Just curious: where did Gore study climatology, anyway? YouTube - Al Gore Debates Global Warming
|
Just curious: where did Gore study climatology, anyway? YouTube - Al Gore Debates Global Warming
Al Gore's Personal Electricity Consumption Up 10% Despite “Energy-Efficient” Renovations
Energy guzzled by Al Gore's home in past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month
NASHVILLE – In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President's home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man's commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore's home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore's Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore's massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home's windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The cost of Gore's electric bills over the past year topped $16,533.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore's film won an Oscar, and he won a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore's actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public's concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore's home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
Tennessee Center for Policy Research
The Nobel prize committee should be ashamed. They have turned what used to be an international honor into a bad joke!
Not only that, given our current situation and the "don't drill" democratic stand, even his own party is wishing now, that he didn't give that speech yesterday.
The American Physical Society (APS), which represents 50,000 physicists, now proclaim that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
APS Physics | FPS | Editor's CommentsQuote:
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
They are sponsoring a public debate on the validity of the global warming science.Lord Monckton of Brenchley, fired the opening salvo with a paper which concludes that climate sensitivity ;the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause ;has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.
APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz from from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo make the counter point argument in favor of the IPCC conclusion .
APS Physics | FPS | A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
The point of this is that finally the idea of having "settled science" on climate change/global warming has been debunked. Perhaps now public policy can also be debated in a more rational manner
Back to the Goracle... so what is the price tag of his latest proposal ?
James Pethokoukis of the' US News and World Report' says it would cost $5 TRILLION. That's slightly less than half of the total US GDP;10 % of the total world GDP.
Dissecting Al Gore's $5 Trillion Energy Plan - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)
Hello again, tom:
It's like I said before... When I was a kid, we used to throw our trash in the streets because we thought it didn't matter. However, we found out it DOES matter. When I was in the Navy, we used to throw our trash off the fantail of the ship because we thought it didn't matter. But, we found out it DOES matter.
Now, we're throwing tons of trash into our atmosphere every day and you don't think it matters?? Dude! Where you been?? I think you DRANK the koolaid!
excon
No one is "for" pollution, that's just crazy.
The evidence shows that as the temperature changes on earth, an equal change takes place on all the other planets as well.
Earth goes up by 2 degrees, so does Mars, Venus, Saturn... you get the idea.
Earth goes down by 2 degrees... same thing happens.
So, when the scientists can show how the fumes from my SUV, effect the temp on all theses other planets, then I would be more willing to take responsibility for causing Global Warming.
Until then, I have to believe it is just another way for the liberal environmentalists to control capitalism, which we all know they despise, and another way to try to make us feel guilty for actually enjoying our prosperity.
What really gets me is the fact that Al Gore can 'buy carbon credits' so he 'has a license to pollute' IF he was REALLY concerned about global warming he would cut back not make polluting a money making scheme where he is entitled to pollute and we are expected to ride bikes to work while he flies all over the world.
Pure hypocrisy, IF we want to stop so called man made global warming the carbon credits should be for future generations NOT Al Gore's benefit.
To me that is an irrelevant question... I don't care if there are question marks to his point of views.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
What is important is that Al Gore was the one who - at least in the US - brought the climatic problems due to human pollution of this planet into a full active debate.
In Europe we already seriously started that debate in the 1970's after the EU report of the "Club of Rome" and followed that up with the 1997 Kyoto agreement.
The US failed to address their similar problems (they never even signed the Kyoto agreement) till Al Gore pushed it into the lime light.
Right or wrong on the CO2 argument : Al Gore was instrumental to the awareness people in the US have now of the pollution problem, the resulting global warming, and it's consequences ! That is relevant!!
:rolleyes:
·
I am VERY grateful that PRESIDENT Bush has (so far at least) refused to sign on to the KYOTO. We don't need that kind of economic disaster to satisfy some ignoramus' panic over something we have no control over.
You may of course think so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
But there is more to consider here : approx. 6,4 Billion people share this planet. And the 350 Million or so US Americans have shown too long that they do not care a bit about equally sharing the resources this planets offers, while wasting more energy pro-head than anyone anywhere else on earth. The resulting global warming is involving all humans and all other life on earth.
It is inexcusable and immoral that US Americans demand their "right" to pollute, while at the same time "stealing" away the planet's limited resources for their own use only, specially as they do so by paying with money that is in fact not theirs, but is "borrowed" from many other nations on earth.
As to the topic question : Al Gore was - as I already stated - instrumental to the awareness people in the US have now of the pollution problem, the resulting global warming, and it's consequences ! That is relevant!!
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
George 1950, thanks for the you tube link.
Here is another.
YouTube - Americans for Prosperity Crashes Al Gore's Speech
See the last minute or so to see if Al Gore truly practices what he preaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
How do you address India's or China's CO2 emissions, or is your screed only directed at the USA?
As to the topic question : Al Gore was - as I already stated - instrumental to the awareness people in the US have now of the pollution problem, the resulting global warming, and it's consequences !
That is what is relevant!! All the rest is steer manure, heaped on by people with opposing views.
:rolleyes:
So before Al Gore, we did not know about pollution? Or do you mean co2 "problem."
I remember this commercial from the early 70s
YouTube - The Crying Indian Commercial
I did not claim that at all : I stated very clearly (see post #9 - 01:40 AM) :Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Right or wrong on the CO2 argument : Al Gore was instrumental to the awareness people in the US have now of the pollution problem, the resulting global warming, and it's consequences ! That is relevant !!!
Before Al Gore pushed this, there was hardly any general awareness of the problem, and that all these problems are related!! Even today there still are a lot of people who insist that tornado's have more to do with "the Lord" than with human greed and disrespect for nature. Both pollution and CO2 production have effects on global warming.
:rolleyes:
·
ExQuote:
It's like I said before... When I was a kid, we used to throw our trash in the streets because we thought it didn't matter. However, we found out it DOES matter. When I was in the Navy, we used to throw our trash off the fantail of the ship because we thought it didn't matter. But, we found out it DOES matter.
Now, we're throwing tons of trash into our atmosphere every day and you don't think it matters?? Dude! Where you been?? I think you DRANK the koolaid!
Like I said to your previous retort:
To me ;the kool-aid drinkers are the ones who take the words of the Goracle on faith . Are all those scientists at APS kool-aid drinkers also ?Quote:
Because I think that this is the new version of Y2K
Even though there are hundreds of scientists who doubt the conclusion ,anyone who disputed it gets branded a charlatan . Especially galling is that the high priest of the movement in no way practices what he preaches . What ? The Goracle traded in his carbon consuming mansion for a grass yurt ? I don't think so.
What they propose as a solution is draconian ,and even if possible without wrecking the economies of the developed world ,will take a longer then they claim we have.
The history of the climate that we have recorded shows periods of warming and cooling much more severe than what is predicted . Was there SUVs driving around when Greenland was green ?
Conservation and cleaning the air are worthy goals without this pretending that what is best a hypothesis is "settled science" .
Indeed ! In fact; it is the Goracle who owns the companies he buys carbon credits from. Essentially he takes money out of his right pocket and puts it into his left pocket ;says a mea culpa and proceeds to blow carbon out of his a$$.Quote:
What really gets me is the fact that Al Gore can 'buy carbon credits' so he 'has a license to pollute' IF he was REALLY concerned about global warming he would cut back not make polluting a money making scheme where he is entitled to pollute and we are expected to ride bikes to work while he flies all over the world.
Pure hypocrisy, IF we want to stop so called man made global warming the carbon credits should be for future generations NOT Al Gore's benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Comments like these are not relating to the topic, and are basically dishonorable and aggressive personal attacks on Gore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomder
As I stated already several times before : all that is relevant here is that Al Gore was the one bringing the global warming problem to the people : he was instrumental to the awareness people in the US have now of the pollution problem, the CO2 problem, and the resulting global warming and it's consequences ! That is relevant!! All the rest I see in this topic is neurotic steer produce !
:rolleyes:
Hello Cred:
If these righty's don't like the message, the just shoot the messenger.
excon
Hello again,
Way back in the 40's, someone had suggested that we invest heavily in a project that MIGHT result in a bomb that could win the war and save the world.
If the project had been made public, I'm sure the righty's would be saying the same thing. I'm sure they would be attacking those guys as scientific buffoons as they're doing now.
Maybe guys on the right are born with their heads in the sand.
excon
Hello again,
Besides, I'm not sure why the righty's ARE against doing something... If, for NO OTHER REASON, than it will reduce the Arab role in our future. THAT, and that alone should get them on board.
I don't understand... They WANT those Arabs to be in charge of us?? Don't make no sense to me.
Plus, a change like this COULD be and probably WILL be the economic stimulus that puts us BACK on the economic map. After all, we're really good at making NEW technology, that turns into NEW business, that makes NEW money. We LIKE that stuff, don't we??
Sure, there's the OLD industry that complains when they're out of fashion. I'm just surprised that they have so much support... Maybe the righty's are all OLD.
excon
If the project was ongoing today the NY Slimes would leak the details even if it weren't made public.Quote:
If the project had been made public,
Ex ;I have been pointing to their fellow scientists who are questioning the high Priest's scientists.
Tell me when the government invested such vast sums of money on sociatal restructuring on a hunch by scientists. Normally they gamble on the word of social scientists and social engineers true enough .Quote:
Besides, I'm not sure why the righty's ARE against doing something... If, for NO OTHER REASON, than it will reduce the Arab role in our future. THAT, and that alone should get them on board.
I don't understand... They WANT those Arabs to be in charge of us?? Don't make no sense to me.
Plus, a change like this COULD be and probably WILL be the economic stimulus that puts us BACK on the economic map. After all, we're really good at making NEW technology, that turns into NEW business, that makes NEW money. We LIKE that stuff, don't we??
Sure, there's the OLD industry that complains when they're out of fashion. I'm just surprised that they have so much support... Maybe the righty's are all OLD.
You will not find any of us who are opposed to energy independence. What makes you think that any of this stuff is more than just theoretical . I've seen the government in action . In Boston they had problems digging a tunnel . I suggest that before he leads us like a pack of lemmings to a place he dreams of he pull out his calculator and honestly tell us what sacrifices he is demanding of us.Who has the power and the money to totally redirect 60% of our entire economic output and plowing it into an endeavor to prevent the sky from falling.
Everything boils down to BTU's - electricity, solar, oil, it all basically creates heat to move something or manufacture something. Oil brings it in prodigious quantities, wind and solar is minuscule.
Tomder says: "Normally they gamble on the word of social scientists and social engineers true enough ."
Al Gore is a mystic and a politician out of power. He is a big-stakes gambler, as long as the stakes aren't his. The economy is his objective and he's betting with fear of CO2. He is a desperate power monger, out of power. YouTube - Global Warming
Hello George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
I don't know. He WOULD be the Democratic nominee, and he would be the next pres if he wanted power.
Sooooo, he turned down the most powerful job in the Universe... Maybe power's not his game.
excon
That's your assumption, your opinion, and you're welcome to it. He got his a$$ beat once and he doesn't want it beat again. Besides, he'ld have to take a cut in pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And the back-up for that statement is a YouTube movie...Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Which makes you a wild claim monger with your own hidden agenda...
:rolleyes:
·
One of the problems with the issue of global warming, and it should more rightfully be called the cycle of global warming and cooling, is that this is one of the issues where politics and science are intertwined. You can't really expect a politician to be an expert on the environment, unless that is where their educational expertise happens to be. Asking Al Gore about the environment is kind of like asking a baker how to make shoes.
Anybody that can not take a good look at Al Gore's lifestyle of being a global warming hypocrite sure can't see what its all about.
The facts on his usage are horrible!!
Hello again,
I took a course once. The guy who wrote it was very popular... People loved him and loved what he had to say... Then the guy got into trouble. All of a sudden, people hated him and hated what he had to say...
Personally, I didn't care. I took the course because it was a good course - not because of him. It wasn't a GOOD course because of the guy who wrote it, and it wasn't a BAD course because of the guy who wrote it. The guy who wrote it was irrelevant.
Global warming IS or ISN'T happening. It ISN'T happening because the people on the left love Al Gore, and it ISN'T crap because the people on the right hate him.
HE has nothing to do with it. HE is irrelevant. I don't support HIM. I don't support his CLAIMS. I simply say, that NOT throwing our trash into our atmosphere IS a good idea. And, NOT because of CLIMATE CHANGE either. If moving to alternate fuels winds up stopping someone's perception of global warming, then it's a BONUS for us cleaning up our sky.
As mentioned earlier, if we attacked this energy crisis with the entrepreneurial spirit we have, we'll wind up creating MORE jobs than will be LOST by the death of the old oil infrastructure. It'll STOP the flow of our money to the Arabs who use it to make war on us.. It'll STOP us from having a reason to make war on them. It'll allow us to regain our leadership in the world... But, most important of all, it'll make me happy.
For THOSE reasons, among many others, we should address the problem. It doesn't matter what Al Gore says, or what you think of him. Do you value your country? Are you a patriot? Do you cherish your children's lives?
Look. I don't know if Al Gore is right or not. I don't care. All I know is that we're going to run out of oil. Who, in their right mind, think that it's going to get any cheaper as it gets scarcer?? Who, in their right mind, think we're going to leave ANY of it in the ground? Who, in their right mind, think we're not going to build nuclear power plants? Who, in their right minds, think we're going to give up our cars?
We were faced with an oil crisis in 1973. What'd we do?? Tripled our imports of oil. This crisis has been building for a long time. The wars we're involved in are a direct result of our NEED FOR OIL. Are we going to ignore this again?
SCREW Al Gore. Do it for the exconvicts of the world!
excon
Bravo! Bravo!
What a great post, YEAH, I liked it.
I even have this picture, of your little guy avatar, standing on a stage, fist clenched in the air, as he SHOUTS that last line!
Seriously, you are right, mostly.
I still say there is NO REASON NOT TO...
Drill now, Drill here, and pay less!!
One theory is that we are being lied to and that oil replenishes itself so it will never run out.
BUT of course the government would NEVER want us to KNOW THAT!
So Europe and the rest of the world that have signed Kyoto are ignoramus's?? Typical!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
American Thinker Blog: Kyoto Schmyoto
Quote:
If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.
We're BETTER than Kyoto... nah nah nah :D
Nohelp The theory the Russians have evidently adopted about oil coming from tectonic movement rather than the decay of carbon matter is worthy of further study.The whole Peak Oil concept could be bogus .
Excon
There has to be some realistic basis for this sociatal transformation .I understand your point but consider the conversions in the past. We used to light our houses and streets with whale oil . Then Edison through his experimentation created a marketable alternative. But the transformation from whale oil to electric transmission did not happen until it was proven to be a viable alternative. Only then was the infrastructure put in place to make it widely available .
Eventually I think solar cells will be able to capture enough energy to make them a viable alternative .
But we do have clean and proven effective alternatives now that we refuse to invest in .Why is that ? Why don't we extract the trillions of cubic meters of natural gas we have in reserve ? It is a clean burning alternative to oil and coal . Why are we not investing in nuclear power ? The French Breeder reactors provide almost 80% of the countries electricity needs . It recycles the waste so there is very little dangerous waste to store.
We can do this now . I have seen no evidence that a major transformation to solar and wind could replace our energy needs in 50 years ;let alone 10 years. If you challenged a child to complete college by the time that child is 12 . The challenge is most likely going to be ignored as unrealistic. If however you argue that we should move gradually towards a goal of energy independence from renewable sources as they become viable ;then I think you are speaking to a willing audience. The scientist on the Manhattan Project knew the goal was achievable ;and so did the NASA engineers . But Gore sees Orville and Wilbur Wright get their plane off the ground and then says ,we must land on the moon in 10 years.
From his 'Meet the Depressed ' interview Sunday
Tom Brokow :
Gore ;without answering the question about it being possible went into his standard Chicken-Little sky is falling rhetoric about us not having more than 10 years . He then goes on to make your argument that the pay back would be worth the cost;ignoring the astronomical costs that every American would have to pay in the interim. He says he would restructure THE ENTIRE TAX COLLECTION SYSTEM to pay for the transition. So now a new tax structure is to be included in his complete transformation of American Society . Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin (both 5 year plans )would be proud!!Quote:
The reaction was pretty quick and not all of it was favorable, even from those who are aligned with you in thinking that we have to do something about climate change. This is what Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank, had to say. "At this point I don't think there's anyone in the industry who thinks that goal, as a practical matter, could be met. This is not yet a plan for action; this is a superstretch goal." Your friends at MIT, the Energy Initiative Group up there, and they have some radical ideas as well. They said, "Can we do it this quickly? It would be very, very tough." What you have outlined, in fact, is a goal that may not be achievable.
Al Gore lies to us . He says his 10,000 square-ft. "yurt" is carbon neutral (or some such bs. ) But the truth is that he uses about 191,000 kilowatt hours per year while us average schmoes average 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. So yeah ; the messenger is important . What you say he isn't ? Then why do people point out the hypocrisy of other high priests when their conduct doesn't match their rhetoric ?
That doesn't even include the high fuel costs for his plane and SUV'sQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Mao, Stalin, and Hitler; I have no use for Ross Perot (or Boone Pickens, for that matter), but he would say, "The devil's in the details." So, what would Gore do with so many Americans who would just tell him to "drop dead!"? Hillarycare was going to prosecute them and doctors; "land of the free, home of the brave"? Gore and his left-wing friends are out of control, at this point, and appear to have no concept of individualism and freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Precisely excon ! It is not the messenger : it is the message that is important.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Whatever your views on global warming etc. it does not hurt to reduce pollution of atmosphere and oceans other than may be in the pocket.
And if you take the unfair usage of energy in the world into account, there is nothing to say against more sharing of all remaining resources on a fair scale.
;)
No wonder if you relate the US wasting to the situation in Europe, where we have been following a limiting campaign for energy consumption and pollution already since the late 1970's (Club of Rome report).Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Better stop the "we're better than Kyoto....nah nah nah" US chest beating, and return to reality...
:rolleyes:
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 AM. |