Al Gore uses 20 TIMES as much electricity as you do

[BuckNaked]

Doc, I'm on your side on the main issue here, but stop with the semantic battles with Brenda. She said the statement was misleading, that's good enough for our purposes.

You know what, thank you for that, and though I just posted again on this, I'll attempt to refrain in the future on such silliness.

 

[BuckNaked]

Okay, Buck, you stop too!

We were posting at the same time, sorry!!

 

[Galahad]

FWIW, the claim that there is no peer-reviewed work that contradicts the "consensus" is false in the extreme. The are actually quite a lot of them. It doesn't make the studies correct, but it doesn't seem to me to advance the argument by lying about things like that when simply sticking to the evidence of the studies themselves should be sufficient.

For example, this is from a blog called the World Climate Report. No doubt it is partisan on the issue but it writes about some of those studies:

December 1, 2006
Are Humans Involved in Global Warming?
Filed under: Climate History, Temperature History —
A recent issue of Environmental Geology contains an article entitled “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by two scientists at the University of Southern California. Before we examine the article, let’s get a few things on the table. First of all, the two authors (Khilyuk and Chilingar) are faculty members at what most would agree is a world-class academic institution. If their work was not up to the standards of the University of Southern California, they wouldn’t be there for long. Second, Environmental Geology is an international multidisciplinary journal concerned with all aspects of interactions between humans, ecosystems, and the earth. It is published by Springer which is one of the leading academic publishing companies in the world. The editorial board of Environmental Geology includes 53 leading scientists from every corner of the planet; US institutions listed as primary affiliations of board members include the US Geological Survey, the University of New Orleans, the University of Missouri, the University of Kansas, the University of Oklahoma, Temple University, Wesleyan University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and so on.

The point is that Environmental Geology is a first-class journal, papers submitted to the journal are peer-reviewed by scientists at major institutions, and the journal is certainly not part of any industry-funded conspiracy to undermine actions on global warming. Submitting a paper to any journal in which you question whether humans are involved in global warming will assure a more stringent review than normal.


OK – what on earth is this paper all about? How in 2006 could credible scientists seriously question whether humans are involved in global warming? Recall that Khilyuk and Chilingar are writing for a professional journal in geology, not climatology, and it is only natural to expect geologists to look at trends in the context of very long periods of time. Their perspective on climate change would be quite naturally different from someone trained in looking at annual, decadal, or 100 year changes in climate.

The authors begin the article with the sentence “Identification and understanding of global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate is crucial for developing adequate relationship between people and nature, and for developing and implementing a sound course of action aimed at survival and welfare of the human race.” Now who would argue with that statement? From there, they review the literature on solar output variations and earth’s temperature and show that a “one percent increase in current solar radiation reaching the Earth’s body translates directly into approximately 0.86 K increase in the Earth’s global temperature.” They show that the earth’s orbit about the sun changes over long periods of time resulting in up to a 7.5 K (1 K = 1°C = 1.8°F) modulation of the earth’s temperature. They describe how outgassing alters the composition of the atmosphere over long periods thereby altering the temperature of the earth over by over 50 K. They finally review microbial activities at the interface of the lithosphere and atmosphere that also substantially alter the composition and temperature of the global atmosphere at geological time frames. Initially, the article seems fairly tame, but as one reads more, the article becomes quite controversial.

Khilyuk and Chilingar repeatedly quantify the effect of the various processes that alter global temperature and conclude “The scope and extent of these processes are 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s climate (such as heating and emission of the greenhouse gases).” This seems fair enough given the geological time scales considered by the authors, but you can see where the global warming crowd would be getting more uncomfortable.

The authors place the recent warming into an interesting perspective noting “the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”. Holy cow, can you imagine the letters and e-mails they must have received in response to that conclusion? They even show that over the last 3,000 years, the earth has cooled, or if you look just at the last 1,000 years, the earth has been cooling as well (the earth was in the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago).

Their conclusions with respect to potential policy will more than raise some eyebrows as well as they write “Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls.” They show that the climatic effects of the Kyoto Protocol would be negligible, leading them to state “Thus, the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices). Impact of available human controls will be negligible in comparison with the global forces of nature. Thus, the attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes (and drastic measures prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol) have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful.”

Our World Climate Reports uncover and present interesting results we find in the peer-reviewed professional scientific journals, and as we have seen over and over, there are many absolutely amazing papers published regularly in outstanding journals. The global warming crusade would denounce this paper as outrageous, but it survived rigorous peer-review, the editor elected to publish it, and like it or not, this paper is part of the serious science literature. Dismissing the paper is made more difficult given the affiliation of the authors and the prestige of the journal.

The debate on climate change is never boring, the debate is full of surprises, and anyone claiming the debate is over is simply dismissing a significant number of papers that appear regularly in the major journals.

Reference:

Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.

From "Environmental Geology", here is the study cited:

L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1

(1) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

Received: 18 August 2005 Accepted: 27 February 2006 Published online: 11 May 2006

Abstract The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.
Keywords Global forces of nature - Climatic changes - Energy fluxes - Earth’s outgassing

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/?p=406efdfddf0046e2914492918a12e7e0&pi=13

While rejecting non-peer reviewed work is wise, the existence of peer review doesn't guarantee anything - much less that all of the reviewing peers agreed with the conclusions of the study.

 

[DancingBear]

Apples and oranges, Sir Galahad. Gore said this:

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.

The peer-reviewed articles you cite appear to be talking about whether or not human activity is the cause of global warming, not whether or not global warming exists.

 

[Galahad]

Apples and oranges, Sir Galahad. Gore said this:

The peer-reviewed articles you cite appear to be talking about whether or not human activity is the cause of global warming, not whether or not global warming exists.

Fair enough on VP Gore. That has not been the claims made on these threads. It is those claims I was trying to refute. I wouldn't argue with VP Gore - he's bigger than I am.......

 

[LuvDuke]

Sorry...

Quoting VP Gore.

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


I'm surprised no one's responded to a related thread I started... This is good stuff!!!
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1374105

Finally... a solution to global warming!
And, it comes from a former high-level government official. Phew! We can all relax, now!

Honestly, why should Gore discuss alternative explanations?

Limp-baugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, and the rest of the rightwing global-warming "climatologists" discuss it all day long. Yanno, let the professional hot-air gas bags present the alternatives.

 

[TheDoctor]

Well there's a flat out lie - that's not my quote at all. You've taken my words and substituted your own. Don't tell me I have to define the word "quote" for you too!

Again, you are wrong. I quoted you exactly except for adding the bolding. Again this is your exact quote last night.

I never said it wasn't misleading - I believe it is. I was simply pointing out that your statement that the 20x claim was bogus is incorrect.

The statement is clearly misleading by your own admission.

Words have a meaniing and I used the term bogus for a reason. It is a non-legal term that has the same meaning as the legal concepts of fraud.

I copied exactly your post last night and you are wrong when you accuse me of altering the quote. The only thing that I added was the bolding and that was to show exactly where you agreed that the statement was misleading and only took exception to the word bogus.

 

[TheDoctor]

Doc, I'm on your side on the main issue here, but stop with the semantic battles with Brenda. She said the statement was misleading, that's good enough for our purposes.

It is indeed enough for our purposes. It is clear that brenda admitted that the 20X claim is misleading and invalid.

I do resent the claim that I altered her quote. That is simply not true. I did go back and copied brenda's quotes from the Al Gore is the Anti-Christ thread. Here is a record of what brenda actually posted last night.

The "article" you linked to doesn't claim that the number is bogus. In fact, it accepts the numbers of the original press release, and by using those numbers, the 20x number is indeed correct.

Now, if you want to argue that the numbers should be broken down by region of the country, home size, etc., in order to show a more realistic comparison, I'll agree. But starting out your post with an incorrect claim, i.e., the number is bogus, just proves that you either don't read the articles you link to or that you read them but don't understand what they say.

You can certainly argue that the comparison is invalid, and I would agree. However, the original article never said that it was comparing homes of the same size in Gore's region - it clearly said "national average". And based on the national average, Gore is using 20x the annual average.

It wasn't made in a court of law, it was made on a web site, and while I agree that the comparison is invalid, the statement itself is numerically correct.

I never said it wasn't misleading - I believe it is. I was simply pointing out that your statement that the 20x claim was bogus is incorrect.

Brenda may not remember what she posted last night but here is a record.

 

[User Name]

The peer-reviewed articles you cite appear to be talking about whether or not human activity is the cause of global warming, not whether or not global warming exists.

I'll definately grant this. However, what is the basis for global "warming"?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468
In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared to the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age.

 

[BuckNaked]

I do resent the claim that I altered her quote. That is simply not true. I did go back and copied brenda's quotes from the Al Gore is the Anti-Christ thread.

My accusation of the altered quote was incorrect - when I went back and looked at the post as it was posted, it showed that you said "Here is your quote" followed by my actual words. When I quoted that post, it showed up as

Here is your quote.
Again, the 20X quote is fraudulent, misleading and bogus (unless you have some definition of the word or some other dictionary that you would like to cite

(Reference post #379)

Based on what was showing, I thought you were saying that the "Again, the 20X quote...." was mine.

I apologize for the mistake and the accusation.

 

[User Name]

Again, the point is that Al Gore is a hypocrite...

Mr. Gore, however, does not practice what he preaches. He wants you to curb your lifestyle drastically, but on the record he’s doing everything he doesn’t want you to do, and doing it extravagantly.
Consider his house in Tennessee. According to The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Nashville Electric Services records obtained by the Center show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005.
Over the past two years, the gas and electric bills for his 20-room mansion and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

President Bush walks the walk. Anyone want to give him credit, or does your hatred for him not allow that?

Compare this with President Bush’s practices as a homeowner.
According to a story in the April 29, 2001, Chicago Tribune, “Bush loves ecology -- at home,” the President’s house is a model of ecological purity.
“The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude, wrote freelance reporter Rob Sullivan. “Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this ‘eco-friendly’ dwelling use about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
“A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.”
Gore talks the talk, the President walks the walk.

Gore is a hypocrite. But he's a hero to the lefties. More "do as I say, not as I do."

Al Gore excuses his own excesses by saying he is buying "carbon credits," to offset his massive use of electric power and jet planes.
Buying "carbon credits" allows him to pollute to his heart’s content, because he’s adopted a "carbon neutral" life whereby any emissions for which he is personally responsible are allegedly offset by buying “green credits” such as parcels of forests that eat up CO2.
He doesn’t do solar, he doesn’t use wind power, he doesn’t change his lifestyle or go bio-diesel, he doesn’t do any of the things he insists the rest of us must do to save the planet from being barbecued -- he just buys carbon credits and goes on his merry way spewing pollution in all directions.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19626

 

[disneyfan67]

I had told myself yesterday that I was done with this thread, but then I saw some comments about some things I had wrote. I don't like my words being taken out of context or people not understanding what I tried to convey.

I didn't get into this argument or debate to start a Conservative vs Liberal and "who's better" type of discussion. I never once quoted or used any talking points from that group who broke the story, that appeared on Drudge.
I said a majority of things I wrote because I do care about what's good for this country and I have never liked to see waste, gluttony, or hypocrisy for that matter. I saw my statement of nobody needs to own 3 homes and how it was ridiculed. Same with my dislike of personal jets and helicopters. I also see where I'm just another one of the "have nots" who is jealous of people who have more than me. Wrong! I'm quite comfortable with what I have and my station in life. When I look around and see how some people have to live and how they struggle, it makes me grateful for what little I have. As I tell my son, we might not have as much as some people do, but we have more than most. So lets dispel with the notion that I'm jealous of what Al Gore or anybody else richer than me has.

I didn't write anything in my previous postings in an effort to play the classic "class warfare" game, but instead what is in the best effort of our country and the American people. My line of thinking is this, the faster we can ween ourselves from our dependence and addiction of oil from the Middle East, the better off we all will be. When I see a fleet of stretch SUV limos and personal jets used to transport celebrities, pro athletes with their large entourages, it makes me shake my head at the pure waste of it. Same with people who own 3 or more large homes and have to spend vast amounts of energy to heat and cool them. You can only live in one house at a time, so what's the point of owning all that waste? To each their own, but sometimes you have to point out the ridiculous in life. I have personally downsized both my vehicles and no longer own anything that has a V8 in it. They may be smaller and not as comfortable as my Suburban was, but I feel a lot better in my choices. I checked out a book from the library written by a person who can irritate me at times, Bill Mauer. It was called, "When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Laden." I didn't agree with everything he wrote, but he made some damn fine points and it helped changed my view point on things. I recommend it and after reading it, you might see where I'm coming from on all of this. It's one of many, good books on the subject of our dependence of foreign oil. We need to try and leave the Middle East alone when possible and lessen our business dealings with them. It's in our best interests as Americans to be dependant on no one, except ourselves.


On one last note. Just because I believe in a smaller, more efficient government, no deficit, less of a tax burden on all Americans, and a strong military, doesn't mean I hate the environment. I did a lot of upgrades to my house because I don't like to waste money and because it was the right thing to do. Same with my smaller, fuel efficient choice in vehicles. You don't have to be environmentalist to know that any reduction in vehicle emissions and lower, over all energy usage is a good thing. I just prefer to do it in a sane, thoughtful manner. I'm not in a big damn hurry to cut my nose off, to spite my face when it comes to the Global warming issue. I do expect people who seem to make it their job as a global warming experts, either as a politician or private citizen to live the life they want others to. Al Gore could have done a much better job cutting back energy consumption in his personal life, than he did. He has more than enough money and power to buy the latest technology to lower his energy usage and that's the point I was trying to convey.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'll definately grant this. However, what is the basis for global "warming"?

There is no global warming. It's a leftwing conspiracy to keep you from driving a Hummer and in a Yugo.

Really, you should be asking these questions over at the Freepers. I'm sure they'll come up with something faster than you can say "carbon offset".

 

[TheDoctor]

Fair enough on VP Gore. That has not been the claims made on these threads. It is those claims I was trying to refute. I wouldn't argue with VP Gore - he's bigger than I am.......

Again, Vice President Gore was comparing peer reviewed studies vs. non-peer reviewed studies as to the existence of global warming and so the quote from User Name was clearly taken out of context and was misleading.

There are some peer reviewed studies on the causes of global warming that suggest that man is not the cause of global warming. You (I think that it was you at least) cited one ealier on cosmic rays and it is clear that the initial data was clearly peer reviewed. When someone posts something in a peer review journal then the other scientists can look at the data and the results and test the conclusions. The cosmic ray alternative explanation did not hold up under such examination as noted in a different thread but the initial study was peer reviewed and other scientists were able to test the data because it was submitted in a format that allowed for peer review. That is why I object to non-peer reviewed studies and the stuff put out by the AEI. I used to quote the AEI and I know the games that they play. For example, google the Peltzman Effect if you want to see a classic AEI talking point that was used to delay the use of air bags for a large number of years.

BTW, your fat joke on Vice President Gore was actually funny. You should give Nelson some pointers on the concept of humor.

 

[TheDoctor]

My accusation of the altered quote was incorrect - when I went back and looked at the post as it was posted, it showed that you said "Here is your quote" followed by my actual words. When I quoted that post, it showed up as


(Reference post #379)

Based on what was showing, I thought you were saying that the "Again, the 20X quote...." was mine.

I apologize for the mistake and the accusation.

I am very careful on my quotes and try to provide links to everything that I quote for a reason.

I accept your apology.

 

[Andy B]

My accusation of the altered quote was incorrect - when I went back and looked at the post as it was posted, it showed that you said "Here is your quote" followed by my actual words. When I quoted that post, it showed up as


(Reference post #379)

Based on what was showing, I thought you were saying that the "Again, the 20X quote...." was mine.

I apologize for the mistake and the accusation.

Thats the trouble when we keep saying the same things again and again....

 

[User Name]

There is no global warming. It's a leftwing conspiracy to keep you from driving a Hummer and in a Yugo.

My question is valid. The reason it is continually dismissed by the pro-global warming crowd is because it completely debunks their arguement.

Global "warming" compared to what?

Compared to the 1930's it's cooler. Compared to 1998, it's cooler. Compared to 1000, it's cooler.

The same data that showed were on the verge of another ice age are now saying that it's global warming. You can use the same data in different ways and get VERY different results.

So, is it global warming or global cooling? Every decade, according to the extreme left nutjob "environmentalists" the world is headed for catastrophy because of something mankind did. Depending on what the data du jour is, that's what they blame.

The world goes through cycles. There is very little, if anything, that mankind can do to truly affect the global temperature. Much of it has to do with weather patterns, solar storms, natural events (volcanoes, eg). Us trying to alter the global temperature is like peeing in the ocean and expecting to affect the tides.

It's funny how these "environmentalists" can predict with high degrees of accuracy what the world's weather will be like 50 years from now, but they can't predict local weather 5 days out.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I was thinking of this thread on the way into work this morning. I passed a guy driving a Prius and the license plate said F OPEC.

I'll be first in line when they start making hybrids bigger than roller skates. I drag bikes, golf clubs, hockey gear and all matter of flotsam and jetsam around with me. In the meantime, I just juggle my schedule around so I'm only driving my car 5 days during the week and combining trips when I do go out.

 

[DancingBear]

My question is valid. The reason it is continually dismissed by the pro-global warming crowd is because it completely debunks their arguement.

Global "warming" compared to what?

Compared to the 1930's it's cooler. Compared to 1998, it's cooler. Compared to 1000, it's cooler.

The same data that showed were on the verge of another ice age are now saying that it's global warming. You can use the same data in different ways and get VERY different results.

So, is it global warming or global cooling?

Gosh, you're right!! You've opened my eyes!! All of those scientists just missed this point!!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

My question is valid. The reason it is continually dismissed by the pro-global warming crowd is because it completely debunks their arguement.

Global "warming" compared to what?

Compared to the 1930's it's cooler. Compared to 1998, it's cooler. Compared to 1000, it's cooler.

The same data that showed were on the verge of another ice age are now saying that it's global warming. You can use the same data in different ways and get VERY different results.

So, is it global warming or global cooling? Every decade, according to the extreme left nutjob "environmentalists" the world is headed for catastrophy because of something mankind did. Depending on what the data du jour is, that's what they blame.

The world goes through cycles. There is very little, if anything, that mankind can do to truly affect the global temperature. Much of it has to do with weather patterns, solar storms, natural events (volcanoes, eg). Us trying to alter the global temperature is like peeing in the ocean and expecting to affect the tides.

It's funny how these "environmentalists" can predict with high degrees of accuracy what the world's weather will be like 50 years from now, but they can't predict local weather 5 days out.

Very well said!

Remember the Population Explosion doom and gloom.