Warming may bring mass extinctions: study
Previous 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 Next
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:46 pm
xerxes xerxes:
So what if he has a big house? Do you expect him to live in a cave and survive off the wilderness?
Well...since you asked. Here you go. This editorial from USA today offers Al some pointers on what he could do.
$1:
Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.
For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.
Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.
Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.
Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free.
For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.
Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.
Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.
Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... reen_x.htm
Zipperfish @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:56 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
HOCKEY PUCKS. Al Gore has a big house. The UN is commie.
Well, you've kind of got it, but it doesn't go exactly like that. It goes. Al Gore has a big house. Al Gore is a hypocrite.
It's not "The UN is commie". It's "The UN is a useless, lying, steaming pile of commie dung."
Exactly. Thank you FiddleDog--you nailed it buddy. Al Gore is a hypocrite with a big house, therefore all those scientists and their "facts" are full of crap. And the UN are all liars. So is the MSM. And the liberals. And the scientsists. And the Nobel Committee. and the Euroweenies. And the facts are all liars too.
HOCKEY PUCKS!!!!!
If global warming were real, would Al Gore have a big house?
SAY JOKLHAUPS!!!!!!
sasquatch2 @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:25 pm
Not a bad attempt.
Jökulhlaups is the correct spelling however-----ya gotta be an Icelander to say it correctly though.
I really liked:
$1:
And the scientsists.
A refinement to really convey the double meaning would be sciencysts.
You are one of our better students.
Keep it up and you will become a stick rather than a puck.
Blue_Nose @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:23 pm
"And the facts are all liars too."
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:34 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
"And the facts are all liars too."
What facts? You guys talk about them, but we never get to actually see them. What are they a secret, or something?
Aurora_Janus @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:54 pm
-
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:54 pm
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying there is a fact, or group of facts which unequivocally proves catastrophic CO2 forced warming is imminent, but someone who is skeptic of their existence automatically becomes too stupid to be trusted with the information, based on the fact he is skeptic?
Aurora_Janus @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:59 pm
-
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:14 pm
Aurora_Janus Aurora_Janus:
Huh???
Are you responding to my post or someone else's?
Are you responding to my post or someone else's?
To yours actually. I thought you were responding to mine, that's why I'm scratching my head. I'm saying to myself, that doesn't sound like Ay Jay. She or he usually makes so much sense.
You see the progression of comments I saw was B_N saying he doesn't think alarmist "facts" are accepted as being credible by people arguing the skeptic viewpoint. I then said words to the effect we'd have a better understanding of "facts" proving imminent catastrophic global warming if we'd ever actually seen any. Following that it sounded like you were saying "don't ask for the facts, because you can't be trusted with them".
Edit
Oh wait I think I get it now. You were saying if the facts are being misrepresented, of course people aren't going to find them credible. Is that correct?
Aurora_Janus @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:55 pm
-
PluggyRug @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:06 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
"And the facts are all liars too."
What facts? Do try to be positive once in a while.
Blue_Nose @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:28 am
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
"And the facts are all liars too."
What facts? You guys talk about them, but we never get to actually see them. What are they a secret, or something?
You're as bad as "they" are.
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:50 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
"And the facts are all liars too."
What facts? You guys talk about them, but we never get to actually see them. What are they a secret, or something?
You're as bad as "they" are.
It's possible I misunderstand the mindset you're coming from. If so, I apologize. I'm not sure I do though.
Yes or no then. Do you believe the science is in, the debate is over, and any scientific doubt must be ignored? CO2 forced warming is leading to an inevitable catastrophe of warming, and must be addressed politically on a global scale.
Actually asking for a yes, or no answer on that one isn't really fair is it? The question is complex. Very well then, because I'm curious... What exactly do you believe as regards the complexities of that question? I think it's pretty obvious what I believe.
Blue_Nose @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:07 pm
I'm not one to place a lot of significance on what I personally "believe" about science, so I remain skeptical of things I'm not qualified to assess.
Since I haven't come across definitive answers to the warming we're seeing, nor is my knowledge of the subject that great, I don't have an opinion on the matter of 'cause'. I don't believe all the evidence that suggests some degree of unaccountable warming is occuring is simply incorrect, though.
I'm frankly insulted that you'd ask if I believe scientific doubt should be ignored - when people are talking about making drastic changes to peoples' daily lives, it should be absolutely challenged.
I also 'believe' that the backlash is uncalled for - we have people like samsquanch proclaiming that their views constitute the end of the debate, which is no better.
I'll again point out the irrelevance of opinions when it comes to discussing science. The debate needs to get back to being objective.
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:07 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I'll again point out the irrelevance of opinions when it comes to discussing science. The debate needs to get back to being objective.
Let's try that then. When you say...
$1:
I don't believe all the evidence that suggests some degree of unaccountable warming is occuring is simply incorrect, though.
what specifically do you mean by "all the evidence that suggest some degree of unaccountable warming"? My immediate response to that phrase is of course subjective. I feel an insinuation there that if the warming can't be accounted for at this time, then CO2 forcing becomes the answer? How wrong am I about that?
On the subjective/objective question of the Global Warming debate in general - It becomes really hard to remain objective when things start to get political. For instance, here's another thing I'm curious about. Where do you stand on Kyoto?
Speaking for myself, I must admit, it's really hard for me to remain objective when I stuff like this -
30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide -The UN's $70 million Dollar Climate Change Bash in Bali
My headline is misleading, but if you scroll to the bottom of the article, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Previous 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 Next