# The Inconvenient Truth



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

"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."



What's he doing with all that, powering the internet? In one month he'll consume three times the electricity that I will in one year. Yet I'm the bad guy for not riding a bicycle to work?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I like that the celebs drive their Priuses to the airport to get on their Gulfstreams...by themselves.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Environmentalism is the new millenialism.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> "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."
> 
> What's he doing with all that, powering the internet? In one month he'll consume three times the electricity that I will in one year. Yet I'm the bad guy for not riding a bicycle to work?


Do you believe everything you read on the internet?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well here is an inconvenient truth I took to the voting booth. In 1999 Terence Unity Freitas, aged 24, accompanied by Ingrid Washwinawtotok of the Menominee tribe of Minnesota and Gay Lahe'ene'e from Hawaaii were found bound,gagged and shot several times just over the Columbian Border from Venezuela. They were visiting specifically to assist in the startup of a native language school for the U'wa people, Terry's two associates being experts in this endeavor. Terry was a trusted friend of the U'wa people, serving as representative in Los Angeles in their struggle against Occidental Petroleum drilling on their deeded and ancestral lands. The government tried to blame FARC, a revolutionary group who had already entered into a truce and negotiations who knew of Terry and respected his efforts. Their murders have never been further investigated. Al still holds a considerable sum of stock in OP,@ 2 Million, a legacy of his dad's close relationship.Gore has never responded to this issue. I was acquainted with Terrence, helped raise a few dollars for his efforts. Al Gore can take his ghost written ersatz Profiles in Courage/Earth in the Balance and stick it where the Ozone don't reach.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Global Warming....good question. Is man causing it? A pertinent question too. Is Al Gore about to give us the answer? Yeah.....that I really doubt. 

This is the guy who's family made their fortune in tobacco and oil and now tells people how to live? Sorry, gay druggie ministers that crusade against those things get no credibility from me and millionaires that made the family money on the things they crusade against get just as much credibility from me. The only good thing about this Oscar is it shall make the Dem nomination so much more fun.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Do you believe everything you read on the internet?


LMAO good come back!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This year's Oscars disturbed me deeply. I more or less managed to keep my counsel on the thread about clothing. But I've been thinking back to Mannie Potempkin ( I probably blew the name) expressing his disgust at the Oscar's being used as a political soapbox after Redgrave's spewing about Zionists. Next it was Brando sending a indian princess to accept his Oscar. Janie Fonda made the comment she wanted to say a few things, but chose not to. And then we got Jabba the Hut with Bowling for Columbine shooting his mouth off, knowing full well he wouldn't be back. But last night was so orchestrated I couldn't tell All from the old black and white images of Big Brother with the fortune cookie admonitions about riding bicycles. The democratic candidate for governor made issue over Arnold appearing with Leno. Was Swarzennegger invited? He's certainly an Academy member and vocal supporter of Global Warming. Hollywood is an industry of entertainment media. That our 'News' services are as much, if not more infotainment is bad enough. I guess this is sour grapes on my part. I never saw Leonardo during the Redwood campaign when my money put Julia Butterfly in a proper sleeping bag and Steven Seagall didn't show up at LAX when the Dalai lamma first visited. Last time Julia came south I was stood up for lunch and blocked by her entourage because Leonardo showed up to meet her. It's all too silly on everyone's part. I think I will win the lottery. I will buy up large tracts of decaying sections of L.A. bulldoze everything and reintroduce native plants and a few grizzly bears to show our celebrities how to truly swagger.


----------



## Thracozaag (Sep 5, 2002)

The movie coveniently ignores the fact that there were climactic shifts happening on Earth long before the Industrial Revolution.

koji


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

One of my favorite quotes about being "environmentally conscious." 

"Oh, the Segway. I love Segways! They are so much fun! I'm on a Segway polo team, we play against Dean Kayman's team every now and then. And they are great for the environment, they hardly pollute at all! Plus, I can fit four in the back of my Hummer..."

-Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple (tongue placed firmly in cheek)

Yes, he really has four Segways, a hybrid, and a Hummer H1.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Do you believe everything you read on the internet?


Do you believe everything you read here? =)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> Do you believe everything you read here? =)


I do. 

Heh, touche Trend.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The increase in domestic energy consumption and global warming directly correlates to the invention and exponential growth of the internet. Think about how many gluttonous electricity eating servers are powering the internet and how much heat they produce. 

Coincidence, Mr. Gore? I think not!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

global warming is being exacerbated by hot air and gaseous comments. I predicted in an earlier thread Gore is going to sit back while the Dog and Pony show embaresses itself. Gore will then accept a party draft. There were TWO orchestras at the Awards.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Ok, back to the thread.

Having done some reading on this report it would appear that's it's pretty much partisan bullshyte. Made for a nice headline though.

-spence


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Kav said:


> This year's Oscars disturbed me deeply. I more or less managed to keep my counsel on the thread about clothing. But I've been thinking back to Mannie Potempkin ( I probably blew the name)


Kind of. It was screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky who was offended by Vanessa Redgrave's denunciation of "Zionist hoodlums." In Redgrave's defense, she didn't start the controversy. Various Pro-Zionist groups had launched a vigorous campaign against Redgrave's role in _Julia_ and her Oscar nomination for her performance, and the JDL had a fairly large and vociferous contingent, including that noted moderate Meir Kahane, outside the Dorthy Chandler Pavillion the night of the awards. (The "Zionist hoodlums" to whom Redgrave was referring in her short speech.) Chayefsky's retort was actually a bit of a cheap shot, all things considered. Of course, this was all nearly three decades ago. _Julia _was a pretty good flick, but I couldn't get past Jane Fonda playing _Lillian Hellman_ (!)


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Spence said:


> Ok, back to the thread.
> 
> Having done some reading on this report it would appear that's it's pretty much partisan bullshyte. Made for a nice headline though.
> 
> -spence


https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2006-08-16-gore-letters_x.htm

The strangest thing about the article linked in the OP is that the author quotes himself. That's weird.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I have posted on this before. I've read a lot on global warming and I think it's simply cannot be proven to be real. There's no definitive evidence that warming is due to anything other than a cycle and no evidence that human impact is causing it.

Besides, who gives a fart if the sea level rises over 8" or the temperature rise 0.5 to 1.0 degrees over a century?


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Besides, who gives a fart if the sea level rises over 8" or the temperature rise 0.5 to 1.0 degrees over a century?


...are you kidding? How about every person living on the coast of a landmass.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> ...are you kidding? How about every person living on the coast of a landmass.


How is a very gradual rise in sea level over a hundred years going to hurt anyone?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I can name several Alaskan native coastal villages that have already been destroyed or made uninhabitable. We are in a state of denial, and if not clutching to some fantasy of a technical white knight. The world shifted from woodburning to coal and then to oil. Now that the end, though the timeframe is open to debate of the petroleum age is a given people think some new resource will show up; wind,nuclear, methane mined from the ocean floor or bovine excrement ( actually used in tree denuded Nepal in small, household energy units invented by an acquaintance.) Hydrogen powered cars etc. The simple truth is there are far to many of us breeding along with rats and cockroaches beyond the global carrying capacity. Global Warming, fact or fallacy is but one canary in the coalmine. Mother Nature has more methods of regaining our attention than a Nun in a parochial school. We better hope the worst; species extinction of at best 30%, depleted water reserves, collapsed monocrops from use of chemicals( destroyed soil friability, mutated vermin immune to our nastiest cocktails, genetic deadends like commercial banannas) will take 100 years to hit us full force. Anyone for rearranging the deck chairs again?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I can name several Alaskan native coastal villages that have already been destroyed or made uninhabitable.


Why can't they be established somewhere else? We are talking 8 inches here folks!



> We better hope the worst; species extinction of at best 30%, depleted water reserves, collapsed monocrops from use of chemicals( destroyed soil friability, mutated vermin immune to our nastiest cocktails, genetic deadends like commercial banannas) will take 100 years to hit us full force. Anyone for rearranging the deck chairs again?


Kav, that's just silly. There is no evidence this will occur.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.K., heres a final request before I stop playing Cassandra. Create a document stating your opinions about Global Warming, your present consumer habits and the manner of world you think your descendants will inherit. Secure it for their perusal over the next 100 years.Let them judge who was right.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Kav,

I think what some of us want in this debate on global warming is a bit more scientific analysis of what is going on and a more open mind as to the causes. It seems this global warming is becoming religious doctrine for the left.

Sadly it is becoming doctrine among some scientific groups which is extinguishing real scientific debate and serious peer review.


----------



## Newsman (Feb 14, 2007)

Oh why dont we just blow up the whole freaking planet!!!!! 

This Gore house thing is just another big red herring because you can't call global warming into question anymore. 

Is it a natural - yes! Does man contribute to it - yes! I'm no scientist but have any of you seen Los Angeles on a smoggy day? Where do you think that stuff goes? If it was good for you - we would have no trouble breathing it all into our lungs. My vote is Artisan Fan sit behind the tailpipe of a combustion engine and take some big whiffs. Now mulitply that by the millions of cars there are on the roads. 

Now there's the question - do we keep abusing our planet and let nature do what it has to do? Does anyone know what that is? It is called wiping us off the planet! Man is the only creature here that if we disappeared tomorrow - no one would miss us other than our domesticated pets. Are you willing to risk everything? Because if we chose wrong, there will not be a magic bullet to fix it. 

As for Gore, he pays $4 a killowatt hour for his power (Source:MSNBC). That is 50% more than the average person pays. Why is it so costly? Because he buys it from a Green power source. He offsets his use of carbon by supporting renewable energies. 

It is ridiculous to say "Oh, he's a big phony" and "his family made money from oil." Well, we don't seem to want to listen to any poor people. I guess polluters are great guys who should make as much money as they can before the floods come. Is Gore perfect? No - but at least he is doing something about it. 

Ed Begley Jr lives totally off of the grid. He preaches and lives a green life. "Oh but he's a Hollyweird fruitcake so you can't listen to him." 

What is the answer? We obviously can't keep up doing what we are doing to our environment. Nature does strive toward balance but so many people think we can just get away with anything (as long as we can make a buck). And what is the downside of taking small actions now? Aww,,poor little right-wing cry-babies don't like change unless they can make a buck off it. Fine - make a profit off of saving the planet. But let's not keep trotting out this "it needs more study" crap. 

If you do believe in Jesus, I think he will say ,when we meet him, "I gave you a beautiful planet - how did you treat it?" I pity those who will say " I mocked and ridiculed those who tried to save it and made money from exploiting it." 
For them, I hope there is a fiery hell. 

If you don't believe in Jesus - you may live long enough to see hell right here on Earth.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Newsman said:


> Oh why dont we just blow up the whole freaking planet!!!!!


welcome back!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Newsman said:


> As for Gore, he pays $4 a killowatt hour for his power (Source:MSNBC). That is 50% more than the average person pays. Why is it so costly? Because he buys it from a Green power source. He offsets his use of carbon by supporting renewable energies.


However, the article dealt with the amount used as well as the dollar cost. The amount used is the nub, ergo the price argument you present (without a link btw) is a straw man. Even if the source was "100% Green", whatever that would mean, it would still indicate he is over using and needs to cut back so the poor tobacco farmer can have some juice in Tenn! Would you think a 1000 lbs person internalized good eating and exercising habits and actually believed them to be beneficial if they lectured you on those topics? I sure would look askance.



Newsman said:


> It is ridiculous to say "Oh, he's a big phony" and "his family made money from oil." Well, we don't seem to want to listen to any poor people. I guess polluters are great guys who should make as much money as they can before the floods come. Is Gore perfect? No - but at least he is doing something about it.


Why is it ridiculous to point out Gore does not practice what he preaches? We are supposed to overlook his conspicuous consumption because he "cares"? (Near as I can figure, his "caring" has made him even wealthier, as one article stated he could now write himself a huge personal cheque....wonder where those millions came from? Teaching at Columbia? lol)



Newsman said:


> If you do believe in Jesus, I think he will say ,when we meet him, "I gave you a beautiful planet - how did you treat it?" I pity those who will say " I mocked and ridiculed those who tried to save it and made money from exploiting it."
> *For them, I hope there is a fiery hell. *


Ah yes, good liberal. Wishing those that they disagree with burn in a "fiery hell". I always love to see what liberal sensitivity and compasssion actually means.

Hey, welcome back, thought you were gone there for awhile!


----------



## Newsman (Feb 14, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> However, the article dealt with the amount used as well as the dollar cost. The amount used is the nub, ergo the price argument you present (without a link btw) is a straw man. Even if the source was "100% Green", whatever that would mean, it would still indicate he is over using and needs to cut back so the poor tobacco farmer can have some juice in Tenn! Would you think a 1000 lbs person internalized good eating and exercising habits and actually believed them to be beneficial if they lectured you on those topics? I sure would look askance.
> 
> Ergo -here's your link https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
> 
> ...


----------



## Newsman (Feb 14, 2007)

If don't want to jump - here's the transcript from last night's Countdown on MSNBC.

"OLBERMANN: He may never run for office again, and the man chosen president over him has now come around to his way of thinking about global warming. But face it, to the far right, Al Gore is still an inconvenient truth teller. Hard on the heels of his documentary’s Oscar came the headlines a non-partisan think tank had revealed that Mr. Gore’s own personal energy bill is 20 times the national average. 

So is our third story tonight outrageous hypocrisy, a minor embarrassment or a demonstration of a different kind of wind power? First, that allegedly non-partisan think tank, which just happens to have gotten its story picked up by the notorious Drudge Report today, is called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Twenty seven-year-old President Jason Drew Johnson, hailing from the same American Enterprise Institute that takes money from big oil, cheer-leads the war in Iraq and consistently, and now to pretty consistent laughter, downplays global warming. 

That said, even a partisan think tank can get the facts straight. So the facts, last year, Gore’s Tennessee property consumed almost 221,000 kilowatt hours, 20 times the national average. It cost him more than 16,300 dollars. But Johnson’s press release, calling on Gore to walk the walk when it comes to home energy use, omits several other key facts. The former vice president’s home has 20 rooms, including home offices for himself and his wife, as well as a guest house and special security measures. 

Furthermore the Gores buy energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Tonight, COUNTDOWN confirmed with the local utility officials that their program, called the Green Power Switch, actually costs more for the Gores, four dollars for every 150 kilowatt hours. Meaning, by our calculations, our math here, that the Gores actually chose to increase their electric bill by more 5,893 dollars, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution. 

The utility is also telling us that some smaller homes consume energy in the same range of usage as does the one on the Gores’ property. Surprise, surprise, there seems to be political subtext here."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Newsman, Excuse me, have we met? I've walked my walk and can provide references from Captain Paul Watson and Dave Foreman ad nauseum on down to the local blue haired chapter president of the Audoban Society. If I may, well I will use a well known phrase, " If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem." I am part of the problem. I burn things; gasoline in my car, on my apartment stove and in my cigarette lighter in my emergency kit. I am, regardless of volume no less culpable than any Mister Burns on The Simpsons.But I'm working on reducing my consumer footprint, and I sure as hell don't own Occidental Petroleum stock! I would point out, not remind since you obviously do not know, that some of our finest public conservationists are conservatives, aka republicans. That wasn't Jerry Brown standing next to John Muir at Yosemite. One can debate, chide, even get a little loud in debate. But a smart activist knows there is a time to smile, shake hands and let your 'opponents' know you respect them, have not dissimilar values and worries and can LEARN from them too. You don't ring your hands or jut your jaw skyward like some past megalomaniacs. I guess I've answered my own question. No, we haven't met. Not unless your that fed agent provacateur I took for a short walk in the Redwoods one night. Poor guy thought I was a pacifist. Your an embaressment, and hurting my efforts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Newsman said:


> And see if can you understand this - If I used 10,000,000 kilowatt hours of energy but drew that power from a renewable energy source (wind, solar, geothermal), I have not made an ecological impact because there would have been no Co2 used in production of that energy. The amount DOESN'T MATTER!!!!


Really? So then, the manufacture of solar panels is of course done with no ecological impact? Certainly mounting those panels have zero impact too no doubt. Wind generation in no way degrades the local environment of course. Sub-stations built to transmit the power of course have a zero footprint? Seriously, new name, same simple thinking.



Newsman said:


> And talk about straw men? It's HILARIOUS the righties always bring up "liberal compassion." Then they used it against liberals when it suits them, as in "Liberals wouldn't kill Osama Bin Laden. They would want to hug him and understand him. They can't protect us." Screw that! Find Bin Laden and kill him. I'm not advocating compassion except for the our planet. Either we change or nature will change it for us - and we may not like the results.


Good thing I am not a "rightie" then, eh? And I wish no one ill merely because they disagree with me. Osama is a verifiable physical threat, a difference in opinion is just hot air. I can tell the difference between them...


----------



## Newsman (Feb 14, 2007)

Sorry but I am really tired of the way people who have been trying to save our environment have been demonized. Kav, Paul Watson is on that list. The Sea Shepard crew has been accused of being pirates and terrorists. Hopefully, you benefited from the money I donated to the group. 

And I really do respect the Republicans and conservatives who are fighting for conservation. Just I don't see any national ones anymore - have they all been replaced with neo-cons? Evangelicals are just now getting on board. I also know many local sportsmen who protect the environment because they see a relationship between them, the earth and its creatures. 

But AGAIN what's the answer? Ignore what seems to be happening? Not build any solar panels or windmills because they are made out of - God forbid - "materials?" Ignore what Gore is telling us? Tell Hollywood celebrities we'd prefer Paris and Britney because they keep their mouths shut about issues and only talk about their little doggies? 

Celebrities have the ability to reach a large number of people. Young people may get involved with ecology because of Leo. Gore's movie has helped bring light to the problems. But I guess if they aren't living a perfect life, they can't have a voice and opinion.

And as for "hot air" we have had alot of it from politicians out to save big oil and their own power by dismissing global warming. Or the energy companies themselves creating "think tanks" to pay people to discredit scientists. But that must be okay because it's about money - something we all understand and many worship more than friends, family and the environment. 

Global warming is a real threat. Time for action is upon us - even if its only small changes we can make in our daily lives. Many small changes can lead to major ones.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I think we should go nuclear with cars. It would save gas, no?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> But AGAIN what's the answer? Ignore what seems to be happening? Not build any solar panels or windmills because they are made out of - God forbid - "materials?"


Windmills? Nah. FBR's! ( Fast Breeder Reactors) There's your long term answer to the carbon "problem".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Newsman said:


> But AGAIN what's the answer? Ignore what seems to be happening? Not build any solar panels or windmills because they are made out of - God forbid - "materials?"


As I have pointed out to you many times, this is an _ad hoc_ rescue. Your orginal statement was this:



Newsman said:


> And see if can you understand this - If I used 10,000,000 kilowatt hours of energy but drew that power from a renewable energy source (wind, solar, geothermal), I have not made an ecological impact because there would have been no Co2 used in production of that energy. The amount DOESN'T MATTER!!!!


You stated there would be no ecological impact if one used a renewable energy source. As I pointed out, that is simply wrong. I did not say we should not explore alternative ways to produce energy, I simply said your statement was incorrect (and you did not argue with my correction I note) but now you are painting it to make it look like I stated something else.

You are attempting to hit all the correct sound bites for your position, but you simply have yet to present a cogent argument.

Regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Where in this thread was any mention of demons, hellfire or Jesus made but by you? Gore is a POLITICIAN. By default this puts him a few notches below a San Francisco transvestite hooker on my social value scale and a few hoola hoops inside Dante's Inferno. Environmentalists have not been demonised. Oh, Chico Mendez was murdered, Judi Bari blown up, David Gypsy Chain killed by an out of control logger and a host of other assaults, civil rights violations and lies perpetrated and documented in the book THE WAR AGAINST THE GREENS. My friend Terry Freitas was murdered over indigenous people's rights to have their land left alone by OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM. Al Gore has 2 million with a M dollars worth of Terry's blood on his hands. I can tell a SF transvestite hooker at 50 feet. I can smell hypocrisy all the way from Hollywood, or Tennessee for that matter.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Back to global warming for a moment - what bothers me about the debate is that I don't need the threat of climate change to convince me that reducing pollution is a good idea.

For my part, I drive a small car, walk to work (I enjoy that luxury), I try to consolidate car trips, I even pay a fee to my town's transfer station to take my recyclables (even though the company that picks up our trash is supposed to do it but doesn't). I'm open to suggestions to do more.

Rather than indulge in yet another brainless left vs. right controversy, I'd like to see Americans make a few modest changes in their lives and see how they like it, if they save a few bucks, and if it has any measurable effect on the environment.

And see us do this without cable news rhetoric. So Gore's a phony. This is a big revelation?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Heres a start I think everyone will endorse. Buy organic clothing and I don't mean just Woody Harrison designer hemp. Wool, Silk, leather, natural horn, cotton,flax,bamboo have a superior user lifespan, are biodegradable, often maintain ancient communities and traditions, look and perform the function of climatic protection better than petroleum based, one use garments. There are downsides; cotton is a very high water use and pesticide/herbicide dependant crop at present. Leather is problematical if you consider the impacts of factory farming, both for animal welfare and the massive offal. Irony is, if this is of issue you can make a positive purchase by using american buffalo leather or Longhorns and support the continued recovery of those american symbols. A couple even postulated in a book a restored great plains 'buffalo commons' as populations in those states continue to shrink.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

And now some suggestions for the home. Native plants are often overlooked. By designing even a part of your landscape ( who doesn't want a Mr Lincoln rosebush?) with natives you are often giving many unseen beneficial insects,birds and animals food and shelter. Many older structures benefit greatly by insulation upgrades, a virtual industry in itself. Building a new deck? There is certified lumber available that has come from operations that practise sustainable timber harvests. There are countless specialty companies who reclaim materials from old buildings.If you think this means something from a big box dumpster imagine wrought ironworks, brass plumbing fixtures and carved wooden interior pieces. I won't bore you with low water use toilets and the superior lighting available. Are your kids cronically ill? Yank that formaldayde carpeting out and look at collecting rugs. Recycling is always controversial. Is there an old nasty republican bomb shelter on your property? Stop drinking sodie pop. It's bad for you anyway and collecting wine far more genteel and glass production far less impacting than aluminium. Nobody said you have to look like a vegan Grizzly Adams to be environmentaly conscious.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Gore's home does not compare favorably to the President's ranch:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Humanity talks of leaders who 'led us out of the wilderness' Gilgamesh had his wildman ( who Jan will point out made friends) and Beowulf killed Grendel ( probably an endangered Bigfoot or residual neanderthal.) Those of us who find salvation, both physical and mental in going back to that wilderness should take note of the folly of the first and eschew anymore Alpha Males , be they Leonardo De Caprio, MBAs or latino Sopas leading men. I'm doing this one on my own. Anyone tries to 'lead me' this time and I'll do what some foolish ancient ancestor failed to- a bifacially flaked flint point hafted to a shaft, launched from a reindeer carved ivory throwing stick in the proximity of his shoulderblades. Even **** Erectus figured out small caves are warmer with that power he tamed after a lightning strike.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Back to the original topic here are some (very partisan) rebuttals to the original story, some of which have been brought up already:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/talking-points-on-the-gor_b_42335.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Back to the original topic here are some (very partisan) rebuttals to the original story, some of which have been brought up already:
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/talking-points-on-the-gor_b_42335.html


Thanks for that link Concorida. Interesting to see the blogger mentions nuclear and makes it sound like a good source for electricity. So why are we not building more nuclear plants again? Ah yes.....environmentalists lobby to prevent it. I guess it's good when used to defend Gore?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Thanks for that link Concorida. Interesting to see the blogger mentions nuclear and makes it sound like a good source for electricity. So why are we not building more nuclear plants again? Ah yes.....environmentalists lobby to prevent it. I guess it's good when used to defend Gore?


Quality post. I will say this..nuclear power is the only option for green power that is available in enough volume to make a real difference.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> If you do believe in Jesus, I think he will say ,when we meet him, "I gave you a beautiful planet - how did you treat it?" I pity those who will say " I mocked and ridiculed those who tried to save it and made money from exploiting it."


Some of us believe Jesus might say "I gave you a beautiful planet that constantly self-renews. Why did you worry so much about man's piddly impact when the solar cycle is so much more impactful?"

Who's to say we are destroying the planet? What's your evidence if you think we are?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Quality post. I will say this..nuclear power is the only option for green power that is available in enough volume to make a real difference.


It really is. With fuel reprocessing technology presently available, the "long term waste storage" a'la Yucca Mountain disappears as the "waste" (fissionable actinides) is returned to the fuel cycle. The present, politically motivated, nuclear fuel cycle is like filling your car with gas, driving 10 miles and then putting all the gas back into the oil well. There's an average 4% "burn" of fuel in a single pass.

Best estimate, with proven reserves, if we made *ALL* our electricity, planet wide, with "breeder" reactors/fuel reprocessing, and assumed a 3% growth in electricity usage annualy, we have enough fuel for the next *5700 years. *With essentially *no* carbon emmissions.

So, what's the problem?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

yachtie said:


> It really is. With fuel reprocessing technology presently available, the "long term waste storage" a'la Yucca Mountain disappears as the "waste" (fissionable actinides) is returned to the fuel cycle. The present, politically motivated, nuclear fuel cycle is like filling your car with gas, driving 10 miles and then putting all the gas back into the oil well. There's an average 4% "burn" of fuel in a single pass.
> 
> Best estimate, with proven reserves, if we made *ALL* our electricity, planet wide, with "breeder" reactors/fuel reprocessing, and assumed a 3% growth in electricity usage annualy, we have enough fuel for the next *5700 years. *With essentially *no* carbon emmissions.
> 
> So, what's the problem?


We're waiting for the hippies to die and a President that can pronounce nuclear.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Some of us believe Jesus might say "I gave you a beautiful planet that constantly self-renews. Why did you worry so much about man's piddly impact when the solar cycle is so much more impactful?"
> 
> Who's to say we are destroying the planet? What's your evidence if you think we are?


But it doesn't renew. Extinct is forever. If we abuse out forests we will lose biological diversity and roaches and mice will take hold. If we mistreat the oceans, jellyfish will take the place of what we removed. From native americans ranging the plains through the industrial revolution and beyond - man has had an negative effect upon the environment.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*ksinc!!*

Gentlemen,

ksinc, I am sitting here, with my long hair! Well, kind of long.
In my jeans and sandals!
Smoking a joint and listening to the beatles!
And living!

LOL

Damn hippies all the time!
Nice day my friends


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bob Loblaw said:


> But it doesn't renew. Extinct is forever. If we abuse out forests we will lose biological diversity and roaches and mice will take hold. If we mistreat the oceans, jellyfish will take the place of what we removed. From native americans ranging the plains through the industrial revolution and beyond - man has had an negative effect upon the environment.


If it didn't renew it would die. It hasn't died. Species may become extinct but new ones emerge and new ones are sometimes found. Life renews, even though certain species may not. I've often thought that it would be the height of arrogance to assume that we have discovered everything about this world and their is nothing new left.

As for man's negative impact, that statement doesn't make any sense. In order to use resources, as we must, we must consume. If by cosuming those resources you suggest we are having a negative impact then what do you suggest?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Best estimate, with proven reserves, if we made *ALL* our electricity, planet wide, with "breeder" reactors/fuel reprocessing, and assumed a 3% growth in electricity usage annualy, we have enough fuel for the next *5700 years. *With essentially *no* carbon emmissions.


Peter Huber's book really has some great statistics on this in his The Bottomless Well book.



> But it doesn't renew. Extinct is forever. If we abuse out forests we will lose biological diversity and roaches and mice will take hold. If we mistreat the oceans, jellyfish will take the place of what we removed. From native americans ranging the plains through the industrial revolution and beyond - man has had an negative effect upon the environment.


There are two renewals that take place. After forest fires, forests grow back stronger than before. It's nature's way of renewing itself. Read Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist for examples of this. The ecosystem does renew even if some unfit species die off.

Secondly, man's quest for energy self-renews. Despite mythical popular thinking we are using up energy, the history is quite the opposite. When resources get scarce, man is further incented to extract more so productivity and efficiency of extraction methods goes up and more energy is found. This is what Huber refers to as "the bottomless well".

You have to stop thinking it's a zero-sum game and more one of "increasing returns" as Brian Arthur put it so well.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> ksinc, I am sitting here, with my long hair! Well, kind of long.
> In my jeans and sandals!
> ...


LOL Party on!


----------

