Al Gore uses 20 TIMES as much electricity as you do

[Anewman]

I'm intrigued that Kerry (who was presumably seen as a massive improvement on Gore back in 2004) doesn't make any of these DIS DNC short lists. I guess he's still apparently on the blacklist for "blowing" the election.

Kerry sealed his fate with that little comment about those making an effort to be smart do well, while those that do not go to IRAQ.

But I dont think Kerry was a improvement over Gore, I dont understand why Gore did not run in 2004.

 

[TheDoctor]

Nothing against these things, just spare me the "sky is falling" rhetoric by limousine liberals such as Mr. Gore.

And let the spending and investing for alternate fuels be over the course of time by capitalists, not a rushed government boondogle of tax payer funds over the panic of alarmists, again such as Mr. Gore

Joe, it is not just Mr. Gore. The Scientific community is firmly behind the concept of global warming. Here is yet another scientific panel that expands on the conclusions of the IPCC.
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...RTRUKOC_0_US-GLOBALWARMING-REPORT.xml&src=rss

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Declaring the global warming debate over, an international team of scientists urged the world's nations on Tuesday to act now to keep climate change from becoming a catastrophe.

The international community needs to take stronger steps to cut the pace of global warming, adapt to the climate changes that have already taken place and ensure development can be sustained throughout the process, the scientists said in a report released at the United Nations.

"We make the argument that it is essential that we get started now: not next year, not next decade, but now," said John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and member of the scientific panel that crafted the report.

This report is a logical next step after the February 2 release of a much-heralded document by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris, which stated that global warming is real and human activities caused much of it over the past half-century.

The earlier report was prohibited from making policy recommendations; the current one, funded by the non-profit U.N. Foundation and Sigma Xi scientific society, centers on just such recommendations.

Again, the science community has reach agreement that global warming is real. There was another thread on the DIS where the so called alternative theories for global warming (such as cosmic rays) were examined and shown to be wrong (it was not hard to do since these alternative theories had been looked at by real scientists).

There are some recommendations from this panel including cutting out coal plants that need to be examined.

 

[TheDoctor]

If conservation and the environment are really so near and dear to your heart, why didn't you post it? Should assume that it would have been too painful for you to give President Bush credit for conserving?

Because if the free republic and drudge says something is one way, you can take it to the bank that they are wrong. I also had to wash my keyboard and take a shower after visiting the free republic site. There are truly special people on that site.

 

[dcentity2000]

I don't know. Vista is over $250, isn't it?

Rich::

 

[Galahad]

From the above Reuter's article, Interestingly, John Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Fellow in Environmental Studies at Harvard. It appears to be acceptable to criticize an opinion based upon the background, funding, and associates of the person holding the opinion (something, BTW, that the rules of logic would strictly forbid). But since we have a new standard, here is an "interesting piece" about the work of Professor Holdren:

Executive Summary
In September 2001, Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg’s The
Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the True State of the World. The book’s
comprehensiveness (515 pages; 2,930 footnotes), the author’s green credentials (a former
Greenpeace member, Lomborg began the book’s research to debunk Julian Simon’s forecasts
of continuing environmental improvement), and Lomborg’s powerful refutation of the
doomsday “litany of our ever-deteriorating environment,” sparked considerable interest.
Favorable reviews followed in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Economist. When
the book became an international best seller, ideological environmentalists launched an angry
counter-attack. Among the key figures to impugn Lomborg’s scholarship is the subject of this
paper: Harvard Professor John P. Holdren.
Holdren, a Clinton-era leader of climate policy and energy technology task forces, is
now the leading academic member of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a $10
million, two-year project tasked with formulating a “centrist” energy policy. Holdren is also
one of four authors to denounce Lomborg in the January 2002 issue of Scientific American, in a
feature article pretentiously titled, “Science Defends Itself Against The Skeptical
Environmentalist.”
A more accurate title would be “Environmental Establishment Fears to Debate Bjørn
Lomborg,” because Scientific American refused to publish Lomborg’s replies to his critics.
Scientific American’s one-sided presentation of evidence, while claiming to defend science
from just such abuse, easily qualifies as Orwellian.
In January 2003, a group calling itself the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
issued an official denunciation of Lomborg, alleging that his book “is contrary to standards of
good scientific practice” because it offers a “systematically biased representation” of
environmental data. Yet, rather than conduct an independent investigation, the Committee
simply rehashed the four attacks published in Scientific American. And just as Scientific
American refused to publish Lomborg’s 34-page rebuttal, so the Committee declined to
evaluate it. A more honest name for this panel would be the Committees for Scientific
Dishonesty.
The present paper, written by energy historian and policy expert, Robert L. Bradley, Jr.,
President of the Institute for Energy Research and senior research fellow at the University of
Houston, confines itself to the task of examining the Holdren-Lomborg debate on energy
issues. It demonstrates that Holdren’s critique of Lomborg fails dismally. Insofar as the
Danish panel relies on Holdren’s allegations, it is retailing falsehoods and exaggeration in the
name of science.
Holdren’s attack on Lomborg in Scientific American reveals major shortcomings in
Holdren’s analysis and understanding of scientific discourse:
• Holdren falsely accuses Lomborg of debunking a straw man (the notion of an
impending physical or geological exhaustion of petroleum supplies), while
3
controversially forecasting increasing scarcity of oil as an economically recoverable
resource over the medium to longer term. (Would he like to wager?)
• Holdren fails to appreciate the technological innovations that are commercializing
crude oil substitutes like Alberta oil sands and Venezuelan orimulsion, sustaining the
petroleum era beyond even optimistic forecasts of recoverable crude reserves.
• Holdren refuses to consider the reasons for climate optimism: enhanced CO2
fertilization and a moderate, predominantly nighttime warming under realistic climate
scenarios. Instead, he naively endorses full-scale government energy planning in the
quixotic quest to “stabilize climate.”
• Holdren’s charge that Lomborg’s energy analysis “careens far across the line that
divides respectable (even if controversial science) from thoroughgoing and unrepentant
incompetence” applies not to Lomborg but to Holdren himself.
In addition, Bradley documents shortcomings and outright errors in Holdren’s 30-year
career as a physicist-turned-energy-polemicist.
• Holdren in the 1970s forecast major ecological and economic crises absent a
“revolution in human behavior” and a massive political campaign to “de-develop” the
United States.
• Holdren has not outgrown his 1970s opinion that, “Our limited knowledge of the details
of air pollution permits little hope for early relief.” He continues today to call air
pollution “acute,” belittling the tremendous gains in air quality trends in cities from Los
Angeles to Houston to New York due to remarkable advances in oil, gas, and coal
technologies and mostly incremental regulation.
• Holdren once predicted that as many as one billion people could perish by 2020 from
man-made climate change. He now hedges: “That the impacts of global climate
disruption may not become the dominant sources of environmental harm to humans for
yet a few more decades cannot be a great consolation.” Yet he remains firmly in the
alarmist camp.
As Bradley documents, Holdren’s publication record over 30 years reveals a penchant
for exaggeration, error, and now wholesale intolerance of reasoned dissent. Holdren’s
criticisms of Lomborg should be dismissed as inadequate and troubling, and the National
Commission on Energy Policy should consider Holdren’s track record and reconsider
Holdren’s leadership role in devising a “centrist” approach to U.S. energy policy.
Marlo Lewis, Jr.
Senior Fellow, CEI

 

[brerrabbit]

I have a somewhat open mind about the global warming theroy and as my good friend here at work likes to say "I am more than willing to have a rational discussion of the theroy, just provide me the numbers and let me do my own statistical analysis and see if I can come to the same conclusion."

Well since I work with guys who have Phd's in Quantatative Analysis, Chemical Engineering, Finance and Statistics and feel sometimes intimidated because I have only my Masters in Finance I talked to a couple of them and asked their opinion on Global Warming. They like to do this kind of thing in their spare time so they went out a sought data from several of the major studies that have concluded it is happening. They worked on the data for several weeks and came back with this conclusion. I can't tell you if it is or is not happening, but if I were to try and make a definitive conclusion from the data provided in a business setting and said yes, or no, I would be lying and I would probably wind up getting fired. I asked why? Their answer: Given the generally accepted age of the earth, and the known number of samplings of climate data available even accounting for the fact that they included some unverified sampling based on geological findings they could not substaintiate the conclusions reached in any of the studies. Further a couple of these studies flat out lied about some of the data by using somewhat questionable methodology to extrapolate data. Methodology that is actually frowned upon in the quantatative field.

Now at the end of the day, I can honestly say I don't know much about Global Warming, but what I do know about quanatative analysis and the trust I have in my friends I can tell you that I have some serious doubts about the actual conclusions being drawn by people on either side of this argument.

 

[Andy B]

I have a somewhat open mind about the global warming theroy and as my good friend here at work likes to say "I am more than willing to have a rational discussion of the theroy, just provide me the numbers and let me do my own statistical analysis and see if I can come to the same conclusion."

Well since I work with guys who have Phd's in Quantatative Analysis, Chemical Engineering, Finance and Statistics and feel sometimes intimidated because I have only my Masters in Finance I talked to a couple of them and asked their opinion on Global Warming. They like to do this kind of thing in their spare time so they went out a sought data from several of the major studies that have concluded it is happening. They worked on the data for several weeks and came back with this conclusion. I can't tell you if it is or is not happening, but if I were to try and make a definitive conclusion from the data provided in a business setting and said yes, or no, I would be lying and I would probably wind up getting fired. I asked why? Their answer: Given the generally accepted age of the earth, and the known number of samplings of climate data available even accounting for the fact that they included some unverified sampling based on geological findings they could not substaintiate the conclusions reached in any of the studies. Further a couple of these studies flat out lied about some of the data by using somewhat questionable methodology to extrapolate data. Methodology that is actually frowned upon in the quantatative field.

Now at the end of the day, I can honestly say I don't know much about Global Warming, but what I do know about quanatative analysis and the trust I have in my friends I can tell you that I have some serious doubts about the actual conclusions being drawn by people on either side of this argument.

Interesting but given the outcomes of the two senarios;
1 No global warming, we continue as we are we are safe but a lot of people look foolish. Doh!

2 There is Global Warming, we struggle to come to terms with it, millions of people die in fragile climate areas and the costs to the developed world are very high.

should we not err on the side of caution and if nothing happens then hurrah!

 

[brerrabbit]

Causiously conservative and try to cut back in certain areas but absolutley no conclusive data to sugest the sky is falling.

As Quants around here like to say, give me the numbers and I can tell any story you want me to. I am afraid that is what happening with this issue. We cannot make a reliable judgement one way or another but if you listen to the pundits on either side of the issue they are calling their conclusions absolute when in fact they are not.

 

[Anewman]

Causiously conservative and try to cut back in certain areas but absolutley no conclusive data to sugest the sky is falling.

If the sky is falling, wouldnt that be too late?

That is why I have always enjoyed Gores stance, yes he feels global warming is a real danger while others dont. But he advocates it in a way that even if you dont, the steps that he promotes to Americans make some economic sense.

While I doubt I would ever buy a Prius, they do get 50mpg. For somebody with a long commute it is worth considering.

I had new windows installed at my moms house last summer, not for "green" reasons. The house is much more comfortable, and it looks nicer which I am sure increased its value.

How much is a water heater blanket?? If it saves pennies a day, you dont have to be a believer to install it.

Recycle, wow such a lifestyle change...

 

[Chloe'sMom]

1. I don't like fluorescent lights, and I don't want them in my home, energy efficient or not.

That's cool.

2. Programmable thermostat - we had one in our previous home, and we found that it did nothing to save electricity, especially in the summer. Not a huge deal to buy and put in, but if it doesn't accomplish anything, what's the point?

Really? We've found that ours lowers our gas and electric bill by a good 10 to 15%.

3. Water heater blanket - I would probably do this if it could be shown to make an appreciable difference in power usage. Otherwise, again, what's the point?

We don't do this either. Mostly because our water heater is in the basement and therefore pretty safe from the changing temperatures. I think this will really only save people if their water heaters are in the attics or garages.

4. Recycle - we've been doing that for years and years.

5. Energey efficient windows - if I happen to win $15,000-$20,000 in the near future, I'll consider it. Or we'll take a deluxe trip to WDW.

I think most new homes are being built with energy efficient windows. I think this will really only help on homes that were built 30+ years ago. Plus it does help with the resale value of your home. So there is benefits that might not reflect just in the heating bill.

6. Hybrid car or alternative fuels - When they make a hybrid that can meet our towing needs and not be cost prohibitive, I'll be happy to consider it. As for alternative fuels, my Explorer is a flex fuel vehicle. I used the flex-fuel for a month, and my fuel costs were significantly higher. The flex-fuel cost more than regular gasoline, and my mileage was noticeably lower.

I also don't own a hybrid, although we've cut down on our driving a bit due to gas prices. Hopefully with time, research, and availablility the price for alternative fuels will go lower.

I'm not against people doing whatever they want vis a vis a green life, I'm just against those same people trying to bully everyone else into doing it too

Sorry if you thought my message was bullying. I guess I just don't understand the uproar against Gore saying "do these things and you'll save energy which will help the environment" It's not like he is going to bang on your door and demand you show him your energy saving measures.

~Amanda

 

[Laz]

Joe, it is not just Mr. Gore. The Scientific community is firmly behind the concept of global warming. Here is yet another scientific panel that expands on the conclusions of the IPCC.
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...RTRUKOC_0_US-GLOBALWARMING-REPORT.xml&src=rssAgain, the science community has reach agreement that global warming is real. There was another thread on the DIS where the so called alternative theories for global warming (such as cosmic rays) were examined and shown to be wrong (it was not hard to do since these alternative theories had been looked at by real scientists).

There are some recommendations from this panel including cutting out coal plants that need to be examined.

It is hard for many people of my age (close to 50) to believe in this because of the global cooling farce of the 70s. It will be a hard sell for us in many parts of the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

Global warming or global cooling?
SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR



RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

 

[rockbottomsound]

It is hard for many people of my age (close to 50) to believe in this because of the global cooling farce of the 70s. It will be a hard sell for us in many parts of the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

Your post is way too logical for this thread. The ones that want to believe in global warming on this forum will always believe even if it turns out we have a new ice age in a few years. Its the fashionable, feel good cause of the day, and there's no convincing them. They will only believe the pet studies and scientists that support their pre-conceived notions and either ignore all the others or find some link in the chain to an oil company and say, "don't you know that that study was funded by the oil companies" "or that scientist is in the pocket of big oil?"

You will only be able to pry their global warming feelings out of their cold dead frozen brains when the next ice age comes.

And be prepared for a lot of and a dose of with a dash of

Followed by some insulting personal attacks as to why your just not smart enough to believe in man-made global warming.

 

[Andy B]

Your post is way too logical for this thread. The ones that want to believe in global warming on this forum will always believe even if it turns out we have a new ice age in a few years. Its the fashionable, feel good cause of the day, and there's no convincing them. They will only believe the pet studies and scientists that support their pre-conceived notions and either ignore all the others or find some link in the chain to an oil company and say, "don't you know that that study was funded by the oil companies" "or that scientist is in the pocket of big oil?"

You will only be able to pry their global warming feelings out of their cold dead frozen brains when the next ice age comes.

And be prepared for a lot of and a dose of with a dash of

Followed by some insulting personal attacks as to why your just not smart enough to believe in man-made global warming.

And the reverse could be argued but then you are displaying reasonableness and no certainty.

 

[brerrabbit]

If the sky is falling, wouldnt that be too late?

That is why I have always enjoyed Gores stance, yes he feels global warming is a real danger while others dont. But he advocates it in a way that even if you dont, the steps that he promotes to Americans make some economic sense.

While I doubt I would ever buy a Prius, they do get 50mpg. For somebody with a long commute it is worth considering.

I had new windows installed at my moms house last summer, not for "green" reasons. The house is much more comfortable, and it looks nicer which I am sure increased its value.

How much is a water heater blanket?? If it saves pennies a day, you dont have to be a believer to install it.

Recycle, wow such a lifestyle change...

Well since you don't know, I will tell you, I recycle, I carpool to work and put less than 8,000 miles a year on my personal vehicle, I have energy efficient windows, a blanket on my water heater, use cost saving energy efficient lighting, have a programable thermostat, keep it set low in the winter, and high in the summer, own thirty acres of forest that I will not let anyone cut even though it is filled with what is estimated at $40,000 worth of old growth oak, pecan and enough mesquite to supply a bar-b-que joint for 5 years. I compost, recharge the batteries on my fishing boat with solar powered cells, garden many of my own vegitables and compost all biodegradable waste and produce less than a single bag of true garbage a week. I do not buy carbon credits, I do not buy green power but do use a windmill powered genrator at my shack in the woods when I go there. I do it because it makes sense, economic sense and saves me money. I don't do it because I believe that the end of the world due to global warming is coming in the near future. I have said that I can draw no reasonable conclusions from the massive amount of data presented by both sides to substaintiate if global warming is or is not happening and yet you keep saying yeah but what if? If you do things because you firmly believe what the chicken littles are saying then great do it, but don't suggest that my analysis of the data should be dismissed on the basis of yeah, but what if?

 

[beachblanket]

Your post is way too logical for this thread. The ones that want to believe in global warming on this forum will always believe even if it turns out we have a new ice age in a few years. Its the fashionable, feel good cause of the day, and there's no convincing them. They will only believe the pet studies and scientists that support their pre-conceived notions and either ignore all the others or find some link in the chain to an oil company and say, "don't you know that that study was funded by the oil companies" "or that scientist is in the pocket of big oil?"

You will only be able to pry their global warming feelings out of their cold dead frozen brains when the next ice age comes.

And be prepared for a lot of and a dose of with a dash of

Followed by some insulting personal attacks as to why your just not smart enough to believe in man-made global warming.

Excellent summary. This is the classic sort of bandwagon the limousine liberal crowd loves to grab onto -- one that lets them bash the opposition (" greedy" corporations and "conventional" lifestyles) without making any substantive changes in their own existence. Al Gore still uses private jets (much less efficient than using a common carrier), Leonardo DiCaprio claims to "drive a hyrid" while being photographed tooling around in $200,000 Italian sports cars, etc.

 

[BuckNaked]

Sorry if you thought my message was bullying. I guess I just don't understand the uproar against Gore saying "do these things and you'll save energy which will help the environment" It's not like he is going to bang on your door and demand you show him your energy saving measures.

~Amanda

No, I'm sorry - the bully comment was not directed at you.

 

[NELSON]

Feted at Sundance,French kissed at the Oscars,there may even be a Nobel Prize in his future. After having his election and subsequent re-election stolen from him, it appears that Al Gore is finally getting the respect he deserves – and not just from celebrities. The whole world is united in love and admiration for the man who would awaken us to an inconvenient truth and save us from our own polluting selves.

There are, as expected, the typical right-wing bullies on the beach who can’t resist kicking sand in Al’s face as he basks in the glow of his much-deserved stardom. Always the turds in the proverbial punchbowl, these smearmongers have procured “evidence” that Gore uses twenty times more electricity than your average American household. Well, of course he does – he’s twenty times more important than your average American. What the GOP attack machine neglects to factor into their hate-fueled orgy of hate is the utter itsy-bitsyness of Gore’s teensy weensy “carbon footprint” ,that is, the amount of damage one does to the environment simply by cursing this planet with their existence.

Naturally, Al Gore’s carbon footprint is drastically smaller than that of a carbon-based lifeform. This allows him to enjoy the sort of lavish lifestyle that only a progressive celebrity truly deserves. There is also the matter of "carbon offsets" to consider - special “Eco-Credits” we can use to offset the amount of Carbon Debt we incur throughout our daily lives. The more environmentally-friendly you are, the more credits you obtain. Voting Democrat, for instance, earns you an automatic 1000 Eco-Credits. Wearing earth tones gets you another 5,000 Eco-Credits. Having at least one Prius in your 17-car garage is worth 20,000 Eco-Credits, and an additional 10,000 if you slap a Greenpeace bumper sticker on it. For those who can't afford a hybrid vehicle, abortions an inexpensive way to nab an easy 10,000 credits. Once you have accumulated enough Eco-Credits, you can exchange them for the privilege of heating your home, driving your car, or flushing your toilet.

Unfortunately, there are only so many Eco-Credits to go around, and Al Gore has most of them. His tireless devotion to scaring the crap out of people has earned him enough Eco-Credits that he could raise a herd of bean-fed bovines in his front yard and still have enough left over to heat his indoor olympic swimming pool for the next 1000 years if he wanted to. Instead, Gore has chosen to hold his vast wealth of Eco-Credits in trust for the America people, until such a time that Mother Earth has passed safely from under the shadow of an environmental holocaust. Until that day comes, it is important that the rest of us reduce our carbon footprints by shutting off our heat, turning off our lights, and eating cold dog food directly from the can.

Well, not all of us

 

[DancingBear]

Your post is way too logical for this thread. The ones that want to believe in global warming on this forum will always believe even if it turns out we have a new ice age in a few years. Its the fashionable, feel good cause of the day, and there's no convincing them. They will only believe the pet studies and scientists that support their pre-conceived notions and either ignore all the others or find some link in the chain to an oil company and say, "don't you know that that study was funded by the oil companies" "or that scientist is in the pocket of big oil?"

Nice attempt to shift the argument again. Have you not yet found those statements by Al Gore that make him a hypocrite?

 

[TheDoctor]

It is hard for many people of my age (close to 50) to believe in this because of the global cooling farce of the 70s. It will be a hard sell for us in many parts of the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

This is amusing if you understand science and how real studies are published. There is a concept called peer review where respectable journals and publications have other scientists in the field review an article before it is published. The tobacco companies used to have problems with peer review and so they paid scientists to produce fake articles that were "published" in fake or none-peer reviewed publications. EXXON and the AEI have been using the same trick until EXXON decided to cut off the AEI's funding.

Vice President Gore made an interesting comment this week about articles like the one you just posted. http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02

Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming.

"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."

Again, according to the study cited, all peer review studies support global warming.

 

[rockbottomsound]

Nice attempt to shift the argument again. Have you not yet found those statements by Al Gore that make him a hypocrite?

See this greatly shines enlightenment on the fundamental lack of understanding.

Its not his "statements" that make him a hypocrite, its his "actions." (Living like any other rich celebrity in extravagence and luxery, driving limos, SUVs, jet setting across the nation) Although he has recently become so enlightened that he is now "planning on" installing "some" solar panels in his mansion.

But the enlightenment is that with some on here, actions don't matter, its just how much good smack you can talk that counts. Gore talks good feel good smack so he's a savior of the planet, despite the fact that he practices not even any minimal standard of environmentally friendly pracitices such as installing solar panels and driving green vehicles, which he could have done 20 years ago.

Apparently the poor Gores have just recently found out about solar panels despite the fact that real environmentalist activists, ones that walk the walk like a conservative Republican Clint Eastwood, has utilized them for years and years.