Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:
Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:
1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
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.
It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. Some other examples:
These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When politicians make movies, it is called “Propaganda.”
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pmEwwwww, more of Drudge’s ugly assed web site. He really needs to move into the 21st century, with the rest of the Internets. The tubes can handle newer fonts.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pmDrudge,
Why don’t you do the WHOLE WORLD a fu*cking favor and shut your fu*cking computer off for good. We all know what eminates from your keyboard.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pmThere is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:00 pmPatrick1 said something correct!!!!!!!!!!
You are right Patrick, there isn’t a debate. It is called consensus. ALl real scientists agree that global warming is real. No debate at all.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:02 pmWell after using the calculator I got an 8.25 … now to see what to do about it…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pmAnother lie.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThere is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1
Prove it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pmHere goes Patrick1 again.
/sarcasm on
He knows everything about environmental science. Trust him!
/sarcasm off
Okay, now that I typed that (even sarcastically) I have to go get a drink of water and wash the taste of vomit out of my mouth…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:07 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pmPretty interesting setup. You fund wind and farm methane projects to put clean electricity on the grid to offset your own dirty electricity use. Eventually there will be a large clean energy industry built. The more money invested the faster it will happen.
http://www.nativeenergy.com/Splash/ClimateCrisis/ClimateCrisis.html?climatecrisis
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmTrumpeting the amount of energy Gore’s household consumes might look like red meat to hungry cons, but if that energy is largely solar-generated, and the rest generated from green sources, then that slab of right-wing-outrage calories doesn’t look like such a nutritious meal anymore, does it? More like a fistful of right-wing-outrage Doritos.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1
List dont cut it. You need to explain what facts you got and HOW they undermine the rest of the worlds scientists.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmWhen politicians make movies, it is called “Propaganda.â€
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
He’s not presently in office, dipshit.
Besides, he was right about lot of things. As much as you hate that he was right, you still know it.
At least now we know where you trolls got this talking point.
Do any of you fundies have a single thought of your own that doesn’t contain the word “hate”?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pmDrudge can, of course, say whatever he likes — however, as Hubert Humphrey once said, “the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.” People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, but these are not equivalent to facts. The $250,000 question is…can Drudge put his money where his mouth is? On what evidence does he base this claim? There’s no question, of course, that some people will believe this claim without requiring any proof — but this is most likely because these people are already predisposed to think poorly of Gore and prefer to believe that this claim is true regardless of whether it is or not because it confirms their prejudice (otherwise known as negative halo effect). If Drudge can’t provide any hard evidence to support this claim and he knows it, then he’s deliberately lying for no other reason than malice — and last I heard, that’s called libel and that’s called a crime!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThat isn’t hard since the current “scientists” don’t have any facts, they have computer models and a faux religion headed by an idiot.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThere would have to be 2,500 scientists from 132 countries or more.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
You have to list credible climatologists – not astrologists or Michael Crichton type Science Fiction Writers.
You find five credible climatologists and post links to prove they aren’t on board with Global Warming as of today, then we’ll discuss…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmYou need to explain what facts you got and HOW they undermine the rest of the worlds scientists.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
patrick thinks that facts are part of the”liberal” conspiricy. He avoids them at all cost.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmPatrick, just because you can find one or two charlatans who are accepting money from MRC to obfuscate the issue doesn’t mean that there isn’t consensus on this. And, just because Brent Bozelle says something is a lie doesn’t make it a lie. All through the 60’s and 70’s, I could have cited scientist after scientist who would claim there were no correlations between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. Those “scientists” worked for the Tobacco Instutitue. The MRC is a similar organization. If you’re getting your info from them (and you are) you are getting it from people who are paid by industry to produce industry-friendly information. I’m just not sure you realize that.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDidn’t the Church used to sell indulgences so the rich could offset their sins? Sounds like “Pope Al” has found a new scam.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmLiberalism is based on feelings not facts. How else to explain this new religion they are into?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pmthat’s an insane amount of power to be going through in one year. the guy uses compact flourescent bulbs, solar pv & the house sucks down that many kWhs? something doesn’t add up there
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmIf Drudge’s story distorts the electricity use at Algores house, than can thinkprogress tell us how much he factually used?
I don’t think that a bunch of Hollywood elites constitutes a “consensus”. There are too if’s and maybes for this to be fact. But then I guess in some circles “facts” really aren’t necessary. To some emotion makes the world go around.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmThat little conversa-pod Tucker was on this today too with Karen Hen-ratty. Nothing is too petty for these people. I guess Tucker thinks his gated community will protect him.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pmFirst of all, facts have a liberal bias. You will find this out once you hit puberty.
Second, by and large, liberals AREN’T religious. Because religion is based on fantasy and emotion. Just like conservatives.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pmThe founding fathers of the USA were liberals pushing liberty against authoritarian rule. As they made clear in their Declaration of Independance they tried to get along with the authoritarians but they simply were not treated in kind. And so a break with them was neccessary. This struggle has been going on through out history. Look up the Athenians and the Spartans. The west has been turning away from religious dogma backed authoritarianism and the middle east is still deep into it.
And the American right wants to join the middle east in their way of life.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmIf Drudge’s piece distorts the truth about how much electricity Algore uses, can thinkprogress tell us how much he factually does?
I question wether a bunch of Hollywood elites contitutes a “consensus”.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmreligion is based on fantasy and emotion
Excellent definition of global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWow. What is it gonna take to convince these righties that climate change is serious? The evidence is so overwhelming. These deniers just blow my mind.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pmOy. Another thread tailor-made for the whiney-assed trolls.
See ya.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pmI like how the right wing sheep are able to accept every statement this administration feeds them as the god given truth even though there is not one ounce of fact or truth behind it. Yet, once liberal start making statements and supporting them with facts and studies they are lying.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pmFACT: Matt Drudge does not believe in global warming, yep, he stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago that he doesn’t believe it is happening, not man made, nor by the cycle of the planet, he just doesn’t ‘buy it’.
The guy is a Fraud on so many levels it’s pathetic. – He is not a reporter, he is a smear merchant.
His website traffic is another FRAUD – His refresher goes off quickly, numerous times to the same visitor, counting a unique visitors ‘visit’ many times over. He claims 10 million visitors a day, I say its around 800,000 unique vistors a day – tops!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmPatrick1 would have made a good thug for the NSDAP.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmIf anyone still doubts all the science presented in Gore’s movie, it must be because of the couple jabs at Bush in the movie. So a brainwashed rightie will automatically dismiss THE ENTIRE THING just because they think it is actually a hit job on Bush. Maybe that explains part of it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmHow the hell do you relate religion and global warming you crazy fu*k?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pmExcellent definition of global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for your lengthy list of credible climatologists who deny Global Warming… Get to it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pmPatrick: “Liberalism is based on feelings not facts.”
That’s pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we were conjured up magically by some kind of super-hero.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pmOreilly says global warming deniers are “nutsâ€.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Media/ Play/ 14722/ 1/ 60Minutes-OReilly.wmv
February 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pmHow the hell do you relate religion and global warming you crazy fu*k?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 26, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
So he doesn’t have to provide any facts… He can just say that he ‘knows’ it and that we’re all going to hell if we doubt him… Typical nutbag analogy…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:35 pmWhat Drudge misses is that Al Gore’s movie will result in hundreds of thousands or even millions of other people reducing their energy consumption. If they reduce that just 10%, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, and Laurie David could have ten times as many mansions and fly Gulfstream V’s around the world and we’d still help prevent global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:40 pmwho thinks we were conjured up magically by some kind of super-hero.
Comment by Bluedog49 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
LOL
February 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pmPatrick1 is an idiot. Like Drudge, his big mouth is contributing to global warming. Think of them as small children throwing a tantrum.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pmFact: during the coldest time period our planet has seen, the atmosphere had 4000 ppm (parts per million) CO2 than our current levels(370 ppm). CO2 is the greenhouse gas we are told is responsible for trapping the heat, in turn causing the warming. Fact: Plant life thrives on high levels of CO2, making them bigger, stronger, more heat tolerant, and more productive. Fact: for the past 10 years or so the sun has been going through a solar maximum cycle. During the solar maximum, the emission of high energy Sun spots or solar flares is at its greatest.(Our astronauts had to find protection in the shuttle from one of these solar flares) The Sun is our source of heat, which is currently sending out more heat. Don’t you get it. We live on a planet that goes through changes. Warm and cool periods. Actually, our planet has experienced longer periods of warm than cold, a difference of, conservatively speaking about 90% warm to 10% cold. As far as the ice caps go, they have been water(liquid) more of the time than they have been ice. We always adapt, how ever great the obstacle. Don’t let other people scare you into believing them. All of this information is out there, you just have to do the research.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pmI think this is one of thoes “deniers” people are referring to.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html
If the people on the right are brainwashed sheep, what are the people on the left? Besides full of themselves. It is amazing how sure of yourselves some of you are. Get up. Step away from the keyboard. There is a world out there. You might find that thou you thought you were, your just not right about this.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhat Drudge didn’t miss is that it’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pmThat isn’t hard since the current “scientists†don’t have any facts, they have computer models and a faux religion headed by an idiot.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
seriously, are you somehow conflating the actual problem of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE with the practice of SCIENTOLOGY ???
oh my…
i’m with zooey on this… let the trolls have at it…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm…
Excellent definition of global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for your lengthy list of credible climatologists who deny Global Warming… Get to it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pmIf we are wrong with the overwhelming consensus of real scientists backing Global Warming….what have we done? Made the world a better place to live for future generations?
But what if Exxon-Mobil and idiot savants like Patrick1 are wrong? I can understand a corporation who’s profits are impacted by carbon emissions not caring about the human cost…but how does a thinking person justify their position?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pmOT – sorry
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pmK. OLbermann on Countdown is planning another special comment — this one on Condi Rice/ Hitler, etc.
Step away from the keyboard. There is a world out there. You might find that thou you thought you were, your just not right about this.
Comment by algore — February 26, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
You step away from the keyboard…
I agree that there’s a world out there. It was from living in it that I gave up my religious conservative upbringing and CHOSE to be a liberal because it’s a kinder and more peaceful way of life. Many of us here have lived your way. It’s why we are so vocally against it.
Try our way. We’d bet you’d never go back…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? I’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids. Gore is the biggest hypocrite ever. This is beyond parody.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pmEasy to criticize then to be productive isn’t it. No matter what Al Gore does, he knowingly made himself a target in order to bring attention to a serious issue. If Al Gore didn’t have a horse, it’d be his dog, if he didn’t have a dog, it’d be his own fecal matter. It doesn’t end does it? In the end, ask yourself what have you done to make the world a better place.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/default.asp
February 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pmI’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids.
Comment by mandolin — February 26, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
No way… we can’t even get adequate funding in schools for textbooks… so Gore is giving them to the students for free (actually they are giving DVDs of the movie to the teachers).
So, you’re against books? Bible included?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pmComment by Proud American
You are relying on “laymens” point of view. The CO2 is far far above where it naturally goes. What the sun is doing is beside the point. The CO2 is the key. It matches the cycles through out history. And now it is way way up higher than it should be and we know that we produce all this CO2.
If in the past the natural cycle was driven up by CO2 and down by CO2 and now we unnaturally drive up the CO2 way higher than normal… well then logic dictates that the natural cycle will follow and be thrown out of balance.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pmComment by algore
Its not about right or wrong. Its about empirical numbers. The numbers are pointing to what is coming. Opinion means nothing.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? I’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids. Gore is the biggest hypocrite ever. This is beyond parody.
Comment by mandolin
I already went to the link FOR YOU. And then came back here and typed exactly where the money goes. So what else do you need? Or are you inlove with your ignorance?
The money goes to funding a mini manhattan project to create wind farms and other non terrorist Saudi oil energy sources.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pmI wonder how much patrick 1 is paid to disrupt this blog?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
Comment by Steed Lankershim
Apparently you did not read anything yet have an opinion. That makes you a fool.
Follow the link and see for yourself how he is trying to make a difference without forcing people out of business like you are suggesting he should.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pmLOL Thanks for the third grade science refresher.
1) Increased deforestation from logging for paper products and lumber as well as suburban sprawl counter the positive effects of clean air recycling from plant life 2) Annually escalating carbon emissions grossly outnumber the plant life required for recycling 3) Solar flares might effect someone in a space shuttle close the sun yet doesn’t effect the planet which is, coincidentally, not a space shuttle closer to the sun (go figure) 4) Planetary climate has historically changed over thousands of years (basic grade school earth science), not over the decades as is currently happening 5) Extreme environmental changes have always occurred at a slower rate thereby allowing planetary species and vegetation to adapt . The oceanic belt responds by moving freshly melted and less dense artic water down to the equator, thus replacing denser warm water with colder fresh water (this is fact, it’s already happening), essentially reversing the poles. Coupled with a rapid rise in sea level due to the large amounts of melted ice requiring coastal cities to be damned or abandoned, effects appear disastrous.
Do not attempt to discredit me by attacking my intelligence. As a current PhD student at Columbia U in social organizational psych (I have a Columbia email address and Columbia doesn’t have part-time status, all students have to be fully accepted by Columbia’s standards), my intelligence quotient is not up for debate, regardless of your comments or insults. The scientific fact (not the media) has been out for a while and it doesn’t look good for humanity.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Actually, better than a list, why don’t you give us a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change?
We will be waiting….
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? Comment by mandolin
Why don’t do some research yourself, before you make such silly comments showing your ignorance. hahaha
In other words you critique something you know nothing about, typical silly neocon
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmGOOD!! Let Drudge and all those other right-wingers CALL OUT POLLUTERS and ENERGY USERS!!
It will backfire on these idiots.
Maybe they should start looking at how much energy they use! Or how about how much carbon Texas is spewing out??
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1
You could start here. I do not thnk that you find a font of supporters.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pmAs far as the ice caps go, they have been water(liquid) more of the time than they have been ice. We always adapt, how ever great the obstacle. Don’t let other people scare you into believing them. All of this information is out there, you just have to do the research.
Comment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pmSo, for ” millions ” of years humans have been adapting to climate change ? So say Stupid American. The fact is the earth is only 6,000 years old-just ask Busch. I should add :)
There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Nope, idiot, it is the truth.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pmI see that the usual sorts of global warming deniers are peddling their idiocy here again. Give it up, idiots. Nobody’s buying. Seriously.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pmCongratulations, algore. You found a “dissenter”. Find me a field, and I’ll find you its dissenter – in Cosmology, it’s Fred Hoyle and his legacy students.
Find me citations in refereed journals. Because scientific consensus isn’t measured in scientists, it’s measured in papers.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pmPeterW,
Find that shit yourself. We’ve done it to death.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThis statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Patrick(n) & mandolin-do you guys live in a cave? Your leader the “Talking Head” now says Global warming is real- it is just not caused by people. Get on board. You are now supposed to claim increased CO2 levels are caused by cows farting just like happened with the Flintstones and the dinosaurs. What do they pay you two ?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pmZooey, um, was talking to the rightie troll who picked the unfortunate handle algore, not to any real or rhetorical Al Gore. As point of fact, I’m an ionospheric physicist who knows just enough about the climate science to know that global warming deniers are morons.
Indeed, the anti-environmental pathology among conservatives has something to do with the following mantra common among the right: 1) never show weakness, and 2) attack anyone showing weakness. It’s a very predatory society they imagine we live in. Giving a damn about anything (esp. environmentalism) is weakness in their eyes, and they have to attack it, lest they themselves seem weak and are preyed upon. It’s sad, really.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pmLet’s just face the fact that Al Gore consumes way too much energy. That does not alter the validity of his message.
Why a bunch of the anti-environment wingers would care all of a sudden about Al Gore’s habits is beyond me. They don’t discredit the message by attacking the messenger. They make the message seem more important!
They are also doing the world a service by pointing out that rich people consume way more than they should.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pmComment by PeterW — February 26, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Deepest apologies, PeterW, mea culpa.
I had been trying to read the incomprehensible Condi Rice statement on the thread above, and I think it affected my reading ability. I went back and re-read the thread, and I see what you were doing.
I hate it when I’m an ass. :}
February 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pmYou would think conservatives would support efforts to reduce global warming and pollution … since, you know, ‘conserve’, c’mon.
And its funny how when they complain about having to reduce their wastefulness, they sound like a kid whining about not wanting to wash their hands.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pmI don’t believe I was trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, though I can tell you are extremely insecure I don’t care how intelligent you are. You fail to understand simple facts. The Sun’s mass is 333,000 times that of the Earth’s. The Sun is 90 million miles away. The shuttle travels into near Earth’s orbit about 250 miles. Not a big difference when your in space. The amount of energy released during a solar flare is that of 5000 suns. Again, the Sun is the source of the Earth’s heat. You also have your facts wrong about rapid climate change in our history and people not just plants being able to adapt. Between 1350 and 1900’s the Earth experienced a little ice age. The 700 year time span, compared to the billions of years our Earth has been here around is a rapid climate change. Millions upon millions of people died. We adapted, we moved on. There will always be catastrophic natural disasters. Man did not cause the rapid cooling of the Earth nor have we caused a rapid warming. The funny thing about life is that we die, and sometimes this happens in mass. You are never guaranteed tomorrow.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pmWhy do Drudge’s pages look like they were typed on an VERY OLD government issue IBM machine?
Courtesy of CIA no doubt.
Matt Sludge? – Sit on this and spin … ±
February 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm#76 – Proud American,
February 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pmIf the energy released by a solar flare is equivalent to 5000 Suns, where does it come from? It certainly can’t be the Sun!
Comment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 9:30 pmN.A.S.A during a solar flare is not worried that the ISS air conditioners will not keep up. They are concerned about radiation and damage to the astronauts cells.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pmlol Waltman, don’t try to edu-ma-cate this one on anything factual. Apparently he knows something that hundreds of scientists and researchers don’t, that the sun is the cause of global warming (and apparently there was an ice age somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries). I guess we need to rewrite the history books lmao.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
Comment by beefeater
He isn’t burning “one” drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:42 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
Comment by beefeater
He isn’t burning “one” drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pmIt certainly can’t be the Sun!
Comment by WaltTheMan — February 26, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pmWalt you are correct. According to O’Lielly (an expert in this and many other fields) it is caused by cow methane that interacts with carbon credits.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ Culture/ archive/ 200412/ CUL20041202a.html
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm“Why don’t you do the WHOLE WORLD a fu*cking favor and shut your fu*cking computer off for good. We all know what eminates from your keyboard.
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 6:59 pm”
And just what is that rachel?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pmDrudge is slime. Just like his fellow reich-wingers.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pm“Why do Drudge’s pages look like they were typed on an VERY OLD government issue IBM machine?
Courtesy of CIA no doubt.
Matt Sludge? – Sit on this and spin … ±
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 9:31 pm”
rachel, did you think of this response all by yourself?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm“He isn’t burning “one†drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
Comment by rachel — February 26, 2007 @ 9:42 pm”
My rachel, your debating skills are awesome! I can see why zooey says I should stay away from you!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pmlol I’m very secure, thank you. My comment was based on the previous posters personal attacks. As a social psychologist in training, please don’t attempt to psychoanalyze me, it’s amateur at best and insulting.
Thanks for the attempt at “educating” me, but as I have a BA from Stanford in Psychobiology, and a MA and currently studying for my PhD in I/O psychology at Columbia, I can safely say I do not require any “educating” by misled and erroneous “fiction”. Thanks any ways, and good luck trying to inform the scientific community that all their research is wrong and that the sun is causing global warming, you’ll be laughed out of the room as Bush was at the Kyoto conference.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pmActually, when I read the post from Proud American, I lost about half an ounce of Pilsner Urquell through both nostrals and messed up a freshly laundered pair of pants and shirt. I also have to dry out another keyboard – Seixon got that one about three days ago, but it is working again now. I have a pile of four or so on top of the PC. The only thing that really pisses me off is the waste of some quality brew.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pmI can see why zooey says I should stay away from you!
Comment by michael
I never said that, you idiot. I said she was very intelligent.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pmI know you try to avoid intelligence at every opportunity.
#91 Zooey
I don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm#92 – AshenShard,
February 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pmHe could as least zip his fly.
there was an ice age somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries). I guess we need to rewrite the history books lmao.
Comment by Cory
There was an ice age around then. It ended in the 1800s. But not before in America there was the “year of no summer”. It was actually on a show today on history channel about the “little ice age”.
The earth has normal cycles of temperature fluctuation as well as occasional events such as volcanic erruptions or meteor strikes… And now a man made event…
February 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pmWow! As Rod Serling might have said “You have just entered the banned Dummie and Huffpo zone.” Who owns this cute little site? Faiz! Control your monkeys!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm#93 WaltTheMan
Please, you almost caused me to spit some rather good bottom shelf scotch … i keep my keyboard at a distance, but I only have one other that actually functions.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pmI don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
Comment by AshenShard
He still manages….
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pmHe could as least zip his fly.
Comment by WaltTheMan
You got me with that one, Walt. :-D
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pmSolar radiation or solar energy, is what warms the Earth. Energy is heat. An 11 year cycle of the sun causing solar flares that emit energy that of 5000 suns is a tremendous amount of heat. And again you fail to look at the facts that the Earth has been predominately warmer throughout its history regardless of when we entered the picture. If the Earth has been consistently warming since the last ice age and if it was warmer before the ice age than it must mean the Earth’s temperature is that of a warm planet with an average temperature of about 67 degrees F and not the 57 degree average we have been accustom to over the past 400 hundred years (little ice age 1350 thru the 1900’s). Why is it that the Vikings(1000 years ago) who used to inhabit Greenland were able to farm the land, and which ice caps are rapidly melting?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pmI know, I just found his claims outlandish lol. The terms “Little Ice Age†and “Medieval Warm Period†have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way. Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age†and “Medieval Warm Period†appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. viewed hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age†can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels. “Little Ice Age” is a misleading term as it is not indicative of an actual “ice age” (of course) but a cooler (and slightly warmer) phase geographically specific regions. This contrasts greatly to the actual historic ice age as well as the current changes in global (not geographical) temperature.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pmComment by Proud American
When are you going to get the hint?
It is not about the warmth.
Its about CHANGE.
There will be an equal and opposite reaction. If we make the NORMAL warmth increase a HUGE warmth increase then what equal and opposite reaction will occur? I sure hope not a major ice age. Its hard to live when there is no farm land. And before that happens in the mean time we have all the side effects of a world getting too hot. I prefer a mother nature in balance. Wide swings risk destruction of our way of life at the very least.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pmI saw upthread the question about climate scientists. Here’s 60 give or take that raise questions. I know it’s not five, but heck, call me crazy:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/canadianPMletter06.html
It also ignores at least three state climatologists in the U.S., Bill Gray the foremost authority on hurricanes and many others. But who’s counting?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm[...] Think Progress has contacted Al Gore for further clarification. (By the way, if you need evidence of how little regard right wingers have for honesty or rational though, check out the comments by a troll there by the name of Patrick1.) Think Progress received the following answers: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWell Proud American, the 4th IPCC report out in January shot your ’solar cycle’ argument down in, well, flames:
http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/ article2193672.ece
The key passage reported by the Independent is:
The IPCC also finally nails the canard of the climate sceptics who argue that global warming is a myth or the result of natural climate variability; natural factors alone cannot account for the observed warming, the IPCC says. “These changes took place at a time when non-anthropogenic forcing factors (i.e. the sum of solar and volcanic forcing) would be expected to have produced cooling, not warming.
Well there you have it..best of luck with that.
Dagadagadagadagadaga – he’s going down, Biffo……
February 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pmThe scientific method has not proven the man made global warming theory. It is a theory were there is a consensus which is nothing more than opinion among scientists, and not all scientists. Lets get the facts straight. Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs. You are all being manipulated. Every piece of information I have stated is scientific fact and historical fact about both the Earth and Sun. Both physical and historical data. Look it up yourself. All you know how to do is insult people. This is all a product of the American Education System. They forget to teach you to use your brains. Its all about how you feel. Nothing but acting on emotion; no thought.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pmGore is doing the correct thing, and continues to shoot the wingnuts down daily. Drudge and company are sore that he’s right, and they’re wrong (as usual).
Note to conservatives: opinion-based reality is doomed to fail. Repent now while you still can.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pmPurchasing “Carbon Offsets” ?
Call me crazy…but that seems like an odd way to ethical satisfaction.
Do we applaud the Tobacco Industry for merely donating to cancer research to ‘offset’ their impact on the smoking world?
To me…it just seems like we’re still permitting certain practices people despise, by allowing them to neuter it by spending even more money to ‘offset it’. I’d love to get into the
Is the idea that if everyone in this world was simultaneously over-using carbon…and purchasing huge amounts of ‘offsets’ that the Earth would be in some sort of balance?
Don’t you suppose there would be a different problem there?
Is there a healthy balance with ‘Bulimia’?
I doubt the environmental form is much better.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pm#104 Rational Comment
Do those scientists back up their claims with support? If they do, please give us links to their scientific analysis of the non-existence of global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:02 pmLets get the facts straight. Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs.
These two statements seem at odds with one another…unless you’ve got the Global Warming equivalent of at least the “protocols of the elders of Zion” for us to read and discuss… where’s your source PA?
Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs. …Its all about how you feel. Nothing but acting on emotion; no thought.
So do these…
They forget to teach you to use your brains.
Here’s your chance, PA… http://www.ipcc.ch make sure you check in on the section about solar cycles in your studies…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pmSpeaking of using your brain, don’t you find it odd, that the scientists who are speaking out against the idea of global warming, tend to (suprise) be on the payroll of gas and oil companies?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pmThe scientific method has not proven the man made global warming theory. It is a theory were there is a consensus which is nothing more than opinion among scientists, and not all scientists.
Comment by Proud American
I don’t think you understand the concept of the scientific method. By definition, there is no proof, only consensus. It’s not the same as the everyday use of the word “theory.”
Scientific theory is a well-tested and widely accepted view that the scientific community agrees best explains certain observable facts. Extensively documented theories are held with a very high degree of confidence.
You will never have “proof.”
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm[...] President Gore’s people have made a response. I don’t think we’re supposed to assume (as CBS News and the left did, back when the WH [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pmThe question remains, have any of these scientists done any research of their own regarding global climate change (which was the question proposed, not a list of scientists that are asking for review)? What have any of their personal findings concluded (if any)? There are many “former” this and “past” that listed that are petitioning the Canadian government for halting action in adopting environmental policy. Dr. Chris de Freitas, listed, has publications published mostly in the 1980’s and 1990’s (with 2000 being the most recent). Upon reading the Abstract of publications from many of those listed (I hesitate to use researcher as most of them are teaching), most of the information is not based on new evidence, but rather what researchers refer to as “pick and choose science”. Essentially they are choosing to reference material that supports their hypothesis rather than address both issues on the topic and either support or denote those results.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pmWe covered the sunspots a few weeks ago PA – here’s you summary:
http://flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/371632655/in/set-72157594504592593/
This graphic shows the reconstructed sunspot and temperature curves for the last 1000 years. Look at the last 50 or so – hmm good correlation between the spots and the ‘hockey stick’ we all know about… The problem is that around the year 1050, the sunspot activity was also at a high and yet the temperature went the other way – meaning that the sunspot activity is somehow negatively correlated in 1050 and posotively correlated in 1950…. from that, it’s clear that sunspots simply can’t be the major forcer of global temperature in either 1050 or today…..
But then, here’s the Co2 chart….. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
Now if you look at the CO2 trend for 100s of thousands of years, there simply are no odd anomalies like your unexplainable 1050 issue – in this case the correlation between CO2 and temperature suggests that Co2 concentration is a far more important forcer in climate temperature. It’s just mathematics: which is correlated more? Its obvious.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm#104 – Proud American, (I took too long to compose this post.)
Let us study each of your statements one at a time:
Solar radiation or solar energy, is what warms the Earth.
One right!
Energy is heat.
Wrong – Infrared energy is heat. Other emissions give us light, cause genetic mutations and then there is the neutrino stream.
An 11 year cycle of the sun causing solar flares that emit energy that of 5000 suns is a tremendous amount of heat.
Wrong, in the first place, one Sun can not emit the radiation of 5000 Suns. The math is just not there. Plus there are two major solar cycles, one of 11 years and the second of 17 years. Trust me, my aunt was a solar scientist at the University of Michigan McMath-Hulbert Solar Observatory.
And again you fail to look at the facts that the Earth has been predominately warmer throughout its history regardless of when we entered the picture.
The Earth was a bit warmer 4.5 billion years ago when its surface was molten and the seas boiled. That ceased about 2-3 billion years ago when debris from the Kuiper belt started to settle in the atmosphere and oceans.
If the Earth has been consistently warming since the last ice age and if it was warmer before the ice age than it must mean the Earth’s temperature is that of a warm planet with an average temperature of about 67 degrees F and not the 57 degree average we have been accustom to over the past 400 hundred years (little ice age 1350 thru the 1900’s).
There are no temperature records from 40,000 years back except cores from both the Arctic and the Antarctic and all evidence is that global temperatures stabilized about 10,000 years ago and remained steady until the mid 19th century. Since then, they have risen.
Why is it that the Vikings(1000 years ago) who used to inhabit Greenland were able to farm the land, and which ice caps are rapidly melting?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pmThere was little or no melting of the ice caps in the period you specify. The water current that we call the Gulf Stream was flowing around Greenland during that time frame. The result was severe winters in northern and central Europe while Greenland got green.
WOOHOO! I got an 18.2!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:13 pmSorry about that link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
February 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm“I don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
Comment by AshenShard — February 26, 2007 @ 10:12 pm”
Simple! To challenge ridiculous liberal comments. Period! That’s the only reason I’m here!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBacking up Zooey, and since I know a few people in the science field….
I do no know of any scientific discovery that is not known as a ‘theory’. Scientists are extremely open to new thoughts, so they label everything as theory. There are no absolutes, like in mathematics, which has theorems, which are established fact.
Does anyone deny that gravity exists? I hope not, but it is known as the ‘theory of gravity’ not the ‘theorem of gravity’.
I guess this ‘theory of global warming’ has the same problem as the ‘theory of evolution’, the right seems ready to attack them since they are only labeled as ‘theories’. If we want to defunct any of these talking points, science would be well advised to adopt the word ‘theorem’ in order to dismiss the naysayers. This however would destroy part of the purpose of science, and thus should not happen.
What people should realize is that a ‘theory’ in the scientific world, once it is established as such, is fact until facts arrived at through scientific experiment that can be replicated come about to repudiate the theory.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmAre you actually quoting the IPCC? Do you have that authority? Why is it the big bad IPCC is the only authority on the climate? Check out the link on post 104. I completely understand the ramifications of global warming and the changes that occur because of warming. Man, throughout all of our history has been faced with drastic change. Mass suffering, death and destruction. Most often caused by natural disasters. We have only been burning fossil fuels for a little over 100 years. If we stopped burning carbon fuels right now forever, that would account for exactly 1% of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is a fact. And another scientific fact not theory is that during the coldest period of the earths history the CO2 atmospheric levels were 4000 ppm more than our current levels which have only increased minimally over the past 100 years.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
Comment by Steed Lankershim — February 26, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
When are you going to stop beating your wife, Steed?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmMichael,
you don’t challenge though, you just flame, and spew talking points, and pretend you had challenging life, while wishing to keep people in poverty. You don’t challenge, you are an absurd caricature of a right wing retard.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm“He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hookâ€
You have seen the “type†I am sure.
Comment by kinnardi, rj — February 26, 2007 @ 10:21 pm”
And as usual rachel you debate like a little girl! You avoid issues and when backed into a corner your natural liberal instinct is insult! I know most liberals who visit this blog aren’t smart enough to see this, but some of the more intelligent ones are, and I’m sure they are embarrassed for you?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pmMy referencing the little ice age was not to illustrate the global impact or regional impact. It was to merely point out the fact that although faced with incredible amounts of death and suffering, people were able to adapt until the tides changed. We always do.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThere are so many inaccuracies in this I do not know where to begin. First of all, the scientific method is a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports. Nothing in that is theory or dictates anything about needing consensus.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pm“you don’t challenge though, you just flame, and spew talking points, and pretend you had challenging life, while wishing to keep people in poverty. You don’t challenge, you are an absurd caricature of a right wing retard.
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:19 pm”
Ok! Let’s try this on for size? What scientists are on the oil companies payroll?
Speaking of using your brain, don’t you find it odd, that the scientists who are speaking out against the idea of global warming, tend to (suprise) be on the payroll of gas and oil companies?
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pmIn my post 114, 104 s/b 101, now. TP can’t you simply leave empty markers?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pmIf we stopped burning carbon fuels right now forever, that would account for exactly 1% of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is a fact. – PA, please stop saying ‘that’s a fact’ without backing it up. Please show your work.
Are you actually quoting the IPCC? Do you have that authority? Why is it the big bad IPCC is the only authority on the climate?
Er, yes and that’s called making an assertion with supporting arguments, I don’t need anyone’s permission to introduce scientific evidence into a discussion.
And another scientific fact not theory is that during the coldest period of the earths history the CO2 atmospheric levels were 4000 ppm more than our current levels which have only increased minimally over the past 100 years.
And what were the climate conditions at that time? Why is the 4000 ppm the only relevant ‘fact’ about climate conditions over 500m years ago…?
Oh and I checked out the link…. the main thrust was that Kyoto was unwise, the earth was cooling between 1940 and 1970 so today’s conclusions must be wrong (a fact handled by the IPCC handily, by the way) and no one offered any concrete evidence of political or scientific conspiracy. Please, the IPCC consists of thousands of peer-reviewed science documents from over 130 countries… so yes they are a very serious player in the climate debate – I’ve yet to see anything to match the gravitas of the IPCC… Not even Exxon-Mobil…. http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20070213-000672-1238 Oh they seem to agree with the IPCC, sorry about that…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm#123 – Proud American,
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmSo you advocate swimming to the next island when yours disappears beneath the waves? Pick a direction and hope you are right!
Ok! Let’s try this on for size? What scientists are on the oil companies payroll?
Comment by michael — February 26, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
The canadian guy you were slobbering all over last week, who wrote the paper refuting global warming, turned out the organization he worked for was funded by the oil industry. Plus the $10,000 per person offered by a conservative organization to any scientiest who would refute global warming, but hey keep saying there is no connection to false information and the paid whores.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmWhat are you talking about??? Seriously?!
Plagues and disease are mostly the cause of global deaths. The earliest known visitation of the plague to Europe may have occurred in Athens in 430 B.C., but it is unclear if the disease that afflicated Athens was caused by Yersina pestis. A disastrous epidemic occurred in the Mediterranean during the time of the Roman emperor Justinian; an estimated 25% to 50% of the population is reported to have succumbed. The most widespread epidemic began in Constantinople in 1334, spread throughout Europe (returning Crusaders were a factor), and in less than 20 years is estimated to have killed three quarters of the population of Europe and Asia. The great plague of London in 1665 is recorded in many works of literature. Quarantine measures helped contain the disease, but serious epidemics continued to occur even in the 19th cent. The disease is still prevalent in parts of Asia, and sporadically occurs elsewhere (approximately 2,500 cases worldwide annually). In Surat, India, in 1994, 5,000 cases of pneumonic plague were reported in an outbreak; an estimated 100 people died, and more than 400,000 people fled the city. Because the number of cases of plague has been increasing annually, it is categorized as a re-emerging infectious disease by the World Health Organization.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pmYa know, all you people who’re complaining that ‘trolls’ have hijacked this thread, and why would TP put out a thread like this that’s tailor-made for right-wing feeding…
Don’t you think TP knows this? Don’t you think they WANT the thread to be ‘hijacked’? Look what happened when ProudAmerican and Patrick1 started posting; everybody else in a fit of frenzy starting posting also. What happens? More page hits and page views. More activity on the site. I’d venture to say the TP staff ENJOYS when there’s lots of debate/arguments/etc on this site.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pmComment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
There are so many inaccuracies in this I do not know where to begin. First of all, the scientific method is a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports. Nothing in that is theory or dictates anything about needing consensus.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:32 pmI’d venture to say the TP staff ENJOYS when there’s lots of debate/arguments/etc on this site.
Comment by Dale
Whatever.
I got a 2.25
Keep on working on that carbon footprint, eh Dale? Heh.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:35 pmFebruary 26th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
The only trolls I have problems with are those who make huge copy-paste posts over and over again in every thread.
The other trolls, they are fun to use as punching bags, and for a good laugh since all their positions are totally against fact and intelligence. Though, I do not yet know if it is good practice arguing with them since it may be too easy since all they use are the same talking point positions rather than logic, fact or reason.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pmI’m trying, Zooey, I’m trying. I’ll have to crank the hot tub up a bit; and maybe I oughta start driving my truck more instead of my car.
Lighten up Francis.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pm#132… there should’ve been a “snicker” after the quote.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAl Gore should just ignore Drudge the sludge.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pmHow do the scientists from the IPCC make a living? Who’s payroll are they on? I’m sick of people attacking someone for having a different opinion on the debate. Lets not forget that little fact. You can not have a scientific fact unless it is agreed upon to be a fact. It is still a debate. All the IPCC has is data collected over a relatively short period of time that they have made computer models from. This planet has had vast swings in climate change that we still can not scientifically explain. There are theories but not fact as to what caused these changes. We can’t even predict the weather accurately a week in advance in a given city. Now you think we can predict the global weather over a century? This is madness !
February 26th, 2007 at 11:40 pmI’m sorry Dale, but did I offend? My point was referring to the numerous personal attacks on many people here regarding their education level and intelligence, I was not attempting to grand stand or show off in any way. If you have something pertinent to state, I’m waiting with baited breath (snicker).
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmI love this. Anybody who dares disagree is funded by the oil companies. But the oil companies fund both sides. BP and others give to the environmental movement. Hell, our tax dollars go to those same groups because morons in Washington hand them over. So what the real claim here is that anyone who funds DISAGREEMENT is wrong.
Yeah, that’s a debate tactic.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmok, let’s buy into this “more CO2 is a good thing because plants thrive on it” concept. The problem is…at the same time more and more CO2 is being pumped into the system, we are taking out more and more plants.
“Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth’s land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.”
The rainforests are the lungs of the planet. When they’re gone, there won’t be enough plants to process the CO2.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmmy intelligence quotient is not up for debate, regardless of your comments or insults.
Comment by Dale —
No, but you really should see about a refund from the mail order outfit you got your sheepskin from.
Here’s what I think of your “degree” that lacks “common” sense and reality.
The Credit Card Society
I learned something new today: we can now “buy” a degree. I was expecting this kind of non-sence one day or another but now it is real and happening under our very eyes. I noticed that many of my ex-engineering student partners would have been idiot enough to send 10 000$ to their faculty to “buy” their certificate if they could. Well, you can now legally obtain the fake stamp. How could the human race could have reach that level of weak-mindness. People justify their level of achievement according to the size of the stack they gathered. Dad buy his son a brand new japanese convertible and pay his Princeton’s tuition… or Yale, Queens, McGill or you name it. I’ve been -screwed- in the academic process for such a long time to notice that when you’ll get out, nobody will ever give a damn about who you are, they will hire you for your Harvard papers and your ability to kiss other people’s butt. Maybe we should take care more about the educationnal issue but we are too busy building brand new state-of-the-art archologies where we teach our already-dead children where to build a plant in order to minimize the production cost of the little plastic phone plug and where to sell it to maximize the benefits, or in which Carribean island an executive should build his trust. And of course we tell our kids to “Stay in School”. After all, the sooner you hook them, the more slaves you will end up with to wax your shoes. The true beauty of this “freedom-oriented” continent in which we live is that for every one who survive, thousands are sent to pasture, feeding an artificial hero who post his synthetic face-lifted smile in another best-selling magazine who promotes slow-wit.
After “Grease”, they finally released “Greed”… That just says it all. KittScchhink…
Rachel – aka – The Crimson King
February 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pmLighten up Francis.
Comment by Dale
That was light. See the “Heh?”
Maybe you like this instead? :-)
Or this? :-D
February 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pmComment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
rachel, Dale was quoting me :’(, and I go to Columbia lol. I can send you an email from my Columbia account if you don’t believe me ;)…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pm“The canadian guy you were slobbering all over last week, who wrote the paper refuting global warming, turned out the organization he worked for was funded by the oil industry. Plus the $10,000 per person offered by a conservative organization to any scientiest who would refute global warming, but hey keep saying there is no connection to false information and the paid whores.
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:29 pm”
And just who was that Canadian guy I was slobbering over? You don’t recall his name? What organization does he work for? How much money did the oil companies pay this organization? What proof do you have that any scientist was offered $10,000 if they refute global warming? Answers? Whore!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pmPoints I’d make to answer the fair questions about AG’s energy use:
-How big is the consuming area-it’s a large house, and a guest house….
-How many people live there? Al Gore is often on the road, so there must be others such as his mom, children etc living there….
-The figure is compared with an average for Tennessee-what does that average entail (with reference to the two points above)…small single houses, most people working during day, …?
-Have they done most of what they can to reduce wastage and increase use from solar and other sources? I suppose so, maybe others can give details….
-Since we are all not perfect, but like to criticise so easily, how do Republicans do on this issue? Let’s see details, facts, to quiet them.
Finally, I think Al Gore is a noble man with full integrity. He works extremely hard, and is respected for his wisdom and for the true passion he has for America and his fellow people. He is a polar opposite to many selfish and fearful Republicans.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pmThere are theories but not fact as to what caused these changes. …You can not have a scientific fact unless it is agreed upon to be a fact.
Please spend some time learning what the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact is. Your debate is undermined by your shifting and incorrect use of the terms.
All the IPCC has is data collected over a relatively short period of time that they have made computer models from. This planet has had vast swings in climate change that we still can not scientifically explain.
So where did they get that 4000ppm from then? The ice core samples go back several 100k years, sure they collected them in maybe 30 years, but does that make them useless? I don’t understand your point. And yes, we don’t know all the answers, but several thousand people from over 100 countries think they have about 90% of the answers for what is likely to happen in the next 100 years.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm“The other trolls, they are fun to use as punching bags, and for a good laugh since all their positions are totally against fact and intelligence.
Comment by AshenShard — February 26, 2007 @ 11:38 pm”
It would be nice if you could provide an example or two? Maybe?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pmTo Proud American:
First of all, the scientific method is not a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pmDale,
I went to “Common Sense University” I majored in Life.
My Prep School was “The School of Hard Knocks”
And yes, I have a degree too.
So there.
————————————————–
http://www.eff.org – Protecting our rights to blog.
————————————————–
http://www.newsmine.org
Over 10,000 Artciles and Documents for Uncovering and Exposing.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“#
Al Gore should just ignore Drudge the sludge.
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2007 @ 11:39 pm”
Jay, what’s your problem with Drudge? Still holding the Lewinsky thing against him?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:54 pmOMFG.
Cory,
I just need to shut up for awhile now.
Too much Vinoâ„¢
Foot, meet mouth, mouth, meet foot.
Hangs head in embarrassment and shame. :(
Yes I believe you.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:56 pm[...] Al Gore has responded via Think Progress, one of the better liberal blogs: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pmWell Al, perhaps we should analyze Republican performance in supporting an issue that they hold dear: the Iraq War. Just how many of Bush and Cheney’s extended family have served or will serve in Iraq?
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/185
A hint: it’s a nice ROUND number… I’ll give the kids in the front a mulligan, but expect them to sign up when they grad high school – after all, Chimpy says the troops will still be there….
February 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pmIt would be nice if you could provide an example or two? Maybe?
Comment by michael —
————————————————–
Michael,
I’ll see your example, and raise you a link.
Got a link for that comment?
Stupid “cut-n-runner” NeoCon.
What am I doing conversing with you. You are a troll.
Be gone.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:59 pm“I’ve been -screwed- in the academic process
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 11:43 pm”
You sure have! You should demand an immediate refund!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:00 amOh sweetie, it’s ok lol, I figured it was a mistake… and no need to shut up at all. =) (and my comment about my “education” was supposed to be ironic, not pompous so I suppose I deserve it lol).
February 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am“Michael,
I’ll see your example, and raise you a link.
Got a link for that comment?
Stupid “cut-n-runner†NeoCon.
What am I doing conversing with you. You are a troll.
Be gone.
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 11:59 pm”
You’re so intelligent! I see what zooey means! You need to go back to school.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:03 amMichael, if you nothing to bring to the discussion but personal attacks then please don’t say anything at all. In the end, it only undermines your points and reaffirms many of the readers and commentators on TP of your lack of credibility.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:06 amI will reiterate to conservatives who do not understand, what science label as ‘theory’ in practice they treat as ‘fact’. Such occurs until said ‘theory’ is proven untrue by repeatable experiments that prove that theory wrong.
I challenge any conservative posting here to cite one peer reviewed scientific study that proves global warming does not exist.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:07 amMichael, if you nothing to bring to the discussion but personal attacks then please don’t say anything at all. In the end, it only undermines your points and reaffirms many of the readers and commentators on TP of your lack of credibility.
Comment by Cory — February 27, 2007 @ 12:06 am
You’re wasting your time, Michael is the kindergartner who yells “Did too” at you hoping for the last word…. he’s nothing else to say…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:11 amI challenge any conservative posting here to cite one peer reviewed scientific study that proves global warming does not exist.
Comment by AshenShard — February 27, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Cue the link to ‘Junkscience’ and ‘State of Fear’…. in 3,2,1…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:12 amEvery time Iread that term it makes me giggle, the image of a troll perusing the online blogging world to cause trouble lol, it’s so cutting. =)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:16 amHappiness for 19.99$
As Hollywood trained us to think, there is always two kind of people, the good guys and the bad guys: Star Wars’ light and dark side, Democrat and Republicans, left and right, us and them. It also seems that both of these are making money from each other. While most of the money out there is being made by the formal, politically correct necktie-wearing, legitimate and benevolent software developper spending half of his day watching to Seinfeld and Jeopardy and the other half making user-friendly interfaces, countering the plans of the Evil Hacker and finding a way to reach most people with a spare hand from the marketing department, it seems now that quite a bit of money is also made from the “dark side”, commercializing ideas of freedom taken-away and conspiracy theories. Back from the General Idea team, the use of marketing strategies to promote anti-capitalism ideas is paradoxical in itself. N’Sync are best sellers for singing the same old copy-pasted shit while Eminem is the best seller for bitching about N’Sync. In either case, the common point is that both are best sellers. Both needs each other, a symbiosis like hippos and teeth-cleaner birds. Both will keep making money for singing their crappy shit for a few more month until the executives regulating the cartel of pop music decide which new artificial hero will once again take control of the radio frequencies flooding all across the continent. Like remoras, we feeds ourselves out of business sharks leftovers. But once again we’ve got caught in the web of marketing analysis.
Books such as “The Art of Happiness” coming from the Dalai-Lama or other new-age prophets are coming out right in time. After all the “Do-it-yourself” books of any kinds where we learned how to make dog-houses, fences, car painting and 4-pieces kitchen sets, now happiness seems to be the new quest for mankind available in any good bookstore. Happiness in a can, 2 minutes of microwave and it pops up. I am not exclusively talking about these silly books but the whole craze for asserting being a preacher of the counter culture on MTV. I am also talking about other sites such as incunabula.org who tells us “How to be enlightened” for only 24.99$ because “enlightement” now has a dollar sign attached to it. Of course many of you would be tempted to sell their hometown called Happyland for one of these “Answer-it-all” books or bands but in opposite to Ivan Stang’s quote from his pseudo-sect of the general Conspiracy, I’m not that certain that “It takes money to fight money” but in case you agree with him, he accepts personnal checks or money orders…
Rachel – aka – The Crimson King
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 amWhat proof do you have that any scientist was offered $10,000 if they refute global warming? Answers?
Comment by michael — February 26, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Here is your answer:
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[...]
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institute, said: “The IPCC is the world’s leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that ‘business as usual’ would lead to unacceptable risks [...]
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Please michael, try to keep up…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:20 amCory, the snicker was because of the way you stated that you’re a Ph.D student at Columbia (in social pysch) so your intelligence is quotient is ‘not up for debate’. Having a degree does not automatically denote intelligence… not having one doesn’t rule it out.
That said, personal attacks on somebody’s intelligence or education are just plain juvenile… while I admit I’ll do it sometimes, I *do* try to refrain; judging someone on a WEBSITE after a couple of postings (even 1000 postings) is just plain ludicrous. While I’m at it, this constant “you’re a conservative, you must be a bible-thumping homophobe” “yeah, well you’re a lib, you must be a gay-loving hippie) is asinine. Nobody on here *really* knows what anybody else intelligence/thoughts/education/etc is…. all we really do is guess.
So the reason for the snicker was your comment was just another example (but by no means the only one… on either side) of a schoolyard argument.
Believe it or not, I don’t think my opinion is the be-all and end-all, and I *usually* don’t get on here to troll. I welcome honest, reasoned, intelligent debate… I just get annoyed at the petty sniping. The best way to defend against a personal attack like that is to just ignore it. You probably should’ve done that.
Guess I should’ve also :-)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amLet me help out here…
Michael says: “Did not”
OK, on to the next comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amyeah… like that. Though I still don’t agree w/you :-)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amLet me help out here…
Michael says: “Did notâ€
OK, on to the next comment.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle —
——————————————–
Now THAT was funny! ROTFL lmao
Good to see you back TT.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:30 am20 times the national average?! How? I mean, aren’t his kids out of the house by now, and doesn’t he travel constantly? Who is doing what to use that much energy?! He may buy offsetting carbon credits but it seems less sound than not using that much energy to begin with….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:30 amDale:
I agree that keeping debate respectful and open is essential, without which enlightenment and understanding will never be reached. I also agree that bipartisan politics is blinding this nation and causing more harm than good. I don’t agree with everything the democratic party supports just as I do not believe everything the Republican party supports, yet we’re constantly “picking sides” in debates and often losing sight of what we were initially arguing about.
So I guess I agree with you… there at least, on global warming, well, that’s another matter ;)…
I listed my “education” to be a bit sarcastic, mostly to prove the point that you already made (so I suppose I should have stated it as well as you did). I guess my [lack of] humor doesn’t work here lol. See, it’s important to not take yourself too seriously eh. =)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am“Michael, if you nothing to bring to the discussion but personal attacks then please don’t say anything at all. In the end, it only undermines your points and reaffirms many of the readers and commentators on TP of your lack of credibility.
Comment by Cory — February 27, 2007 @ 12:06 am”
You obviously don’t have the intellect to grasp what I do here? I challenge your stupid liberal comments and ask you to back them up. Most of the time my challenges are met with insults, for example zooey and rachel, because they are too stupid to provide any substance to their ridiculous liberal rhetoric. Should I include you in that group?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 amNow THAT was funny! ROTFL lmao
Good to see you back TT.
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 27, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Michael says: “Was not!”
February 27th, 2007 at 12:32 amha!
lmao. heh
February 27th, 2007 at 12:33 amMichael says “Oh yeah, well, you’re dumb.”
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 am“Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[…]
Please michael, try to keep up…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Gregor, are you really that stupid? These are accusations by kooks! Are you one yourself?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 amGore holding oscar: YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY, REALLY LIKE ME!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:38 amcmon guys, he flies around in a hugeass jet, has FIVE homes, hasn’r even converted his homes to solar yet and you still worship him?
what the hell is wrong with you?
Michael says: “Did not” to Gregor… man this style of arguing really takes me back….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am“Michael says “Oh yeah, well, you’re dumb.â€
Comment by Cory — February 27, 2007 @ 12:35 am”
Well, if you can’t provide something intelligent to say I will include you in the children’s group with zooey and rachel. By the way rachel and zooey, I’m waiting for you to pick the subject? I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath? Cowards!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:39 am“#
Gore holding oscar: YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY, REALLY LIKE ME!
cmon guys, he flies around in a hugeass jet, has FIVE homes, hasn’r even converted his homes to solar yet and you still worship him?
what the hell is wrong with you?
Comment by ballbuster — February 27, 2007 @ 12:38 am”
Ball, haven’t you figured out yet that you are dealing with a bunch of children here?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:41 am….short trousers, snotty nose, sh*** school lunches… staying away from the first graders because they would try to beat us up and steal our snack money…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 amToo funny Michael, when confronted with the facts you attack. I am sure your are forgetting the Canadian guy at this point, because of his oil and gas company connections, but you and at least 2 other posters, linked to his “article”. I am sure you memory is not that short.
On that note, good night all.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 amblockquote> Well, if you can’t provide something intelligent to say I will include you in the children’s group with zooey and rachel.
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:39 am
If you’ve read any of my posts, you’d realize the irony in your statement. Perhaps I’m using words that are too big for you to understand.
Me talk pretty for Michael. Michael like.
there, that better? This is the last time I’m addressing you, playa’. Peace.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:44 amI guess I should hold my breath?
Comment by michael —
—————————————–
Michael Did Not,
Can you do what you suggest above until the war is finally over?
Please?
I got Michael’s arms held behind his back if anyone wants to come by and coldcock him just for sport and of course the general principle of it all since it is only Michael.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:45 amBall, haven’t you figured out yet that you are dealing with a bunch of children here?
…. we never even knew what ‘projecting’ was….ah well, thanks for the trip down memory lane Mikey. Until next time, your homework assignment is defining a ‘rhetorical assertion’ for us…please show all your work.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:46 amGregor, are you really that stupid? These are accusations by kooks! Are you one yourself?
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:35 am
I used to suspect you were slow-witted. I have just confirmed it.
Here is the link to the American Enterprise Institute’s website, where they confirm the story and offer their own explanation as to why they were offering $10,000 to anyone who could find flaws in the IPCC’s study.
Did you really think I didn’t have this link handy? Please. You are too stupider for words…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 amOh, me first, me!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 am“#
Too funny Michael, when confronted with the facts you attack. I am sure your are forgetting the Canadian guy at this point, because of his oil and gas company connections, but you and at least 2 other posters, linked to his “articleâ€. I am sure you memory is not that short.
On that note, good night all.
Comment by Krazny — February 27, 2007 @ 12:43 am”
Oh I remember unfortunately for you kooks you make stupid comments and can’t back them up referring to the Canadian by name and telling us all how he took money from the oil companies! How convenient? You probably will be too afraid to view my response when you wake up from your slumber?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 amI challenge your stupid liberal comments and ask you to back them up.
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Most of your “challenges” are actually a “back to basics” kind of questions -like your demand that proof be produced showing money had been offered to anyone who could refute the IPCC’s report on global warming.
Here is a challenge for you: Provide a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:48 am“If you’ve read any of my posts, you’d realize the irony in your statement. Perhaps I’m using words that are too big for you to understand.
Me talk pretty for Michael. Michael like.
there, that better? This is the last time I’m addressing you, playa’. Peace.
Comment by Teej — February 27, 2007 @ 12:44 am”
The last time? Why? Afraid?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:49 am“I got Michael’s arms held behind his back if anyone wants to come by and coldcock him just for sport and of course the general principle of it all since it is only Michael.
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 27, 2007 @ 12:45 am”
Rachel, I’m sure the rest of your liberal buddies aren’t very impressed with your interaction here with people who don’t agree with you. When are you going to debate me?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:52 am“Here is the link to the American Enterprise Institute’s website, where they confirm the story and offer their own explanation as to why they were offering $10,000 to anyone who could find flaws in the IPCC’s study.
Did you really think I didn’t have this link handy? Please. You are too stupider for words…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 12:47 am”
I’ve read the article before and dismiss it as propaganda! What I’m more interested in is what YOU think and have to say. In other words, what’s in that grey matter? What can you debate without having to refer to links and articles? Are you up for it?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:56 amI have no life. I frequent blogs in order to call people names and attempt to counter my self-esteem issues. I have a small penis. Please help me. Someone. Please.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:57 amGore has salved his conscience by purchasing an indulgence to cover his abuse of resources. What he has admitted is that he actually uses far more power than the utility bills show — the solar panels (which cost a pretty offset penny to produce themselves) are only partially masking a level of power use far above that of normal human beings. I note he is not disputing the amounts of the bills specified on Drudge.
I know a hypocrite when we see one; in order for Gore’s offsets to be meaningful, he would have to purchase offsets equivalent to his excess footprint each month, and those offsets must immediately be put into place, not at some point far in the future when it might not make a difference to Gore’s Science. Hence, the offsets purchased must be at least equivalent to his excess power consumption; I’d sure like Mr. Gore to show us the receipts (at least a year’s worth) for that level of commitment, as well as the physical manifestations of his offsets.
This stranger from another planet would have us all change our lifestyles, but doesn’t seem to want to change his.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, ….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:58 ammaybe when you have something logical to say
February 27th, 2007 at 12:59 am“Here is a challenge for you: Provide a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 12:48 am”
NO! I’m not making the claim, you jerks are so I don’t have to prove ANYTHING! You clowns are falling all over each other claiming global warming! Prove it!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:59 amnite
February 27th, 2007 at 1:00 amMy prayer was answered. Quick, someone get a pillow, maybe we can save the world from one more…
February 27th, 2007 at 1:04 amI’ve read the article before and dismiss it as propaganda!
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Are you really this slow? It is a link to the AEI’s own website!
Do you mean the AEI are spreading propaganda against themselves?
Are you normally this asinine, or are you making a special effort tonight?
What I’m more interested in is what YOU think and have to say. In other words, what’s in that grey matter?
I just proved you wrong. Twice. That’s what’s in the grey matter.
What can you debate without having to refer to links and articles? Are you up for it?
What’s the problem, michael -am I typing too fast for you?
You were the one who wanted evidence. I provided it. How in the world do you expect to see evidence without a link? How exactly?
All those years of private school education were wasted on you.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:07 amMichael, have you done your number facts to be handed in tomorrow? And will you please stop yelling “Did not” at people. Yelling louder does not change the facts that these people here present into something else no matter how tight you close your eyes and wish it… please try to show some maturity.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:09 amNO! I’m not making the claim, you jerks are so I don’t have to prove ANYTHING! You clowns are falling all over each other claiming global warming! Prove it! Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:59 am
It’s proven. Prove that it’s not proven, st*pid desk hugging c*ward c*nt.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:13 am[...] Progress, a liberal site if there ever was one, talked to the Gore camp. The explanation? Well, it’s ok, because Gore buys carbon offsets. How nice for him. But [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:14 ammichael left? Aaaawww… I was barely warming up.
Funny how every time I provide links to back up what I say (michael’s favorite meme), he turns around and asks “can you debate without reference to links and articles?”
Whenever he says that, I know he’s stumped.
Pathetic little troll…
February 27th, 2007 at 1:15 am[...] Gore’s have responded of course: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:18 amMichael was drunk and passed out just before his “nite” comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 amMichael was drunk and passed out just before his “nite†comment.
Comment by Matt Jett
His fingers must have hit “enter” on the way down.
LOL
February 27th, 2007 at 2:36 amHey Patrick1,
How’s the weather in Wingnuttia? I also noticed you don’t leave your full real name.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:05 am[...] Over at ThinkProgress, where every good liberal goes to find out exactly what to think each day, they’ve come out [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 3:32 amAl Gore’s Mansion Uses As Much Electricity In A Month As An Average House Does In A Year…
Let me be clear up front, I could care less about Al Gore and his politics. This isn’t an attack because he is a leftie, it is an attack on his hypocrisy. The ultimate in hypocrisy. Al Gore has been……
February 27th, 2007 at 3:44 am[...] that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero. Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics Stupid right wing smear merchants…this is why Gore is a hero, he backs up what he says, and [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 4:25 amFebruary 27th, 2007 at 4:34 am
I love this global warming angle. You can fly a private jet as much as you want, use as much electricity at home as you want, have a huge house and waste as much energy as you want: as long as you are rich enough to pay for “offsets”.
No wonder Hollywood loves this whole thing. They can continue to spew out CO2, use insane amounts of energy, and still talk condescendingly to Americans about their carbon footprint, simply because they are rich enough.
Poor Joe American, driving his pick-up truck to work, can’t afford fancy carbon offsets. Al Gore makes him feel bad about himself, while Gore flies private jets and heats up his mansion.
Sheer brilliance.
Who cares if gas prices go up? Who cares if energy costs go up because of new restrictions on emissions? Who cares if Americans can’t afford an electric car? Who cares if Americans have to pay more taxes on energy?
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:52 amWho cares if gas prices go up? Who cares if energy costs go up because of new restrictions on emissions? Who cares if Americans can’t afford an electric car? Who cares if Americans have to pay more taxes on energy?Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
Who cares if gas prices go up? Certainly no dum bass Norwegians like you – eh? Tell me Seixon, living on the dole?
Liberals are the ones that want both affordable and renewable energy – and the ‘rich liberals’ are offsetting their lifestyles, while rich conservatives only bother shooting their friends in the face while doing nothing to help the problem.
You have to be the stupidest Norwegian I’ve ever seen post! Your half american side must be from the dumbest hick redneck inbred stock on the planet!
February 27th, 2007 at 5:04 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:19 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:23 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:25 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:28 amWell let’s face you libtards, you aren’t happy unless your idols are liars and hypocrites…
Then again who but a libtard believes in the myth of global warming?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:11 am[...] controversy apparently stirred up enough attention to cause Gore’s office to respond through Think Progress. The response, to me, seems a little weak, but I honestly didn’t realize it was necessary in [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 7:27 am[...] Gore responds, saying he uses “green power” and has installed solar panels, compact fluorescent bulbs [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 7:39 amUm…If his electrical usage was solar generated, why did the reports of his consumption come from the power company???
Does the power company operate and charge him for the energy collected by his solar panels? Or is the solar energy collected IN ADDITION to that purchased from the power company?
This isn’t rocket surgery people…surely you can’t be that stupid.
Then again…
February 27th, 2007 at 7:41 amTypical behavior of anybody who doesn’t want to hear the message. Shoot the messenger.
Al Gore is another hypocrite. A thankless politician, on a goberment retirement pension, who takes everything for granted.
Liberal, Democrat, conservative, Republican, it doesn’t matter. When they’re hypocrites, they’re hypocrites.
You are the last thing on their minds. Think for yourself. To thine own self be true. Forget about Al Gore.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:44 amI don’t get it, whether one supports scientific findings that show global warming exists or not, if our nation mobilized to react to the threat it would be a win-win situation.
For you skeptics, if global warming is real, then we do something about it.
If it isn’t, then there are no negatives to responding to it. First we reduce smog/pollution which is detrimental to our health. You do believe in better health don’t you? I would choose to intake clean air and water over the polluted variety, which is becoming all too common.
We create new businesses who provide enviro-friendly services. Saying that it hurts business is a crock of crap. Yeah, it hurts the business that is unwilling to adapt. Those businesses are bad for us anyway since their unwillingness to change hurts us economically, look at our car industry.
So, reacting to the global warming threat, whether it exists or not, has both health and economic benefits. Is there anything I missed?
February 27th, 2007 at 8:02 am[...] (David L)Â Just as surley as the Sun rises in the East, the folks at Think Progress are upset. what yet again, that the one their heros have been smeared by the right wing: The [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 8:21 amThen again who but a libtard believes in the myth of global warming?
Comment by juandos
Oreilly says global warming deniers are “nutsâ€.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Media/ Play/ 14722/ 1/ 60Minutes-OReilly.wmv
February 27th, 2007 at 8:25 amAl Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon
If you bothered doing any research before coming to an opinion you would find the idea to the offsets is to fund non Saudi terrorist oil energy projects since our Saudi terrorist loving right winger president wont put the government into Manhattan Project mode to get it done. And that means the rich are paying for the power generators of the future that will provide power for more than just themselves.
And those that cant afford it just keep doing as they are. Eventually the whole society will get converted over and those that cant afford then will be able to. Real simple. To bad you cant read up on it before blowing off your mouth.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:30 amHere are som people who have scientific arguments aginst the hockey stick:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/search/search_article.asp?id=14429&cid=0&cname=Results
February 27th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Al – You are still using more energy no matter how many “offsets” you buy.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:38 amWhy not move to a smaller house, use less energy?
Practice what you preach.
http://mwillett.org/Politics/cedars1.htm
February 27th, 2007 at 8:56 amI like how conservatives call us liberals/progressives believers in ‘myths’ such global warming, yet they believe everything this administration says. They believe that Iraq had WMD, and they are still there to be found, or are in Syria and Iran. They also believe Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda.
Oh, and they believe in the greatest myth of them all, creationism.
Global warming deniers are on the same level of scientists that believe the world is flat and that the world was created 6,000 years ago.
I also like how they try and frame it that we started the bullying and name calling over global warming. In fact, we responded to their attacks on scientific studies that the vast majority of scientists in the world agree with and find no fault in the methodology. So, rather than quoting from clap trap that comes from people with an anti-global warming agenda, get one academic, peer reviewed study that refutes global warming. You cannot, because there is none. No scientific study has found that global warming does not exist.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:57 am[...] must be feeling pretty invincible as he took it upon himself to respond to, as the very liberal Think Progress describes it, Drudge’s “latest hysterics” on Al Gore’s gw [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:05 amAl – You are still using more energy no matter how many “offsets†you buy.
Why not move to a smaller house, use less energy?
Practice what you preach.
Comment by Dot R
So you advocate a communist system where everyone lives in the same small house?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:09 amGlobal warming exists. It has been in existence for some five billion years.
Anthropogenic causes are what is suspect.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:10 amFor all you “progressives” out there, it’s very simple.
Al Gore is asking us all to sacrifce to cut our energy use…and he is not.
Al Gore is asking us to use less energy…and he is using multiples times as much energy as an average household needs.
Carbon footprint and carbon neutral?? C’mon…that’s a lawyerly response. Be carbon negative.
I like what Captain Ed says:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009270.php
“. . .purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn’t want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he’s asking other families to make. He’s using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It’s a regressive plan that Gore’s supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance.
And basically, it doesn’t address the issue of hypocrisy. If Gore and his family continue to increase their consumption of commercial energy with all of the resources they have at hand, then they have no business lecturing the rest of us on conservation and down-scaling our own use.”
February 27th, 2007 at 9:15 amI don’t think I’m going out on a limb here by guessing that no one here attacking Al Gore or the fact that current warm trends are caused by man has seen the movie Inconvenient Truth. Here is my challenge, all of you should get together, pool your resources, and rent the movie. Watch it, digest it, then come back here and criticize the scientific findings which Al Gore discusses in the movie.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:17 amI’ve tried searching your site for a definition of carbon offset to no avail. Perhaps you owe your readers an explanation before making claims as to who does or does not understand the issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:20 amthere is very little dispute about global warming. the debate centers on causation. know this, human beings are part of the natural world. our activity is normal and the planet does not care if we are here or not. it will not know when we are gone. the earth is a life creating machine. nothing we can do or not do will change that fact. we cannot, by virtue of our existence or activity, destroy the planet. that is hyperbole, pure and simple. we might put an end to the human species through nuclear war, though even that is highly unlikely, but we cannot stop the earth from producing life.
understand this: human beings are vain creatures. to think we could make the earth unliveable/uninhabitable is not only the height of human vanity, it is an exposition of ignorance of geological time and our place on that timeline.
grow up neo-luddites, we aren’t that important in the short or long run. we can’t change the weather, we can’t even predict the weather. enjoy a long and happy life, get on with enjoying it instead of fretting over a phenomenon you can neither cause, control or abate.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am#221 John F.
When you don’t understand something, you should try using the google, very helpful for finding answers. Don’t bother though, since I already did it and have a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
February 27th, 2007 at 9:26 am[...] 2: Yawn. Their response is directed to the guy doing the linking and not to the original report (doh). [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:26 am[...] Al Gore’s office have responded here. [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:28 amHere are the facts, Rachel
“Dumbass, get your facts straight.” And posted FOUR times, no less! Priceless.
Better stick to “proving” global warming.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:30 amFinally, a rich, resource-chugging fatcat the port side can swoon over (well, besides the Soroses, Spielbergs, Streisands, Penns, etc. that is).
Does anyone know what Algore’s mansion’s square footage is? I’ve got a pretty big house (4,000 sf finished) and I spend a tiny fraction of what the voluminous ex-Veep does. Is he up in the range of John Edwards’ country estate, 20,000 sf-plus?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am#222 nick
ok, if we still lived in caves and used rocks for tools, then we would still be part of the natural world. Being human, however, we adapt it to our needs and do things that are beyond nature.
Nature never intended for there to be a massive amount of motorized vehicles and industries belching CO2 into the atmosphere.
To say we cannot destroy the planet is ignorant, since we have that capability. We can do it slowly, by destroying an environment through over harvesting of resources and pollution, or we could detonate of few nuclear weapons.
Also, calling us ‘neo-luddites’ is absurd since we support technology and its advancement. What we want is enviro-friendly technology so that our planet is preserved and continue to support life and we can live healthier and thus happier lives.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:31 amI understand that the contention of energy profligacy is based on the Gore household utility bills. If his bills continue to go up despite the installation of solar panels, compact fluorescents and so on, that’s pretty amazing. Perhaps he needs an energy audit from his local utility.
I’m sure our home is much more modest than Mr. Gore’s, but we have central air plus supplemental room air conditioners running pretty much nonstop from April through October, and two refrigerateros in our two kitchens, and I don’t believe that our annual usage costs us more than $4,000.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:33 amAnthropogenic Global Warming is a Theory not a scientific Fact.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:34 amhttp://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468
It just gets worse.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:37 amuh, ashenshard, how do you know what nature “intended”.? either you are a presumptuous buffoon or you have an inside line on what nature does or doesn’t want that none of the rest of us do.
no we can’t destroy the planet. we are like fleas on an elephant’s back only less significant.
the planet preserves itself and takes no notice of our efforts to be clean or dirty. what kind of literature do you read that makes you think otherwise?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:38 amGore can request all the green energy he wants from the NES and instsall his own solar panels.
However, this statement is merely a distraction of the facts.
The power the Gore family household consumes is greater than 88% from C02 sources, and still, his kwh consumption from the NES has increased between 10-15% annually versus the national average of 2 to 3%.
Any way you look at it, Gore’s energy footprint is 20 TIMES LARGER than the average American household, and that means the Gore family household is clearly doing their part to contribute to our human-man global warming problem.
Wake up, you can’t have it both ways. If Gore’s wealth and house size is his excuse, then the parameters of the same argument can be applied to other issues involving the wealthy like taxes.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:39 amGlad to know you lefties are down with the concept of plenary indulgences. Of course, Rank has its Privileges, don’t it?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am#228
May I refer you to posts 118 and 156 to understand the position of ‘theory’ in the science community.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:43 amJust curious to know exactly what all you global warming believers are doing to reduce YOUR impact? I guess you are all driving hybrid vehicles, or no motorized vehicles at all; and that you only use your central heating/cooling systems in the most extreme temperature situations. Right? If not then you are contributing just as much to global warming as those who don’t “believe”…
February 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am#230 nick
So I’m guessing you are one that has no problem with an industry dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:44 am[...] the press release I noted in this post got Al Gore’s attention. He responded to the blog Think Progress who characterizes Drudge’s headline as an “attack” and a [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:45 am#234 EC
It is called reducing, not eliminating. No one who accepts that global warming exists says we have to go back to the stone age to end it. Doing small things, just to reduce it a little bit helps, like turning out lights you are not using, and not putting the temp so high during the winter or low during the summer. Not only does it reduce the amount of carbon you use, but it saves you money. You would like to save money, would you not?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:48 amPrior to Christopher Columbus’ voyage, there was no meaningful scientific debate about the shape of the earth. The consensus was that it was flat, and that Columbus would fall off the edge of it.
Science is not a democracy.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:50 ami’ll ignore your bs question about toxic sludge in our drinking water. more hyperbole from the anointed i’d guess, huh, ashenshard?
give it a rest.
but the fact remains, no matter how much we pollute, no matter how many nuclear weapons we explode, we could NOT end life on this planet. the earth occupies a place in our solar system that, unless we were able to affect our orbit, provides all the primary materials for life. no matter what we do, life will always find a way.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:52 am#237 John
Actually, that is a myth. It was all pretty much accepted that the earth was round by that point.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:53 amI just just very proud that the USA is leading the way among important countries. We produce over 2.5 GDP per 1 emission while places like China, Russia, and India produce around 0.5 GDP per emission. It is time that these countries come to us and learn how to clean up there act. If only the rest of the large economies would follow our lead and clean up there act we would be in a much better place.
I am proud that we in America are leading the way. If we want any chance at saving this planet, it is time to start pressing China, India, and Russia. They are are the number 1 problem.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am“carbon offsets” are so amusing to me. They’re so…. mideval. Like buying indulgences for sins in advance from the Catholic Church. Needless to say, a setup like this one does not exactly convince me that global warming is more of a faith than a science.
Is Al Gore a Protestant? Didn’t Martin Luther nail something to a church door about this sort of thing?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:56 amAl Gore’s Own Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore’s mansion uses more than twice the electricity in one month than the average household does in an entire year. From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh–more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh–guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Yikes! Gore is an energy glutton. Now compare this to President Bush’s comparatively modest home in Crawford, Texas, which is a model of environmental friendliness:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude
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.
Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush’s home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am[...] Gore’s can afford to continue in the lifestyles to which they’ve become accustomed, and even if they purchase offsets or install solar panels (and fluorescent bulbs), it’s not enough. It wouldn’t ever be enough. The Gore’s [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am#236
I said reduce, not eliminate. Additionally, I already do those things you mentioned, plus I recently bought an “environmentally friendly” car so that I could reduce the frequency of buying gasoline now and easily convert to biofuels in the near future. Obviously, Gore is not “turning out lights” when he leaves a room, and he’s “not putting the temp so high during summer or low during the summer,” or else his energy bill wouldn’t be so astronomical. Fortunately for him, though, he can afford to buy “offsets” to make himself feel better. I equate the purchasing of these carbon offsets with the wetland credits large developers in Florida, Georgia, and other states are allowed purchase in order to destroy the natural wetlands and build artificial ones in places where they can’t make as much money. You can’t “buy” a better environment, so if you’re so worried about it, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:02 am[...] Wait no more. Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am[...] exactly after the movie won raised my suspicions — and it appears, the suspicions of others. According to the Tennessean, Gore’s power bill shows that he is offsetting his energy use. From the [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:09 amA scientist’s careful analysis of the state of global warming science:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
an excerpt:
Proposition / Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. -False
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptiional. -Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. – False
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. – Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. – Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. – Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. – Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. – Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. – Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. – False
February 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am#243
Actually, buying a better environment works really well. Us hunters have been doing it for years. We go out and buy 1000 acres or so of dirt fields. We then dig ponds, plant natural grass’, plant trees, and various other plants. Basically, we convert it back to wilderness. We also buy up property that is already in great conidtion. This allows wildlife to keep the land instead of it turning into dirt fields. You can see the benefits of this program today. We currently have more deer and turkeys then have ever been recorded. The Timberwolf and Moose in Minnesota have made a comeback and the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species list. Furthermore, many other species like Red Fox and Mink have made a great comeback as well. Having the rich elitest like Gore and his Hollywood friends spend money to offset/ buy emissions isn’t a bad idea. The best way to fix any problem is to let the free market decide. When you have enough folks that want a clean environment, that becomes a product with value.
I fully support Gore promoting this idea. I think it is absolutely wonderful to let the markets fix this problem. It worked with wildlife, CRP, and forests. Why can’t it work with emissions?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:11 amThe house in question is just one of four the ex-VP lives in and owns. He has another in Carthage, Tenn., one in the D.C. area and a plush condo in San Francisco (plus a house he rents out). In other words his households are spread coast-to-coast with the attendant transportation belching of what he thinks are deleterious CO2 emissions traveling back and forth between jet trips to $100,000 speaking fees in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to get to them. When contacted by USA Today (hardly a bastion of Conservative propaganda) in late 2006, his office responded that of the single house in question, Gore was “looking into” signing up for green power. I guess he signed up after that so he could say he did.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:11 amWhat a maroon.
This careful, critical assessment of the current scientific arguments that support the “consensus” about global warming is worth a read.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
an excerpt:
Proposition / Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. -False
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptiional. -Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. – False
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. – Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. – Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. – Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. – Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. – Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. – Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. – False
February 27th, 2007 at 10:13 amAl Bore,
As soon as you start living like you want the rest of us to live, I will change my lifestyle. Until then, I plan to drive my SUV, eat cheeseburgers occasionally, turn my house lights on at night, and support the soldiers of the United States of America doing their best to keep terrorists off our soil.
You don’t walk the walk, at all.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:20 amthe present crop of environmental activists tend to be, like their Goracle, statists. this is, to my mind, all about political power and the ability to regulate the lives and livelihoods of free peoples everywhere. statists will use whatever tools are at their disposal, in this case alarmist calls to save the planet. this is propaganda, pure and simple.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:21 amInteresting Al Gore made his movie “A Convenient Distortion,” um, “An INconvenient Truth,” a year ago and has been pounding the alarmist drum about so-called anthropogenic global warming, but is only NOW beginning to use ‘green’ energy. For his mammoth mansion.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:25 amWrong on the Kilowat hours. The research center published what the power company recorded as Mr. Gores annual usage. All other power sources would be off-line and not recored as KWH.
Paying Tereapass for carbon Credits is like paying the Catholic church Indulgences. Martin Luther didn’t like that much either.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:26 amDamn that slimy Drudge. Smearing people like Gore by reporting their actions.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:30 amre: # 251
yeah and his website’s ugly too.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am#243 EC
Well then, more people should follow your example and do those things. I think with Gore, he buys the offsets which only those with wealth could do, and it helps because it is an investment for developing clean technology.
I think maybe the ‘practice what you preach’, if you compare him to others who have the same wealth he does, he has lower than average emissions. He also takes commercial airlines unless he absolutely cannot, though he can afford to take private. How many wealthy people can you say do that? Comparing his level of Carbon output to common Americans is flawed since they do not go around trying to educate the world and make a difference on this topic.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 amIt also reinforces the point that he is not trying to make everyone give up technology, just modify their use of it and cut wastefulness to the best of ones ability, and not to the point giving up everything and living in caves.
If the man were honest and not such a pig, he would reduce consumption and not use his unearned wealth to buy “credits” (i.e. I have enough money I can pay for my wasteful energy consumption and pay someone a non-profit some cash to make me look and feel better). Like those that awarded him, he has no idea of what it entails to be a typical working family. Let them eat credits!
I will continue to cut my energy consumption to help offset his pigish behavior.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 amre: # 253
a telling statement from one of the anointed regarding the cherished Goracle
“Comparing his level of Carbon output to common Americans is flawed “
we’d never compare our common selves to the enlightened one, no never.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:38 amI have no problems with Gore using way to much energy as long as he is true to his word and buys enough environmental projects to offset it. This is what the free market is all about. He piggishly burns tons of fossil fuels and buys a bunch of forests to offset it. It is a win win in my book. I salute him!!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 amAnyone have any evidence that climate change can be slowed, stopped, or reversed by human indulgences? Does anyone want to reverse the current warming trend?
I wholeheartedly endorse global warming. The alternative is far more threatening.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 amA simple question from a sceptic, not an American one mind you : I am a Belgian citizen.
I happen to have an interest in history and I know there was a warm spell that lasted about three centuries in the Middle ages. They had vineyards in Scotland then and the Vikings founded colonies in Greenland. Surely this had nothing to do with carbon emissions?
Another question : how can you seriously call deniers “brainwashed” when it is so obvious that the brainwashing occurs exclusively on the other side of the argument. Here in Europe the media, school teachers, politicians, unions, everyone is constantly talking about it and they are al saying exactly the same things. It got even worse after Gore put out his video : nobody bothered to argue anymore. “Go see Al Gore’s video” they all said, as it was God’s own word. Sceptics and deniers may be wrong, but they are definitely not being brainwashed.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:44 amAs usual, this site avoids the big points. Gore claims he is carbon neutral, and takes all these steps, yet why then is his energy bill so high?
And how is Drudge a hysteric for pointing this out? Especially since Gore’s movie makes claims unsupported by the IPCC and other studies he cites in the film. All of the claims of his film are insanely exaggerated.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:48 amI bought and planted four large Maple trees last fall! I going Hummer shopping.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:50 amWhat fun it will be when the books of those receiving funds for selling credits are audited.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am“…purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint…”
Now, that’s funny right there. Global warming is a critical problem. But Al can’t cut his carbon footprint down to nothing FOR REAL, so it’s OK to throw money at it.
Funny stuff.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:55 amWas “Oscar” covered in socially conscious gold? How many children lost an arm for Gore’s trophy?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:59 amWhat is funny is that the hated George W. Bush’s home is much more enviromentally friendly than the Gore mansion. Hypocracy, thy name is liberal.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:01 amDoes Al buy offsets for the emmissions coming from his mouth?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:09 amI will continue to cut my energy consumption to help offset his pigish behavior.
Comment by Todd
————————————————–
That’s the spirit. Take one for the “Gipper”, I mean Uncle Sam, you are so patriotic and a very good American for doing your part.
We’re all very proud of you.
Keep up the good work.
————————————————–
Does Al buy offsets for the emmissions coming from his mouth?
Comment by Todd —
————————————————–
No, but I am going to be checking into purchasing some Tic-Tac stock for that emination of fecal matter coming from your mouth.
I think I will make a “killing” on this investment.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:16 amAnyone have a credit for sale? I just let loose of an aweful one.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am[...] bill, rather than refuting the legitimacy of the argument itself. ThinkProgress.org has a post devoted to explaining that Gore is not actually a hypocrite. They pay some lip service to the [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 11:18 amre:266
the true believers get upset when you criticize their religion.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:19 amThanks, Rachel. I takes a good friend like you to let one know they need a brushing. Could you also speak to Al?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhich is more arrogant and small minded at the same time: To say “we caused ‘global warming’” or to say “we can fix ‘global warming’?”
This planet will outlive all of us. WHEN a meteorite hits, we’ll really see our physical significance to the earth. Follow the money guys! “Global warming” fear and fixes are all about getting your money! After all… it’s driven by democrats!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:26 amAl Gore is full of SHIT and so are his sycophants!!!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:26 amSorry to share the news, Rachael. I was going to act on your interesting investment tip, but the company is privately held. They also make Nutella, the world’s number one sweet spead (not including Paris Hilton).
February 27th, 2007 at 11:28 amI think the majority of the first 200 commenters were missing the point. Theories, consensus, blah, blah, blah.
Good for Al that he has enough money to live in a house that big and pay those kind of utility bills. As a conservative capitalist with a libertarian streak, I say more power too him. What rubs me the wrong way is the condescending attitude about what he thinks I should be doing to fix the problem. Don’t regulate what kind of light bulbs I should purchase. Don’t put your hand in my wallet and give tons of subsidies to corn farmers. Don’t look down your nose at me because I chose to buy a pick-up truck rather than a Vespa to get back and forth to work. And especially don’t do those things when you use 20 times more energy than I do.
And to the commenters who contend that “nobody is hurt” if we implement this Kyoto crap. I’m calling BS. We could effectively destroy the world economy and all go back to living in grass huts. Millions would die of poverty/starvation. Look no further than Rachel “Silent Spring” Carson charlatan. After her scare-book/movie came out, DDT was banned and hundreds of thousand of people (children mostly) have died of malaria as a result. All actions have consequences and “good intentions” doesn’t change the likelihood of a bad outcome.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:29 amAMERICAN Scientific Accomplishments:
Cotton gin
Light bulb
Typewriter
Telegraph
Telephone
Television
Phonograph
Assembly Line
Sewing Machine
Computer
Internet
Automobiles
Airplanes
Space travel/Lunar mission
Atomic energy
Lasers
Artificial Heart
Polio Vaccine
Yeah, I can see why you’d be skeptical of scientists. I mean, they didn’t invent EVERYTHING like your Lord did. LOL! Maybe one of you can squint real hard and pray for the Lord to give you a list of religion’s contributions to civilization in response. What a bunch of ignorant rednecks. It would also be nice if the “skeptical” scientists you so often refer to weren’t being offered $10,000 for their souls – I mean opinions.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:30 am$10,000? Is that true? Do you realize how many jars of Nutella that would buy?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:34 amRE: 274
you can thank US entrepreneurs for those innovations. the free market system is a wonderful thing. you should try it sometime.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:37 amWhat a load of shit. “…purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint…” That’s like Ted Haggart offsetting his homosexuality with anti-homosexual preaching. What a bunch of hypocrites.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:38 amI have a problem with people who use a lot of energy. Just because it’s green doesn’t mean you can waste it. My solar panels generate more than I need. It goes back to the grid and helps power someone else’s house who cannot afford to put solar on their roof. Gore’s electric bill is huge unless, of course he has 100 people living (not employed, but living) in the house. The gas bill is also huge and that is not from renewable sources.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amHow many extra earths would we need if we all wanted to live like Al Gore? He’s just another champagne socialist.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amROFL LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLLOOL HAHAHA HAAAAAAA
February 27th, 2007 at 11:40 amI can’t stop laughing, YOU sir should be a comedienne. So funny, my sides, OH my SIDES…
….Installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology….Wow he did all that and he is still burning more than the avg house in 18 months? Way to go Al! Say, as long as you are buying carbon credits to promote your new green investment company, can you buy some for me, too, so I can sleep better at night? I stay awake at night shivering in the cold becuase I don’t want to burn any coal or turn on my lights, thanks to your “Inconsistent Truth” came out! I wish this Global Warming would fianlly kick in and melt the 4 freaking feet of snow outside my door….thanks Al…you rock. Say, Al, do any of the proceeds from the movie, or the “offsets” go to any election campaigns?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:43 amAl Gore is nothing but a stupid a$$ liberal democratic hypocrit. He has no problem preaching for all of us to change our lightbulbs and drive compact cars yet he lives in a friggin mansion and travels in fuel guzzling jets and SUV’s. What a moron…along with you morons that follow him.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:46 amOh, so its OK for Al to pollute all he wants because he is paying some poor slob not to pollute? Is that how it works? Sounds like a scam of the first order to me—do as I say, meanwhile I’ll do whatever I want because I’m rich. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal….
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amPoor Al, he was born with a silver credit in his mouth.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amAfter 2,500 prominent scientists declared that we were contributing to and exacerbating global warming, The American Enterpri$e In$titute offered $10,000 to any scientist to come forward and dispute it. Weak.
And to your nonsense about a free market:
a. Any rational, unemotional adult would see green technologies as a potential emerging marketplace and industry.
b. Would have been nice to see the so-called “free market” ideology proven with the rebuilding to Iraq and New Orleans but you would rather see your friends get no-bid contracts than actually prove your fantasies.
STFU
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amI love it. The inconvenient truth of Al Gore’s hypocrisy! He is both a loser in politics and a loser in life. And it’s funny because the Algore ass kissers of Think Progress have no meaningful argument to defend him. When it comes to a carbon footprint, the ex-vice president has to put his foot in his mouth.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:51 amDon’t believe for a minute Al Gore is anything but bright. Ken Lay would have been wise to take his lead from Al. Ken is now food for the earth, while Al tries to rid the world of food.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:52 amAny slightly educated investor would not be criticized for passing on highly speculative investments like New Orleans and Iraq. By the way, which is safer?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:54 amI absolutely adore the comments that criticize an individual for researching and producing a documentary consisting of facts and theories from scientists and independent researchers in order to address an issue that should be in the minds of every single person. Mr. Gore became a target with his own volition and money, fully aware of impending criticism. “An Inconvenient Truth†did not rake in huge profits or break any records, and the profits it did make went to fund causes in fighting climate change. To believe that Mr. Gore would not take the steps necessary in altering his own energy consumption and habits, assuming that his lifestyle was antithetical to his own beliefs in the first place, is preposterous. Mr. Gore has taken the necessary steps in drawing any energy consumed from alternative GREEN energy sources. Mr. Gore is NOT utilizing carbon credits, that is a concept developed for individuals who do NOT use green sources of energy since most Americans do not have access to alternative sources of energy (and the American populace can thank the Bush administration and Exxon/Mobil for hindering progress in that field).
It is easy to criticize and poke flaws than it is in actually being productive and ACTIVE members of society. I often wonder why naysayers become so defensive and angry with environmental issues that it results in arguments and personal attacks, instead of actually having an open mind to the issue and debating it intelligently and calmly. Perhaps when logic is not in accordance with ones one view, anger and personal attacks are all that are left.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:55 amAmazing You idiot libs attack Drudge for printing the TRUTH about your leader, Al Gore. Deal with it, slobs, you lost in 2000 and he is a hypocrite. Facts! Remember this Gore statement when he was taking
February 27th, 2007 at 11:57 amdonations against the law? THERE IS NO CONTROLING LEGAL AUTHORITY! You liberal anti life losers deserve a ‘man’ like Al Gore
Let’s see here, you right-wing dumbfvcks hate:
Teachers
College Professors
Scientists
Educated Urbanites
I figured it out – you’re STOOPID!!! LOL
February 27th, 2007 at 11:57 amThe power of the Goracle (updated!)…
While Al Gore is running around telling everyone there’s a scientific consensus on global warming (there isn’t) and how we need to take steps now to reduce the emission of pollutants, the Nashville Electric Service tells us that the monthly…
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amYour pointman is a fraud.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amI’m all for many of the environmental solutions proposed by people like AlGore. That doesn’t change the fact that man made global warming is more real than man mad global cooling was.
Dissenters are merely shouted down and persecuted by the global warming crowd. The “scientists” behind global warming theories are seldom climate specialists, the actual climatologists are teh main people disputing this fraud.
Let’s get green, but there’s no reason to base it on fraudulent research.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amValiant,
You seemed only to get angry for me exposing that Al Gore is a ludicrous poser. His policies, which want to tax industry for emissions, will make energy more expensive for the ordinary American. Of course, Al Gore and his friends are rich, so he doesn’t need to worry.
Meanwhile, he’s telling all Americans to use less CO2. Most Americans can’t afford carbon offsets, so they’ll have to choose between driving their old car to work, or… oh wait, many people don’t have another choice. So poor old Joe American, who has to drive his pick-up truck to the mine everyday, he feels bad because Al Gore says he is making global warming worse, while he can’t afford fancy carbon offsets.
Al Gore, on the other hand, is emitting far more CO2 than Joe American, but talks down to Joe American because he doesn’t have the luxury of being able to afford carbon offsets, the magical bean.
It is the worst sort of liberal elitism.
What do you mean you can’t afford to be carbon neutral??!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:59 amTodd – you are an idiot. Iraq and NOLA were GOVERNMENT rebuilding projects, not investments. Let talk nice and slow for you like Dubya does:
They gives out de monies to companies to build stuff and do things
They’re not investing anything, they’re RECEIVING government contracts to do work.
Jesus Christ!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pmnice take on the late Ann Richards quote “Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
Ann Richards is rolling in her grave…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI read this article because I like both sides of the story (I’m not left or right I’m somewhere in the middle) and I found it interesting until I got to the last paragraph that says there is no meaningful discussion going on in the scientific community.
To see that made me realize that this website is basically a left version of the drudge report. I mean how can you state an obvious lie and expect anyone to believe anything else you said in the article?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmI am not smart enough to know the cause of global warming or any changes we can make to effect a meaningful change in this trend. I am smart enough to spot a con man and a hypocrite.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pmJust great. I’m reading under dim lights in order to offset Al’s hypocrisy. You’d think the inventor of the Internet could work out a better solution to his apalling thirst for energy.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmNo this site is NOT a leftwing version of the drudge report since it does not pretend to be an impartial source of news. It supports liberal and progressive views and critiques what it feels are inaccuracies and misinformation in the media. Drudge pretends to be some kind of ugly CNN.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmSorry think progress, you usually make some good points, but not today. How many of you saw the movie and calculated your carbon footprint? If you did, you’ll remember how much airline travel increased your carbon footprint. Now…how much of the movie was of Al Gore going through airports and flying on airplanes? Don’t we all remember how he advertised in the movie going international, flying around the world to get the message out? How many forests did he say he bought to offset that? How many remember the footage of him as the hero Senator grilling Dr. James Hansen in front of a Senate panel? How many of you know that James Hansen has always been one the most outspoken proponents of energy policy change to curb carbon emissions? Now his home energy usage is public knowledge and it’s ugly. Why is he above being held accountable? The Discovery Channel created a program “Global Warming: What You Need to Know” which outshines “An Inconvenient Truth” in facts. It does not star politicians or famous musicians or have credits including firms like Getty Images (created from big oil trust fund money). It seems to me that none of you care about the environment. You’re more concerned about being right and having untarnished heros. Oh, and by the way, how many kilowatt hours will the Save Our Selves tours use?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pmYour are correct, my highly educated friend. New Orleans and Iraq are classic examples of government spending. There is no accoutability. A reasonable would not want to make investments in such places (save gun merchants). Bid or no bid doesn’t ensure effectiveness, just that the inefficient work is done cheaper.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWho pissed in all the liberals wheaties? Another example of “do as I say, not as I do”. Can’t you recognize that Gore is a hypocrite? How many lights does he have on in his house at one time? He’s not even there that much.
Nobody is disputing Gore’s claims. Green energy is a great idea. But he obviously doesn’t follow his own advice. Are you all so blind that you can’t get on his case for it. Grow up and see things from an objective view. Al Gore is now like the rest of his Hollywood counterparts. Barking orders at the rest of us, but not following his own hollow orders. Sad….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pmLiberals this-Conservatives that-
The fact remains that Matt Drudge is a
February 27th, 2007 at 12:12 pmjerk, personally, and a complete tool of the neo-con agenda-professionally.
I enjoy the fact that Gore believes that the rest of the country has the money to install solar panels, buy carbon offsets, and that “Green Power Switch” is no more expensive than regular electricity or it is even available in their area. I’m sorry, but I don’t have the money to do that or the resources. What should my poor ass do? Sit in the dark at night and freeze my ass off in the winter?
Gore can afford to offset the needless energy his mansion consumes. If he were really concerned about global warming he would live in a shack and only consume what his land could provide. Without the use of tractors or other carbon emitting equipment mind you. (Do keep in mind that he has the money do just that, but he doesn’t)
Bottom line is that he brings to light a valid concern, but totally screws it up by not practicing what he preaches and being a role model for his “cause”.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pmOk, I have to admit, that was genius. ROFL funny, I concede =)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmDrudge and all the righties just can’t handle Al’s popularity AT ALL.
It’s clearly jealousy, nothing else.
It’s funny to watch.
Sorry, righties, but that’s what happens when people really believe in something, rather than adopting ideologies as is convenient and expedient to your electoral goals.
The hating doesn’t surprise me too much. The people doing it spend most of their time hating someone, Al just happened to end up a lightning rod for them for a while. Whatever. They’ll all move on after an Actor or brown person says something they don’t like.
Jane hears Righty bitch.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmBitch, righty, bitch.
Listen, Jane, listen to righty bitch.
Righty is bitching a lot.
Just think – who would beneift if “is all hype”? Practically NO ONE.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmWho would benefit by denying the facts? Hmmm… People involved with the OIL companies (such as politicians in office), people who are afraid of change (I’m going to drive my big a*s SUV to Walmart), people who don’t know the difference between science and propaganda (like those who don’t believe in evolution).
I don’t really have an opinion about Drudge personally, but I am very impressed by anyone who can get 422 million hits on their website in on month. Seems a lot of people are desirous of seeing what he is offering.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmAgain:
I absolutely adore the comments that criticize an individual for researching and producing a documentary consisting of facts and theories from scientists and independent researchers in order to address an issue that should be in the minds of every single person. Mr. Gore became a target with his own volition and money, fully aware of impending criticism. “An Inconvenient Truth†did not rake in huge profits or break any records, and the profits it did make went to fund causes in fighting climate change. To believe that Mr. Gore would not take the steps necessary in altering his own energy consumption and habits, assuming that his lifestyle was antithetical to his own beliefs in the first place, is preposterous. Mr. Gore has taken the necessary steps in drawing any energy consumed from alternative GREEN energy sources. Mr. Gore is NOT utilizing carbon credits, that is a concept developed for individuals who do NOT use green sources of energy since most Americans do not have access to alternative sources of energy (and the American populace can thank the Bush administration and Exxon/Mobil for hindering progress in that field).
It is easy to criticize and poke flaws than it is in actually being productive and ACTIVE members of society. I often wonder why naysayers become so defensive and angry with environmental issues that it results in arguments and personal attacks, instead of actually having an open mind to the issue and debating it intelligently and calmly. Perhaps when logic is not in accordance with ones one view, anger and personal attacks are all that are left.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pmSo when Al Gore travels he’s supposed to fly in a plane that doesn’t use oil? I think he’d be open to that idea actually. Where can he find that plane? Oh right it doesn’t exist. And if he uses actual energy, he’s a hypocrite. LOL. I really am starting to feel sorry for you – you really can’t be proud of lame arguments like these. Pathetic. You really don’t have anything left do you?
It probably hasn’t dawned on you since it will never come out of Hannity’s mouth, but right-wingers called ANYONE a hypocrite is hypocrisy. And ironic to boot. LOL.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pmPurchase Offsets. How convenient…especially if you are born into a wealthy family. Too bad for me that I wasn’t. So I guess I’m fucked if I can’t afford a Hybrid or all the other nice things that Liberals think I should buy in order to be nice to the environment.
It’s good to be both liberal and rich I suppose. Oh well, at least kicking puppies is still free to us common folk.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pmI thought the same thing, but then someone said that Drudge counts every reload as a hit (or something to that effect) while most sites monitor the actual IP address. The actual number was maybe 1/100th of what Drudge reports.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm#45
What Drudge didn’t miss is that it’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
Comment by beefeater — February 26, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Dude, if you hate your job and your boss so much why don’t you find another one? Maybe he will let you keep the suit.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIt is ok to criticize the war and support the troops. It is not ok to criticize Al or his piggish use of energy. Intellectual honesty is so needed today.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOne Word: Teleconference.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pmTodd, I would think that it’s a GREAT investment since the Republican government really didn’t give a crap whether the end service or product is delivered. For instance, the 8.8 BILLION dollars that went to Iraq for reconstruction. No one seems to know what happened to it, and no Republicans seems to care.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pmSomeone said…something to that effect…if….maybe…could be. Wonderful analysis.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pmI’ll say it once and I’ll say it again – here’s what scienctific principles and theories have been right about:
Cotton gin
Sewing Machine
Telegraph
Typewriter
Telephone
Phonograph
Light bulb
Automobile
Airplane
Assembly Line
Television
Computer
Atomic energy
Polio Vaccine
Laser
Lunar Mission
Space Shuttle
Artificial Heart
Internet
You have NO argument…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmI suppose telelconferencing doesn’t use energy?
Dolt.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pmThe 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude
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.
GWB is more Green than Gore… Who’d a thunk it?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI am sure a few care where the money went. But, who can really believe what they say anyways. There are probably some Democrats that care too. Either way, I think most know where it went in the broad sense – waste, currupt people, and Nutella.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pmYes, the Earth is warming — it does that. The question is, WHY? Did you know that humans only put out 4% of the total carbon released into the atmosphere? Even if we stop all output, we would only stop 4%. Now that you know that, does that make that much difference? We need to figure out how to control the temperature, not worry about what car some idiot drives. I am more worried about the toxins than warming.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmFor example, in the Democratic Party, Vice President Al Gore has a long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum that has been enormously beneficial to the company. Occidental’s late chairman, the controversial Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore’s father, Senator Albert Gore, Senior, quote, “in my back pocket”, unquote.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmCertainly they do…but are you saying they use more than a 767 business class ticket? If so, I may have to radically re-think the manner in which I do business with my European counterparts. And thanks for the insult…. it indicates that you’ve already lost the argument.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pmWho’s Al Gore? Oh that’s right, he was that vice-president of Bubba Clinton that everyone on the left hated for his wife’s music lyrics/censorship campaign. Frank Zappa must be rolling in his grave. Just like he “invented the internet†he now seems to have the attribute of having “invented the global warming paranoia†with its inherent European Imperialism. Judging my Mr. Gore’s bloated cuerpo, I would say that he additionally contributes to “global warming†through his frequent flatulence.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pmAnti-Tobacco-Al raised campaign funds from tobacco farmers/producers (a business that made him wealthy) after his sister died from lung cancer from smoking.
People, we may be the cause of global warming, but we must be intellectually honest about the research and debate. Please don’t look to a con man for answers to such an important issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm#341
It probably hasn’t dawned on you, because it would just blow your mind, but not everyone who writes something that you find disagreeable is a right-winger or Hannity listener.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIf Al Gore ate a forest and no one was there to see it, would the forest be gone?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmno one should be fool enough to believe anything this website says. They are on record as liars, ironically while calling the President a liar. Trusting these people is like trusting Dan Rather on document analysis.
Maybe this is Gore’s position, maybe it is not. And maybe Gore is really not the hypocrite he usually is, on this issue. But these guys telling you shouldn’t settle the issue for anyone appropriately skeptical.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm333
I don’t see/taste/smell any urine in my cereal, but I do know that all anyone has to do is say “Al Gore”, and all the righties in the world show up and start a-bitchin’, like flies to a fresh cow patty. You guys are weird. Don’t you have anything to think/care about, besides what Al Gore is doing??
Al I see/hear from righty is a bunch of regurgitation of whatever that drug addict guy said on the radio….again, pretty weird stuff, for guys who think themselves so “normal”.
Liberals think for themselves, and they come together through coincidence. Righties come together by design, and have someone else think for them.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI wish everybody would stop talking about what Drudge wrote.
Folks, he didn’t write any of this. Just links.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pmWait, I see the messenger over there. Aim… FIRE!
…
The only solution left to those whose arguments cannot dispute the facts.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pmI don’t know about this global warmin’ stuff, but Al is getting hotter by the day. That lucky Tipper.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pmBRING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING!
I’m dying to take a trip to Atlanits!!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm333
Who pissed in all the liberals wheaties? Another example of “do as I say, not as I doâ€. Can’t you recognize that Gore is a hypocrite?
Lefties are very bright just full of themselves.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIf his name was GW Bush lefties would be all over this hypocrisy.
Al Gore has Big Carbon Feet!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pmGet your energy credit here. No fuss, no muss, 30% off retail price, satisfaction guaranteed. Bargains, bargains, credits galore.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm#356
It wouldn’t blow my mind at all if I didn’t hear the same pre-packaged McDonalds Talking Points over and over. Sometimes I don’t even know why you bother couching your ready-made Talking Points with verbs and pronouns. This Al Gore logic has been already done! Remember Nancy Pelosi’s plane? Cut and Run? Fight Them Over There… blah blah blah, Stay The Course, Flip-Flop, and now… Slow Bleed.
That’s not debate. That’s TV Dinners. How pathetic. Come up with something original for once.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm[...] Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics 2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains: [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:07 pmYou anti Drudge-ite sheeple are STOOPID STOOPID STOOPID!! Let me get my crayons out and draw a picture that you leaping lemmings will understand. DRUDGE DIDN’T WRITE THAT ARTICLE !! Drudge is a LINKING SITE, he simply posts links to news stories WRITTEN BY OTHER PEOPLE !! YES, I know it’s hard for your little pea brains to accept, but it’s true.
The article Drudge reprinted was a release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367 which you could have discovered on your own with a little Google search if you were as smart as you all think you are.
But NO, you’d rather SPEW HATE and use your head for a hat rack, which in your case is actually a better use for your heads , cause you all have NO BUSINESS TRYING TO THINK, your brains are oxygen starved from having your heads so far up your collective asses. Leave that hard work for the grown ups.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pmtom baker #337
February 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pmIt seems more like you can’t handle Drudge’s popularity. When so many liberals like yourself can hold so much hatred towards a guy who maintains a website that provides links, you know there’s something wrong. I mean, he doesn’t even get T.V. attention like Algore does and you lefties shudder in fear when you hear the name Drudge. That my friends is powerful.
What kind of argument is that? Scientific principles and theories were used to invent some things, therefore global warming is real and 100% manmade.
I guess this is what passes for rational thought on the left.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pmYou think someone would put him on TV with his gay little hat? He looks like Peter Brady when he pretended to be a reporter. Please.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm[...] dioxide by 60 percent by 2050. – Reuters Meanwhile, back in the States, the dogs froth over trumped up BS discrediting Al Gore. How dare he provide a working knowledge of global warming to every citizen in [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pmCotton Gin – Eli Witney was not a scientist… he was an inventor. It’s possible that the Cotton Gin also was invented in a somewhat different form in India…
Light Bulb – Edison did not invent the light Bulb…he improved it.
Typewriter – The first commercially sold typewriter was made in Denmark (many nationalities had a hand in its development
Telephone – Antonio Meucci (Italian) first invented electro-magnetic speech transmission, Alexander Graham Bell was the first to patent a pratical phone.
Television – Again developed by multiple folks… initially Britisch. The first public demonstration of a TV was by a Scottish guy.
Phonograph – (talk about 20th Century!) The theory behind the device goes to the French. Again American inventors (not scientists) were the first to manufactre a working device
Assembly Line – Ah…finally an American scientist?! Henry Ford was a scientist?!
Sewing Machine – Sorry…again this honor goes to the British…or at least a german working in Britain.
Computer – Depending on your definition of what a computer is…a German is probably the first inventor of a computer…but then one could argue an abacus is a computer…and we Americans didn’t invent that either
Internet – Well if you discount Al Gore…it was developed by a Berners-Lee…a British guy.
Automobiles – A Flemish missionary in China built the first Steam powered car.
Airplanes – Although Wilbur and Orville had the first successful flight…the science behind it (aerodynamics) was invented by a British guy (Damn those brits)
Space Travel/Lunar Mission – You are joking right? Werner Von Braun? Does that sound like an American name?
Atomic Energy – The first Nuclear fission was done by Germans…again I think you must be joking… Fermi? Anyone, Enrico Fermi? And the worlds first Nuclear power grid was in the USSR.
Laser – Sorry…Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the science behind the laser… Wasn’t he German? Lol
Artificial Heart – WOW…this one is All American…finally found one.
Polio Vaccine – Finally another All American invention…although to be honest…the science behind it really should be credited to the guy that first coined the phrase Virus…a Dutchman.
Basically you don’t seem to know a whole lot about Science yourself.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pmIt’s a list of things which scientists were right about. Things which NEVER existed before. Sound waves is a scientific theory. Atomic energy is a scientific theory. Light is a scientific theory. Space travel is possible only due to scientific theories. And global warming is also a scientific theory for which there is overwhelming support.
I’m saying that you are skeptical of a community which understands the workings of the universe better than you and well enough to accomplish these historic achievements. But for some reason you can’t accept their word. These accomplishments are a major reason why this country has the wealth it has.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm368-
I didn’t say dick about drudge (I was talking about people like you), so bite me – I shudder in fear for nothing (really, nothing), least of all some righty blogger dork.
Leave it to righty to miss all the facts, take a made-up fact out of context, and try to turn it into an insult to someone else. If you spent half that mental effort reading books and newspapers, you wouldn’t be here showing everyone how much you don’t know.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pmMaybe a bit late to this game, but here is my input. :)
While I am not really worried about the level of human CO2 or other emissions, but I do like the argument, and was hoping, maybe here, I could find a good critic. If you disagree with this argument, please post.
The numbers I look at when I enter this debate are from the 3rd TAR report from the IPCC and from the related papers from the EPA. They are not current to the latest release, since we don’t have anything but the Summary of that one.
First: CO2.
The Pre-Industrial Baseline (PIB) is 288 ppm. Current is 380388 ppm IIRC, but as of the TAR report, concentration was 368.4 ppm.
Natural Additions were 68.5ppm and Human additions were 11.9 ppm
Current percentage of CO2 in the Atmosphere from human activities is 3.2%
The increase of CO2 in the Atmosphere since the PIB is 85.2% Natural, 14.8% Human.
Next: all other gases, relative to CO2
CO2 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1. Where as Methane has a GWP of 21. Nitrous Oxide is 310. From a warming stand point of the minor GH gasses, CO2 garners 72.3% of the effect, Methane has 7.2%, and Nitrous Oxide has 19%. All other gases account for 1.43%
Of the Human Increase or additions to those, after adjusting for GWP, and natural increases, Human contributions account for 2.33% of the GHE from CO2, 1.32% for Methane, and .91% for Nitrous Oxide.
Third: Water Vapor
Now, this is a big miss I think. Water Vapor is the Largest ‘Green House’ Gas. Water Vapor has a GWP of 1, like CO2. It also absorbs the “Black Body†radiation emitted by the earth at the same spectrum as CO2. So, when talking about the Frequency of Absorption from CO2, Water fills in the same spectrum, and should be counted as exactly the same. From an emitted chunk of radiation, it is no different than CO2.
Based on concentrations, and adjusted for GWP, Water Vapor accounts for 95% of the GHE. Carbon Dioxide for 3.6%, Methane for .36%, and Nitrous Oxide for .95%
Human affects on each Gas is broken down like this:
Percentage of GHE from Man Made CO2 Emissions is .117%, Methane is .066%, and Nitrous Oxide is .047%.
Now, I am just not very worried about a .28% change to the atmosphere from 100 years of collected human emissions. Especially since Natural Emissions far out reach the Human Emissions by a factor of 5.
Okay, any arguments? Again, this is from the next to latest IPCC TAR and EPA, not the 2007 version, because it hasn’t been released.
Thanks!
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pmMaybe a bit late to this game. :)
While I am not really worried about the level of human CO2 or other emissions, but I do like the argument, and was hoping, maybe here, I could find a good critic. If you disagree with this argument, please post.
The numbers I look at when I enter this debate are from the 3rd TAR report from the IPCC and from the related papers from the EPA. They are not current to the latest release, since we don’t have anything but the Summary of that one.
First: CO2.
The Pre-Industrial Baseline (PIB) is 288 ppm. Current is 380388 ppm IIRC, but as of the TAR report, concentration was 368.4 ppm.
Natural Additions were 68.5ppm and Human additions were 11.9 ppm
Current percentage of CO2 in the Atmosphere from human activities is 3.2%
The increase of CO2 in the Atmosphere since the PIB is 85.2% Natural, 14.8% Human.
Next: all other gases, relative to CO2
CO2 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1. Where as Methane has a GWP of 21. Nitrous Oxide is 310. From a warming stand point of the minor GH gasses, CO2 garners 72.3% of the effect, Methane has 7.2%, and Nitrous Oxide has 19%. All other gases account for 1.43%
Of the Human Increase or additions to those, after adjusting for GWP, and natural increases, Human contributions account for 2.33% of the GHE from CO2, 1.32% for Methane, and .91% for Nitrous Oxide.
Third: Water Vapor
Now, this is a big miss I think. Water Vapor is the Largest ‘Green House’ Gas. Water Vapor has a GWP of 1, like CO2. It also absorbs the “Black Body†radiation emitted by the earth at the same spectrum as CO2. So, when talking about the Frequency of Absorption from CO2, Water fills in the same spectrum, and should be counted as exactly the same. From an emitted chunk of radiation, it is no different than CO2.
Based on concentrations, and adjusted for GWP, Water Vapor accounts for 95% of the GHE. Carbon Dioxide for 3.6%, Methane for .36%, and Nitrous Oxide for .95%
Human affects on each Gas is broken down like this:
Percentage of GHE from Man Made CO2 Emissions is .117%, Methane is .066%, and Nitrous Oxide is .047%.
Now, I am just not very worried about a .28% change to the atmosphere from 100 years of collected human emissions. Especially since Natural Emissions far out reach the Human Emissions by a factor of 5.
Okay, any arguments? Again, this is from the next to latest IPCC TAR and EPA, not the 2007 version, because it hasn’t been released.
Thanks!
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm372 – they’re still all scientists you nitiwit. I was trying to be all super patriotic like you folks. I figured you wouldn’t understand anything unless it was draped in the stars and stripes. I know how you don’t like foreigners.
We contributed to the development of them all. AND implemented most of them into our industry.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pmGlobal warming theory cannot yet predict current temps based on past measurements. I was right..you don’t understand scientific methodology…because the key point here is that theory and fact can stand in opposition… and theory is only good for as long as it cannot be disproven… sort of like how in the 1970s there was a scientific consenseus that we’d be experiencing another ice age.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm[...] Link [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pmDing ding ding ding ding! We have another McDonalds Talking Point, ladies and gentlemen! The old 1970s ice age is coming meme! You have just proven that Republicans cannot make an argument without resorting to regurgitated pre-packaged debate filler. Wow that didn’t take long.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm[...] ThinkProgress [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pmSo in essence you don’t know what the hell you are arguing. How do you know I don’t like foreigners? I happen to have married a foreigner for pete’s sake. And again, thanks for the 2nd insult…it’s doing wonders for your credibility.
Let’s skip back to the point, since you’ve forgotten what it was. Mr. Gore advocates for the common people a strategy that he cannot himself follow. Hence why he buys offsets. That is called hypocrisy. I or folks at my economic level weren’t born to a Senator..we don’t have the cash to buy offsets…so I guess we’re screwed eh?
February 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pmSorry… must have missed the memo to avoid mentioning what the scientific consensus was a mere 30 years ago.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060906_02/20060906_13.html
Maybe this will help you visualize the issue?
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif
February 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#370
February 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmMany of those items on your list were not ideas of scientists. They were in fact developed by engineers, technicians, and independent inventors. Many of these folks would probably be insulted if they were to be thought of to be scientists.
Sorry for the double post!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#381 – I think you’re refering to my post. It was actually a rebuttal to another that stated all of the inventions were made by American Scientists. I agree 100% with you..inventors and Engineers are not scientists…but I don’t want to confuse the guy with anything other than hard facts…. he appears to have issues with reading comprehension.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pmWhat is extremel interesting and telling is the apparent fact that many of the commentors are glossing over well stated arguments in support of global climate change and Al Gore’s campaign. Again, it is easy to criticize but much harder in being productive and active. Ask yourself, “what have I done to make the world a better place?”.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#383
Oh, my bad.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm379 – Look I’m sorry if I have insulted you or something but the level of this back and forth on this page is childish at best and ‘m playing the game here. I don’t really understand why then you’re not offended by the way Bush speaks to you. He addresses you like you’re retarded.
I haven’t forgotten the point at all – I just think that it’s yet another right-wing distraction. Another rhetorical device to supposedly “trap” liberals into some indefensible corner. And I know you’ll hate this but it’s 100% classic Hannity – very much like the old attempts to paint anyone who disagreed with Iraq policy as supporting Saddam. “Well would you rather have Saddam still in power?” It’s just so weak. I’m not going to give that technique any respect.
I think that you’re looking for an excuse to dismiss what is a lot of evidence and professional opinion. I think that the right wing knows that we are the biggest polluters in the world and if anyone would have to pay to clean it up it would be us. I think that you just don’t want him to be flying around the country giving speeches and increasing awareness so you say he’s a hypocrite for flying. You act as though if there was a green jet he would just continue flying the same way.
And don’t lecture me about hypocrisy. You are no longer in any position to lecture anyone. You’re not in charge anymore. It’s time you listened to other people’s opinions.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.”
You forgot to mention that Gore only switched to Green Power Switch after it was reported that he had opted out of it by the “vast right-wing media”.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmSo what if some weren’t PhD scientists? All of the above used physics, electricity, gravity or some other established science to create it. Why can’t you admit that technology has created some amazing things? Why can’t you give science any respect?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmYou dumb flippin’ retards… mother earth can kick your liberal asses from one ocean to another… there isn’t jack shit wrong with the planet and there sure as hell isn’t any convincing evidence that what were seeing is nothing more than the natural ebb and flow of planet earth.
You liberal nimrods have got your heads so far up your collective ass, you don’t have a clue what natural environmental evolution is all about.
Get and clue… use your heads for something else other than regurgitating Al “chicken little” Gore and his “sky is falling” routine”.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#386 Opinion is not fact. And it is also not a solution (If indeed there is one…or if indeed we are in need of one)
Hannity – sorry, never listened to him and I couldn’t pick him out of a line up if paid to do so… so much for the sterotypes… BTW I’m American Indian…want to stereotype me some more?
Hypocrisy… sorry, fella but I was never in charge in the first place.
The issue here is that Gore and those standing beside him in Hollywood are advocating a path which they themselves cannot follow. That is not leadership at least not as it was taught to me at West Point. (How’s that for another stereo type?…Indian at USMA?
That is specifically why you are seeing people tear into this one… Gore isn’t LEADING he’s lecturing. And until the political left understands this, they won’t get anywhere with this issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmIf you’re poor, and you’re a conservative, you’re on the wrong side – unless you actually prefer poverty
WOW Mark 389 – tell us how you feel about Al Gore, and why.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pmYou should re-read your posts…it was you that postulated that the Political conservatives think that way that you are asserting. No-one on the right made that statement.
The fact is I have tremendous respect for technology and science (It’s how I earn my paycheck) but you are confusing T&S with belief. Is the earth warming? yes…at least as far as our modest quantity of data can tell… is it a product of human action? Regardless of the numbers of scientists saying yes, I think the jury is still out…. simply because the models used to assert this cannot replicate current temps via past data. That means they aren’t accurate..so some folks are advocating spending big $ for what may be a data modeling error.
Never-the-less, I’m a big proponent of Nuclear energy and electric cars etc… Now if old Al wanted to advocate that…and he helped make them affordable, I’d be in support. But telling me what to do, while doing just the opposite isn’t about whether global warming exists or not… it’s about leadership and hypocrisy. The guys has lost all his credibility on the issue right there.
Stop telling me what I need to sacrifice…and do it yourself.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pmComments:
Gore uses solar energy — that wouldn’t apprear on his massive electric bill, duh.
Yes, everyone agrees that some global warming is occurring, what is in contention is the CAUSE, and whether or not such climate variations are cyclic.
How many scientists does one need to quote on global warming? Just the ones who have actual degrees in climatology and are involved in active research in this domain will do for me, thank you. Everyone who works for Lockheed Aircraft does not design plane, nor is every one with a degree in just any “scientific” field qualified to rule on the merits and demerits of the cause of global warming.
BTW, reading the posts, I’ve a question: are there any adult liberals who frequent this site?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pmAccording to?
And I wonder why Liberals are always being accused of class warfare.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmIs Al Gore all that Rush has been talking about this week? How did Al Gore become such a bfd? Does anyone really care that much??????
Going on 400 posts to this thread, while other WAY more important things go ignored.
Hey righties, is this how you support the troops, by bashing on Al Gore, while George Bush sends them off with no training or equipment to get blown up, and cuts VA funding??
you’d think Al Gore was on American Idol, or a dead blonde with massive hooters.
I think he’d better stay out of the US – all these righties sound downright dangerous, and you know they’ve got closets full of guns they fantasize about using…..I dont’ dount that one of them would try to shoot Al. They’ll surely try to kill Obama.
righties are hateful and violent, deep down in the core of their personalities. like pitbulls raised wrong, just waitin for a chance to bite some kids face.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmAn American Indian goes to WP. Wow. So impressed. Dude you joined the very organization which systematically slaughtered your people, stole your land and confined your ancestors to a reservation. LOL. No wonder you’re so confused.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pmSigh. Where to start….
February 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm“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.”
The point is that not everyone can do this. If everyone tried to buy carbon offsets to bring their footprint to zero, there would be none to buy, because the C02 is still being created. It’s like saying everyone should be above average. By definition, it just can’t happen.
And this does make Al look like a hypocrite to the average man or woman. He can try to explain it away, but it comes out sounding like so much selfish dribble. May be right or wrong, but that’s how it is.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmIf you respected science you would be listening to the scientists!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pm[...] and HERE. To their credit, both feature Gore’s response, which ThinkProgress first published HERE. 2:13 pm | [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmAnd I agree with 391. A conservative with no money is a tool. It’s almost as bad as having brown skin and being conservative. Or red skin.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pmBellEdisonWright, you are getting your ignorant tail handed to you by a Poor Conservative. You better stay down before you get embarrassed even more…Turn off your AlGore internet now before you hurt yourself.
LMAO!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pmWell that was predictable…it’s why I threw it out there. And yet oddly I had enough sense to make my own way without letting history determine that I stay on the Rez. No one I served with ever killed any of my ancestors or confined them to a certain stretch of land.
What’s next for a liberal…calling me a race traitor?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pmWho’s ignorant? Gore didn’t invent the internets and he doesn’t claim to. Getting my tail handed to me? According to who? You? ROFL!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pmNot a race traitor, just a tool.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI believe Global Warming is real, that the best scientific evidence backs it up, and I ALSO believe Gore is a fat, pompous lout who thinks conservation is for the poor, because rich people like him “need” all that waste. They “take steps” to reduce their carbon footprint- not real steps, mind you, like live in a normal home, but “steps”. And of course, being rich, they can “buy offsets”.
Rich important people like Gore shouldn’t have to make sacrifices. That’s for the serfs.
And when ice melts and the ocean rises, I’m sure a few of us will be happy to carry Gore on our shoulders, because important people like that shouldn’t get their shoes wet.
And those of us who complain, oh, we’re just “smearing” His Holiness, Saint Gore of the Incandescent Bulb- soon to be a capital offense. Mustn’t ever question what he does, it’s all for our own good.
It’s like the Japanese, who kill whales “for research”. It’s fooling only those people who want to be fooled.
Ben
February 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWell that didn’t take long.
As for respecting scientists by listening to them… I’m quite well educated enough to look at the evidence and make my own decisions…so far, the science is less than compelling. Your argument is an appeal to authority… also known as a logical fallacy.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmtom,
Please stay on topic. This is not a story about George Bush, military training or equipment and it’s not about anna nicole smith.
This is a story about algore and his utter hypocrisy.
Again, please stay on topic. And if you choose to continue making personal insults, you will not be taken seriously.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmTo Josh @ 374 & 375 ;)
You say
but this is where your figures start to go wrong. These percentages (if I remember correctly) are the proportions of carbon dioxide emitted during any current time frame. So roughly speaking mankind’s production of CO2 is about one-sixth that of the natural world. However, this does not mean that only one-sixth of the increase since PIB should be attributed to human activity, since prior to that point, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in balance, and naturally emitted CO2 was also naturally absorbed. The problem is that the extra CO2 from our activities is not all being absorbed and so is driving up the CO2 levels. So the increase is 100% human created, not 14%.
You then go wrong is assuming that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is all bad. Not a bit of it. We are comfortably adapted to the pre-industrial greenhouse effect. It’s the change that’s the problem. Expressing our effect as a percentage of the total effect is meaningless. Changing the effect, and especially increasing the energy levels that drive the weather, is a huge experiment to take with the only planet we know how to live on.
Water vapour has a relatively short dwell time in the atmosphere and quickly balances out to equilibrium, without the cumulative effect we’re still seeing with CO2.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pmI like it warm
February 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmSure wish it was warm down here
February 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pmTipper looks like she could keep a fellar warm
February 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pmHow can people who follow global warming simply give this guy a ‘pass’ on his carbon footprint?! Apparently, the official response is that Gore has purchased carbon credits, etc.
It’s official now, the Greens have started their own religion. Like Pope Urban selling dispensations to the sinners of the Middle Ages, the Greens now offer their own dispensations.
If one has the money, one can pollute at one’s leisure and not feel any guilt. Ironically, Gore doesn’t pay for his own carbon credits. Paramount handled that for him last year. How convenient.
How can anyone listen to this man?! He produces hundreds of times more carbon than the average American (and we use way more energy than others in the world).
Carbon credits, solar panels, and flourecent lighting do not make up for this fact. Gore needs to set an example. He should be teleconferencing instead of taking a private jet to shake some hands. He should be living in one house, not three. His house should be reasonably sized. I’ll leave it to the Greens to determine the proper square footage. Certainly 10,000 square feet seems a bit excessive. A pool house with heated pool seems excessive.
In short, put your money where your mouth is before telling me I need to cut down my energy use. I drive a small car, live in a small house, and I don’t fly. I rarely take trips longer than 50 miles. Compared to Mr. Gore I’m a saint of ecology.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pmKrispe Kremes are good warm
February 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pmThere is a huge difference in telling and demonstrating a truth and selling ya’ some shit.
I have been in the presence of Al Gore in political functions and also in more relaxed literary and functional intellect sessions. He is a little stiff as a politician but comes alive when discussing and exchanging ideas or illustrating a point.
We have seen our government being run like a business. Run like ENRON to be exact. We are witnessing the outcome of that in the conflict for profit that is now in play.
I am quite pleased that Al was able to demonstrate his walk as he teaches his talk.
All teachers, idealist, dreamers and may either be teachers or they may be over the top con men. I prefer teachers.
LB
February 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI wish my toes were warm
February 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pmWow, what a great hate fest from both sides. None of you know or will ever fathom the power of mother nature created by God himself. I would bet my last dollar that the same people that are ardent believers in the religion of global warming are also ardent believers in the religion of Darwinism. Both are theories and are not proven no matter how much you want to blather on about it. God himself will decide all of your fate. I for one will call myself a Christian, (now one of the most hated and reviled group of people in the world) until the day I die. I put my trust in him and not a bunch of people whose only purpose in life is to deny him. Just give in and experience the relief!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pmif this whole circus is any indication, Gore will definitely be the next President.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pmGlobal Warting
FLASH: More than quarter of U.S. women ages 14-59 infected with sexually transmitted human papillomavirus… Developing…
February 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pmGore accomplishes exactly what he sets out too. Liberals never really give a rat’s ass about the causes they preach. It’s all about being invited to fancy parties where groups of liberals smell each other’s flatulence and passive aggressively compete for who is the most “compassionate” while they sip expensive champagne.
But poor Al may have been caught in his own trap. While he wants the “peasants†to use less energy, he wants to lord over us as our better and direct our poor misguided lives. Alas, might he have to live in a normal home? Might he have to practice what he preaches? Never. He is our “better†and he can only direct our pitiful lives from on high if he is exempt from his own blowhard agenda. How dare we point out his hypocrisy.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThe warts could melt the polar ice lips
February 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pmReal Issues:
Just heard she’s gone back into rehab. Pray for the babe. This is a tough business when you have a down period – she sometimes has over one hundred cars following her, every one with a camera geek in it.
- Pete Townshend on Britney Spears (figuratively speaking)
February 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pmDave @ 416
Yes, I’m one of the “ardent believers in the religion of global warming” and also the “ardent believers in the religion of Darwinism”. These beliefs of mine arise from being an ardent believer in reality.
Neither climate change nor evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Maybe with your version of it – but not with the whole Church.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pmJoffan at 408:
No.
There has been an increase from 288 to 368 ppm of CO2. Of that, Human Production accounts for 15%, or 11.9.
That doesn’t account for absorbtion.
Human CO2 output total is 3.2%. From all sources, and all changes to the world’s absorbtion dynamic.
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pmNow This is Hot:
Free the Chippendales Eight! A Texas prosecutor has decided not to press charges against a cadre of male adult dancers who were busted earlier this month at a Lubbock sports bar for dancing suggestively in front of 1100 female fans.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pmI’m done with this nonsense. It’s a waste of time trying to debate people who will never ever admit to anything. I will you leave you with this for the right-wingers here:
It’s over.
It’s over for you and your Republican bullshit. You have lost and will continue to lose because you refuse to agree with anyone but yourselves and you refuse to acknowledge fact and evidence. You had total control of all branches of govt and you blew it. You let Osama get away, you let New Orleans drown and you screwed up Iraq royally. No one is listening to your howls of outrage anymore because you have no position of strength anymore. Your predictions have been disproven by actual events on the ground, thus making any predictions you now have worthless.
We will no longer be lectured to by utter failures such as yourselves. We don’t give a crap about your whining about hypocrisy because you are the embodiement of it. You cry on and on about arrogance and elitism when you are the best example possible. You repeat your Happy Meal talking points over and over in place of real argument.
You exalt stupidity as some kind of folksiness or authenticity. You are dumb, conceited, mean-spirited, crass, greedy, selfish, willfully ignorant and above all childish.
You are an embarrassment to the rest of us. And I don’t give a shit what you write after I post this because you are now irrelevant. Kiss off, Fascists!.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pmThe Incovenient Vegetable:
The Villanova heiress accused of roughing up her housekeeper with a bag of carrots, among other things, was sentenced to one-year probation plus $2,800 in fines, mandatory anger-management classes and community service yesterday on charges of criminal mischief and harassment.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pmI’m feelin’ hot, hot, hot
February 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pmdoo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
hot, hot, hot
Josh @ 423:
CO2 was stable prior to the industrial revolution. No increase in natural CO2 emission has occurred. We are responsible for the entire increase.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pmHot on the Floor:
The Dow Jones industrial average is down more than 500 points with about an hour of trading left today. The Nasdaq Composite is off more than 100
February 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pmWow this website is even angrier than Drudge! This is the liberal equivalent of in-your-face down-your-throat right-wing Christian groupthink! Woohoo way to go you fucking losers.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThe Dow is free fallin’, do do, free fallin’
February 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pmInvestment Opportunity:
1-1000 acres of land in the lovely State of West Virginia. Feel free from terrorist, flooding, and be closer to the heavens.
Investment Suggestion:
Go short on Florida land.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pmWell that’s telling everybody! Good to know that fascism has a lot to do with Global warming. If we’re all so irrelevant, why are you so upset? Something makes me doubt the truth of that statement…heh.
I think what you really mean to say is that it’s tough for you to actually address the issue at hand (Gore’s inability to live by a standard he advocates for everyone else). Why don’t you just say that? Is it because you don’t think he should have to live by that standard or because you agree but it just hurts you too much personally to say that a Conservative might just have a point?
Or do you think it’s irrelavant? Doesn’t matter what Gore does… and if THAT’s true…then why is it important for me to care about?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pmConsumers Feeling Warm:
Consumer confidence rose to its highest level in five-and-a-half years amid optimism that the nation’s economy is creating enough jobs, a private research group said Tuesday
February 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pm#428 Joffan. Mars is temp is also increasing…how do you account for that? Solar activity? and if that’s true…is it possible that increased solar activity is affecting Earths temps? What do you propose we do about it?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pmReal Estate Market Warming:
Sales of existing homes rose in January by the largest amount in two years, raising hopes that the worst of the severe slump in housing may be coming to an end. Median home prices, however, fell for a sixth straight month.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pmRemember when fascism was fabulous?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pmMars is warming….cool
February 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pmIs there still a Mars candy bar?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pmPrince not warm over two all beef paties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun:
Prince Charles today said banning McDonald’s fast food was the key to a healthy lifestyle.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pmA warm ending:
A grossly overweight eight-year-old boy who weighs four times the healthy weight of a child his age has been allowed by Social Services to stay with his family.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pmTotal Hypocrisy
I can’t believe that you lefties are so gullible as to listen to Gore ask you to turn down your thermostat 2 degrees when he is using the energy of 20 people. And buying carbon offsets is total BS – Just use less energy Al! Maybe cutting it down to 10 times of the average consumer wouldn’t be too much of a burden on you!
People who genuinely believe in a cause are willing to make the sacrifice to do their part. Gore is a fake.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pmPoor Conservative @ 434
There’s no evidence of global warming on Mars. See here for a full explanation.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pmHot Indians:
“I’LL tell you one thing I’m not going to do is, I’m not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world’s air, like the Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty.” So said the then presidential hopeful, George W. Bush, in October 2000, to Al Gore, in a televised debate. Al Gore could have responded, “I am sure you would be happy to let the United States carry the responsibility for polluting the world’s air the most.” He did not, being the other presidential hopeful.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pmDear Right-Wing:
Your fear is showing.
Best.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pmMe.
#366
Why are you suddenly talking about House Speaker Pelosi and the Iraq failure? What’s with the baseless ad hominem attacks? Did I criticize you or your fragile hero?
It’s easy to accuse some anonymous poster of using talking points, but does it have any validity? Surely you have a link to said talking points. Where in these talking points does it bring up James Hansen or the Discovery Channel program? I’m going to squirt beer through my nose if I see a right wing website mentioning either of these in talking points. That would be similar to Nancy Pelosi using PNAC findings to back up her stance on the Iraq war.
And it’s interesting that you accuse me of strangling debate when you resort to these argumentum ad personam attacks. Are you suggesting that is a more effective debating tactic? I can play that, too, but I try not to insult children.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pmKatie is Luke Warm:
EVENING NEWS RACE
LAST WEEK/VIEWERS
ABC 9,380,000
February 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pmNBC 9,070,000
CBS 6,910,000
Getting Hotter in Durham:
New motions have been filed in the Duke Lacrosse sex assault case.
Defense attorneys for Collin Finnery, Reade Seligmann and David Evans filed the 39-page motion at the Durham Courthouse Tuesday morning.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIn it defense attorneys for the three former Duke Lacrosse players say potentially-explosive DNA evidence is still withheld.
Pelosi is hot, hot, not
February 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOkay, riddle me this. . I CO2 gasses are so bad for the environment why were India, China and Brazil excluded from the Kyroto agreement. These three countries are experiencing huge industrial expansion increasing CO2 output. I CO2 is such a problem I would think that the whole world should be included in capping CO2 emission.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pmDow down 500….run for the hills
February 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pmMight be a good time to buy TN utility stocks
February 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pmHas anyone ever considered giving Beano to cows? Just a thought.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pmGlobal Warming is a conspiracy perpetrated by politically correct people who want the Black Man to feel better about his future on this planet. Only Blacks will be able to live in a warmer climate. Therefore, the politically correct scientists want people to believe the planet will get warmer, that way, Blacks believe that they will prosper in the future. The reality is, of course, that Blacks won’t prosper in the future because they are lazy and good for nothing (except dribbling a basketball). White people will always control the pkanet. When we people realize this and see the agenda behind so-called Global Warming?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pmQuite simply, they were excuded due to racism! Western values! I mean, they were excluded because they refused to be included.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pmDo any of you have lives? Especially BELLEDISONWRIGHT. Do you have a job? Or do you just type away on this blog all day? Who pissed in your wheaties today?
Can’t you just recognize the fact that Al Gore is a hypocrite? His message is great. Green energy is good for public health and the environment. But he doesn’t even follow his own words. Are you so blind to this fact just because you are a flaming liberal? Can you even admit that a liberal is wrong?
You criticize everyone on this blog for their education. Your elitist liberal attitude is why Democrats hate being labeled “liberal”. I would venture to say you are either an undergrad at some east or west coast university or some loser that works in a coffee shop. Either way, reading a liberal blog everyday does not make you intelligent. It makes you an idiot that get his news from a slanted news source. Sad…
February 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pmHey, ixney on the onspiracey (I don’t speaka da pig so well)
February 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBut, seriously, let’s all not forget that Brittney is just beginning a long and hard process.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pmRussell, you just defeated your whole argument. Coffee is hot! That will teach you!
February 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pmbad day for the 401 klimate change
February 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pmPutting aside just for a second the science ‘debate’ (and last I heard, science is not a ‘debate’, it’s repeatable tests of hypothesis… maybe my pre-NCLB education included science without debate whereas now it does,) I want to say, class warfare much, republicans? Anyone else somewhat amused at the new found care about the plight of the poor, where crocodile tears are shed for those who “can’t afford Al Gore’s lofty environmentalist dreams,” but yet somehow the poor can afford a murderous bankruptcy bill, insane fuel costs, and rapidly ascending healthcare costs in a broken private system -things I don’t believe I’ve heard Drudge and anti-Al Gore crowd speak as passionately too The selective “populism†is well, intriguing. Oh what, now we are allowed to criticize Gore’s financial success, repubs?… is that what you’re saying? Damn, one moment you folks are mocking the Carter sweater speech, next you are peeing yourselves over the size of a house of another Dem?
I’ve been listening for years to the sad “private jet†canard used to white wash the entirety of an idea they don’t like. To the guy who drives short distances… well congrats that you don’t leave out your 50 mile travel radius. Some folks don’t have that choice. The point isn’t just your single anecdotal lifestyle, it’s the lifestyle of MILLIONS of cars and homes and energy users and emission sources.
And look repubs, no one’s putting a gun to your head. GW folks are trying to throw out an idea and frankly the only pants pissing I’ve been seeing over it is coming from the right. Longer lasting efficient light bulbs? Oh the horror! US car companies kicking everyone’s ass in fuel efficiency and low-to-no emissions? That’s like killing baby kitties!!! Maybe not pay so much for a fuel source that is renewable? Were you sent by the devil!?!?!
Also, should the former vice president DRIVE cross country? Should his Secret Service detail ride bikes? And even when, say Gore finished creating the perpetual motion clean engine that actually absorbs all CO2 and runs on happiness (because YOU repubs think HE thinks he invents things), I’m sure some of you folks will find some other inane thing to try to invalidate his ideas with.
Afraid the guy might run much?
Also, interesting that a once little known tax protest-based TN site suddenly is gifted with having the “scoop of the century…†Wow, suddenly environmental issues fall in the tax category (yeah, they can, but I don’t see a lot of other stories about the environment on that site) A little bit of the ol’ repub manufactured outrage?… a canard well-timed to a probable Gore Oscar win?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pmAl looked Hot in that Tux…mmmm
February 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pmHey Russell, never found a funnier interweb phenom than when someone tells some one else to get a life/job/mate for posting something online… BY POSTING IT ONLINE.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pmI think we should have a whole new thread about how Righty has gone wild for Al Gore. I’ve never seen such a thing! I’d like to hear some theories as to how/why Gore, of all people, is such a irresistible lure to Righty’s attention. The intensity is really off the charts.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pmI bet there was a redneck, uneducated conservative living next door to Al in a trailer and he ran an extension cord over to his hot tub and has been the king of trailer trash for the past two years at Al’s expense. Hopefully, a daring reporter will look into this.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pmDown with Whitey
Down with Righty
Dive an e-car
get and Oscar
(I’m white and bad at the rap thang)
February 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pmRaw and Exposed:
Righties gone wild!
Exclusive video of the GOP exposing it all. You won’t believe your eyes. You’ve never seen fat, white men like this.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pmCan someone sell me a credit for the one I just ripped?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pmKeep’em comin’ Tardd!!
I like fun!
heckuva job!
February 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pmDow rallies back to close down 400.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pmrpppolyp, as I logged back on to see what funny responses I found to my comment, I ran across your posting. If you read earlier postings, some of these people have about 20 comments. I, on the other hand, awoke at the butt crack of dawn to study more for the finals I took today in graduate school. You almost caught me with your Serbian-Jew double cross. Not gonna work this time my flaming liberal friend. Not gonna work. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to go do something productive, like trying to get laid. I wouldn’t want to turn into you.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pmCan we all agree that a $100K in the freezer is a enery credit derivative? (I am assuming the freezer was not plugged in.)
February 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pmYou all have fun. And don’t pick on poor Al. The poor man was rasied in a hotel. Let him enjoy the benfits of his hard work. Well, your hard work. It really doesn’t matter whose work, but that he cares about us. So, please give the big lovable bear a chance. Or not.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pmrpppolyp, you are totally missing the point. It isn’t that ‘Rightys’ are suddenly anti-big mansion or even anti conservation. We are just tired of hearing politicians and celebrities essentially saying ‘Do what I say, not what I do’. Of course Al Gore is going to use more energy than the average Joe because he is rich and powerful and has places to go – that in itself is not a sin. But you must admit that he has a lot of gall asking us peons to save a thimble-full of energy when he is pouring out the energy with a fire hose.
Find a spokesperson that makes a reasonable effort to make personal sacrifices to save the planet and more people will listen.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pmI make sacrifices. I gave up fudge for a week!
February 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pmJoffan:
Actually CO2 levels have not been stable. There are samples that run CO2 levels to be between 225 range to the 550 range in the past 200 years, from samples taken from lakes, sediment and matter in riverbed, layers from items in the oceans.
Also, if not for human activity, your still looking at CO2 levels raising from 288 ppm to 356 ppm.
Even if it was all from human activities, it is still completely insignificant when water vapor is added in.
Though I have to say, you one of the first to comeback and argue with me on these! Thanks! Please keep it up.
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWear a condom, Russell:
FLASH: More than quarter of U.S. women ages 14-59 infected with sexually transmitted human papillomavirus… Developing…
February 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pmYou think maybe Tipper should consider rechargable batteries?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI can’t say it loud enough: global warting is real!
February 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm[...] [Update: I was right about Gore and offsets] [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 4:20 pmI would pay for a few credits to see Al on a bike.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pmTodd needs to get a life…D’oh!
February 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThere is no global warming…but there is galaxy warming. We have a metric. Actually metrics.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pmAl Gore got fat.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThe main problem I have with the global warming/climate change debate is that fact that most ignore the big hot ball in the sky. It would seem that the sun might have something to do with the cyclical nature of the planet’s warming and cooling trends.
*sigh*
February 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint”
This is like putting the Earth and gold into the scale. How does it help our planet if you pay the money and continue polluting? What if everyone did that? That’s just hypocrisy at its best.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pmThe Gore envirofascists wanted just 5 credible “global warming” skeptics. How about 17,000?
—————-
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p725.htm
”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”
…..a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract – written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen – concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ”consensus” on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.
—————-
“Scientific truth is not determined by consensus. In science the majority can be, and often have been, wrong.”
February 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThe humble termite. Because of their diet and digestive processes (with more than the usual microbial assistance), they produce as much methane as human industry. Termite farts are believed to be a major contributor towards global warming. Soldier termites can actually turn themselves into bombs by detonating themselves via the explosive release of gas and feces, a process called “autothysis.”
February 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pmAny chance that the global climate is like everything else on earth and in life? it goes in cycles? Trust me, when the sun goes down tonight and it gets dark and cold outside- it’s not another ice age.
Here’s a great article from 1975 about the threat of another ice age happening by 1985!
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
February 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pmIt’s all good!
Meet the chemical buffer.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pmsomehow Al Gore has prompted a mass hysteria event – this is really remarkable. good for him.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pmAny chance that the global climate is like everything else on earth and in life? it goes in cycles? Trust me, when the sun goes down tonight and it gets dark and cold outside- it’s not another ice age.
Here’s a great article from 1975 about the threat of another ice age happening by 1985!
Is it really that hard to read the words of people that dont already agree with you? Is it really that hard to watch An Inconvenient Truth? Is it really that hard to read the posts on here?
All three sources above have tried to explain to you people that we ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THE NATURE CYCLES. We are NOT talking about the natural cycles. We are talking about taking a nature cycle and pushing it OUT OF CYCLE…. this is what happens when you put TOO MUCH of a chemical into a chemical reaction and it goes haywire out of balance…. THAT is the point. The #s are in. CO2 is being pushed up far above its normal cycle…. so that means that non-normal results are now occuring and they are going to only get more our of balance the more we do this. AND THEN there will be the eventual equal and opposite reaction where nature goes the OTHER DIRECTION in the cycle and we get a huge ice age to counter balance the huge increase in a heated earth due to the over abundance of CO2.
If all that was too hard for you just watch the video An Inconvenient Truth. That shows a BIG picture of this data charted out for you to see.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pmMeet the chemical buffer.
Comment by Roger
Once again you have tricked yourself. The paper does not say you can increase CO2 quickly and all is “OK”. The link you provided (which apprently you did not read) clearly says that slow changes over a period of thousands of years gets balanced out by nature.
We are NOT talking about slow changes of thousands of years. The CO2 spike has occured in a period of just 50 years….
What normally takes 10-20 THOUSAND years has been done in 50… Get the point yet?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pmHERE IS SOMETHING NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND:
Al Gore is getting a lot of slack for promoting carbon offsets. While I see the immediate reaction is understandable, if you can get past the initial shock it actually makes a great deal of sense. As there are not any alternative green sources of energy available to the public (and by that I mean alternative sources to major pollutants such as gasoline and power consumption) after taking individual pains in reducing energy consumption, buying credits is basically an alternative means to buying greener sources of energy. Those sources are not available on the market as a choice in energy source, so when someone buys a carbon offset, they are essentially investing money in a green alternative energy source, such as windmall energy. Long term, this will eventually build up a green economy, which is what is needed, making environmentally conscious alternative sources of energy a profitable market to encourage money and growth. People really need to get beyond the initial shock and realize that the much of the negative press associated with carbon offsets is stemming from the individuals who see it as a threat to conventional energy currently on the market and from the extremists who do not view global climate change as an issue. It is not just a “rich man buying credits so he can use excessive power”. It is a way in bringing money and investors into a field that needs competition and economic means for progress and succes. For a blog titled “ThinkProgress”, a lot of people aren’t actually thinking. Think, don’t react. =)
February 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pmGotta go – I’m digging a bomb….uh global warming shelter in my backyard….
February 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pmComment by spiritualized
No we did NOT want a list of non climotogists. We wanted EVIDENCE that shows the climotogists are wrong. List of names of christian scientists that dont study the subject is meaningless. Where are the STUDIES? The NUMBERS? The charts and graphs? Where is the explaination how the EVIDENCE undermines the climotogists?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThis is like putting the Earth and gold into the scale. How does it help our planet if you pay the money and continue polluting? What if everyone did that? That’s just hypocrisy at its best.
Comment by Mikko
Cant you people read? Did you bother even trying? I did. The money that is paid by people like Gore goes to making wind farms and other renewable non Saudi terrorist oil energy production. And what id everyone DID do that? Then the energy production of America would be totally converted over to non Saudi terrorist oil energy production…. dont you people ever get embarressed of looking stupid?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pmeventual equal and opposite reaction No can do. There is
LE CHATELIER’S PRINCIPLE. There is entropy and there are chemical buffers (See 488) and there are plants.
There will be no ice age unless the sun becomes less radiant.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pmShoot the messenger, morons. The source for Gore’s wasteful energy usesage was The Tennessean acquired from Nashville Electric Service.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pmThe main problem I have with the global warming/climate change debate is that fact that most ignore the big hot ball in the sky. It would seem that the sun might have something to do with the cyclical nature of the planet’s warming and cooling trends.
*sigh*
Comment by SkumChiken
No one really cares about your unscientific hunches or gut feelings. The scientists that work in this field HAVE studied the sun and everything else to do with earth climotology in FAR greater detail than you have and they STILL say you are wrong and Gore is getting his info from them…. but if you want to continue to think scientists are heretics and the world is flat then by all means embarress yourself.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pmI guess Gore’s “carbon footprint” is allowed to exceed that of the common folk. Walk the walk Gore, or be content with the label of bigot.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:03 pmComment by Gerald Gibson Jr — February 27, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Apparently not, just ask Todd and Roger. It seems they don’t have jobs either, so they can waste their days online. Good for them.
It’s funny that people have the nerve to criticize someone who has done more for the world in one day then most of them will ever do in their lifetime. Yet they know everything and they’re so smart. Denial is a glacier floating in the river in your backyards.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm491. Gerald Gibson Jr
The rate limiting step is not the ocean’s calcium carbonate buffer[it is a very fast buffer] There are no chemical kinetic arguments on the link other than that it[calcium carbonate buffer] has successfully buffered everything thrown at it.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThere will be no ice age unless the sun becomes less radiant.
Comment by Roger
There was a mild little ice age just from the 1500s-1800s THEN a volcanoe errupted in south east asia and that pushed the world over the edge until even here in America we had the year with no summer. Think about that. A year where no crops could be grown. And that was just from a small ice age + a volcanoe… and we are producing huge amounts of CO2 … we are poised for a disaster… but that is what you republicans thrive on… taking action AFTER it is too late.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pmit[calcium carbonate buffer] has successfully buffered everything thrown at it.
Comment by Roger
Over a period of thousands of years… no data on what happens when the same CO2 is thrown at it in a 50 year period. So you cannot draw any conclusions from it unless you are trying to be dishonest.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pmI guess Gore’s “carbon footprint†is allowed to exceed that of the common folk. Walk the walk Gore, or be content with the label of bigot.
Comment by Max W
So you are PRO COMMUNISM?
February 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pmGobal warming is happening the question is is man responsible. The problem in defining whether or not man is the cause the the people putting the report are a political group. You don’t think the UN is a policial group? Get real. These people are driven by agenda’s just as much as the oil company funded people. If there is a model out there what is the impact on the climate if we do meet the Kyoto agreement? Also, I am willing to bet that even if all the rest of the world can met these targets it will be off set by what China, India and Brazil will be giving off due to their industrial expansion.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pmAnd yet, you still came back to post Russell… just saying… can’t get laid responding to someone elses flip response and clicking your mouse. You seem to be fascinated with getting laid… hey, good luck on it mate, just remember, “no means no,” even if your partner is inflatable, and I echo Todd’s sentiment if some poor real willing female pudendum crosses your path, please suit up for her’s and society’s sake.
Serbian-Jew double cross: Huzzah, a South Park fan… good on ‘yer.
Oh but frankly could not give a dripping crap what you do… and yet I post commenting on your post!?!?! A paradox… Oh, and flaming? Shouldn’t you use the term: ‘fabulous’
February 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pmEven IF Al Gore’s home consumption of energy is what Drew Johnson and his crew claim…BFD!! So, this pissant point somehow negates the reality of global warming and climate change!!!
Gore is a leader. Period.
He’s brought and is bringing much needed attention to this issue. Regressives like Johnson are, in my opinion and at this moment, simply immoral. To distract attention from what needs to be done to even see if the people of this planet can save its ecosystems for the ultimate sustenance of our own species is something for which that man and his ilk ought to be ashamed!
I really, honestly don’t get the right’s attitude about all of this. For them, this seems to be a political matter — like if they can convince enough Americans that global warming, climate change, and the steps that need to be taken to try to reverse what’s going on are not that important (or even necessary at all), then somehow they will have won some great victory. It’s profoundly disturbing and sick.
Besides…
We know there is a scientific consensus on this issue. But let’s assume for a second that even this overwhelming agreement may be in error. So, which choice would you want to make:
a) take the recommended actions to try to stop or reverse the damage being done, or
b) just keep doing what we’re doing, with little care about the consequences, believing, for example, what U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said this past January at the inaugural meeting of Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate:
“I believe that the people who run the private sector, who run these companies; they too have children, they too have grandchildren, they too live and breathe in the world, and they would like things dealt with effectively.
“It’s really going to be the private sector, the companies… that are ultimately going to be the solvers of this problem.”
Really?
And is Mr. Bodman thinking, as a BBC Radio 4 report recently suggested, of corporations like Enron, Arthur Andersen, or WorldCom?
Okay, and then we get 50 years down the line and discover, holy geeeeeeez, the science was right; global warming and climate change is real!! What will the naysayers say to their children then, when action may do little or no good (some believe we have already passed the tipping point.
Frankly, Drew Johnson’s is the kinda crap that makes me feel like there may not be any hope for human beings. History is replete with examples of twisted ideologies being able to hoodwink large numbers of people, getting them to act in ways that are entirely contrary to their own, best interests.
Johnson and his ilk ought now to be buried in an avalanche of facts and appropriate responses.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pmComment by Ray
The level of CO2 is NOT in question. If you think the scientists are wrong about WHERE the CO2 came from then go out and do studys on where you think this CO2 source is and show us all what you found. The scientists have already done this and calculated that the CO2 is coming from our industrialized technology societies….
February 27th, 2007 at 5:19 pm475 was wrong- 2000 years, not 200! My mistake.
Also, Joffen, I realize I wasn’t clear: The rise in CO2 levels has NOT all been human. That is a common mis-thought, but in fact we have onyl attributed tot he amounts I listed.
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pmFirst of all, I should probably let everyone know that I really strongly dislike Al Gore and have since he was a U.S. Senator. That said, I find it interesting that all of the supposed scientists that disagree with the consensus view that global warming is happening are either (1) funded by the fossil fuel and/or forest products industries (such as the American Enterprise Institute, which has some really ridiculous positions on public policy issues, including the idea that corporations should not be subject to any environmental regulation and should not voluntarily engage in good corporate citizenship); (2) refuse to reveal where their funding comes from; (3) have some personal axe to grind (Dr. Gray, a climatologist whose funding was cut because he refused to use or trust any computer models); or (4) are really out on the conservative fringe.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which Spiritualized referenced is such a fringe group. The Institute’s website lists six researchers on staff, two of which are dead, most of which are computer scientists, and none of which are climatologists. The Institute’s founder, Arthur Robinson, has stated, among other things, that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”. He is also an avowed creationist (he doesn’t believe in evolution at all). Nope, he’s NOT on the fringe of science at all…judge for yourself.
Oh, in addition, the petition that Spiritualized referenced was circulate din 1998, before most of the evidence that we have today existed. Even then, it was basically a scam. Here is the press release from the National Academy of Sciences regarding the petition:
“The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal,” it stated in a news release. “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”
Also, basically anyone could (and did) sign the petition; it was not restricted to scientists, much less climatologists. Among the signatories were Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue. When pressed about the signatories of the petition in 1998, Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.” This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science – such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology – and almost none were climate specialists.
When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of “Dr. Red Wine,” and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell’s field of scientific specialization was listed as “biology.” Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
Such is the “science†of the conservative right that refuses to believe in global warming.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pmWho cares what measures or carbon credits Gore has utilized to reduce his carbon footprint? It’s still huge and he obviously enjoys living in obscene wealth. How many other people(servants aside) live in the mansion with him and Tipper? I think it’s probably zero. Rather than merely attempting to compensate for his outrageous energy consumption, Gore could certainly tone down his lifestyle a bit to actually make a difference.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pmWho cares what measures or carbon credits Gore has utilized to reduce his carbon footprint? It’s still huge and he obviously enjoys living in obscene wealth. How many other people(servants aside) live in the mansion with him and Tipper? I think it’s probably zero. Rather than merely attempting to compensate for his outrageous energy consumption, Gore could certainly tone down his lifestyle a bit to actually make a difference.
Comment by oswald
So you are PRO COMMUNISM?
How about you start bitching at the people that have obscene wealth and are NOT even trying to do anything? Because you are a two faced hack maybe?
February 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pmPlease Gerald Gibson Jr, there were many 50 year periods in the 20,000+ years.
And take dissolve CaO in water and pump in CO2 and watch it precipitate Calcite immediately.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020412080812.htm
Throw in some magnesium and it’ll go faster as it makes dolomite.
Btw, these guys will gladly get paid to do what the oceans and plants do naturally:-)
You probably don’t get the irony there, do you?
February 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pmAnd take dissolve CaO in water and pump in CO2 and watch it precipitate Calcite immediately.
And then pump in 10 times more CO2 than the CaO can handle and then what happens? Ya I thought so. It is chemistry 101. You have to put the right amounts of chemicals together or else the reaction gets buried under the over abundance of one chemical.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pmComment by Roger —
This link you provided: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020412080812.htm
is really cool. After watching a history channel show the other day I look up some info and came up with this exact same idea. It is cool they are already working on it. It is not a good idea to pump all that CO2 into the ground for obvious reasons (earthquake release it all in one day into the atmosphere == real real bad) but to turn it into a solid is a good idea.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmComment by Poor Conservative
So you are a science denier?
Trying to comparer religion and science?
Is the world flat also?
February 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pm(This is really fun – say “Al Gore†and they positively turn circles….it’s like putting food in a fishtank)
al gore!
al gore!
(now watch….see what happens)
February 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pmKinda funny how it took years for the world to finally recognize the potential harm of CFCs on the ozone, despite a scientific consensus that 1) the hole was caused by the use of CFCs and
2)Banning them would be the best way to stop the ever growing hole in the ozone layer.
Sometime the truth is unpleasant, and sometimes, scientific consensus is ignored while significant damage is done. Can’t we just learn our lesson? Don’t do it for the environment, do it for the sheer fact that oil will ultimately run out, and renewable energy will make us less involved in the most dangerous areas of the world.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pmfree wii points from amazon http://sternclips.blogspot.com/2007/02/free-wii-points-via-amazon.html
February 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pmVP Gore has come up with another method to reduce emissions that Drudge can never accomplish.
http://tommason.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!49EE332ACF0CD87C!1120.entry
February 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pmGerald Gibson Jr, I agree. And you’re right it shouldn’t be just put into the ground. Green houses for one can use it. And it could be a precursor in using diesel fuel producing algae to produce the cleanest form of diesel; no lead or other crud from sitting in sedimentation for millions of years.
If you pump ten times more in it would start to dissolve and make carbonic acid. That is in a closed thermodynamic system. We aren’t anywhere near approaching that level and there are many other factors yet alone the complexity of open thermodynamic systems where can’t yet take everything into account in our models.
Btw, I am very much interested in taking care of the environment. I just see CO2 as the least of our problems [actually consider CO2 as good] and smarter ideas are required for the future in the sciences to reduce wastes even more. The folks who figured out how to make a thinner aluminum can made a major contribution for example. And thin plastic equipment for dental/health care systems. It would be nice to apply reusables such as glass containers etc. but then we risk contamination across patients.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:03 pmJosh @ 475/509
The best evidence on CO2 levels is from ice cores. Why is this best? Because it avoids interference from a lot of biological activity.
I haven’t seen your 2000-year evidence for levels of up to 550ppm. I have seen the ice core data in overlapping sections back to almost a million years ago; more compressed further back of course, but pretty detailed back for a few thousand years. The top CO2 value in that million-year spread was around the base figure we started from, about 280ppm. The low fgiure was about 180ppm. The variations in the last 2000years (prior to about 1800) of general atmospheric CO2 have been very small indeed, about +/- 5ppm prior to 1800. A one-thousand year view is here.
The rise cannot be partitioned as you suggest, precisely because of the prior stability. The only thing that has changed between the stable past and the rapidly increasing CO2 levels today is the wholescale emission of CO2 by man. It’s not really decisive whether in any one year we contribute 5% or 50% of the gases – what’s critical is that the rest of the biosphere can’t absorb it.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmHere’s that ice core data graphically
February 27th, 2007 at 6:08 pmTry the decaf Gerry. We’re talking about Gore here, correct? What this has to do with communism, I don’t know. Did I say the government should take Gore’s resources away? But I guess it is hacks like you who insist on setting up strawmen. Try to focus here, Gerry….
-Gore makes film with breathy asides on how dificult it is to have the fate of civilization on his shoulders.
-Gore implores everyone to get involved and do their part in reducing energy consumption and air pollution.
-Gore shares 20 room, 8 bedroom mansion with guest house and pool with his wife, consuming obscene amounts of energy in the process.
Gore has made tens of millions of dollars since leaving office; and continues to do so through investment banking and media. Purchasing a few energy efficient lightbulbs and carbon credits are not much of a sacrifice.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:13 pmA sience denier? No I just ask for replicatable modeling.. currently that can’t be done… which leads me to question the current modeling…and it’s outcome.
No I’m comparing your quote to the religious fervor you share for this subject.
No the world is not flat, but the consensus that is so widely toughted today also held that it WAS indeed flat. That’s the best indication you should have that simply because a bunch of people believe something does not make it so. That’s an appeal to numbers…and it along with many of the arguments you’ve been putting forward is a logical fallacy.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pmComment by Roger
The deal with CO2 is if you look at the trend of cycles throughout history you see that global temperatures follow the CO2 path. And now we have catapulted it up …so the earth temperatures will probably follow … and when the earth corrects itself the curve of the cycle may also dip for below normal which means a full fledged ice age.
At the same time doing what it would take to remove the threat of CO2 (even if it turns out to not be too bad) we are at the same time cutting off our dangerous dependance on middle east oil. If we could get our oil needs down to just the non energy uses (plastics, etc) then we will be in a position to give Saudi Arabia an ultimatum which they do not current worry about at all even after 911.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pmhttp://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pmtry this for a list of scientists against an inconvenient truth
February 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Comment by oswald
-And then you demand Gore not live like he has money when he does have money.
The point is not for everyone to become cavemen. The point is for people that can afford to help fund a new way do so. Which he is. AND when he says we need the political will to do what it takes at a federal level to put forth a Manhattan like project to make it happen even faster… he is talking about Bush….vs … himself or anyone else that has not sold out to the Saudis.
And yes I am using a STRAWMAN when I talk about the communism angle … the SAME strawman used by you people on this very site for years…. so if you dont like it I dont really care. Gore can live his American life style all he wants as long as he and WE do something to clean up our own mess… which is EXACTLY what he is advocating … I guess that was just too DEEP for you…
February 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pmhttp://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm check this out
February 27th, 2007 at 6:21 pmComment by Poor Conservative
My agruments are based on the 7 principles of the scientific method. Yours is based on Rush Limbaugh and church.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
February 27th, 2007 at 6:22 pmComment by justwondering
Dont care about lists at all… give EVIDENCE that DISPUTES the evidence presented by the scientists that have already done the work.
The ONLY thing that can debunk science is more science… not lists of people with opinions.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm526 Gerald Gibson Jr
We’re seeing a different cause and effect wrt to your first paragraph.
The second paragraph I agree with emphatically! It will take a lot of work but it needs to be addressed. And I suspect there are a lot of scientists looking at it; there may be some lag time but in the next years I expect there to be break throughs.
I’ve gotta go get some food. Take care.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm“It’s worse than doing nothing. … Those who are in a role-model function like Al Gore do not do the movement for effective action on climate change a favor by promoting carbon offsets.”
Jutta Kill of Sinkswatch.
Learn about carbon trading fraud and how GW advocates like Al Gore have been tricked to believe carbon trading reduces co2 emissions.
http://www.sinkswatch.org
February 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pm#507 – “Gore is a leader. Period”
……Just NOT by example. “Don’t do what I do – (you little folks can wait for a commercial jet), remember – if we can get a handle on global warming
February 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pmwe’ll start to tackle earthquakes and tsunamis.” Ahhh… the arrogance of those who think they can tame Nature.
Exactly. Spot on. Yet, understanding requires logic and reason, and it seems more people would rather argue and debate than do something positive.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pmthink they can tame Nature.
Comment by valiant venus
Taming human irresponsibility is NOT taming nature….
Gore DOES lead by example. If we ALL did as he does we would have a thriving energy sector that does not rely on Saudi terrorist oil.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pmGood find Joffan!
Here is a counter claim, inside that is a explination of problem with ice core samples, and the problems with the Siple curve.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Text includes:
False Low Pre-industrial CO2 in the Atmosphere
Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].
One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of -15°C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.
Keep it up!
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 6:48 pmGore’s eco-hypocrisy is epic, sure, but hardly unique among limo-liberals. What’s the “carbon foorprint”f Laurie David’s private jet?
February 27th, 2007 at 6:53 pmGore’s eco-hypocrisy is epic, sure, but hardly unique among limo-liberals.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pmGore’s eco-hypocrisy is epic, sure, but hardly unique among limo-liberals.
Comment by Fidel Cigar
Never once met a liberal with a limo… lots of republicans though… I guess you are a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pmHad the pleasure of watching this little “Convenient Truth†last week and by no accounts am I that bright. Just your average Joe.
However, there was a part in the show (how you could claim this as a documentary is beyond me) where there was a graph that showed the “planet breathing†with heat and co2 going up on the same scale. What conveniently was not included was at the end of it where the prediction of the rising temperature in the next ten year went way up to the roof. So much so AG got on a lift to emphasis the extent of this temperature rise. All along he was showing the co2 goes up with the temperature but at this point when it looked as though the oceans were going to boil, they neglected to show the co2 at all for that prediction.
About then I went and started my petrol powered lawn mower to cut down the green on my lawn, dismissing the movie as just that, a movie like “The Day After Tomorrowâ€. When was the last documentary presented with an oscar?
It is these insults to even our basic intelligence that produces more negative results than positive. Take a look at the comments in this thread for example. Now a good message dressed up in the skirt of “scare the ignorant to get more grants†and is lost on the population. I only hope they do not provide our schools with this dribble and claim it to be science and something our children must watch.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:12 pmYes, the left comes off as pseudo-pious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous hypocrites. Always have, always do. The reason is because they want to spend other people’s money to solve problems and act superior. They mock religious people yet take on all their worst attributes. They hate corporations and want to tear down industry and enterprise yet haven’t a clue how civilization works.
Bottom line: tax every American into oblivion and poor all of that into their corrupt, inefficient and ineffective environmental/government programs and the environment will still be going to hell, and all the liberals will be just as happy because they don’t give a shit about the environment, they just hate the country.
Here is the real solution: people support that which meets needs. Thus a genuinely capitalist solution will flourish that best addresses the needs of the folks while sparing the environment. Yes, Mr. Gibson Jr, the left really do want the rest of America living in caves and composting their own poop (follow their logic and that’s pretty much where it eventually leads). The only real solution is brilliant people figuring something out that doesn’t include the internal combustion engine.
For example, someone just invented a non-radiative wireless energy transfer solution to recharge his cell phone while he’s home without plugging it in. On a different coast some guy from India figured out how to read all radio and microwave signals and re-interpret them for different uses. Finally a company in Portland, OR is working to fuse these WET technologies and power them via solar and through non-radiative wireless energy..
Not to connect all the dots for all the superior posters on this thread, but eventually we’ll see first cell phone and then laptops powered without the use of regular methods. Eventually household appliances and finally vehicles. Gasoline will sell for 25 cents a gallon and nobody will buy it because nobody will need it.
This isn’t rocket science, exactly the opposite really. And it will make all the greenies pissed off because nobody had to sign a Kyoto treaty or begin living like cavemen to advance beyond all of this nonsense.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:16 pmDAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!
If this kind of waste was being laid at the foot of shrub I’d be screaming at the top of my lungs about it, hopefully joined by every fucking progressive on the planet.
I’ve been an admirer of Gore’s for years, but I will not make excuses for this hypocrisy. The numbers don’t add up, and buying carbon offsets doesn’t excuse waste.
Let’s not be like “them”, OK?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:25 pmHow much CO2 comes out in Gore’s loud-mouth rants? How much methane from his ass? How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pmI guess here’s the thing I don’t get. Buying carbon credits is good and all, but isn’t the point to reduce your energy use and pollution as much as possible? Every form of energy production creates some sort of pollution. Wind turbines kill birds and create noise polution (they’re hardly silent you know).
Hydro-electric? Requires you to change the environment to create electricity. Possibly harming wildlife in the process.
Nuclear? Radiation, plus we haven’t opened a new nuclean plant in the US since ‘96.
Not to mention that every source of power generation creates thermal pollution.
People who dismiss everything that comes from Drudge offhandedly with some sarcastic and useless snark are just as useless as the people who vehemently deny that we’re damaging our environment.
Is the planet warming as a trend. Signs point to yes. Is pollution to blame? It is very likely a partial cause at best. Do we really know all that much about the earth and its cycles? No.
Here’s why so many people reject global warming, doomsday propaganda, and screaming dieing planet crap…
Nobody likes to be told they’re an idiot.
The louder you scream this, the more people will push back.
If you want people to use less power, educate them, don’t insult them. If you want them to recycle, find ways to make it convenient. Curb-side recycling is great, but it doesn’t provide a convenient way to sort the items inside your own household.
Pull a tree limb hard enough and suddenly enough it will snap. Apply pressure gently and over time and it will bend.
As far as I’m concerned. Carbon Credits are propagandist crap. The real progress is in simply not producing the waste to begin with.
That is why I think Gore is a hypocrit. Save the environment! Save the environment! Your Limo Mr. Gore?
Why aren’t Prius limosines the ‘in’ thing for these parties if celebreties care about the environment so much? Think of how many batteries you could put in that damn thing.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pmIf you believe in global warming and feel that now for sure we’re gonna be doomed:
have another mushroom, take another toke…
become completely paranoid, sniff a line of coke
The world will right herself, there’s ballast in her keel
I say pedal to the metal, lets mine up some more steel
This world is such a fancy place, all colors hues, and sheens
It’l grow about just anything, cucumbers, fruits and beans
Some say there’s global warming, they belong all in a cage
Have you noticed their behavior, they’re almost in a rage
Forget it please my son, the world will be alright
February 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pmIts Iran, Iraq, Korea, that should give us pause for fright
The Warmingers are terrorists, another fundamental faction
Tell them go to hell, now that’s where they’ll see action
I love the usual neo ultra conservative (or neo fascist, if you prefer–they’re both the same thing) petty-talk. The ice caps are melting. The oceans are warming. The planet’s temperature is rising. For the first time in 1,300 years, the Alps have almost no snow. The weather this winter has been unusually erratic both in the United States and in Europe. The hottest four summers on record have occurred in the past decade. And all Bush and his corrupt cronies can do is call it puseudo science and bad for business.
At least Gore is concerned about the environment. He produced a major documentary–a major achievement. Gore won an Academy Award–which he deserved. The earth is slowly changing for the worst, and what is the only thing you guys can come up with? Complaints about Gore using fossil fuel. You just continue to get worse! With ultra conservatives in charge, it’s no wonder we’re witnessing the beginning of the decline and fall of the American Empire.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm537 Gerald Gibson Jr
Gore DOES lead by example. If we ALL did as he does we would have a thriving energy sector that does not rely on Saudi terrorist oil.
I’m hard pressed to understand. How?
/Recognize my energy bill averages $50/month. Gore is more than 40 times that. That means in a half a life time I would use the equivalent amount.
Btw, I don’t begrudge VP Gore his wealth and ability to use materials and energy at all. I’m just trying to understand how 300 million people using at his level would reduce greenhouse gases.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pmTom Lodge, nice poem, but are you actually suggesting that people who accept human causes as a total or partial cause of Global Warming are all drug addicts?! Are you also suggesting that because these people consider a point of view different from your own that they should be caged like animals?!
Now I personally believe that yes the Earth does go through long cycles of heating and warming, but that does not mean that we as humans aren’t helping it along, I believe we are, and even if we aren’t I still don’t like the idea of going all forward with no control on industry and just letting it do as it please with our planet.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pmCurrent study indicates record-breaking levels of CO2. Naysayers are buying propaganda from the petro-industry and friends (read “Bush”)
Carbon Dioxide Levels Are at 820,000-Year High, Scientists Find
By Alex Morales
“Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at their highest in 820,000 years, scientists examining a 3- kilometer (2-mile) ice core from Antarctica have found.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5fGvKAGFgFE&refer=canada
February 27th, 2007 at 9:21 pmOK, We can agree Al Gore maybe could do more in his personal life to help the environment , like not bathe or wash his dishes, and live in a cave, but then all you people complaining about his energy use could too!! I’ll be the first to admit I’m not perfect, I shower, I bathe, I watch T.V., I use a car and I’m pretty sure most of you do too. My point is that I think he as offset his energy use for the rest of his life by educating people about this problem, to say that he isn’t doing anything because all he did was make a documentary, is like saying teachers don’t help because all they do is teach people how to do things.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pmCarbon Dioxide Levels Are at 820,000-Year High, Scientists Find
By Alex Morales
“Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at their highest in 820,000 years, scientists examining a 3- kilometer (2-mile) ice core from Antarctica have found.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5fGvKAGFgFE&refer=canada
February 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pmI think the only way you can settle this argument is to ask every scientist and or climatologist if they believe in global warming and what is their reasoning for their belief or unbelief. So far from what I have read there don’t seem to be one person here that is qualified to decide who and what is credible on this subject.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm[...] type of gas that he buys is more expensive because it’s better for the environment. The man lives carbon neutral, you can also go carbon neutral, starting by calculating your carbon footprint. A real journalist [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:37 pmSo the long and short of the situation is that as long as you have the money to pay off your overage on the carbon footprint you are golden.
Seems kinda hypocritical to me
February 27th, 2007 at 9:52 pm[...] Swiftboaters. There is nothing there for you. Think about what you are going to whine about next. Article is here. __________________ Remember these words, and never let it happen again: "We came to [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pmAl Gore has an enormous appetite. It’s clear from his girth and it’s clear from his power consumption. He’s a poor spokesman for conservation and treading lightly on this earth. In short – a big, fat, hedonistic, self-aggrandizing, voracious pig.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm#542, Crusty, asks:
When was the last documentary presented with an oscar?
That would have been the prior year’s Academy Awards (2005), when March of the Penguins, directed by Luc Jacquet beat out
Darwin’s Nightmare, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Murderball, and Street Fight.
The Academy has been doling out Best Documentary Oscars every year since 1942. That first year only one award was given; since 1943, there exist two documentary awards categories: one for best feature length and one for short form.
There are all kinds of actual FACTS available on the Internet, in your local public library, etc. An actual review of the actual research available about global warming and climate change would more than evidence the actual settled nature of this matter and the need for action (regardless of anything Al Gore is or isn’t doing). But, perhaps you are more comfortable with what Archie Bunker used to say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, Meathead. My mind’s made up.”
February 27th, 2007 at 10:37 pmWas Drudge the original source of what he reported? Most of the foul-mouthed cretins here would drink Gore’s purple Kool-Aid if offered. We get the politicians we deserve – opportunistic constructivists. Feelings, nothing more than feelings.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:59 pm[...] pattern of counter-stories followed: the TCPR is illegitimate, the information is a lie, it doesn’t matter because the underlying story of global warming is still real, his energy consumption isn’t [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 11:00 pmI still want to know HOW all this electricity is consumed.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:21 pm[...] Swiftboaters. There is nothing there for you. Think about what you are going to whine about next. Article is here. __________________ Remember these words, and never let it happen again: "We came to [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 11:33 pmSo if Mr. Gore has installed solar devices at his home, the power they generate would be used directly at his house, and that power demand would not show up on his electricity bill (assuming the standard method of installing and using solar power). that would mean his actual power use would be greater than the amount that shows up on his utility bill. I don’t think that helps his argument.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:26 amPretty sweet how a power point presentation can win an Oscar, when Errol Morris had to wait 20 years.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:36 amAtta Boy Luther!
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
February 28th, 2007 at 2:14 amIt’s always amusing when elites tell us little guys how to live our lives when they are the biggest energy hogs—flying in private jets here and there, living in mansions while we all live in regular houses WITHOUT private jets. Boohoo, we have to fly coach (unless we can get upgrades with frequent flyer miles).
February 28th, 2007 at 2:16 amI remember when Barbra Streisand was posting tips for saving energy on her website, such as hanging laundry instead of machine drying it. When someone pointed out that Streisand wasn’t following her own advice, the spokesman said “Well, she didn’t mean that those suggestions should apply to HER.”
Enough said, I think.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:18 amMan, the lefties here are mean, bitter, humorless and all-around unappealing, to be direct. (sorry)
Face it, your elitist, limosine-liberal “leader” is just as hypocritical as all the others of his ilk, who live like kings but want everyone else to be kept down, and under their control.
Don’t be suckers!!
February 28th, 2007 at 3:47 amI’m always curious as to what people mean by the “consensus” on global warming. Is it the consensus that five years ago said temperature would go up ten degrees by 2100? Or the concensus that recently said it would be more like 2 degrees? Is the concensus in AlGore’s movie that oceans will rise 20 feet? Or the IPCC’s consensus that says more like eight inches? Is it the consensus that projects rising methane emissions for the next century? Or the one that measures flat emissions? Is the consensus that blames Katrina on global warming? Or the one from the NOAA that says there is no connection between hurricanes and warming?
Just which consensus are we talking about here?
February 28th, 2007 at 5:56 amHey Al,
Your one sick puppy.
He played on our fears!!!!!!
February 28th, 2007 at 6:47 amAl Gore wants the rest of us to have a tiny little carbon footprint like that of a newborn baby, that is because his carbon footprint is so huge like that of bigfoot. Can you say hypoctite?
February 28th, 2007 at 8:04 amI think Marie Antoinette said it best when she said,”Let them eat cake.”
Apparently, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:31 amI don’t believe that global warming(if it really exists) is man made. My argument is what caused the last six ice ages to end? They all occurred before man existed.
Also, I heard the ice caps on Mars are melting. Should the Martians park their SUV’s too? That reinforces the theory that sun activity is causing any measurable change.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. That is not slander it is just a fact. My father always taught me to lead by example. If Al Gore expects me to live an austere life than he should also.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:32 amCarbon credits are a scam, The people committing these frauds will end up like the Enron people.
I am all for Gore and any rational person must accept (1) the fact of global warming and (2) the models that account for global warming, which point to the burning of fossil fuels as a significant and growing factor in warming trends. However, I must say that it is off-putting for a rich man to use so much electricity and then say that he “buys” carbon offsets to bring his carbon footprint to zero. So the rich can buy “credits” and burn all the carbon they want while the rest of us must make huge sacrifices? There must be a better way.
Let’s fight global warming together, not create castes of people who can burn fuels and untouchables who cannot.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:46 am[...] many have called this an outright smear campaign; it does bring up a few points.In a response via ThinkProgress, Gore’s office didn’t dispute the facts of the report, but said the Gore family has signed up [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 8:57 amAbsolutely agree with Matt’s comment above. Carbon “Credits” are a farce. Progressives wake up. This isn’t the way to go, and you know it. If you really want to lower your footprint…..LOWER IT. Using the “emotional candy” of “credits” to make yourself feel as though you’re actually doing something is such a ridiculous notion that it astounds the mind how a rational person who believes that something has to be done to lessen the effects of man’s carbon footprint by buying “credits” is beyond belief.
C’mon, the reality is that most people couldn’t ( and probably wouldn’t ) buy “credits” to begin with, because of economic circumstance. Has anyone actually done the math of what it would take ( cost-wise ) to bring down the average American households carbon footprint to zero, and then map that in comparison to things like healthcare, or food ? Of course not, because if someone actually DID do something as insane OBVIOUS as this, the figures would prove conclusively the fallacy of “carbon credits”.
Wake up progressives. This is NOT the way to effect change. Holding our (even previously) elected officials to live by what they preach is as American as it gets. Unless all this exchange is just about people “feeling good for themselves”.
Carbon credits are a fallacy perpetrated to assuage those people who would otherwise be environmentally responsible. Get in touch, get the facts, dig past the hype.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:21 am[...] All of which leads to the burning issue of Al Gore’s electric bill. [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 10:18 amHmm. I suspect the truth lies between the entrenched positions here. Sitting in your respective foxholes yelling obscenities while putting your fingers in your ears is fun, but won’t help one bit getting to the truth. The fact is, there’s lots of evidence that the climate is warming up. There’s no real disagreement on that from either “side” in this debate.
What’s of concern to me is that there are credible scientists (climatologists and others..) who are trying to have a real discussion on the significance of human activity as a primary source of this warming and the winter chill of politics is interfering with this. Those on the left are very intolerant of any conversation that doubts the veracity of this claim. Those on the right frequently dismiss human activity as a primary cause.
It really doesn’t matter what any of you think. The truth will emerge (eventually) despite the political howling from both sides.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:39 amThere isn’t a problem with offsetting if it is done as part of the EROS model:
February 28th, 2007 at 11:03 amEfficiency, Reduction & Offsets.
Personally I have reduced my carbon footprint to around 6 tonnes through simple efficiencies and reductions (no I don’t wear a hairshirt). I then buy 1 tonne of offsets every 2 months to cover the balance (around $40 per tonne).
I appreciate not everyone can afford to do this, but if it became a simple system that allowed people to measure what they were doing it should be a good thing.
The downside to offsets is that at the moment it appears to be unregulated and people don’t have confidence or understand what they are buying.
After graduating, what does a PhD student from Columbia U in social organizational psych say ?.
Do you want fries with that ?.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:24 amWhat a strange nation we live in. We look to Washington D.C. for our “moral compass” and talk-show radio/tv for the “facts.” Both sources are — and have been — consistently for sale to the highest bidder. It’s very tough being a parent these days and trying to explain this drivel to your children.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:25 amIf our survival was really predicated on reducing human caused pollution, Al Gore would not be purchasing Carbon Footprint credits. He would be actually reducing his footprint and would not need to purchase others credits.
Why does he need such a large house? George Bush, who liberals excoriate as an enemy of the environment, lives in a 4,000 sq ft home and it is very green. Why is Gore’s so much larger, if the world’s survival depends on reducing human caused pollution?
Why, if he has been warning us for 30 years, is he just now installing solar panels?
It is a sad situation. What’s sadder is the amount of people giving him a pass. If he were Republican, the liberals would be lambasting him as a hypocrite. And the saddest part of all is that when people read what I just wrote, they’ll incorrectly think I support Bush.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:51 amPractice what you preach. (paying for your pollution, are you serious, that’s a way to ease the guilt of rich people who continually pollute heavily)
Global Warming: First a skeptic. Then a believer. Then a skeptic. Now a non believer.
Its important not to dive in head first to hypothesis, theories, evidence and reported “facts”. A conclusion is best formed by taking an impartial approach and understanding both sides. There are truths from both sides of the argument which likely form a more logical common sense and scientific approach.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:53 amSo the carbon offset issue still allows him blow as much energy as possible.
Would that be the equivalent of me saying I’m healthy if I eat five hams and then eat carrots for a week?
Why does he get to use that much?
He’s a hypocrite. Global warming is taking place he’s a hypocrite. Maybe if somebody like Daryl Hannah who apparently lives in a 1 bedroom 1 bathroom house and walks the talk or better yet how about an average person who could afford to take steps to alleviate our impact on the environment without having to make it an obsession that drives their entire life, maybe just maybe people might listen.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm[...] fights back courtesy of Think Progress today. Chalk this up to much ado about nothing, except that people will try to bring you down if [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pm[...] Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pmI have forseen it. There is definitely going to be Global Warming………………..and believe it or not…………Global Cooling! It’s called Summer and Winter.
97% of all greenhouse effect is from water vapor from the oceans and lakes. That means if we cloned AL GORE, 2 billion times and all his clones farted at once, it wouldn’t even cause a blip on the radar.
Al Gore’s “truth” has a few valid points, and we should all do our part to take care of our shared home, but that’s obvious, and it doesn’t take AL GORE to “awaken” us. The whole thing is laughable at best.
The idea that man can doom this planet after it has sustained nuclear bombs going off, thousands of widespread fires, thousands of natural disasters, etc shows how gullible some people are. Plus whether you believe Earth has been here 100000000 million years or closer to 10,000 as I do, then it’s even more preposterous.
I’m just dropping by so don’t bother replying. I’ll never be back to this site again, got too much going on at work, but had to throw some common sense into the mix of bull.
I’m off to go 4-wheeling in my monster truck. I’ll burn some leaves later on my 200 acre estate, and then I’ll cut down some trees that are in my way. I’ll see everyone else in their Prius’s.
Out,
Soothsayer
February 28th, 2007 at 12:26 pm[quote]The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.[/quote]
How can Tree Hugger AL justify all the consumption …even if he was using “green” energy he still consumed more than 20 Average Families…..What a joke AL, I guess you need a well lit place to display your OSCAR
February 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pmI’m amazed that so many speak in the name of science yet the tone is obviously motivated by emotion and politics or religion. Do we really want scientific debate? Do we really want to know truth? Or we do we just want to be RIGHT? Sounds too much like religion to me. Isn’t that essentially what “buying offsets” is, it’s paying a tithe to the environment gods to relieve the guilt of unbridled pollution? We either care, shut up and DO or we pretend to care, speak alot and DON’T!
February 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pm[...] credits. Iowavoice has these comments: Think Progress, a liberal site if there ever was one, talked to the Gore camp. The explanation? Well, it’s ok, because Gore buys carbon offsets. How nice for him. But quick [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pmIs there a function key on the keyboard that’s preprogrammed to say “This is obviously a right-wing conspiracy”? It’d save time for those that aren’t willing to consider the real issues, such as whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or whether purchasing offsets legitimizes excess consumption.
IMHO, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that brought up this whole hub-bub did it in a less than diplomatic way, but they don’t seem to be a bunch of partisan hacks.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:43 pmCarbon footprint is a joke. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Giving guilt money to “offset” irresposible behavior is actually quite embarrassing. Feels like smoke and mirrors. Look at the donation I’m giving over here, don’t look in the back yard at my heated pool.
Ed Beagley Jr. doesn’t resort to this.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmJosh @ 550
Yes, science is not easy. That’s why we have such bright guys doing it. The ice effects described are indeed well-known and you can be sure that the scientists are taking them into account. It’s usual to take a variety of different approaches to minimize the weakness of each. The time-shift in the Siple curve takes account of the difference between ice formation date and ice bubble closure date, at which point the air is trapped.
I’m guessing that figure two in your link is the source (or part of the source) for your earlier claim that “there are samples that run CO2 levels to be between 225 range to the 550 range [recently]” (@485). The values on that graph were measured with much more primitive equipment than today. The graph does not reflect variation in atmospheric CO2, but the difficulty in the 19th C of measuring trace quantities in a gas mixture.
Incidentally I have some difficulties with the guy writing that paper, Zbigniew Jaworowski, since he lists among his work:
Now, how much leaded gasoline were they using in the Medieval Ages?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pmI think (and perhaps I’m Wrong) it’s All about credability. Please tell me why I should be listening to an individual who flunked out of theology school twice, thinks the movie “Love Story” was based on him and his bride, and believes that he invented the internet? Maybe after he finishes installing his solar panels (something he just started, well after his academy award winning documentary was produced) he can tell the world about his next endeaver; Bidding for the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pmJoffan – they actually ate and drank from lead vessels during the Medieval Ages. Easy to mine, easy to work and it won’t leak. Sounds perfect..
February 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pmI think that Al Gore was just kidding when he said that he thought he invented the Internet. And if he says he’s doing something to reduce the amount of carbon his family generates, I think we ought to believe it because he’s spreads the most knowledge about Global Warming, and I’ve seen his documentary, and it’s pretty good.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pmAgore could lessen global warming by reducing the hot air he produces when he talks.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWhat’s unbelievably sad and pathetic about ALL of you posters is that you’re letting politics (Left AND Right) get in the way of clear thinking. I wanted Gore to be the man he posed as when he was Senator and backed him wholeheartedly as the only real Green choice. When he became V.P. and had a Democratic congress for part of his two terms our nation’s stance on environment and it’s protections actually went backwards. The same with President Hillary’s Health Care agenda which went nowhere in 8 years. Those were among the last straws that drove me to Independence (not a town in Missouri, a Political destination we should ALL be at)!
February 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pmAs for global warming and demanding a “number” of experts AND the logic behind their argument that demonstrates no human-caused global warming, well . . . what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same question could be put to the Pro-global warming side. 100 qualified scientists telling me that it’s Midday when it’s dark and the Moon is high doesn’t mean they are correct. So the same demand for logical proof and refutation of the Con side is hereby being formally requested. The bottom line is that it’s all pointless. There are dozens of noncontroversial reasons to lower our carbon footprint and do all the right green things that don’t depend on a global warming argument and are just as compelling. So let’s be unifying rather than devisive.
By the way, storing CO2 underground may be the single most scary and assinine answer to global warming I’ve ever heard. In an era of terrorism and overreliance on technology the oppourtunity for instant destruction of the planet through intent or accident is horrifying.
Reasons to reduce polution. . . hmmm. . . let’s see . . . ah yes! How about NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES. Carbon-based energy will be exhausted at some point, no matter how facile we become at locating and extracting sources of it. It also becomes more expensive as the process becomes harder. So legacy to the future and pocket book today — two good reasons. Health, not a bad reason. Reducing carbon-based energy production dramatically cleans the environment in a relatively short time (regardless of the effect on warming) — it reduces acid rain, mercury, and CO2 for a start, each of which has a dramatic and quick positive result for our global and personal environments.
Oh, but we can’t afford “Carbon Credits” on an individual basis?! OK, so what. Let’s use ancient, proven technology first. It’s cheap and readily available and every builder in the country is equipped to begin immediately. Adopt a national building code. Require superinsulation of every new home (it’s the only way I will build). Moving from 4 to 6 inches of wall insulation to 8 inches and moving to 12 – 14 inches in the ceiling or roof with power venting and whole house fans can be done now and will add less than 5% to the total cost of a house and pay for itself in just a few years. By remodeling my current, Northern climes, home in such fashion AND optimzing airflow with added cold air returns I added 30% in square footage but reduced my total heating and cooling load to less than 40% of its previous amount! Require Lo-E, reflective triple glazing. Equip every home in the proper geographic region with a Heat Exchanger, use flourescent lighting. Require presence detector lighting that automatically shuts off. Require all new and replacement water heaters to be “on demand” type. For automobiles raise the C.A.F.E. every 5 years and STICK TO IT!!! Develop a total energy budget for each and every community in the nation based on forecast use for 1 year hence and require all new expansion, development, and population growth to split that fixed budget so that any future growth would be energy neutral. Will that slow growth — ya sure you betcha. Will it stimulate technology — ya sure, you betcha. Do the same with surface transportation — all forms. Limit square footage of homes to a budget based on occupancy at the time of building. Also no more McMansions. And absolutely NO TRADE OFFS with polutions credits a la Gore. It’s a mixed bag as to whether they work at all. Add water to the fixed budgeting process. Having just travelled the Southwest, although the conservation efforts in some areas are amazing, the squandering of our water resources on frivolity is horrific! With most of the Southwestern states arguing to get Lake Michigan water at one time or another it seems preposterous that the world needs another desrt golf course manicured to look like Scotland, Ireland, fill in the blank. Will these restrictions disrupt or halt economic growth. Hardly. They will redirect it though and the industries that grow and are spawned will be by their very nature and definition — sustainable. Require regional planning with all large employers (set your own limit here) to stagger start and end times of work to reduce traffic-jamming. The list is nearly endless right down to small things such as recycling laundry water as our grandparents did.
The point is this — forget the divisive Global Warming squabble and focus on the 100 other, good reasons to act in the same way NOW. Grass roots won’t be soon enough. Top down statutory rule is the only workable solution. Yes there will be abuses and inequities. Where has that not happened? It’s not a reason to delay whether you’re a Republicrat or a Demican. While we’re at it, dump both major parties who exist mostly to preserve the status quo and are, in fact, part of the inertia of rest, to be overcome anew with each step forward in society. When this overthrow happens we may finally find leaders worthy of this country and its citizens who ARE looking, but not finding those leaders. Leaders such as Lincoln and his cabinet (see the recently published book Team of Equals) who, though personally amibitious, put service to country first and last even when tempted.
Let’s also remember the 600 pound Gorilla in the room. All of the developed nations in the world can follow Helsinki to the letter and have nil impact without the complete and total cooperation of the current biggest polluter on the planet (and getting bigger by the day) –China! And so far the Helsinki Accord nations haven’t done to well on meeting their own INTERIM targets. In fact, the U.S., without an environmental leader in the White House and without signing the Accord, has done better than all but a handful of Accord nations! Hmmm. . . . I have no position on that issue but it is worth noting. Also, by Gore supporters OWN acknowledgment, IF all Accord targets were met by ALL the developed nations of the planet, the net effect 50 years hence would be to simply stop WHATEVER part of the warming process is due to homo sapiens. It may not even stop the warming process or even slow it and that’s NOT taking into account the effect of undeveloped nations getting a chance to develop themselves (which will happen because they are the next source of cheap labor as the current sources become developed and assimilated into the developed nation economy. The carbon potential for Africa is enormous.
As for Drudge, no personal use for him, but his very existence and offerings got this thread started. I guess that’s a good thing. Kind of like the village idiot attracting a crowd whilst holding forth from yon stump. I may be driven to apoplexy by drudge (and many of the regular posters) but I keep tuning in and it keeps my juices flowing and the fire stoked and my mind turning. It appears to do much the same to all of you as well.
Health, Harmony, Independent Skeptical Minds and Votes to all of you!
CoachLeif
Ouch. Devastating.
Gore’s carbon offsets are investments in his own company.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm[...] out with a statement defending the family’s energy use. It published statements on sites like Think Progress: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 6:00 pmLet’s say hypothetically, that Gore doesn’t live totally carbon neutral lifestyle. I bet he’s a hell of a lot closer than “the average American household†and closer than the people jumping all over the story.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm[...] No puedo negar que ha sido interesante y revelador. No pienso ni pretendo abordar en esta nota la respuesta de la familia Gore sobre el tema, sólo quiero hacer algunas observaciones: En primer lugar, [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 7:54 pmIn other words, if you’re rich enough and consider yourself important enough, you can buy your way out of the energy use restrictions that Gore’s “moral cause” would impose on others. But if you’re some poor sucker without the resources to “neutralize” your carbon output, and you’re trying to heat your home or get to work or run a machine to make a living, you’re screwed.
That’s a strikingly capitalist attitude for a guy who’s out prosyletizing in favor of central planning of the worldwide energy sector. Gore’s practice of “purchasing carbon offsets” shows implicit agreement with the principle underlying tradeable emissions rights: namely, that the marketplace, governed only by the price mechanism, allocates resources far better than a planning agency does – even within whatever regulatory regime the state decides to impose.
Personally, I don’t care if Gore is a hypocrite; he can burn all the kilowatts and slip his feet of carbon into all the moral Birkenstocks he pleases. It’s the intellectual and empirical bankruptcy of his economic policies – state socialism repackaged in an oh-so-green fig leaf – that deserves rejection. The Soviets and Chinese took enough of the world over that cliff (less stylishly dressed, perhaps); no need replicate that experiment.
Which leads, naturally, to the laughable scientific basis of the politically censored “data” the Goracle cites. Never mind that his “hockey stick” looks rather less stick-like when you actually follow the data back even a few hundred years to the late medieval era. Temperatures then appear to have been warmer than what even the most liberal warming models currently predict, but can hardly be attributed to, nor said to have caused the demise of, human activity.
Don’t mention such things (and that particular is by far the simplest among many far more rigorous objections to “global warming”) to the greenhouse absolutists, though, or you’ll be told that “everyone” has reached “consensus” on this issue, and that it’s no longer a mattter of debate. But, of course, it never was a matter of honest debate and a scientific search for truth, since the believers on the left couldn’t countenance a truth that failed to support their collectivist ideology.
The genuinely revealing observation about climate change concerns not the actual temperature data, but the academic bullying and silencing of scientists whose research contradicts the global warming dogma. They are never refuted on the science, but instead attacked personally, accused of poisoning the well, and excluded from broader discourse. Such tactics are the tools not of the scientist, but of the political radical and the religious zealot. Al Gore, the Emperor of Green Clothes is both.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pmAs an observer outside the United States, it appears that the vast majority of individuals vocalizing an opinion are A) simply following a party line, and B) missing the point entirely. Left and Right in America is so incredibly close on the greater spectrum of political options that it makes little difference which party is in power. The vociferous and venomous debate between adherents on the American Left or American Right is ultimately pretty goofy when one observes how interchangeable most American stances are when placed on the world stage. If you are inside the American system, then inevitably you won’t be able to see that. Not to worry, just rest assured that to the rest of us you appear to be following the leader in lock step and not really judging the facts for yourself. The point being missed is that Al Gore is a grand hypocrite. He has the audacity to wag his finger at the world, specifically his fellow Americans, while spending more on electricity and natural gas than most people on the planet require to feed, house, and clothe themselves for a year. So he purchases green electricity — so what? He is using an exorbitant amount, no matter where it comes from. Not only is he an energy hog, he is a hypocritical energy hog. As is so often the case with Americans, it is a matter of “do as I say – not as I do†If Gore had made it to the White House in 2000 I suspect that we would be no better off with the Kyoto Accord. Probably we would be worse off. You American red and blue state citizens will scream and yell at each other while defending or attacking Al Gore, while the rest of us out here look on in amazement and befuddlement. As Rita Mae Brown so aptly wrote, the difference between Democrat and Republican is the difference between gonorrhea and syphilis.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pmMichael 178:
Regarding the $10k payment offers to scientists by the American Enterprise Institute:
“The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the weaknesses of the IPCC report.”
So….not an accusation by kooks, then. The AEI acknowledges that it made the offers of payment.
Also–you can’t take seriously anything published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It’s owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, and he uses it as an apparatus for his far-far-far-right agenda. Same goes for the Cybernet News Service–it has fallen out of the “Journalism” category according Pew Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pmActually, I happen to think Gore is a hypocrite for living in such a house and being such an environmental activist.
On the other hand, most people with any type of conscience are hypocrites in this society, and it’s at least refreshing to see someone who’s been as rich and powerful as Gore being dedicated to something positive and life-affirming.
I won’t quite give him a pass, but…what else do we have? Seriously.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:48 pmBy the way, the right wing gets angry at people like me for taking the bus. They were angry at me when I lived in a commune. They’re angry at me for eating a vegan diet. And they’re angry when I want my city to have more public transportation. So I tread light, they’re angry. Al Gore lives excessively, they’re angry. This will all be forgotten. Who cares?
February 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pmwhat you’re all forgetting is the positive spin on global warming – when the temperature armageddon comes and california falls into the sea, that’s several million less left-o-fascists in the world.
now that makes me “ThinkProgress“!
March 1st, 2007 at 12:06 amDear liberals,
The inconvenient truth is that Gore is a hypocite.
Spin or no spin, he hogs electricity and gas. His carbon foot print belongs in the rear of his pants.
At least George W. Bush has an environmentally designed residence.
By the way, thank you progressives, the solar panels on my house pay for all my electricity. Thank you liberals for making my neighbors, the taxpayers, subsidize it. I can run my air all summer and still zero out.
You won’t read much about Gore and his energy use. It is against the liberal bias.
It used to be that newspapers were the first draft of history.
Now they are simply the scorecards of the enemy.
By the way, thank you for the tax subsidy on my CNG Honda. I use subsidized cng and ride to work in the carpool for less than a dollar a gallon. God you liberals are great.
Keep up the good work.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:03 amAll I see in this message forum is a bunch of right wingers and left wingers bickering at one another instead of trying to find a common understanding. The issue here is not about the environment or misinformation, it’s the red vs. blue in an epic battle where nothing really happens until it’s too late. Hey, come to think of it, that kind of sounds like our congress.
Let’s just do the same thing we did during Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and wait until the disaster happens, THEN take action. Let’s wait for a few million people to die first, maybe then we can put down the crayons and work together to find an answer.
The way I see it, I think we can use some population control.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:04 am“faux religion,” patrick? isn’t that like “jumbo shrimp”?
March 1st, 2007 at 1:05 amAnd liberals get sooooo…angry when conservatives speak their minds. Everyone knows that free speech is only for Liberals, only they should be heard. Shout down the opposition! Keep them silent! They are to be hated, HATED I tell you!
March 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pmIs Al Gore a hypocrite or not? I say yes. He doesn’t practice what he preaches.
If I invest enough money in PETA, can I call myself a vegetarian and head out for a ribeye?
March 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pmDear Liberal, please save me from my carbon generating self. I just do not know what to do, I can not help but fire up my 1,000 hp mega fuel sucking water dragon speed boat and rip across the like like Al Gore through a book signing contest. My Harley calls and I must ride throught the streets as fast as Marrion Berry through a DC crack house, the H2 becons, and I must drive the distance like Ron Brown in a oversized airplane, it is a horrible addiction, the Viper calls, and I must rip through traffic like Bill Clinotn through a white house intern dinner with a cigar stand, killing the environment like Hillary on a Foster.
Please sell me carbon credits form the carbon credit Gore foundation, giving him money for a book is never going to be enough, Gore must have enough money to save the world by investing another internt. Hillary need to make more money in carbon futures than in cattle, there is simply not enough white water to wash away my sins.
Dear Liberal please save me from myself.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pmI don’t care if the right-wing or Drudge is out to get Gore or not. Buying your way into carbon neutral is a crappy excuse for excessive use. So, if you’re rich you don’t have to be responsible with your energy use, you can just ‘buy’ your carbon neutral label. That does not work. Real progress comes from changing our lifestyle and decreasing our energy use. If everyone was carbon neutral by purchasing it, we wouldn’t solve our global warming/energy dilemma.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pmholy schite, I can just make a lot of money and then buy credits so I can buy all the credits I want? Must be an Al Gore plan, oh, wait a minute, it IS an Al Gore plan, and HE sells the credits!!!
March 1st, 2007 at 4:35 pm[...] Swiftboaters. There is nothing there for you. Think about what you are going to whine about next. Article is here. Maddox said it best: Of course, having a show in which the hosts prattle on and on about [...]
March 1st, 2007 at 6:24 pm[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge [...]
March 1st, 2007 at 9:08 pmWrong, it would solve it, because it would pay for clean energy.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 amHow much energy does an electric fence and other stuff a former VP’s residence is required to have by secret service use? This is a non-issue, and anyone who doesn’t understand that just doesn’t want to. Anyone out there have Cheney’s energy bill? What about Bush Sr.’s? Who was that funny bird he had for VP?
Raul, you don’t know what you are talking about. Although I do not really appreciate labels like right and left, and many democrats are as bad as repubs, Gore is a good guy, period. And for the fool talking about Gore buying carbon credits from his own company, did he go to the company website? This company is a great idea, making it a greener planet, encouraging responsible investment. In other words, another great thing Al has done. And what have you done, either of you? What have you done for the planet or mankind that gives you the audacity to call someone who has done so much for it a hypocrite? As for this enlightened liberal rest of the world that you are talking about, you mean like England, China, Australia, and Saudi Arabia? Maybe Israel?
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 am[...] up a straw man: ThinkProgress falsely claimed that Gore has done nothing to reduce his energy consumption, then proceeded to disprove this [...]
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 amWhere to start…? I guess I’ll start with the comments of the Cowards, idiots, traitors, fools and self-aggrandizing hypocrites I scanned on this site:
You all choose to believe home-brewed science that predicts weather 50 years from now, when the best of real science cannot predict the weather 5 months from now…can’t get past that. You just can’t be that stupid.
I’m guessing most of the same fools all are trying to manufacture another Vietnam, you think you can talk terriorists into our friends, such stupidity. You play politics with our future and a way of life hundreds of thousands have died to preserve, including the 3 thousand or so that have died since 9/11.
Why can’t you just hug a tree, smoke a joint and braid flowers in each other’s hair? Leave the heavy thinking and the hard jobs to those who always carry the load. We’ll carry it anyway, but you can help by whining among yourselves.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm#626 – It’s easy for you to ask what have you done. Maybe I don’t have the extra cash to purchase these carbon offsets. Maybe I don’t have the extra cash to buy a hybrid car. Maybe I take the simple approach and just reduce my energy use instead of trying to pay for my guilt like Gore does. I do not disagree with Gore’s message – global warming does need to be a big part of public discourse – but I just laugh at the subtle humor in his documentary … cutting from his lecture to shots of him flying in a private jet or taking a limo. Didn’t anyone else find that funny? Why can’t Gore fly a regular commercial jet when Tony Blair can fly British Airways on official state business? Is Gore really that important? Again – I do not dispute the cause that Gore stands for. I do however question whether Gore and a bunch of Hollywood stars are the best messengers for the cause when they leave themselves so vulnerable to criticism.
BTW, the IPCC isn’t any better. Anyone who understands statistics knows that their 90% confidence level for anthropogenic causes of global warming is far for a “certainty”. It’s a lame group of scientists who are too afraid to be unequivocal. If they stopped hiding behind terms like “very likely” we’d all be better off. How can the latest IPCC report be anything BUT an acknowledgment that there is still debate on the subject.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmOk let’s make some since of this discussion
1. Global Warming true or false? Well we could look at it like believing in God. When I die I really don’t want to be wrong. So, for discussion lets believe Global Warming is true.
2. Will reducing use of fossil fuels in fact stop or reverse Global Warming? Maybe, but reducing the United States dependence on fossil fuels can only be good. Reduce are need for foreign energy, reduce overall pollution, reduced trade deficit, increase U.S. energy technology that we can sell to other countries, and maybe reduce risk of terrorism. Fossil Fuel energy supplies are limited, Green energy is renewable. Can we agree these are all good things.
3. Should we really be discussing energy independence? I think yes.
4. How do we get there?
a. Tax credits for green energy
b. Aggressive Federal investment in Green energy
c. Increase the tax on Gas so the cost of a gallon of gas is $4.00 per gal (this will impact how we use fossil fuels and make green energy economically feasible
d. Remove tax breaks for fossil fuel production and distribution (Oil and Coal).
e. Start the construction of nuclear plants ASAP.
f. Reduce your energy consumption, encourage other to.
5. Global Warming or Energy Independence, who cares about Al Gore.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm6. Carbon Offsets, I’ve a little research and I think that these are good things. If it provides additional investment dollars for Green Energy then we will get to energy independence faster. But, these should not be the fell good way for the rich to buy their way to heaven.
7. I personally do not care for Al Gore, but he to raise the debate over this issue that is very important to our country.
8. OK, stop the silly debate and start discussing the real issue energy independence based on green energy.
Wow. Such certainty on both sides of the argument. I can only imagine how few have actually read the primary scientific sources (i know i haven’t). I came to this discussion hoping to gain a clearer understanding of both sides of the global warming debate. What i got instead was a lot of dogmatic “talking points”, childish mudslinging, and blind faith. Don’t any of you see how bad it looks to so swiftly and violently deny any challenge to your point of view? Many get downright angry and insulting toward anyone who expresses the opposite opinion. This is not the approach of a rational and scientific person. Clearly, there is ongoing debate. Wake up people. Why not start with an open mind, acknowledge that we don’t really know with any certainty the causes/impact of global warming, and seek to find the facts. Stop listening to politicians (you don’t have hold to an office to be a politician, btw), oil companies, celebrities, and anonymous blog entries. A bit of advice to the “believers”…you lose credibility when you defend a hypocrite. Why defend him? Just say, “fine, maybe Gore is a hypocrite. so what. Let’s get back to the scientific discussion at hand.” Anyways, I’m ranting. Sorry. Global warming is occurring (per my current understanding). Maybe it’s us and maybe it’s gonna cause untold environmental horrors. I can certainly see how. But don’t discount the possibility that the latter 2 statements are not entirely true. Discounting any possibilty of a clearly reasonable idea is simply irrational. Ok, i’m repeating myself, time to stop.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm[...] Gore released a statement in response to the allegations: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon [...]
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:23 pmPerhaps the rational conservatives would be more inclined to accept the “scare science” being pushed by liberals if we hadn’t seen it all before. Does anyone remember that this same argument occured over DDT? Liberals said they had proof, it was banned, millions died from malaria, and then it was quietly admitted that the science was wrong and now we’re back to using DDT.
I know that these are apples and oranges, DDT and global warming, but I’m throwing it out there to illustrate that it is not a given that conservatives are willfully ignorant. We just haven’t been convinced yet. Screaming at us about the “science” and telling us how stupid we are doesn’t convince us. In my opinion those who do that embarrass themselves personally and damage their cause.
You would do far better to take a serious look at your data, throw out anything that is obviously based in bias, and then throw out everything else that relies on modelling future trends. THEN be willing to explain what is left to us like the wonderfully patient teachers we remember from our youth.
Believe me, we really are interested. We just don’t trust you anymore. And we’re sick and tired of being shrieked at.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pmThere are, of course, many objections to basing truth on the consensus of our best and brightest. The history of scientific consensus is a rather poor one — for example, it was once a scientific consensus that the earth is flat. Other famous debacles include the “ether” of the universe, the medical benefits of bleeding a patient, and the natural justness of slavery. Furthermore, almost every great scientific revolution started out as a minority opinion, and often had to fight the consensus before it became widely accepted.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:26 am[...] Change, responds to recent revelations of his insatiable thirst for energy in this piece from ThinkProgress.org (HT: The Hillary Spot) What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon [...]
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:14 amyou wave your bag, i’ll wave mine.
how much did they wave?
March 4th, 2007 at 6:51 amUsing tabloid headlines to attack and discredit the messanger is not a solution to the global problem. Regardless of how he lives his live, even if it is directly opposite of what the movie suggests, the threat to the environment is real.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pmLiberals and conservatives both have their agendas and rarely do either truly consider the people they were elected by in their plans other than for PR purposes as re-election looms. Never forget that any elected official is a public servant and should be treated as such- with no sense of superiority or “betterness”- something spudge boy should take serious note of- can you say anything without a some insult? So much for civilized debate (something I thought a liberal such as yourself would scream for, but then maybe you subscribe to the Clinton brand).
March 4th, 2007 at 9:33 pmMr. Gore’s utility bill is riduculous no matter how you try to cut it. A 20 room home, are you kidding me? And his pool heating cost is outrageous. You cannot seriously justify that. As for purchasing offsets: fair enough idea but it seems like sidestepping a real solution (downsizing your house, not heating your pool, etc.) and just making it easier for those who do so to sleep better at night. But, also remember that this is the land of liberty- so screaming at each other and pointing fingers and name calling and adopting the “I’m right, you’re wrong” entrenched positions does not lead to a positive solution agreed to by both “sides (the Left and Right in this case but easily applied to other disputes such as religous groups). We enjoy the freedom here to do live as we wish (to a greater extent than almost any other nation). So the browbeating by the Left and the aggressive barbed retaliation by the Right is not useful. This is Think Progressive? So think progressively, and stop the cycle of attack, counterattack, and baiting. You have over 2500 years of logic and effective argumentative construction at your disposal- use it.
Things I don’t understand. #1. Carbon Dioxide is what we exhale, immediately available for plant food. What’s the problem with converting active pollutants into plant food? #2. Why isn’t Al Gore’s movie called an Infomercial for the practice of purchasing carbon offsets from HIS company? #3. Why does the enviromentalism community think Al Gore is pure of any agenda and, in fact, has elevated him the equivalent of POPE of their religion? You ask us to use our logical abilities to reason out the truth, but yet the obvious truth doesn’t seem to get through to the “eco-friendly” crowd. I don’t get it.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:05 pm1. Gore has not denied that the reports of his energy consumption are accurate.
2. Al Gore’s carbon offsets are merely a euphemism for stock purchases made by a company he founded and owns. Al Gore buys his carbon offsets from himself. http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350
3. When Al Gore promotes the greenness of a company he is buying stock/investing/buying carbon offsets from and he stock of that company rises as a result of Al Gore’s endorsement is that not a kind of stock price manipulation?
4. The wealthy can afford to buy carbon offsets to fund their affluent lifestyles. People of more modest means cannot. This means that the middle and lower classes will fund Al Gore’s greenhouse gas reduction campaign. If the Republicans ever ran such a scam they’d be justifiably pilloried for it.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:57 pmal gore is a hipocrit
March 5th, 2007 at 7:39 amFirst of all, the Drudge Report is not conservative, as all of you seem to think. A media bias study published in 2004 by two professors actually found that, by comparing the stories posted on the website with congressional records, that the web site leans left of center when compared to the average American voter. BUT that’s just if you go by the facts :)
2nd, this carbon credit nonsense is more than the savage hypocrisy (paying someone else to “be green” for you) it may seem at first glance. The company Gore buys these carbon credits from…is a company that he helped establish. Gore is chairman of this firm. In other words, he consumes more energy then those nasty “average Americans” that he and other Hollywood liberals so despise, but says it is okay because he is buying carbon credits…when essentially he is just BUYING STOCK IN HIS OWN COMPANY.
I won’t bother posting any links here about this, as it will likely not be read/believed anyway. If you really want to find it, search hard for it. Though I’m sure this savage hypocrisy by Al Gore will be completely ignored by the mainstream media, as they say on The X-Files: “The Truth is Out There”
March 6th, 2007 at 1:36 amSo Gore purchases carbon offsets to leave a completely green footprint. Where does he buy them from? A company he wholly owns, and one that sells carbon offsets only to him. It invests in “green” companies of which Al Gore has a substantial interest. This is what is called a scam.
As for “consensus” being scientific fact: The consensus was that the earth was flat, science proved otherwise. The consensus in the 70’s was that we were heading for another ice age, science proved otherwise. The consensus now is that we’re all gonna burn up, science will prove otherwise.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pm[...] his defenders say ‘yabut he’s actually reduced his consumption and buys green power and has bought carbon offsets so that the family’s actually carbon neutral…’ then the critics come back again and say ‘yabut he’s buying these carbon [...]
March 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm[...] documents showing his lifestyle pollutes much more than the average American (the AP reports). Gore replies in essence, “No worries, I buy renewable energy and am adding solar panels to my home.” [...]
March 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmNo debate? How about 17,000 + scientists and professionals who all signed petitions saying there is no direct evidence linking rises of CO2 to global warming. Geez, you guys are sheep! If it’s on the tv, then it’s got to be real, huh?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
If global warming is due to rise in CO2, then why in the 40’s when CO2 was at it’s highest, did the global temp drop for 40 years???
Scientists can’t even predict the weather for the next two weeks accurately, how can they predict the climate over the next 50-100 years!
Oh, I forgot, because it was on the news… of course! (sarcasm)
March 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pmIs it possible to do acomparison between say VP Chaney and Mr. Gore; or better still retired President Bush (senior) and Mr. Gore?
March 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pmI guess I don’t understand the attack on Matt Drudge. He tends to post about an equal amount of websites that both claim Global Warming is real and those that question it. Isn’t that the essence of fair reporting? Furthermore, all he did was provide a link to the story that said Al Gore was using 10 times electricity than the average home. Furthermore, I was under the impression that Drudge believed in global warming from some things he said on his radio program. Is Drudge simply being attacked because he is often a conservative?
March 11th, 2007 at 5:11 am[...] pool house used nearly 221,000 kWh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average. Through a spokesman, Gore said it’s okay because he purchases carbon [...]
March 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am[...] aware of that news piece flying around about how Gore’s electric bill is like $1bajillion. Gore responds with a whole bunch of bullet points about solar panels and carbon offsets. Seems reasonable, sort [...]
March 12th, 2007 at 8:26 amIt seems to me that if Al Gore were to publish his gas and electric bills for 2006 along with the number of people in the residence we could divide one by the other and come up with an energy usage per person. If it’s substantially higher than that of the average American then the charge of hypocrisy would be justified. If the same or lower, then at least he lives up to his convictions.
Anyone have a link?
March 16th, 2007 at 10:14 amIs it still not hypocritical to use so much energy in your home and preach conservation? From what I understand, if you have the financial means to buy offsets you can use as much energy as you want?
March 16th, 2007 at 8:51 pm[...] Gore: Environmentalist or Hypocrite? Hi Nate–good to hear from you! From Think Progress (Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics) "Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress: [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pmI like muskrat tacos the best. They taste great, no trans fats, are totally natural, and provide plenty of protien.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:00 am[...] dos EUA. E assim se passou à «verdade inconveniente» do próprio Al Gore. Fácil, não é? A explicação emitida logo a seguir (a famÃlia de Gore equipou a casa com painéis solares para atenuar o [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm[...] sign a sham “energy ethics pledge.” (Find the real facts on Gore’s energy usage HERE and [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pm[...] him to sign a sham “energy ethics pledge.†(Find the real facts on Gore’s energy usage HERE and [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 9:11 pm[...] that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero." Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 pm[...] that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero." Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 11:47 pmI guess in 50 years from now our grand children will have the legacy of finding out if anybody was right or not. Then it might be to late to start worring about the problem! Over population and plundering the planet has always been an issue. Always an issue to ignore. We’re still proud of our industrial age to admit that we should do something different.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 amQuickest way to stop global warming. NO aircraft can fly anymore. Look at the new A380 it uses 55,000 of fuel from India to LA. I dont think my car uses that much gas in 10 years?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pmWant to stop global warming. STOP ALL aircraft from flying The new A380 burns 55,000 of jet fuel to travel 6000 miles. The USA has about 6000 flights a day that probably burns another 100,000 gallons of fuel. My Dodge Neon could not use 55,000 gallons of fuel in its life time.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pmThe bottom Line: The problem is REAL, there is scientific data which support the concerns. It should be addressed. We should consider other energy sources for far too many numerous reasons to list, including decreasing dependence on foreign oil. But most of all, nothing bad can come out of teaching people to save energy cost and reducing of the use of non-renewable resources…
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pmI’d like to ask, without tone or sarcasm, does Al Gore have a job?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pmComment regading the source of Al Gores energy source.
How does an electricity grid know which electrons flow from ugly windmills and solar panels vs dirty coal fired plants?
By the way creating Solar panels and windmill parts is toxic and dirty business in it’s own right.
All Al Gore is doing is cutting a check to someone who claims to produce energy from a cleaner source! He is using more power in a month then most households in America use in a year. Regardless of who he pays he is still using energy created from sources that pollute.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pmI have no respect for this man he is a liar and a thief and using this topic to fill his already stuffed pocket.
The average human creates 1.2 tons of c02 the obvious answer is for everyone to quit breathing.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pmIt is disturbing to me to read Republicans nit pick about Al Gore showing up in a limo and having staff. To begin with, Al Gore was Vice President at one point and all past politicians with this stature have security staff and secret service staff who go with them everywhere. To show up at any event alone in a golf cart that runs on battery may seem like the behavior Al should portray since he is an advocate of Global warming. However, it would be unsafe and unwise and serves no purpose in making the point about global warming because Al Gores home is not the cause alone.
Also, if anyone doesn’t believe Global warming is real the best suggestion is to do homework first before putting foot in mouth. If a reasonable person were to go back in history and read over statistics of each hurricane season and heat index and compare each year, the answer points to the those numbers going up in heat and record breaking weather values. This is something Al Gore has no control over and anyone to suggest he can control the weather for political limelight is a lunatic. Politics should not play a role in this issue and should not be a sound bite to bash Democrats. When we begin living in domes because the atmosphere is too hot and the rays from the sun is too damaging, will nitpicking Al Gores lifestyle matter then?
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pmListen guys
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pmI have read at least 10 minutes of bickering and cant believe i wasted it on
diareahh of the keyboard that I have seen. 1. Ask the guys in Austria and
Switzerland why they are putting blankets on their slopes for the last 5 years! Its because they are melting and so are the glaciers! Its a fact!
Then all you panty waist non believers make a chart like you learned in school without a computer, with the frequency and intensity of hurricanes plotted against years at the botton line. Then study how a solar water heater works and understand that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a restraining insulator just like the glass on top of the pipes. Then go sit in that forest, forests that are dwindling at an alarming rate and are much cooler than a vacant lot or desert or an asphalt parking lot ,multiply the frequency of that happening by your IQ or other random number, and you might get the hint, but only if your greedy self serving ass will let you open your eyes and peek out of itself.
You know it’s funny. I am neither blue or red. I think they all stink. They don’t care about you. They care about keeping their jobs. The dems want to take all your money and give it to the poor. The rep want to be all religious. I mean come on people they are laughing at you all. The dem just tried to put in a package for our troups. About 90 percent was for other things besides armor for our troups. I mean c’mon. But, hey my senator tried to get us millions for our shrimp industry or peanut industry.. or whatever. It’s a friggin joke. The rep and dem’s are cousins. They are from the same tree. It’s not like it was 20 years ago. The real issues is not about global warming. Ohhhh we are about to kill the earth. Listen to me. The earth is like 4 billion years old. It will last 4 billion years later. So, I am sorry we cannot do anything to this world but kill ourselves. The earth will be here when we have killed eachother, or, killed off our food. So, what’s the real story. The real story is not global warming. The politicians are eating it up that people worry so much about that. Hmm.. let’s see .. our education system sucks. We are a third world country. We have open borders. We don’t have any or limited hospitals around the mexican border because they cannot afford to pay for people coming over and getting into the system. The mexican president has family over here illegally. Bush is promoting letting illegal children into medicaid… When our medicaid system can’t handle the kids we have in it now. We had a replacement for social security, but, the people don’t want to take care of themselves and want the government to do it for them. The politicians say it’s not good for you to want to take care of your own money. Though we have the same system and have been doing it for years. I mean come on people .. get a grip.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pmI did my best to skim over all the comments. It seems like we started off hot and heavy with a match of statistical cut-and-paste. Then the audience switched to the ever-convenient “prove it” stage where all references were debunked as either Exxon stooges or socialist moonbats. The next phase involves members veering off path to counter points made 50 posts prior. That is when everyone loses their place and becomes cannibalistic – snapping back at comments that were intended to be ironic or supportive but taken out of context. Eventually, everyone calms down, many go to bed, and then a new wave of messengers comes in to restore the battle. Which leads us to the present.
I truly believe that an objective mind can take bits and pieces from both sides of the argument:
On the “alarmist” side, I agree that all the exhaust and pollutants we pump into the air probably aren’t beneficial to my lungs.
On the “skeptic” side, I agree that government does not have a great track record of formulating proper solutions to these major issues.
On the “alarmist” side, I agree that the ancillary benefits of this issue are energy independence and less money being directed toward Middle Eastern theocracies.
On the “skeptic” side, the free market has an uncanny way of directing the flow of capital to new energy sources due to the laws of economics, not by political tariffs and grandstanding.
Judging by the latest comments, it seems like cooler heads have prevailed and we are truly trying to act as adults. There is (and always will be) plenty of irony and hypocrisy from both camps, so try not to get too bogged down with those non-issues. The mere fact that my comment will be close to #700 is proof that there is still plenty of debate left to go on this topic, so I see little point in anyone trying to proclaim victory by saying there is no debate.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 amhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming+documentary
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=34676f81-1d89-471e-8941-5b4f0967cca9&k=0
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
The globe is warming. Why does anyone think humans are making it warm?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmPatrick1
geez man, get a life.
azdiablos
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 pm[...] He lives just as he has preached. He lives carbon neutrally (or as close to as possible today). source Bull, it’s sham so rich people can feel good about themselves. Where is the audit that proves he [...]
March 24th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI don’t understand how people criticize Drudgereport.com. The website is simply a bunch of links to news articles, most of which come from the MSM. It’s not like these are his opinions. Jeez.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:21 am[...] Originally Posted by sid2112 That shuts me up nicely. I concede the point. Sid, never trust the WND. It’s a facist right wing blog at best. Here’s the scoop on his firm Generation Investment Management – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They fund research, not carbon offsets. Here is where he buys the offsets and power from. Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics [...]
April 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm[...] Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics [...]
April 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pmhttp art sale index com page link uk html
. Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too burdensome.It has since been implemented in most other
March 14th, 2008 at 6:23 amJack
The biggest advantage to seeking a degree from online universities is the convenience of not having to be physically present at pre-scheduled
March 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pmBest Retirement Cities Florida
Thanks for this post!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pmswimming pool installation
Sounds like an idea of the month!
March 16th, 2008 at 7:44 pm[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/ http://thinkwhere.wordpress.com/2006/07/15/mobile-phone-j2me-bluetooth-gps-openstreetmap-1/ [...]
March 16th, 2008 at 9:39 pmOnline Payday Loan
March 17th, 2008 at 12:59 amRachelle Leah Pictures
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 17th, 2008 at 7:45 amsport cycle
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
March 18th, 2008 at 7:25 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pmpost retirement calculator
The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
March 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pmliquid prep
With the application of robotic systems, telesurgery was introduced as the surgeon could operate from a site physically removed from
March 18th, 2008 at 10:00 pmJessie
Nice Site. Keep up the good work.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:57 amEmnma
Great, I was just thinking the same thing
March 20th, 2008 at 4:34 amWhat Is Enterprise Resource Planning
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:37 amAdrien
One should guard against preaching to young people success in the customary form as the main aim in life. The most important motive for work in school and in life is pleasure in work, pleasure in its result and the knowledge of the value of the result …
March 21st, 2008 at 2:20 ammichigan office of retirement
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:20 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pmEnterprise Car Hire
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 amMy Cracks and Serials
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pmJack
Web traffic can be increased by placement of a site in search engines and purchase of advertising, including bulk e-mail, pop-up ads, and in-page advertisements. Web traffic can also be increased by purchasing non-internet based advertising.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:22 amcalculate taxes for payroll
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:10 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 10:19 pmDirection Msn Travel
I was searching for ‘%KEYWORD%’ at google and got this your post (’%TITLE%’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read :)
March 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pmflorida adoption
Sounds good ? but nevertheless, I am not totally sure I agree with the idea.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:36 pmprivate car for sale
Many diesel powered cars can also run with little or no modifications on 100% biodiesel. Although various pistonless rotary engine designs
April 1st, 2008 at 2:23 amEric
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll write a post on this on my blog soon.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 amtotally free three in one credit report
Cool post and great content as always. Thanks for sharing.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:52 amhorse kid make money ways
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:22 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 7:54 amVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 8:27 amJack
Thanks for the post. I couldn’t agree with you more.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:30 amCar Loan
Ask about an auto loan to have a choice to obtain a good condition Mitsubishi in no time at all with a extraordinary guide!
April 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pmErin
Please visit http://www.ncaaedge.info [url=http://www.ncaaedge.info]AWESOME place to go[/url] http://ncaaedge.info
April 9th, 2008 at 8:06 amEric
Thanks for sharing. I agree and would add that th
April 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pmshowers practice
April 11th, 2008 at 5:00 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am