're right that the development of alternative energy sources has been painfully slow. The implementation and feasibility of them has faced opposition every step of the way. I'll give you three guesses as to which side of the aisle has typically tried to railroad attempts to make its use widespread and affordable, but that's besides the point.

Um...people with interest in the oil industry?

[CaptainBallz]

Um...people with interest in the oil industry?

Partial credit.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Um...people with interest in the oil industry?

So if you were making money, you'd be willingly finding ways to try and eventually bankrupt yourself?

[Efilnikufesin]

Partial credit.

Anyone that is making money off of the current situation.. Ie, Oil Company. Polticains.. people like that.

[Palehose13]

So if you were making money, you'd be willingly finding ways to try and eventually bankrupt yourself?

Well, I actually am making money. At least that is what that check tells me every two weeks. However if I were in the oil industry, I would use the money that I have already made to get into the alternate energy game. The oil is going to run out eventually and there would definitely be no way to make money then.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Well, I actually am making money. At least that is what that check tells me every two weeks. However if I were in the oil industry, I would use the money that I have already made to get into the alternate energy game. The oil is going to run out eventually and there would definitely be no way to make money then.

Not in your lifetime it will run out

So why WOULD you invest\lose money when you are still seeing profit?

Its not an issue of morals, its an issue of capitalism.

example: If your school decided to cut programs, maybe music\arts or whatnot, would you willingly give up your own money so the future could benefit from it? Or would you keep your money and just say "damn, we should keep music?"

[itsnotrequired]

So if you were making money, you'd be willingly finding ways to try and eventually bankrupt yourself?

If the existing Captains of the Oil Industry champion and corner the alternative fuel market, they will be living the dream. They will only become bankrupt if they are idiots.

[StockdaleforVeep]

If the existing Captains of the Oil Industry champion and corner the alternative fuel market, they will be living the dream. They will only become bankrupt if they are idiots.

But the existing patents and development is outside of the petroleum industries. Corn\bio diesel in dekalb and such is privately owned and is one of the larger contributors to it, same with windfarms. Hydropower is out of the oil companies grasp. Its not like these alternative ideas dont exist, they are there but they are around and liscenced. Oil companies would be paying to put themselves out of business, similar to phillip morris and those stupid anti smoking commercials, which actually works for phillip morris cuz its been proven it makes people wanna smoke more

[itsnotrequired]

But the existing patents and development is outside of the petroleum industries. Corn\bio diesel in dekalb and such is privately owned and is one of the larger contributors to it, same with windfarms. Hydropower is out of the oil companies grasp. Its not like these alternative ideas dont exist, they are there but they are around and liscenced. Oil companies would be paying to put themselves out of business, similar to phillip morris and those stupid anti smoking commercials, which actually works for phillip morris cuz its been proven it makes people wanna smoke more

I'm not talking about these tinhorn fuels, I'm talking fusion and the like. Windmills work for individual homes but wind farms are loud and an eyesore. Hydro is limited to geography and also has a massive impact on the land. If the oil companies are smart (which they are), they will get behind fusion, fuel cells and hydrogen cars. Massive impact across the globe. Fusion is still in its infancy and will alter the face of the earth like nothing before it. Get on board now or choke on bitter ashes and tears. Fuel cells and hydrogen cars would have the second biggest impact on the business so might as well corner the market on that as well.

[CaptainBallz]

Its not an issue of morals, its an issue of capitalism.



QFT... And thank you for noting that the two have nothing to do with each other.

there's a train of thought out there that big money knows what's best and that markets always move in the most sensible direction. What's left out of that equation is the how, why, and when.

Point is that, yes, it makes sense that oil companies want to remain profitable.
No Crap.
But the fact that they're colluding amongst the oil producing nations, energy providers, and money lenders to get the maximum return on their investment in it's twilight while stifling progress at the expense of the long term economy, working class/poor interests, and equality in general-- not to mention thousands of dead military and civilian dead on all sides-- all the while stifling any form of technological progress that might fall outside their profit-gathering capacity, demonstrates a wholly real and historically defining evidence of how maybe, just maybe, what is the most profitable isn't necessarily what's the most beneficial.
Thus goes capital.
So why support it?

[Efilnikufesin]

QFT... And thank you for noting that the two have nothing to do with each other.

there's a train of thought out there that big money knows what's best and that markets always move in the most sensible direction. What's left out of that equation is the how, why, and when.

Point is that, yes, it makes sense that oil companies want to remain profitable.
No Crap.
But the fact that they're colluding amongst the oil producing nations, energy providers, and money lenders to get the maximum return on their investment in it's twilight while stifling progress at the expense of the long term economy, working class/poor interests, and equality in general-- not to mention thousands of dead military and civilian dead on all sides-- all the while stifling any form of technological progress that might fall outside their profit-gathering capacity, demonstrates a wholly real and historically defining evidence of how maybe, just maybe, what is the most profitable isn't necessarily what's the most beneficial.
Thus goes capital.
So why support it?

It actually quite simple.. POWER.. they hold the power.. Why would they want to give that up? They control us the masses, we have relied on this for so long.. we have no choice.. Now they control the government, they control everything in a sense. It is animal instinct to want and hold onto power.

No we are expecting these people to be moral.. WHY? They are doing what we all would do..and before you get on your soap box and say you would not.. first you have to be in that postion of power. or unbderstand it.

[SoxEd]

But where does the meat go?

Two Words:

Soylent Green.

[SoxEd]

It actually quite simple.. POWER.. they hold the power.. Why would they want to give that up? They control us the masses, we have relied on this for so long.. we have no choice.. Now they control the government, they control everything in a sense. It is animal instinct to want and hold onto power.

No we are expecting these people to be moral.. WHY? They are doing what we all would do..and before you get on your soap box and say you would not.. first you have to be in that postion of power. or unbderstand it.

So, what you are saying is this:

Just because the Mafia come round your store every week and demand a shitload of money from you or they'll kill your kids, that's not wrong?
:confused:

Because they're murderous fucking scum who parasitically ruin everyone else's lives just to make themselves EVEN RICHER than they already are, and 'they would do that, wouldn't they'?

And therefore it's somehow 'OK' for them to keep doing it, and the rest of us should neither complain about it or try to get rid of the parasitic burden that they impose on us?

WTF?

[Efilnikufesin]

So, what you are saying is this:

Just because the Mafia come round your store every week and demand a shitload of money from you or they'll kill your kids, that's not wrong?
:confused:

Because they're murderous fucking scum who parasitically ruin everyone else's lives just to make themselves EVEN RICHER than they already are, and 'they would do that, wouldn't they'?

And therefore it's somehow 'OK' for them to keep doing it, and the rest of us should neither complain about it or try to get rid of the parasitic burden that they impose on us?

WTF?

Who says its not wrong.. What I am saying is you expect (to use your reference) That the Mafia should stop doing it, and go out of business. or the people in power to give up the very thing that they crave.. is just never going to happen by them..Someone has to force them out of power. No one gives up power.

[CaptainBallz]

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/story.jpg

[SoxEd]

Who says its not wrong....


Me.
I say it's fucking wrong - unless you are saying that you are also happy for large, hairy men like me to come round your house every single time you go out, steal all your possessions and rape your wife, rather than going to the trouble of actually earning our own living and attracting our own wives based on that.

Is that 'wrong'?
If so, why is the one wrong and not the other?

If you are saying that me parasitically exploiting your hard work to make an undeserved living is 'OK', then I'll thank you to PM me with your address.
;)


What I am saying is you expect (to use your reference) That the Mafia should stop doing it, and go out of business. or the people in power to give up the very thing that they crave.. is just never going to happen by them..Someone has to force them out of power. No one gives up power.

No, actually - I would expect that the people of the country would take steps to say to the Mafia "get fucked", and to stop their evil shenanigans.

Unfortunately, as has been noted elsewhere, the powerful influence of the Big Lie is all-too-easy to detect in modern politics.
:(

It is often noted that Societies get the leaders that they deserve - the shitty bit of it is that this means that EVERYONE in the society gets lumbered with the fuckers, not just the mindless sheep.

Life - don't talk to me about Life....

[Prope]

Life - don't talk to me about Life....
Or Chelsea football :D

[SoxEd]

Or Chelsea football :D

Chelsea, Shmelsea!
I'm a fan of the real 'Blues' - Birmingham City FC.

That'll learn me, eh?
:( ;)

[1951Campbell]

To bring this thread way back on topic:
http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

[Prope]

To bring this thread way back on topic:
http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html
Couple of things that prevent me from taking this article seriously....

As Wikipedia explains

Wikipedia goes on to explain that

Wikipedia again:

Wikipedia is to research what Al Gore is to excitement

[StockdaleforVeep]

Chelsea, Shmelsea!
I'm a fan of the real 'Blues' - Birmingham City FC.

That'll learn me, eh?
:( ;)

Its all about this

http://medix.marshall.edu/~mccarthy/soccer/arsenal_s02/new_badge.gif

[fquaye14ten]

me and sfv finally agree on something

[SoxEd]

Its all about this

http://medix.marshall.edu/~mccarthy/soccer/arsenal_s02/new_badge.gif

I hate and despise the Arse, and have done now for many, many years.
My list of reasons for doing so is extremely long, to the extent that it now stretches to include some completely irrational items.
:rolleyes: :thumbsup:

Thus it really sticks in my craw that BCFC have now become nothing more than AFC's bitch...

...we get loads of their kids On Loan, giving them First Team Football, and the Arse take back the good ones.
We get to try to keep AFC's cast-offs.

D'Oh!

[SoxEd]

Wikipedia is to research what Al Gore is to excitement


:rolling:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Come on... First, I don't read anything off the Drudge Report. That guy is a tool.

Second, the article fails to mention that Gore offsets all his and his families CO2 output. In other words, he pays for his carbon emissions (and most likely then some) and that money is used toward constructing renewable energy sources like wind farms, methane farms, etc.

It's not completely about reducing energy. It's about evening out your emissions, from everything, electricity, auto emissions, etc, and while things like hybrid cars and fluorescent lights get you part of the way there, it's not enough. Carbon offsetting is key to getting the rest of the way there.

Of course, why would Drudge give you all the facts? Oh yeah, because then he couldn't spin any of his anti-liberal stories.

I missed this the first go 'round, but I was rather surprised that no one mentioned one key fact:

Al Gore purchases his "carbon offsets" from a for-profit energy foundation.

The Chairman of that for-profit foundation: Albert Gore, Jr. :thinking:

Campbell wins the thread. Again.

[SABRSox]

Yay, another straw man argument from Fuller!

[StockdaleforVeep]

i miss soxed

[Bonzosa]

I guess I didn't realize that Gore using energy means that CO2 emissions aren't going up.
:shrug:
Or that this graph means nothing, even though the Bush administration has revised the scientist's climate studies during it's tenure, but hey, don't let NOAA (the liberal lefty propagandist persuade you).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/sep/glob-jan-sep-pg.gif

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I guess I didn't realize that Gore using energy means that CO2 emissions aren't going up.
:shrug:
Or that this graph means nothing, even though the Bush administration has revised the scientist's climate studies during it's tenure, but hey, don't let NOAA (the liberal lefty propagandist persuade you).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/sep/glob-jan-sep-pg.gif

We have already shown that CO2 levels are a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator. That means warmer temperatures cause an increase in CO2, not the other way around. That science is about 600,000 years in the making.

Yay, another straw man argument from Fuller!

You only wish, Skrip. You gotta come harder than that...

Capwnage (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528)!

[Bonzosa]

We have already shown that CO2 levels are a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator. That means warmer temperatures cause an increase in CO2, not the other way around. That science is about 600,000 years in the making.



You only wish, Skrip. You gotta come harder than that...

Capwnage (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528)!
Who's "we" and when was this proven?
Let me guess, John Coleman.
To the contrary of this idea, there has been a direct correlation between the warming of the earth and the elevation of CO2 levels. CO2 levels have risen steadily since the 1880's and are increasing at an ever more rapid pace. So if you look at the chart I referenced against this one from USGS you will see a strong correlation.
http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/rooms/coastal/flbay/genedustbigs/geneco2concx.gif
The debate about global warming has been over simplified to CO2, when in fact other gases have an effect on the greenhouse effect as well. There is more evidence than just CO2 levels that the earth's climate is shifting, The prevalence of noctilucent clouds, clouds very high in the atmosphere, are increasing and are being seen at latitudes never seen before. The atmosphere is inverted, meaning that warmth near the earth produces colder temperatures at the top of the atmosphere. The prevalence of clouds there and research indicates that it is in fact cooling as well.
When Charles Keeling first started measuring CO2 levels in the atmosphere, he had no idea what he would find over time. As he started collecting data he began to see a trend, over decades of sampling, and the levels have continued to increase. The notion that scientists made this up to keep their jobs is absolutely absurd.
I have read studies that have been fudged to exacerbate findings from data and read books where information is distorted, but the simple fact is that there is change happening in the global climate. You can't ignore the overwhelming evidence just because a couple of people misconstrue their findings. I encourage you to read the state of the climate reports from NOAA (http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/rooms/coastal/flbay/genedustbigs/geneco2concx.gif)
The real question is how much is due to man and how much of it is due to global cycles we don't yet understand.
I don't think people who project into the future know exactly what will happen over time because I have not seen any accurate cloud formation models developed yet. Cloud formation has a large affect on the earth's climate and what higher CO2 levels in conjunction with more liquid water in the oceans means is unknown.
We all know about the conservation of matter, so the earths resources are finite. Finite amounts of hydrogen, carbon, iron, gold etc.
My guess is that if you take copious amounts of carbon which have been buried over hundreds of millions of years in the earth and then light them all on fire, you will see a difference in the climate of the earth.
:shrug:

[CaptainBallz]

I believe a driving priciple behind the move towards sustainable energy is that it shouldn't be a sound financial investment for anyone...Therefore, it doesn't count if money is made off of programs that encourage energy efficiency and it becomes a viable economic force. :jag_off:

:roll_fucking_eyes_into_back_of_fucking_skull:

[1951Campbell]

I missed this the first go 'round, but I was rather surprised that no one mentioned one key fact:

Al Gore purchases his "carbon offsets" from a for-profit energy foundation.

The Chairman of that for-profit foundation: Albert Gore, Jr. :thinking:

Campbell wins the thread. Again.

Yes. Basically, Al Gore pays himself to use more energy than 99.9% of the population. For this you get a Nobel Prize.

I find it, um, curious that when the Bush Administration gives out suspect contracts to companies connected with the Administration, the left sees it as demonic crony capitalism. But when Al Gore pays himself to be a carbon pig, it is pure and noble.

Carbon offsets are nothing but indulgences for the guilty rich. If you really want to reduce your "carbon footprint," the answer is really simple: consume less. That so many public figures who advocate action in reagrd to global warming refuse to do so can only lead to two possible conclusions, in my mind: either (1) said public figures do not actually believe global warming is a real problem, or (2) it is a real problem, and the policy elites pushing "solutions" think the costs and pain associated with fixing the problem are to be shouldered by the peasants while they still live high on the hog.

[3D23]

Carbon offsets are nothing but indulgences for the guilty rich. If you really want to reduce your "carbon footprint," the answer is really simple: consume less. That so many public figures who advocate action in reagrd to global warming refuse to do so can only lead to two possible conclusions, in my mind: either (1) said public figures do not actually believe global warming is a real problem, or (2) it is a real problem, and the policy elites pushing "solutions" think the costs and pain associated with fixing the problem are to be shouldered by the peasants while they still live high on the hog.

EXACTLY.

Even though I despise his politics, Ed Begley Jr. is about the only one of the liberal babbling heads that actually practices what he preaches. Offsets are a joke, and a pathetic excuse for those that whine about the environment to say "Look at us, we are making a difference!"

[Pick a name, Buddy]

So let me get this straight Campbell, you're saying that it is not enough to pontificate from the veranda of your mansion (even if it is in say, Malibu), the steps of your Gulfstream V or the running board of your stretch Hummer limo? You are suggesting that perhaps these folks should lead by example?? That sounds a little draconian, don't you think?

EXACTLY.

Even though I despise his politics, Ed Begley Jr. is about the only one of the liberal babbling heads that actually practices what he preaches. Offsets are a joke, and a pathetic excuse for those that whine about the environment to say "Look at us, we are making a difference!"

I would add Daryl Hannah to that very short list as well. I really admire the way she walks the talk.

[CaptainBallz]

I find it, um, curious that when the Bush Administration gives out suspect contracts to companies connected with the Administration, the left sees it as demonic crony capitalism. But when Al Gore pays himself to be a carbon pig, it is pure and noble.

Gore doesn't hold public office. Difference...


Carbon offsets are nothing but indulgences for the guilty rich. If you really want to reduce your "carbon footprint," the answer is really simple: consume less. That so many public figures who advocate action in reagrd to global warming refuse to do so can only lead to two possible conclusions, in my mind: either (1) said public figures do not actually believe global warming is a real problem, or (2) it is a real problem, and the policy elites pushing "solutions" think the costs and pain associated with fixing the problem are to be shouldered by the peasants while they still live high on the hog.

I'll agree that the most reasonable solution is to consume less. But besides the "groundbreaking" revelation that Al Gore's house uses energy, do you know any details on the "many public figures who advocate action in reagrd to global warming (who) refuse to do so"? Do you know where their money goes as far as R&D for renewable energy sources and other efficiency programs?
If we assume that conclusion 2) is really what wealthy advocates of such things believe, does this, in any way, alter the fact that such policies are something that should be pursued on a widescale level? Or is it reason enough to ignore the scientific evidence that leads to the policies being advocated?

[3D23]

Gore doesn't hold public office. Difference...




I'll agree that the most reasonable solution is to consume less. But besides the "groundbreaking" revelation that Al Gore's house uses energy, do you know any details on the "many public figures who advocate action in reagrd to global warming (who) refuse to do so"? Do you know where their money goes as far as R&D for renewable energy sources and other efficiency programs?
If we assume that conclusion 2) is really what wealthy advocates of such things believe, does this, in any way, alter the fact that such policies are something that should be pursued on a widescale level? Or is it reason enough to ignore the scientific evidence that leads to the policies being advocated?

But Ballz, everyone uses energy in some form or another. What many have a problem with, and more concisely with Gore is, the AMOUNT of energy he is using, considering his pandering and supposed concern over the dying earth. A man so thusly possessed should be leading by example, not when convenience dictates.

Why should I convert my entire house to solar power, spending thousands on panels, etc., when Mr. Gore, who has more money than God (and due to tobacco, I might add) refuses to do so?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

You can't ignore the overwhelming evidence just because a couple of people misconstrue their findings.

You absolutely can if the motives are dubious, A; and B, it is much more than "a couple of people". Hundreds of scientists just have not signed off on this.

[CaptainBallz]

Gore's mansion supposedly does utilize solar panels. So start saving up...

Do you live by WWGD in all your daily activities, D?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Why should I convert my entire house to solar power, spending thousands on panels, etc., when Mr. Gore, who has more money than God (and due to tobacco, I might add) refuses to do so?

Because GE Energy will profusely thank you and send you a certificate for free carbon credits with every purchase! And you will get a signed photo of Algore himself, posing with his Nobel Prize, Oscar, Emmy and Tony Awards.

Where else are you going to find a deal like that?

[CaptainBallz]

You absolutely can if the motives are dubious, A; and B, it is much more than "a couple of people". Hundreds of scientists just have not signed off on this.

Fuller, I spent a lot of time on this post, I'd appreciate it if you took a little bit of it in... http://www.soxandthecity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=204225&postcount=54

It's like you don't even listen to me :gloomy:

[3D23]

Gore's mansion supposedly does utilize solar panels. So start saving up...

Do you live by WWGD in all your daily activities, D?

No, my point is, I can't afford to convert everything I have into energy saving sources, although when I do have things go out, and I have to replace, I am careful about the ratings. However, if the money grubbing sows, who can AFFORD to convert, won't, why should I be guilted in to doing so?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Fuller, I spent a lot of time on this post, I'd appreciate it if you took a little bit of it in... http://www.soxandthecity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=204225&postcount=54

It's like you don't even listen to me :gloomy:

I think Judi really nailed it here (http://www.soxandthecity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=231079&postcount=18)

But it isn't like I don't appreciate your efforts! ;)

[CaptainBallz]

No, my point is, I can't afford to convert everything I have into energy saving sources, although when I do have things go out, and I have to replace, I am careful about the ratings. However, if the money grubbing sows, who can AFFORD to convert, won't, why should I be guilted in to doing so?

I guess just try to do what you think is right... :dunno:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Is recycling pretty common in Chicago? I never even knew much about it until I moved to Seattle in 1993. There it was as commonplace as Starbucks and you just naturally get into the flow of it. Of coors, in California it is as prevalent as clogged freeways.

[SFS04]

Is recycling pretty common in Chicago? I never even knew much about it until I moved to Seattle in 1993. There it was as commonplace as Starbucks and you just naturally get into the flow of it. Of coors, in California it is as prevalent as clogged freeways.

I don't know anyone who recycles here. When I was in upstate NY though it was very commonplace and still is. You get a blue bin along with your trash bin (provided by the county) and once a week you bring it out with the garbage. A separate truck comes by and dumps each item into a separate area of the truck--basically like a big truck with different truck beds, one for glass, one for plastics, one for newsprint, etc.

[1951Campbell]

Gore doesn't hold public office. Difference...

I'll agree that the most reasonable solution is to consume less. But besides the "groundbreaking" revelation that Al Gore's house uses energy, do you know any details on the "many public figures who advocate action in reagrd to global warming (who) refuse to do so"? Do you know where their money goes as far as R&D for renewable energy sources and other efficiency programs?
If we assume that conclusion 2) is really what wealthy advocates of such things believe, does this, in any way, alter the fact that such policies are something that should be pursued on a widescale level? Or is it reason enough to ignore the scientific evidence that leads to the policies being advocated?

In re public office: so?

In re public figures: I can only assume, and it's a pretty darn safe assumption, that Hollywood stars and elected officials make more money than I do and consume more than I do. Do you think a family of three in a walk-out ranch in Central PA with two cars uses more energy than Al Gore, or Dennis Kucinich, or Sean Penn? I don't know where their money goes in re R&D, but I'd bet if they were heavily into such things they'd make damn sure their PR people let us know about it.

In re assuming the conclusion is (2): what are the exact policies you see as being pursued? Because I am against implementing policies where people who obviously consume more than I insist that I lower my standard of living while theirs go untouched, and those are pretty much all the policies being touted. If Al Gore thinks there's a problem, I say "physician, heal thyself" before moving on to laws, which require actual coercion, to "fix" things. As to the science, the problem is that the science is being presented as something that necessarily dictates answers to political questions. Science is fact--that global warming exists in no way means that, ipso facto, the political conclusions and policy prescriptions advanced by those who present themselves as best acquainted with the science are the best. Essentially, what the science says the problem is does not dictate any solution. My problem is that many seem to feel it does.

Or, put another way: assume it is proved that the Earth's temperature is going up 1 degree a year, and has been for the last 10 years. My conclusion would be that it will probably go up 1 degree in year 11. However, many global warming advocates think the logical conclusion of that scientific fact is the political assumption that incandescent light bulbs should be banned.

Is my point clear or did I type too much?

[CaptainBallz]

I think Judi really nailed it here (http://www.soxandthecity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=231079&postcount=18)



:ohmy:

She quotes somebody evoking the Red Scare!?!?! :nuts:

And way to use a report from 1996 with secret "deleted" portions when we all know what the current report from the IPCC has said about the human effects of climate change.

[3D23]

And way to use a report from 1996 with secret "deleted" portions when we all know the current report from the IPCC has said about the human effects of climate change.

Oh yes, that report which had 3 very well known scientists which dissented from the opinion, and had to sue to have their names removed from the report? There is a rising upsurge in scientists that are sick of being told what the truth is, and have discovered the truth is not nearly as cataclismic as what is being reported.

We don't ALL know what you think we all know.

[CaptainBallz]

In re public office: so?

There's a difference between self-enrichment in the private sector vs. public.

In re public figures: I can only assume, and it's a pretty darn safe assumption, that Hollywood stars and elected officials make more money than I do and consume more than I do. Do you think a family of three in a walk-out ranch in Central PA with two cars uses more energy than Al Gore, or Dennis Kucinich, or Sean Penn? I don't know where their money goes in re R&D, but I'd bet if they were heavily into such things they'd make damn sure their PR people let us know about it.

I can't speak for their PR. Maybe these people don't want make it all look like a publicity stunt... Dunno/ Don't care. I guess my point is that I couldn't give a flying fark what certain celebrities do or their own personal hypocrisies. We should all be educated enough to weigh the evidence on our own and not look up before we do what we know we need to do.

In re assuming the conclusion is (2): what are the exact policies you see as being pursued? Because I am against implementing policies where people who obviously consume more than I insist that I lower my standard of living while theirs go untouched, and those are pretty much all the policies being touted. If Al Gore thinks there's a problem, I say "physician, heal thyself" before moving on to laws, which require actual coercion, to "fix" things. As to the science, the problem is that the science is being presented as something that necessarily dictates answers to political questions. Science is fact--that global warming exists in no way means that, ipso facto, the political conclusions and policy prescriptions advanced by those who present themselves as best acquainted with the science are the best. Essentially, what the science says the problem is does not dictate any solution. My problem is that many seem to feel it does
Or, put another way: assume it is proved that the Earth's temperature is going up 1 degree a year, and has been for the last 10 years. My conclusion would be that it will probably go up 1 degree in year 11. However, many global warming advocates think the logical conclusion of that scientific fact is the political assumption that incandescent light bulbs should be banned.

Is my point clear or did I type too much?

But much of the politics is based on reommmendations that are coming directly from the scientific community.. The latest IPCC summary (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf) addresses what policies it feels need to be instituted or would at least curb the trends they see, including: Buildings
[6.5]
Efficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical
appliances and heating and cooling devices; improved cook
stoves, improved insulation ; passive and active solar design
for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids,
recovery and recycle of fluorinated gases.

Many "Green" advocates are merely trying to advance what modern science is recommending. I must add that OF COURSE there is going to be the financial feasibility of the policies and, in turn, people ARE going to turn profits on this stuff. That's why screaming "MARXISM!!" from the top of the hills is absolutely insane. If anything, this is market correction towards what could possibly be seen as "the better"-- It's baffling, I know...

Oh yes, that report which had 3 very well known scientists which dissented from the opinion, and had to sue to have their names removed from the report? There is a rising upsurge in scientists that are sick of being told what the truth is, and have discovered the truth is not nearly as cataclismic as what is being reported.

We don't ALL know what you think we all know.

show work, etc...

[Bonzosa]

I think Judi really nailed it here (http://www.soxandthecity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=231079&postcount=18)

But it isn't like I don't appreciate your efforts! ;)
Unfortunately, Judi has cited this as her credible source. (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
Water vapor does not account for 95% of greenhouse effect, that number is closer to 60-70%. Even so, with current melting in arctic regions, the amount of available water vapor for the greenhouse effect goes up.
If you look at one of the cited sources of the document you will find this table (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) which refutes the conclusions of the primary document. But I guess it is okay to cite sources, even though you ignore their findings. Look at pre-industrial CO2 levels and look at them now, it has increased by 34%. The amount of methane has increased 2.5 times its baseline level, NO2 has gone up 18% etc.
If you look at the bottom data set you will see that some greenhouse gases did not even exist before humans started the industrial age.

In Judy's post it also lists other factors to consider about the earth's climate change:
From an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit.

Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:

1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides...
What hasn't been said here is that:
1) sun's solar output appears to be cyclical, the cycle taking 11 years.
2) Earth's orbit changes on a 100,000 year cycle. What is not mentioned is the change of the earth's axis, which takes 41,000 years to cycle.
3) Plate tectonics change the face of the earth at a glacial pace, we're talking inches a year (if that) along most plate lines. Volcanic eruptions help cool the atmosphere by providing cloud seeds, even though they emit large amounts of CO2.
4) This is what we are talking about here.
5) There are earth cycles that happen over much longer periods of time that we do not yet understand.

FYI
BP is the largest producer in the world of solar panels.
:shrug:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Unfortunately, Judi has cited this as her credible source. (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
Water vapor does not account for 95% of greenhouse effect, that number is closer to 60-70%. Even so, with current melting in arctic regions, the amount of available water vapor for the greenhouse effect goes up.
If you look at one of the cited sources of the document you will find this table (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) which refutes the conclusions of the primary document. But I guess it is okay to cite sources, even though you ignore their findings. Look at pre-industrial CO2 levels and look at them now, it has increased by 34%. The amount of methane has increased 2.5 times its baseline level, NO2 has gone up 18% etc.
If you look at the bottom data set you will see that some greenhouse gases did not even exist before humans started the industrial age.

In Judy's post it also lists other factors to consider about the earth's climate change:

What hasn't been said here is that:
1) sun's solar output appears to be cyclical, the cycle taking 11 years.
2) Earth's orbit changes on a 100,000 year cycle. What is not mentioned is the change of the earth's axis, which takes 41,000 years to cycle.
3) Plate tectonics change the face of the earth at a glacial pace, we're talking inches a year (if that) along most plate lines. Volcanic eruptions help cool the atmosphere by providing cloud seeds, even though they emit large amounts of CO2.
4) This is what we are talking about here.
5) There are earth cycles that happen over much longer periods of time that we do not yet understand.

FYI
BP is the largest producer in the world of solar panels.
:shrug:

My point in citing Judi's post was to say that we all can find scientists that have research which supports our point of view. That IS the point, that there is a total lack of consensus, there are many sides to the debate.

And FWIW, Sharp is the largest producer of solar panels in the world.

[CaptainBallz]

My point in citing Judi's post was to say that we all can find scientists that have research which supports our point of view. That IS the point, that there is a total lack of consensus, there are many sides to the debate.

And FWIW, Sharp is the largest producer of solar panels in the world.

But the fact is that global warming deniers constantly overstate how varied the consensus is. Yes, of course you'll find detractors, just as you'll find Holocaust deniers and just as easily as you'll find a Japanese man floating around in the Pacific that doesn't know the war is over. But that portion is small, refuted constantly, and shrinking with each piece of research that comes out. But for some bizarre reason, they have earned a certain portion of the population's undying benefit of the doubt...
Is it because they're fighting the red menace at the same time??

[Bonzosa]

But the fact is that global warming deniers constantly overstate how varied the consensus is. Yes, of course you'll find detractors, just as you'll find Holocaust deniers and just as easily as you'll find a Japanese man floating around in the Pacific that doesn't know the war is over. But that portion is small, refuted constantly, and shrinking with each piece of research that comes out. But for some bizarre reason, they have earned a certain portion of the population's undying benefit of the doubt...
QFT
Sorry Fuller, you and your global cause champion Glenn Beck are in the minority of opinion and on the opposite side of fact. While you can find people who say that the Grand Canyon was made during the "great flood" of Noah's Ark (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/science/sciencespecial2/06canyon.html), it doesn't make it so.
Please don't obfuscate the facts unless you are willing to talk about them specifically. I have only heard you speak in general about "scientists" and "agendas" but I have heard little of substance.
Don't let Judy and Glenn Beck do all the talking for you, let's hear what you have to say.

RE: BP, maybe they aren't anymore, but I have family who works for them and they said it, I also remember reading it somewhere, but hey, maybe I am wrong on that account.
Either way, they are top 5 producer, which turns the "big-oil" theory on it's head. If you look at Exxon, Chevron and BP, they are developing technologies to move on when oil is no longer king. They still hope to be in business, even if that means they sell you batteries, solar panels, LNG or propane. They're not just oil.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

But the fact is that global warming deniers constantly overstate how varied the consensus is. Yes, of course you'll find detractors, just as you'll find Holocaust deniers and just as easily as you'll find a Japanese man floating around in the Pacific that doesn't know the war is over. But that portion is small, refuted constantly, and shrinking with each piece of research that comes out. But for some bizarre reason, they have earned a certain portion of the population's undying benefit of the doubt...
Is it because they're fighting the red menace at the same time??

Are you seriously going to lump Holocaust deniers in with people who dispute the Global Warming argument? You are going to stand by that?

[Bonzosa]

I like how you avoided my more apt analogy for ballz's.
Notice how I referenced the article for you :hinthint:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I'm not avoiding anything. You post your claims and I post mine. WE can have endlessly dueling posts. Big sniff.

Here, watch this 75 minute video which debunks your theory and elevates mine (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html).

There will be a short quiz following.

[CaptainBallz]

Are you seriously going to lump Holocaust deniers in with people who dispute the Global Warming argument? You are going to stand by that?

Way to scoot around that point... :rolleyes:

But yeah, i'll stand by it...

It has all the makings a real life "lack of consensus": people with contrary views, passionate refutations devoid of scientific/historical merit, and a segment of the population that simply want the minority opinion to be correct, so gosh darnnit, it IS correct....

I'm not avoiding anything. You post your claims and I post mine. WE can have endlessly dueling posts. Big sniff.

Here, watch this 75 minute video which debunks your theory and elevates mine (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html).

There will be a short quiz following.

Good lord, Fuller... It takes a little bit more than the mere existence of a 75 minute propaganda piece documentary to debunk the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community... Especially when, upon not-too-in-depth "research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reactions_from_sc ientists)", there's seems to be more swindling going on in the film than it claims to uncover... :ridiculous:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Are you implying that I am being intellectually lazy in this thread??




because if you are, I am willing to own up to that! ;)

[itsnotrequired]

But Ballz, everyone uses energy in some form or another. What many have a problem with, and more concisely with Gore is, the AMOUNT of energy he is using, considering his pandering and supposed concern over the dying earth. A man so thusly possessed should be leading by example, not when convenience dictates.

Why should I convert my entire house to solar power, spending thousands on panels, etc., when Mr. Gore, who has more money than God (and due to tobacco, I might add) refuses to do so?

Refuses to do so? What are you talking about? He has dozens of panels on his roof and would have had them up sooner if local laws hadn't prevented him from doing so. He also has a geothermal system that provides all their heating and hot water for the house from the Center of the Earth. He also has all the standard crap like flourescent fixtures, etc. He is working toward having the house LEED certified. Considering the age and size of the home, this is pretty hard to get.

As for the dollar amount of the energy use, it should be noted the Gores pay a higher rate than normal as they are buying energy from renewable sources (or so the electric company is leading them to believe).

I don't know anyone who recycles here. When I was in upstate NY though it was very commonplace and still is. You get a blue bin along with your trash bin (provided by the county) and once a week you bring it out with the garbage. A separate truck comes by and dumps each item into a separate area of the truck--basically like a big truck with different truck beds, one for glass, one for plastics, one for newsprint, etc.

I am an avid recycler. I don't trust the Blue Bag program so I personally take my recyclables to the center. The wife and I have been doing this since we moved here (2001). Before that, we lived in Madison which had the whole seprate truck scene.