Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-06-2007, 07:33 PM   #21
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
So my question is...... Can you say for a fact that he is not living to a higher standard then most of us?
No, but can you say for a fact that he is?

Aside from that, all the articles I've read have all said his "10,000 sq foot residence" giving no indication that it's anything but.

What I can say, is based on my experience with utility bills in a business, is that unless he's doing light manufacturing, I can't see a reason for his bills to be so high.

My office is only 4000 sq feet but we have over 20 computers running 24/7/365 and 2 large high output copiers and 6 printers running constantly 5 days a week. They generate so much heat that our gas bills average about around 100 dollars a month during the winter. The furnace rarely comes on. Our electric bills on the other hand are run from 1100-1700 per month depending on the season.

I can see no viable reason for utilities of a personal residence to be as high as these so far un-denied reports claim them to be.

From what I've read it appears that the Gores haven't denied their bills are any lower, and they've used this carbon offset purchasing as a validation for their apparently wasteful energy habit.

So no, I can't say for a fact that they're not doing everything they can, but their lack of a response as well as all the information that's been presented leads me to believe that they are not. Until they come out with some sort of a statement to prove otherwise, I'll consider them hypocrites on this issue.

You may have a different set of criteria for judging them, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Other than this I have a fairly high opinion of Gore. Hell, I even voted for him. If he's going to be the mouthpiece for the global warming cause, he should, and will be held to a much higher standard.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 07:35 PM   #22
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
So let me get this straight- if a rich guy like Gore consumes power at 500x the national average, you have no problem with this, as long as he pays carbon credits to his (Gore's) own "green" company in order to plant a few trees............

So as long as you are rich and can pay for "carbon credits" , you can pollute to your heart's content......do you really believe that?
What about the average guy who is just barely meeting monthly expenses and can't afford to pay Al Gore's company for the carbon credits? Is he supposed to give away his SUV, or else feel guilty about owning it?

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.
It's a start we're going to have to buy into. Take a look at Kyoto, a lot of the same thing.

hey here's what I'd like to buy into. You have a vehicle that get 40 or more miles to the gallon, You pay $0.75 a gallon for gas, 30 or more MPG you pay $1.50 for gas, 20 mpg or more, you pay $3.00 a gallon, 10-19 mpg you pay$5.00 per gallon, under 10 mpg you pay $7.50 per gallon.

Tractor Trailers, buses, and bigger commercial trucks have a different scale, but still graduated so there is an incentive for efficiency and a penalty to waste.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 07:36 PM   #23
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
So let me get this straight- if a rich guy like Gore consumes power at 500x the national average, you have no problem with this, as long as he pays carbon credits to his (Gore's) own "green" company in order to plant a few trees............

So as long as you are rich and can pay for "carbon credits" , you can pollute to your heart's content......do you really believe that?
What about the average guy who is just barely meeting monthly expenses and can't afford to pay Al Gore's company for the carbon credits? Is he supposed to give away his SUV, or else feel guilty about owning it?

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.
well said!
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 11:30 PM   #24
Adirondack_hunter
Southern Adirondack Hunter
 
Adirondack_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Falls
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post

So my question is...... Can you say for a fact that he is not living to a higher standard then most of us?

I have read all of this Gore bashing thread and I must first state I am not a huge Gore fan. I can however honestly say that he is living to a higher standard than the rest of us.
Look at your socks right now as you sit reading this. Look at your slippers. If I take my feet out of mine, the inserts come out with my feet.
If you still don't believe me look at the vehicle you drive. Any more questions about a standard of living? If you think he would put up with what you put up with, such as , I can't wait to get my next check .... you all see where I am going.....
Poor Al Gore.....At least leave the guy alone until he runs for office!! LMBO
Now if you mentioned his wife, I'd be in on bashing her!!!! TOO!!!
__________________
"Every piece of venison I eat reminds me of my forefathers and the joy the whitetail brought to them"
-- Adkhunter
Adkhunter Reflective Arrow Wraps
Rockclimbing.com NY Route Editor
Adirondack_hunter is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 11:38 PM   #25
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post

The new great strategy is that since you no longer can disprove global warming, then you can hide the lack of credibility with attacks on it's most prominent spokesman. You also take the spotlight off the major sources of the problem. It's one of the oldest ploys in the book, you would think that people would be wise to it by now.
No one is trying to dis-prove global warming; instead, what is causing it????

Since global warming is being experienced elsewhere (other than Earth):

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html

I have to ask myself "what is really going on here"?

Considering these warming events on Mars, Pluto, and Triton (the largest moon of Neptune), is it POSSIBLE that fluctuations in the solar activity of our Sun is having this effect on those bodies, as well as Earth? A number of scientist believe this is the case, but the political agenda behind man-made global warming is overwhelming any open debate. Immediately, any skeptic is referred to as being owned by the oil companies- just not true.

I consider myself an "environmentalist" on many issues pertaining to wildlife, preservation of wild country, and so on- as my many posts on this forum can attest. I am just not convinced.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:52 AM   #26
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
No one is trying to dis-prove global warming; instead, what is causing it????

Since global warming is being experienced elsewhere (other than Earth):

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html

I have to ask myself "what is really going on here"?

Considering these warming events on Mars, Pluto, and Triton (the largest moon of Neptune), is it POSSIBLE that fluctuations in the solar activity of our Sun is having this effect on those bodies, as well as Earth? A number of scientist believe this is the case, but the political agenda behind man-made global warming is overwhelming any open debate. Immediately, any skeptic is referred to as being owned by the oil companies- just not true.

I consider myself an "environmentalist" on many issues pertaining to wildlife, preservation of wild country, and so on- as my many posts on this forum can attest. I am just not convinced.
First question Ron. Did you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?
if you did see it, second question. Do you dispute the facts it lays forth?

I thought that it made an unassailable case in pointing out how what is happening now and the speed of the warming rules out any possibility of a "normal cycle". I'm not a rocket scientist, far from it. But is was pretty clear to me.

I present a final argument of my own logic.

If the scientists and environmentalists who are supporting the existence of global warming are right, then to do nothing is to threaten the very ability of humankind to survive within the next hundred years.

If they are wrong, but we implement all the measures they say are necessary, it will still make the earth a healthier place to live.

If the debunkers are wrong and we do nothing, then your great grandchildren will probably curse this generation for doing nothing when we had ample warning.

If they are right and we do nothing, the air and water will continue to get more polluted and we will continue to be held hostage by our dependence on fossil fuels.

Now, like I said, I'm not rocket scientist, but it seems to me that there is only one course of action that is a win and there is one course of action that is a loss regardless of the truth. Not hard to choose the course to take .
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 03:12 AM   #27
qam1
Member
 
qam1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron
Oh well, I guess he's "above the fray" here and needs to use SUVs and private jets to and from his conferences around the world- as well as burning 20 times the national average in his home energy consumption...........

Yes, I know - he is supposedly buying "carbon offsets" which the rest of us can't afford to do and I guess that is assuaging his guilt. Makes you wonder........is it just rank hypocrisy or something even worse?
Worse, He owns the "Carbon Offset" company, so he's buying from himself. Essentially he's not buying offsets he's buying stock in his own company. Any of the these regulations get passed that require Carbon Offsets, he makes out big time.

Mark my words, it maybe next year, it maybe 5 years or even 10 years, but somewhere down the line, this scam of his will be exposed and it will be bigger than the oil for food scam at the UN

Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron
Well, no one is suggesting he move into a mud hut- but 20x the national average? If he wants US to alter OUR lifestyles, couldn't he do the same and maybe reduce that to a paltry 3 or 5 times the national average?
How about he should at the very least be living more "environmentally friendlier" than George Bush who he constantly attacks,

See Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune

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% 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.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.


Now if George Bush who is pretty much considered the antichrist to the environmentalist can do it, why can't Al Gore.

To show how this debate is driven by politics, if you read the article you will see that this article isn't a press release from the Whitehouse or anything like that, but it's actually written by a hard core liberal as hit piece on George Bush. Yes, Liberals attacking George Bush for being too environmentally friendly, go figure that one out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhawk
There are not two sides to the debate, not really, not any more.
You don't know science then,

Rule #1: In science the debate is never over

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhawk
So I don't think it's a question of being railroaded or rushed into anything Ron. If you stop and look at the whole picture and the events that have transpired around this issue over the last five years, especially the turnaround of companies like GE and others,
I find it funny you bring up GE

GE jumped on the Global Warming Bandwagon for one reason and one reason only.

Currently, they are the only company in the world that make nuclear reactors
Nuclear power plants don't release and greenhouse gasses, for any country who signs Kyoto or any other treaty in order to drop it's CO2 levels and still meet it's energy requirements will need nuclear power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron
So as long as you are rich and can pay for "carbon credits" , you can pollute to your heart's content......do you really believe that?

What about the average guy who is just barely meeting monthly expenses and can't afford to pay Al Gore's company for the carbon credits? Is he supposed to give away his SUV, or else feel guilty about owning it?
The best analogy I've seen, rich elites buying Carbon Credits today are like the rich sinners in the middle ages who bought "indulgences" from the Catholic Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron
Considering these warming events on Mars, Pluto, and Triton (the largest moon of Neptune), is it POSSIBLE that fluctuations in the solar activity of our Sun is having this effect on those bodies, as well as Earth? A number of scientist believe this is the case, but the political agenda behind man-made global warming is overwhelming any open debate.
Yep, but you forgot Jupiter, which is also experiencing global warming

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

And more linking the sun to global warming

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Quote from the article

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

More than 60 Scientist!, wow! so much for this consensus nonsense

And I'll believe the reports that the sun has a large effect on climate from the people who have made a career of studying solar physics over the skepticism of some high tech computer modelers.

Mars

On the real climate website
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

They admit Mars has cooled since the 1970's, but they blame it on the fact that there was more dust storms back then compared to now. What they don't realize about their argument is the fact there are fewer dust storms now compared to then actually indicates global warming on Mars. Mars has a wispy thin atmosphere, it's actually quite hard for the dust to get airborne. The warmer the atmosphere the lower the atmospheric pressure is, the lower atmospheric pressure is, the more it becomes even harder for dust to become suspended in it thus fewer incidence of dust storms.


Jupiter

Jupiter doesn’t have all the things like oceans or land that affects weather like we do here on earth and Jupiter has a near 0° axis tilt so there isn’t even any seasons. What that amounts to is Jupiter has pretty stable weather, that’s why storms last centuries and when a new storm forms it’s notable.

There’s only 3 things that drive Jupiter’s weather, it's fast rotation, internal heat and solar heat.

It's rotation surely hasn't changed and being that the internal heat is heat left over from when Jupiter formed 4.5 billion years ago, and unless you can come up with a good explanation on how the internal heat has all of a sudden magically increased after all this time, that just leaves one thing left that could cause the changes on Jupiter. Solar variability.

Triton
Neptune has a nearly circular orbit, so it isn't changes in distance from the sun that has caused the heating

They attribute the heating to changes in frost patterns & the ice's reflectivity. Well, changes in frost patterns & ice’s reflectivity both don’t just happen by magic all by themselves, both suggest increased solar activity.

Also the fact that's it's Triton that experiencing the most extreme global warming of all the heavenly bodies fits perfectly with the sun being the cause.

The frost pattern and changes in the ice’s reflectivity on Triton are caused by ice volcanoes, as the volcanoes leave prominent dark streaks across the surface (seen below)



Unlike Earth or even Io the volcanoes on Triton are driven solely by heat from the sun,

More active the sun = more volcanoes, more volcanoes = more dark streaks, more dark streaks = even more heat absorbed from the sun. So what's happening on Triton fits perfectly with a more active sun

Pluto
While it's too far to know what exactly is going on, the fact is in the 14 years after it reached its closest approach to the sun it tripled in atmospheric pressure and has continued to heat up. It should be noted; in those 14 years, Pluto due to it's a widely elliptical orbit has moved 250,000 km further away from the sun. That is equal to moving the earth out to the middle of the asteroid field, yet it still heated up.

The above four bodies are the only ones we have been able to observe over a long period of time (a 5th Saturn might also be heating up), if this was just natural variability we should expect to see some warming, some cooling and some remaining stable. The fact that all 4 (and possibly a 5th) and the earth all just happen to be heating up all at the same time suggest the only one thing they have in common, the sun is too blame

Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron
Immediately, any skeptic is referred to as being owned by the oil companies- just not true.
Of course not, but that's the only argument they have. They can't argue facts or science so the only thing they can do is cover their eyes and sing "la la la la la it's an oil company conspiracy"

See the above about the planets, now that's a scientific argument, I afraid you will never such a thing from the other side
__________________
:
:

Qam1

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/qam1 - Everything & Anything on the Adirondacks
:
:
qam1 is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 08:23 AM   #28
Dowser
Member
 
Dowser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Conesus, NY
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
Ahhh, we are back to the other thread now... shoulda seen that coming when these posts started looking more like a political swift boat job. Was hoping the intent behind the topic was more a lead into a conversation about potential middle ground solutions and the merits and potential of systems like carbon offsets. Bummer.

I’m not sure at this point in time if carbon offsets are a commercial scam or not. I’m not putting confidence in them for another few years.
What I am sure of is the snows of Kilimanjaro are gone, the polar ice caps are melting and glaciers around the world are melting and diminishing. This tells me that at least in those spots on the Earth the temperature is warmer over a period of years.
If one looks at a temperature graph based on ice cores ones see’s the average Earth temperature rise and fall matching the 20,000 year cycle (depending on how one defines the cycle) but one also see’s short spikes in the curve representing short fluctuations in temperature, this is to be expected. All these cycles are probably due to change in solar output, but that’s another discussion.
Here’s the rub, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere consistently follow the ice core graph until the industrial age then the CO2 levels go up out of proportion. As far as I can see this is because of pollution caused by man. Add this increase in CO2 to the temperature spike we are currently in and we may have a runaway heating effect.
We must stop the CO2 and other pollutant increases now while we may still have a chance to curb global warming. We do this by going as green as possible. I see no middle ground solution.
I for one want my grandchildren to be able to hike the ‘dacks and see the same things I’ve seen.
__________________
Lower your voice,
Walk peacefully,
You’re in Natures Library.
Dowser is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 09:38 AM   #29
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron
So as long as you are rich and can pay for "carbon credits" , you can pollute to your heart's content......do you really believe that?
Reality: Richer people with bigger homes and more property will pollute more than poorer people with smaller homes and less property.

Is that something we can all agree on? I'll assume yes. Ok, now dealing with reality here, how can we reduce the amount of pollution these people create?

Potential Solution 1: Take away their mansions!! We could make it so they weren't rich and didn't own as much property. We could socialize our class structure, even out the playing field across all citizens so that all of our incomes, properties and pollution footprints are the same.

Potential Solution 2: Come up with a way in which those people with bigger environmental footprints can reasonably reduce and then offset the amount of pollution they create.

Potential Solution 3: Insert your own idea here.


Put aside for a second the fact that you seem more interested in yelling "GOTCHA, Al Gore!" then discussing (or understanding) the actual issue which you yourself initiated a post about... and think about it. How do YOU suggest rich people in mansions handle the amount of pollution they are creating?

Carbon Offsets aren't my ideal solution either, but what is the better solution. I am all ears.



A side note about this thread. I find it frustrating that we have people who would scoff and belittle and criticize and roll their eyes (and have done exactly that in other threads) at suggestions that America should Nationally buy into an across the board solution for reducing energy consumption. Suggest to them that a National effort is needed to re-haul the way our businesses operate, that we need to use tax dollars to fund the retro-fitting of public and private property to be more green, that we need to prohibit the sales and use of certain modes of transportation... and they will light the torches and lead the riot of outcry.

But, when a potential solution is discussed that might actually address the fact that this is America and we DO have inequality in income, property, and yes, pollution... well, then they start crying hypocrisy and class imbalance.

Ya can't have it both ways guys.
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 09:44 AM   #30
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
Those other people aren't champions for the cause of global warming. Al Gore is and should be held to a much higher standard in my mind since he's taken this role of spokesman.
He is doing exactly what he requests of everyone else. He is doing exactly what he feels is the solution to the problem.

You would have him held to a standard higher than this? Well, I suppose I can kinda understand that sentiment. But personally I think it is better for him to actually be a model for the solution, to show it in action, to show how it works... to ya know, actually do what he is asking the rest of us to do.

But then again, I am more interested in real solutions to this issue and less interested in trying to catch Al Gore with his pants down.

Last edited by Holdstrong; 03-07-2007 at 10:02 AM..
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 09:45 AM   #31
Kevin
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Sand Lake, NY
Posts: 5,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowser View Post
Here’s the rub, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere consistently follow the ice core graph until the industrial age then the CO2 levels go up out of proportion. As far as I can see this is because of pollution caused by man. Add this increase in CO2 to the temperature spike we are currently in and we may have a runaway heating effect.

We must stop the CO2 and other pollutant increases now while we may still have a chance to curb global warming. We do this by going as green as possible. I see no middle ground solution.
And it didn't take 1675 words to state your case either.

IMHO it's not a debateable issue at this stage. Yes, science is a process of elimination, and all other causes have been eliminated. Even all the alternative theories combined couldn't have the degree of drastic effect on the climate over the last 100 years. The conclusion recently made by the scientists is what we call consensus. It does happen in science. No different than the smoking anology I introduced in the other thread. There were many "scientists" that poo-poo'ed the harmful effects of smoking, later to be revealed as conspirators paid by the tobacco industry. We know the same is going on here, there's a paper trail as well as insiders who've come forward. I'm sure there was a healthy percentage of those who smoke(d) who didn't want to believe the truth either. It's called denial. But whether or not we as individuals believe it, the truth goes on being the truth with or without us.

If there was no truth in the consensus of the global climate scientist conclusions there would be no need to pay lobbyists and others to spread misinformation. Is this not self evident?

This isn't simply a matter of playing devil's advocate for the under-dog or to save face in the political realm. These are life/death matters for all species on this planet.
Kevin is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 10:23 AM   #32
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
First question Ron. Did you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?
if you did see it, second question. Do you dispute the facts it lays forth?

I thought that it made an unassailable case in pointing out how what is happening now and the speed of the warming rules out any possibility of a "normal cycle".
Yes, I did see it and I thought the case was far from unassailable. You and I agree on alot of issues- let me summarize to answer your question:

1. The fact that other planets/moons in our solar system are experiencing global warming (see my links in other posts) leads me to believe something else is going on- perhaps solar-related as an increasing number of scientists are saying.

2. Just 30 or so years ago, as many of you my age may remember, many of the scientists were predicting gloom and doom with a coming ice age. THEY didn't have all the facts THEN, and I don't believe WE have all the facts NOW.

http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com...nd_005250.html

3. A number of Gore's assertions in the movie appear to be flat-out wrong, i.e.:
There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. Last year was one of the quietest on record for hurricane activity.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

The number of tornadoes that occur each year is not increasing, but the number of spotted and reported tornadoes is. The reason for this is that more people live in or travel through tornado prone areas than used to. This has led to better communication and reportings of severe weather.

http://www.wunderground.com/tornadoFAQ.asp

Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause.


Gore promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate and attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

Gore claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

Polar bears are not becoming endangered as Gore leads us to believe. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

I could go on, but these are just a few supposed "truths" that I don't consider to be unassailable.


4. I DO believe Gore is being hypocritical (at best) on this, even though I have supported many of his environmental stands on the issues, i.e. wilderness preservation, clean water, etc. This appears to be a politically driven agenda which is distorting and exaggerating the real picture for his own benefit. And yes, watch the money trail- right to Gore's own company re: buying carbon credits- a concept which is looking increasingly questionable as a "shell game".

5. I believe that we SHOULD make the transition to cleaner power sources over time- but that the current facts do not support the scare tactics being used.

6. If there was a clean alternative to the internal combustion engine right now, I would be the first to support it- and when it eventually comes around- I will.

7. BTW, this I found pretty funny- PETA is attacking Al Gore:

In a letter to Al Gore, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegetarian diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.



So let me ask- are we all willing to be come vegetarians to save the planet!!??!!??
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 10:38 AM   #33
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by qam1 View Post
Worse, He owns the "Carbon Offset" company, so he's buying from himself. Essentially he's not buying offsets he's buying stock in his own company. Any of the these regulations get passed that require Carbon Offsets, he makes out big time.

Mark my words, it maybe next year, it maybe 5 years or even 10 years, but somewhere down the line, this scam of his will be exposed and it will be bigger than the oil for food scam at the UN



How about he should at the very least be living more "environmentally friendlier" than George Bush who he constantly attacks,

See Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune

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% 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.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.


Now if George Bush who is pretty much considered the antichrist to the environmentalist can do it, why can't Al Gore.

To show how this debate is driven by politics, if you read the article you will see that this article isn't a press release from the Whitehouse or anything like that, but it's actually written by a hard core liberal as hit piece on George Bush. Yes, Liberals attacking George Bush for being too environmentally friendly, go figure that one out.



You don't know science then,

Rule #1: In science the debate is never over



I find it funny you bring up GE

GE jumped on the Global Warming Bandwagon for one reason and one reason only.

Currently, they are the only company in the world that make nuclear reactors
Nuclear power plants don't release and greenhouse gasses, for any country who signs Kyoto or any other treaty in order to drop it's CO2 levels and still meet it's energy requirements will need nuclear power.



The best analogy I've seen, rich elites buying Carbon Credits today are like the rich sinners in the middle ages who bought "indulgences" from the Catholic Church.



Yep, but you forgot Jupiter, which is also experiencing global warming

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

And more linking the sun to global warming

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Quote from the article

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

More than 60 Scientist!, wow! so much for this consensus nonsense

And I'll believe the reports that the sun has a large effect on climate from the people who have made a career of studying solar physics over the skepticism of some high tech computer modelers.

Mars

On the real climate website
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

They admit Mars has cooled since the 1970's, but they blame it on the fact that there was more dust storms back then compared to now. What they don't realize about their argument is the fact there are fewer dust storms now compared to then actually indicates global warming on Mars. Mars has a wispy thin atmosphere, it's actually quite hard for the dust to get airborne. The warmer the atmosphere the lower the atmospheric pressure is, the lower atmospheric pressure is, the more it becomes even harder for dust to become suspended in it thus fewer incidence of dust storms.


Jupiter

Jupiter doesn’t have all the things like oceans or land that affects weather like we do here on earth and Jupiter has a near 0° axis tilt so there isn’t even any seasons. What that amounts to is Jupiter has pretty stable weather, that’s why storms last centuries and when a new storm forms it’s notable.

There’s only 3 things that drive Jupiter’s weather, it's fast rotation, internal heat and solar heat.

It's rotation surely hasn't changed and being that the internal heat is heat left over from when Jupiter formed 4.5 billion years ago, and unless you can come up with a good explanation on how the internal heat has all of a sudden magically increased after all this time, that just leaves one thing left that could cause the changes on Jupiter. Solar variability.

Triton
Neptune has a nearly circular orbit, so it isn't changes in distance from the sun that has caused the heating

They attribute the heating to changes in frost patterns & the ice's reflectivity. Well, changes in frost patterns & ice’s reflectivity both don’t just happen by magic all by themselves, both suggest increased solar activity.

Also the fact that's it's Triton that experiencing the most extreme global warming of all the heavenly bodies fits perfectly with the sun being the cause.

The frost pattern and changes in the ice’s reflectivity on Triton are caused by ice volcanoes, as the volcanoes leave prominent dark streaks across the surface (seen below)



Unlike Earth or even Io the volcanoes on Triton are driven solely by heat from the sun,

More active the sun = more volcanoes, more volcanoes = more dark streaks, more dark streaks = even more heat absorbed from the sun. So what's happening on Triton fits perfectly with a more active sun

Pluto
While it's too far to know what exactly is going on, the fact is in the 14 years after it reached its closest approach to the sun it tripled in atmospheric pressure and has continued to heat up. It should be noted; in those 14 years, Pluto due to it's a widely elliptical orbit has moved 250,000 km further away from the sun. That is equal to moving the earth out to the middle of the asteroid field, yet it still heated up.

The above four bodies are the only ones we have been able to observe over a long period of time (a 5th Saturn might also be heating up), if this was just natural variability we should expect to see some warming, some cooling and some remaining stable. The fact that all 4 (and possibly a 5th) and the earth all just happen to be heating up all at the same time suggest the only one thing they have in common, the sun is too blame



Of course not, but that's the only argument they have. They can't argue facts or science so the only thing they can do is cover their eyes and sing "la la la la la it's an oil company conspiracy"

See the above about the planets, now that's a scientific argument, I afraid you will never such a thing from the other side
I'm going to make this concise rather then try to mask the lack of any real argument with a preponderance of non related facts.

1. Core drillings on earth have been taken from Earth that can measure temperature and gasses going back millions of years. How many of those have been taken from all those planets to accurately measure conditions over thousands of years and be sure that all these things you speak of aren't naturally recurring cyclic ocurrences?

My guess is none.

2. How many of those planets have an oxygen based atmosphere?

My guess is none.

3. How many of those planets show hundredfold increases of co2 and other greenhouse gasses since their industrial ages began?

Oh, they didn't have any industrial ages.

4. How many of those planets have atmospheres that protest their inhabitants from harmful rays?

Oh, they don't have inhabitants. Oh, most don't have atmospheres.

5. How many of those planets actually have greenhouse gasses?

6. How come this planetary data becomes relevant to the argument only after all their other proof against global warming was either disproved or shown to be deceptive?

7. the "In Science the debate is never over" fact, assumes there are people left to debate the science.

8. Bash Gore all you want. HE is neither the cause, nor the solution to the problem, only the messenger.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 10:39 AM   #34
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
He is doing exactly what he requests of everyone else. He is doing exactly what he feels is the solution to the problem.

You would have him held to a standard higher than this? Well, I suppose I can kinda understand that sentiment. But personally I think it is better for him to actually be a model for the solution, to show it in action, to show how it works... to ya know, actually do what he is asking the rest of us to do.

But then again, I am more interested in real solutions to this issue and less interested in trying to catch Al Gore with his pants down.
You missed my point. I'm not trying to catch Gore in anything. I said before, I like him.

However...

The point I'm trying to make is that as the spokesperson/figurehead or whatever you want to call him, he should be doing more than the average person. You say "He is doing exactly what he requests of everyone else." He expects everyone to fly on personal jets (widely considered to be one of the most wasteful uses of fossil fuels) but it's OK, they can buy a carbon offset. I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, or I don't understand what he expects people to do?

He should be a role model for conservation and efficiency. Buying carbon offsets is a cop out in my opinion. It doesn't appear to me that he's made any kind of change to his lifestyle in order to reduce his carbon footprint.

Buying carbon offsets is not changing anything to conserve!!! Besides, It's not something that most people can afford to do. By all means he should be doing everything he expects the rest of us to do, but he should and can be doing more.

I hold people to a higher standard when they purport themselves to be some sort of figurehead or role model. Especially when they have the resources to do do so, as the Gore's do.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 11:10 AM   #35
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, or I don't understand what he expects people to do?
Yeah I think you have missed something. In one of my replies to a previous post of yours I quoted exactly what Al Gore has asked of people.

Here it is again: "What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

That is what he asks of me, and of you, and of everyone else, and that is what he has done himself.

Quote:
He should be a role model for conservation and efficiency. Buying carbon offsets is a cop out in my opinion. It doesn't appear to me that he's made any kind of change to his lifestyle in order to reduce his carbon footprint.
Your hangup then is not with Al Gore per se, but with the fact that he uses Carbon Offsets and he believes that they are a viable solution to the energy consumption problem. I understand your skepticism of that approach, but I don't understand attacking Gore's sincerity over it.

Quote:
Buying carbon offsets is not changing anything to conserve!!!
This is a fundamental mis-understanding of what carbon offsets are and are not. I'm not really sure how to explain it if it hasn't sunk in yet. If I cut down a tree and then pay someone else to plant two... what is the net gain/loss in trees in the world? Right, exactly. Now, if I do what I can to reduce my energy consumption, and then on top of that pay for a coal mine in Argentina to install a more efficient <insert technical machinery name here> that reduces the amount of emissions they produce by an amount equal to that which I am left producing... what is the net gain/lose to emissions and consumption?

In theory, and if done correctly, the net conservation from carbon offsets is the same as if you yourself did the conservation... if not more.

But, like I said, I can understand why people don't like the idea, and why they are skeptical of it. I am too. I'm just wondering if something like this is the only real practical solution we can count on. Al Gore might be willing to rise to to your higher standard (he has already installed solar panels on his property) but will others?
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 11:15 AM   #36
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Interesting:

The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

In addition to this, the Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff.

Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house in a bad climate.
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 11:19 AM   #37
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
That would have worked, if the title hadn't been "An Inconvenient Electric Bill" . That automatically shifted the conversation from what you were hoping to discuss to the fact that Al Gore has become a target for some and a threat as far as the republicans are concerned.

Next time try posting just about "Carbon offsets" and then you'll probably get the direction you want. It is a good topic, but on it's own, with no mention of Gore.....

Hawk
Hey, it wasn't my topic! I just hoped the OP was looking for an honest discussion on the issue, instead of a let's swift boat Al sorta thing.
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 11:28 AM   #38
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
Interesting:

The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

In addition to this, the Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff.

Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house in a bad climate.
Watch it. You're confusing the issue with facts!!!

Expect a lot of Gore attacks for now. The biggest fear the Republicans, Conservatives and even many Democrats have at the moment is that Al Gore may win a Nobel and be drafted to run for President. That's a nightmare to them.

So, if anyone sees or hears anything on the negative about Al Gore, and takes it as face value and doesn't realize that it's politics as usual, then shame on them. All the candidates have to remember that this man actually won the popular vote in 2000 and at that time he was swimming against the current as far as global warming was concerned. Now that his concerns have been recognized by the mainstream as legitimate, he has an Academy Award under his belt, his perceived blah persona has changed, and if he wins the Nobel, and if he decide to run..............

Well, you get the picture especially since there really isn't any other candidates on either side of the aisle that jump out at you.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 11:37 AM   #39
Adkleaddog
Member
 
Adkleaddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: McIntyre Range from Redfield
Posts: 249
Whatever happend to that "Hole in the Ozone Layer"?
__________________
"If You Ain't the Lead Dog,
The Scenery Never Changes"

(Age Old Yukon Saying)
Adkleaddog is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:24 PM   #40
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
...
Here it is again: "What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

That is what he asks of me, and of you, and of everyone else, and that is what he has done himself.

Your hangup then is not with Al Gore per se, but with the fact that he uses Carbon Offsets and he believes that they are a viable solution to the energy consumption problem. I understand your skepticism of that approach, but I don't understand attacking Gore's sincerity over it.

This is a fundamental mis-understanding of what carbon offsets are and are not.
...

In theory, and if done correctly, the net conservation from carbon offsets is the same as if you yourself did the conservation... if not more.
Carbon offsets are a separate issue. I think it's gotten to the point that you and I are arguing separate albeit related issues. My opinion is that the Gore's have failed to adequately conserve energy. Carbon offsets have no impact on his direct energy usage. They offset carbon produced by energy production and usage. How does planting a tree to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide help him conserve energy? I realize that there's more to it than that, and that buying wind/hydro/renewable energy as well as investing in companies that research/implement energy/emissions conservation is considered a carbon offset.

If you conserve energy you produce less carbon. This would mitigate the need for carbon offsets. It's not that I have a problem with carbon offsets. I have a problem with his energy conservation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
...
In addition to this, the Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff.

Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house in a bad climate.
In my opinion he hasn't done everything he can to reduce his energy consumption, and conserve energy. His home is only part of the problem. Especially if his energy consumption, as you state is within the average for his region. It's not even their full time home. Where did you find that he and his wife are running their businesses, charitable organizations, etc out of their home? Is that just an assumption or is that documented somewhere? I'd be interested in finding out just how often the house is fully occupied. If it's not fully occupied, there's no reason to fully heat and cool the home throughout the year.

He could be doing more to reduce his carbon footprint by conserving more energy. That's why I think it's hypocritical, not because he "lives in a big house in a bad climate".

Finally, I'm not attacking his sincerity, I'm attacking his seeming lack of energy conservation. I think that's a key component of first part of what he's looking for everyone to do.

I think it would be interesting to see a comparison of the energy usage over a longer period of time. Who knows, maybe they were using twice the energy 10 years ago. Then I would certainly be wrong and I would freely admit it.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.