"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Solar, wind, and hydro power for example, don't produce C02 when making electricity. When using electricity from these sources no emissions, C02 or otherwise, are produced. No matter how obscene the amount of electricity you use.

Al Gore has paid for the renewable energy infrastructure to provide his entire home with electricity.

How can I make this more clear?

I've done the same thing with Greenmax from Enmax.

Infact, my electricity use is so low because I have a small place that I pay for more renewable energy infrastructure than I use. That means some of you chumps are getting wind power thanks to me. That is what we call NEGATIVE carbon dioxide output.

Of course I make up for that by burning natural gas and driving my car among other things.

Considering my home is the size of his bathroom, I'm not sure that comes anywhere close to offsetting the energy he burns in limos and entourages alone. Unless our household electricty consumption is 99% of our CO2 output. Don't think thats the case though.

What of the energy needed to make the furniture to fill a 10,000 sq ft house? Truck it to Al's place? Heat the hottubs? Mow the lawns? (forget watering them, whole other issue).

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Stranger

A little off topic, but does anyone remember the old Simpsons episode where Lisa buys Al Gore's book.... the above post just reminded me of that.

I was reminded of the Simpsons with the national grammar rodeo - "You are hearing me talk."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Considering my home is the size of his bathroom, I'm not sure that comes anywhere close to offsetting the energy he burns in limos and entourages alone. Unless our household electricty consumption is 99% of our CO2 output. Don't think thats the case though.

What of the energy needed to make the furniture to fill a 10,000 sq ft house? Truck it to Al's place? Heat the hottubs? Mow the lawns? (forget watering them, whole other issue).

Let's not forget that a large part of that 10,000 square feet is made up of two offices, complete with staff, computers, and so on. I'm not saying it isn't excessive, but let's not get out of control with the furniture and hot-tubs speculation.

This attack came from a right wing think tank that is trying to attack Gore's message. They're doing it by attacking him. That shows how weak their message really is. For me, that's enough to dismiss this stuff entirely, especially given that they presented it in a highly misleading way.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Of course he spends that much. How else is a robot supposed to fuel his nuclear-powered titanium heart?

You'd also have to think that the man who invented the internet, would need a fairly big house to come up with that sort of thing, and would probably burn a bit of energy, inventing it.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I was reminded of the Simpsons with the national grammar rodeo - "You are hearing me talk."

Hilarious! I almost forgot that one!

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Let's not forget that a large part of that 10,000 square feet is made up of two offices, complete with staff, computers, and so on. I'm not saying it isn't excessive, but let's not get out of control with the furniture and hot-tubs speculation.

This attack came from a right wing think tank that is trying to attack Gore's message. They're doing it by attacking him. That shows how weak their message really is. For me, that's enough to dismiss this stuff entirely, especially given that they presented it in a highly misleading way.

I was ready to agree, but it's a tough call.

If (and I mean if, not all will agree) Al Gore is a self serving hypocrite presenting things in a misleading way to make a point, that's ok. But if he's attacked in the same way it's not?

I dunno. I'm happy to throw the wingnuts out on both sides and find the fuzzy middle, but maybe the question is whether or not Gore's one of the wingnuts.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I was ready to agree, but it's a tough call.

If (and I mean if, not all will agree) Al Gore is a self serving hypocrite presenting things in a misleading way to make a point, that's ok. But if he's attacked in the same way it's not?

I dunno. I'm happy to throw the wingnuts out on both sides and find the fuzzy middle, but maybe the question is whether or not Gore's one of the wingnuts.

Well, FWIW, I'm satisfied that he's not. Perhaps he should get "off the grid" as some have suggested. But if he did, he'd be a crank, performing an intervention that, because it's only available to the super-rich, isn't practical as a strategy for others.

What he has done is minimize his own CO2 output--and done it in a way that if you wanted, you could replicate. One way to look at it is that he's setting an example.

I think what people are really feeling has more to do with the size of his house--but here's the thing. Your local supermarket spends three or four times that in its monthly electricity bill. I'd suspect that you also don't want to look at the bill for a hockey rink in a warm climate. He happens to be rich--he's also making an effort to minimize his own impact on global warming, in a way that less rich people can emulate, if they want to. Socially, that's in many ways much more valuable, IMO.

Besides, it is important that this message was concocted in a misleading way by a right wing think tank. Because Gore's message was never "I'm great, I'm better than all of you"--it was "we need to work together to solve this problem." The real hypocrites are the policy eggheads who concocted this attack in the first place. Few people are arguing that Gore has "presented things in a misleading way." If they are, I haven't heard a persuasive argument, or seen a shred of evidence to substantiate that claim. This is the last-ditch effort of people who realize that on the merits--on the facts--they've lost this argument. Now they're trying to change the subject.

And in a way, it's worked. We're all talking about Gore's house instead of the problem of global warming. Which is more important?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I was reminded of the Simpsons with the national grammar rodeo - "You are hearing me talk."

Homer: Linguo...dead?
Linguo: Linguo IS dead!

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Stranger

A little off topic, but does anyone remember the old Simpsons episode where Lisa buys Al Gore's book.... the above post just reminded me of that.

Celebrate good times, c'mon!
Al Gore: I will!

Okay okay I'm done with Simpsons quotes lol

[Calgaryborn]

I guess a documentary is coming out in England that questions
the science behind global warming as well as exposes some of
the false assertions made by Al Gore and the UN.

Here is the link to the story:http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?s...ms_documentary

[Calgaryborn]

Regarding Al Gore's energy consumption the electricity he
uses is produced largely by coal generators and the carbon
offsets he pays to make himself look carbon neutral goes to
a company he runs and probably draws a salary from.

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

[Calgaryborn]

Another Scientist jumps off the CO2 global warming band wagon:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

[Cowperson]

New government data indicates polar bear numbers are RISING dramatically . . . . . bringing into question whether or not any effort is needed to treat them as endangered or to save them.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...9-b71a9e5df868

Interesting sidebar is that the vast wind storms battering Vancouver and the west coast are caused by rapidly rising Asian pollution.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...499bad5&k=5988

Cowperson

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Another Scientist jumps off the CO2 global warming band wagon:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

Wow... I really hope he's right...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Another Scientist jumps off the CO2 global warming band wagon:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Regarding Al Gore's energy consumption the electricity he
uses is produced largely by coal generators and the carbon
offsets he pays to make himself look carbon neutral goes to
a company he runs and probably draws a salary from.

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

The climate change community isn't allowed to use "probably" but you are in that accusation?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

New government data indicates polar bear numbers are RISING dramatically . . . . . bringing into question whether or not any effort is needed to treat them as endangered or to save them.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...9-b71a9e5df868

Very good news indeed!

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Interesting sidebar is that the vast wind storms battering Vancouver and the west coast are caused by rapidly rising Asian pollution.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...499bad5&k=5988

Cowperson

Cowperson

Some good news out of China.

http://english.eastday.com/eastday/e...ai2663697.html

There may have been a setback last year, but China is determined to meet its energy-saving and pollution-control targets between 2006 and 2010, Premier Wen Jiabao said yesterday.

The government set the goal of reducing energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product by 20 percent and major pollutants discharge by 10 percent in the 11th Five-Year Plan.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

Wow... I really hope he's right...

As do I. I think the worst scneario though is that we are faced with rapid global warming that is not caused by humans. Then we are really screwed with no plan on how to keep conditions suitable for our current society.

[calculoso]

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

[Flame On]

/\/\
I love how the nay sayers to climate change point to scientific consensous not being 100% as a reason to do nothing. Then turn around and find a single scientist who says one thing to hold on to their opinion.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

/\/\
I love how the nay sayers to climate change point to scientific consensous not being 100% as a reason to do nothing. Then turn around and find a single scientist who says one thing to hold on to their opinion.

Well, if we posted research from every scientist who has found evidence for global warming, the thread would be hundreds of pages long. So we should probably be content to post something like this:

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Thos guy claims that bacteria disprove evolution! He's a scientist--he has a Ph.D! Therefore, evolution must be wrong.


Burn all your books! It's going to be a long dark age!