Al Gore on his Prius & earth issues

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 23 2006, 05:32 PM) [snapback]260015[/snapback]</div>

Global warming is real, but from what I've read, we aren't certain that man-made emissions are the cause. I would put it in the likely category just because so many voices are saying it, but science has been spectacularly wrong before. You have to balance out the cost-verses-benefit on every public policy matter, and in the absence of conclusive proof, the "cost" side of the equation is more heavily weighted. The way to change that is not with politics, but with science.

I just read a dissenting view from someone other than Lindzen, a Dr. David R. Legates who the article identifies as "associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. Dr. Legates is also the Delaware State Climatologist, Coordinator of the Delaware Geographic Alliance (sponsored by National Geographic), and Associate Director of the Delaware Space Grant Consortium (sponsored by NASA)."

His article appears at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/st285f.html ... the "NCPA" is identified as having conservative and business leaders on its board at SourceWatch ... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...Policy_Analysis A friendly place to present his article, for sure, but he sounds pretty authoritative to me, and his CV is pretty impressive.

I think one reason global warming and the possible link to CO2 is getting so much attention is because the other pollutants from burning fossil fuels are on such a rapid decline. The dire predictions of the 1970s and 1980s haven't come true because emissions are down significantly.

 

...but it deserves consideration and research, not name calling and denial. We can afford to fund research in the causes of global warming and we can afford to regulate the marketplace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 23 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]260144[/snapback]</div>

Yes, let's balance the cost vs. benefit then: Use cheap oil while we can (perhaps pushing us towards the Peak Oil crisis sooner rather than later), keep our military in the mid-east protecting oil sources, financing the regimes of countries unfriendly to the U.S. around the world - or - spend money on American-produced batteries for EVs, PHEVs and HEVs, reduce pollutants even more, protect the environment of the North Slope and other wild areas, and stretch out our oil supply for another x years with the resulting benefit to our economy for our children and grandchildren.

That's even ignoring the very scary possibility the scientists might be right about anthropogenic global warming.

The choice is ours.

 

Oh, this could be fun.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rocket @ May 22 2006, 10:38 PM) [snapback]259541[/snapback]</div>

Compared to whom? George W.? :huh:

And yet human activity has increased the global CO2 levels by 50% in a century, something that hasn't happened in the last 400,000 years. And CO2 levels track very closely to changes in global temperature. What about the results taken from the grounding of all planes after Sept. 11th that show contrails alone affect our average daily temperature swings? These are all facts.

Most of the glaciers are growing? The center of Greenland and the portions of Antartica are growing, but that could easily be argued the result of increased precipitation (most of Antartica really gets the equivalent precipitation of a desert, so some wamer humid air could really change that). Glaciers are retreating on the edges of Greenland, Antartica, all across the Alps, Kilamanjaro, Himilayas, Rockies, etc. as well as the Arctic ice-cap. Something has raised our ocean levels, what else would do that? I could keep going, but I've got more things to do with my time.

I'll do this as soon as I can, but I'm at work now, so can't spend a lot of time on this.

Maybe it's because older people are less open to change, and it's the younger ones that look at the data with fresh eyes and are willing to buck the established thought.

Hmm, yes, political funding...isn't it true that NASA was editing/restricting what it's own members could say only when it went against the Bush administration's line? And didn't Bush's staff rewrite several science reports to lessen the impact of GWG and climate change, over the objections of the scientists? Until we get politics out of science and let the scientists do what they want and report the truth, we'll never get the full picture.

Money trail? What about the reports of big oil having secret meetings with the White House to write our energy policy? What about that money trail???

 

New Video Exposes Behind-the-Scenes Story of Gore’s Own Energy Use
Wed May 24 2006 17:59:00 ET

As former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary on global warming fears debuts today, a new video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute tracks Gore’s own “carbon footprint.†CEI’s 70-second video points out that Gore himself is a big user of the hydrocarbon fuels that produce carbon dioxide when combusted.

Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth†asks, "Are you willing to change the way you live?" The Gore documentary and new book of the same name go on to suggest ways that people can reduce their carbon footprint, yet Mr. Gore has clearly not taken his own message to heart. He even says in the documentary that he has given his global warming Power Point slide show more than 1,000 times all around the world.

The CEI video, which may be viewed at: http://streams.cei.org/, includes footage of Gore and his constant air travel with two CO2 meters running at the bottom of the page that compare Gore’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with those of an average person.

"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,†said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ May 24 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]260570[/snapback]</div>

Seems like a group that has a hidden agenda... perhaps just vehemently pro-business but it wouldn't suprise me if they get thier funding from some very large corporations. Strangely enough, they don't state where they get thier funding from. They have a support page, but wonder how many corporations donate vs. how many ordinary Americans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San Diego Steve @ May 24 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]260597[/snapback]</div>

Take a look at their profile on the Media Transparency website. It lists the sources of their funding.

CEI is described as:

 

Boy, what a nutty thread. Who would have expected to find lively political debate on a web site.

So the concept is, that the people studying global warming have an incentive to exaggerate the problem to get grant money? Yikes. What about all the global warming skeptics who receive generous funding to downplay the problem? For example, from energy companies with a stake in opposing regulation of fossil fuel emissions. This was actually documented in 1998 in a book called "The Heat is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription."

Heck, in 2001, the National Academy of Sciences did a report, commissioned by the Bush administration that began, ""Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." (I only state this because it is apparent there are a few Bush supporters in here?)

But you know what, let's not listen to Al Gore, and let's not listen to Bush, or Crichton, or John Stossel, or Ed Begley Jr., let's listen to the scientists. The ones whose published academic research on the issue is scrutinized by friend and foe alike.

 

"Heck, in 2001, the National Academy of Sciences did a report, commissioned by the Bush administration that began, ""Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." "

But in 2005, all those reports were changed to read quite differently. They now say 'not' in front of all those facts. Go ahead, ask google to show you the scientists upset that their work was being modified to better fit the bush agenda. It's just sickening.

An Inconvenient Truth. I think that says it all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ May 24 2006, 05:42 PM) [snapback]260570[/snapback]</div>

It is not something he's proud of, I'm sure. However, as a former vice-president of arguably the most powerful country on Earth, he's required to have a certain number of secret service agents and other precautions taken. As a current businessman and, crusader, for lack of a better word, he's expected to travel more than the average person. It's pretty hard to get your point across to people around the globe if you're a hermit. His CO2 footprint should be compared to other industry leaders.

And for the record, he recognized the promise of the Internet and pushed some important legislation to develop what became the Internet (back when it was still part of DARPA and BitNet). Even Newt Gingrich acknowledged that. Of course, saying "I invented the internet" was a gross over-simplification, or a playful exageration, depending on how you look at it.

Personally, I probably would've voted for John McCain if he had still been running, so don't think I'm a die-hard liberal. I think of myself as an environmentally-inclined independent who thinks about each vote. As such, there's no way I could ever vote for two weaselly Texas oilmen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cameron @ May 24 2006, 04:35 PM) [snapback]260513[/snapback]</div>

Yes we can afford the research.

And whose marketplace are you going to regulate - ours, China's, India's???? And who is going to make the decisions on how to regulate it, and to what degree????????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 25 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]260908[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but Warren Buffett flies private too. Here is a quote talking about how we should raise the consumption tax on those who fly private, "For instance, when I fly my private jet I use hundreds of gallons of jet fuel but I'm not taxed at a higher rate. Flying in a private jet is usually unnecessary, excessive consumption and I should be taxed appropriately via a higher consumption tax." And yet he still does it. Why? The same reason we drive cars instead of taking the bus. It's faster, safer, and in a world where the single most valuable resource is time, it's worth it. But he is right, they should be taxed at a higher rate.

Let's face it, some people hate "do gooders". For some reason, if you try to do something on a large scale to make the air cleaner, or to try to protect wildlife, or to talk about reducing the gap between the haves and the have nots, or to blow the whistle on any number of types of corruption, you are villified by those who for some reason can't stand that sort of thing. On a smaller scale, it's also why some people seem to feel compelled to call Prius drivers "smug". But you know what...in the long run, people don't remember you haters. People remember, and respect the do gooders. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., John Muir, the religious prophets, and so many others in recent and not so recent history. So take heart Prius fans, and also take heart Al Gore fans. And with that, I'll leave you with two Al Gore quotes:

"No matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out."

"The day I made that statement about inventing the internet, I was tired because I'd been up all night inventing the camcorder." (Real quote, and a pretty funny one at that!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JasonCon @ May 25 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]260933[/snapback]</div>

You are right with Buffet by the way - in fact I think BH bought a private jet leasing company in part for that reason although with his money he could by any major airline

Love the last quote - excellent.

I just have this thing for algore - I think he is such a looooser. Like I said before all he had to do was win his home state to be President - that tells you enough about him. I wonder what his next windmill will be??

Have a nice day

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 25 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]260943[/snapback]</div>

I just read the entire thread from start to finish.

dbermanmd, thanks again for giving me a good laugh after lunch! You never cease to amuse me!

I've been busy in other threads lately, the one in particular has been about Liberals being in charge and about Bush bashing and what a travesty it is.

Seems like you've taken Gore Bashing to a new high!!! The next time someone gets on me for Bush bashing, I will reference all your quotes on this thread to shut them up.

So you see, it can go both ways. You Gore/Clinton bash, we Bush bash. It's fun to do. Just stop mocking us when we do it OK?

Oh, almost forgot......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ May 25 2006, 08:11 AM) [snapback]260888[/snapback]</div>

Al Gore's exact quote was:

This is what Newt Gingrich had to say about the subject matter:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 25 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]260908[/snapback]</div>

Considering how much he gets flamed on a Prius forum, no less; hell, I'd have Secret Service coverage too!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 25 2006, 11:17 AM) [snapback]260908[/snapback]</div>

I thought you'd be better informed about something as basic as the most commonly stated GHG (greenhouse gas).

Here's a basic chart: http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg, there are others, they all show pretty much the same thing.
As you can see by the inset, CO2 levels in 1750 were about 280 ppm, roughly the same as Pompeii's destruction. Only recently has it rapidly risen past the post-ice-age range. (This is determined largely by ice-core samples, although it can be collaborated by other methods for more recent years). CO2 levels have varied over the millenia, tied closely to global temperatures (there are charts for that too). Today we've pushed the levels to 380 ppm and they're rapidly climbing. Currently they're about 30% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. Now do you see why informed people are worried about our economic and cultural future?

To be fair, CO2 levels were apparently much higher back several million years, when dinosaurs lived in Canada and Antartica was green. Of course, most modern-day cities would also be completely flooded in that scenario. The Earth will survive, but human civilization might be cast off like a bad virus over the next century. At the very least, the DJIA will be a hundredth of it's current value.

 

Some Inconvenient Truth about Al.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2301/Some_Incon...s_About_Al_Gore :blink:

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rocket @ May 22 2006, 11:38 PM) [snapback]259541[/snapback]</div>

As someone who has actually studied paleoclimatology, as well as read the studies you incorrectly interpreted, I'd like to ask you to never, ever post anything without a disclaimer again (perhaps 'Don't listen to me, I like to pretend I know what I'm talking about...'?)

Yes, this has happened before (though it's taken catastrophies to get it to happen this fast). Yes, it will happen again. Yes, the Earth will catch up, and come back to an equilibrium. The effects are only detrimental to the species living on the earth. Oh, wait....

 

Read my book: http://www.roperld.com/science/humanfuture.pdf (Triple Threats for the Human Future: Will Civilization Arrive?) for a rational discussion of those and many other important issues, including much data.

Dave Roper