Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

They're not...they just don't like to be told they're wasting energy by someone who uses ten times the energy of the average American.

The issue has NEVER been about energy usage but rather the amount of CO2 puts into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Yes, let's use fossil fuels but let us also use them RESPONSIBLY.

[duckbillplatty]

Don't know where in the world you got the idea that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are the leaders of the environment protection movement. They're not. Not by a long short. The leaders are in the individual groups dedicated to protectiong the environment, like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservatory, the Environment Defense Fund, etc and those State AG's who are sueing the Federal EPA over its failure to enforce the law of the land.

Al Gore, who invented the internet, is a leader of the environmentalists? You are making me laugh. He is just staying in the limelight with his global warming movie and lecture circuit.

You're wrong. 90% of the country has no idea who any of those groups are. So while they be the behind the scenes action groups, Al Gore is the face of the global warming debate. Sorry, but it is fact. He is the prophet of global climate change.

[arkansasbob]

You miss everything here.

a) Al Gore is not "(environmentalist?)" he is the most outspoken (or at least most heard) environmentalist in the country. Hands down. No question about it.

b) Al Gore does not lead by example when it comes to global warming. In fact, he is so irresponsible that the person most associated with environmental irresponsibility is more personally responsible than he is.

c) Did I claim that all environmentalists are hypocrits? No. There are hippies living in trees right now that would put most environmentalists to shame.

My point in the last couple of posts had nothing to do with global warming the issue or your average environmentalist. Reread the posts and you will see that I am saying that if you are going to have a successful movement for change in this country, you have to have a good leader. Al Gore is not. Hillary Clinton is not. If you want the average American to be responsible with energy usage and stop driving their SUVs and polluting the earth, then those putting that policy into place can't have enormous mansions and drive huge SUVs. It sounds to much like Stalinist Russia. I drive low mpg vehicles and I *know* global warming is *partially* caused by human produced greenhouse gases. But let me make this absolutely clear. I am against any policy where rich people can be irresponsible with emissions and poor people bear all the responsibility. Al Gore says that it is ok to pollute if you *buy* carbon offsets??? What about poor people who can't afford offsets? They have to walk now? And he calls himself a Democrat...

Until you get a responsible leader for the cause, policy change for the correction of global warming is dead in the water.

or, as the science teacher guy on lost said, "the pigs are walking!"

(while the man sleeps in the stable?)

[saltydawg]

<<Until you get a responsible leader for the cause, policy change for the correction of global warming is dead in the water.>>

You guys must be asleep. Policy change by the US Gov't to reduce greenhouse gases is already underway. The election last Nov. saw to that. Even a lot of Republicans are drinking the Kool-Aide.

Newspaper article this morning reports that many States are taking the leaad in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme court decision was a MAJOR VICTORY for controlling greenhouse gases.

Now, the EPA is going to have to get off its fat ass and start doing something about CO2 capture and storage. Sorry guys, but to think that Al Gore had something to do with the SC decision is funny.

BTW, 99% of the American people don't know about Big Al's 20 room mansion in Nashville.

[randerizer]

BTW, 99% of the American people don't know about Big Al's 20 room mansion in Nashville.

yep. and what percentage of those americans that currently think that AGW might be a problem would change their mind if they realized that the most popular spokesman for the cause was doing this?

i'd be willing to bet that at least a few would.

[saltydawg]

yep. and what percentage of those americans that currently think that AGW might be a problem would change their mind if they realized that the most popular spokesman for the cause was doing this?

i'd be willing to bet that at least a few would.

AGW is a problem regardless of Al Gore's energy use. Besides, I think I heard somewhere that he gets all of electricity from windmills.

[randerizer]

AGW is a problem regardless of Al Gore's energy use. Besides, I think I heard somewhere that he gets all of electricity from windmills.

wrong... the correct statement from his group is that he "buys back" his electricity costs in renewables. What that means is that he is investing X amount of money into companies that are developing solar and windmill technologies. But, it's an investment. And sounds alot to me like someone at Philip Morris telling me that cigarettes are good for me.

AGW is not proven to be a problem, despite what Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc. has to say about it. But I do think that a bunch of people that are currently leaning towards thinking that AGW is a problem would lean the other way if they knew that the person they look for for "leadership" on this issue is spending an amount greater than their entire income on electricity.

[saltydawg]

wrong... the correct statement from his group is that he "buys back" his electricity costs in renewables. What that means is that he is investing X amount of money into companies that are developing solar and windmill technologies. But, it's an investment. And sounds alot to me like someone at Philip Morris telling me that cigarettes are good for me.

AGW is not proven to be a problem, despite what Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc. has to say about it. But I do think that a bunch of people that are currently leaning towards thinking that AGW is a problem would lean the other way if they knew that the person they look for for "leadership" on this issue is spending an amount greater than their entire income on electricity.

Well, at least Al's heart is in the right place. You trying to tie Al's electricity use to the development of public policy on the issue of AGW is absurd. There is no link. Use all the electricity you want. BTW, you are starting to sound like a socialist for wanting to control how much electricity a person can use.

As for AGW not being a problem. If you think New Orleans under 5 ft of water is not problem and malaria in s. louisiana is not a problem, I guess you and slick willie have a lot in common.

[randerizer]

Well, at least Al's heart is in the right place. You trying to tie Al's electricity use to the development of public policy on the issue of AGW is absurd. There is no link. Use all the electricity you want. BTW, you are starting to sound like a socialist for wanting to control how much electricity a person can use.

As for AGW not being a problem. If you think New Orleans under 5 ft of water is not problem and malaria in s. louisiana is not a problem, I guess you and slick willie have a lot in common.

maybe you misunderstood me. I'm suggesting that Al's electricity use suggests that he doesn't see GW as as big of a threat as he lets on. I'm likening his investment in alternate energy sources and his lobbying congress/the public on AGW to Cheney and Halliburton and Iraq...

You think the heart of ANY of our elected/formerly elected officials is in the right place?

I'm certainly not trying to control electricity. New Orleans might be under 5 ft of water and there might be malaria in S. Louisiana whether or not AGW is real. Have you forgotten our discussion on natural carbon cycles already?

[saltydawg]

maybe you misunderstood me. I'm suggesting that Al's electricity use suggests that he doesn't see GW as as big of a threat as he lets on. I'm likening his investment in alternate energy sources and his lobbying congress/the public on AGW to Cheney and Halliburton and Iraq...

You think the heart of ANY of our elected/formerly elected officials is in the right place?

I'm certainly not trying to control electricity. New Orleans might be under 5 ft of water and there might be malaria in S. Louisiana whether or not AGW is real. Have you forgotten our discussion on natural carbon cycles already?

Well, I remember our discussions on the UNNATURAL carbon cycle.

Al Gore use of electricity when compare to the total use of electricity in the United States is so tiny that it is insignificant. You want to talk about tiny, insignificant things, fine. Just don't try to make a huge mountain out of it.

Cheney and Halliburton and Iraq. Now there is something to write home about. Seems the American people are aware of that trio.:icon_wink:

[Guisslapp]

Al Gore use of electricity when compare to the total use of electricity in the United States is so tiny that it is insignificant. You want to talk about tiny, insignificant things, fine. Just don't try to make a huge mountain out of it.

Kind of like anthropogenic contributions of CO2 compared to the total output of CO2.

[randerizer]

Well, I remember our discussions on the UNNATURAL carbon cycle.

what does that mean? that humans have somehow at some point unnaturally decreased the levels of atmospheric CO2 from natural levels? I can't imagine that would be a good thing... New Orleans might be as cold as Moscow.

[saltydawg]

Kind of like anthropogenic contributions of CO2 compared to the total output of CO2.

Hardly.

Al Gore uses .0000000006% of the US electricity production.

Anthropogenic contributions to CO2 is over 7.5 gigatons a year. You have to remember, Guisslapp, that the carbon cycle was in steady-state balance before mankind started to do his civilization thing. That's why atmospheric CO2 levels are going up by 1.5 ppm or higher per year..

[saltydawg]

what does that mean? that humans have somehow at some point unnaturally decreased the levels of atmospheric CO2 from natural levels? I can't imagine that would be a good thing... New Orleans might be as cold as Moscow.

Just the opposite. WE have unnaturally increased the level of atmospheric CO2.

[Guisslapp]

Hardly.

Al Gore uses .000000000006% of the US electricity production.

Anthropogenic contributions to CO2 is over 7.5 gigatons a year. You have to remember, Guisslapp, that the carbon cycle was in steady-state balance before mankind started to do his civilization thing. That's why atmospheric CO2 levels are going up by 1.5 ppm or higher per year..

Looks steady state to me.