Will Al Gore EVER get it?!?
thegladhatter
01-28-2009, 09:57 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/snowstormhits-dc-gore-turn-heat-senate/
Gore :loser: to Crank Up Heat on Senate as Snow, Ice Hit Washington
Former Vice President is urging Congress not to be sidetracked by the current financial crisis and to take 'decisive action' this year to reduce greenhouse gases.
WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Al Gore is urging Congress not to be sidetracked by the current financial crisis and to take "decisive action" this year to reduce the heat-trapping gases responsible for global warming.
Gore, scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, planned to tell lawmakers that a bill capping greenhouse gas emissions is needed if the U.S. is to play a leading role in negotiations for a new international climate treaty.
He also was pressing Congress to pass President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, saying investments in clean energy and green jobs will help dig the country out of its economic rut, according to his prepared testimony.
The Bush administration pulled out of the last treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, because of the lack of participation by developing countries. Negotiations on a new agreement are scheduled for later this year in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gore -- recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize whose book on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," became an Oscar-winning documentary -- said the economic recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should not cause another delay.
"The road to Copenhagen is now very clear. It starts with the passage of President Barack Obama's stimulus bill in its entirety. And then, secondly, we need to put a price on carbon by passing cap and trade legislation," Gore said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press. "In other words, this crisis is an opportunity."
Gore's appearance is another sign that the Democratic-controlled Congress plans to act quickly on climate change. It comes days after Obama signed orders that will boost the fuel efficiency of the nation's cars and trucks and could allow states to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from exhaust pipes.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also named a special climate envoy this week to lead U.S. negotiations on a new international treaty. She picked Todd Stern, a former White House assistant who was the chief U.S. negotiator at the Kyoto talks.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he asked Gore to testify before the panel so "the message can go out loud and clear that the committee is going to be relentless and super-focused" on preparations for Copenhagen.
Gore is the perfect messenger, Kerry:loser: said.
Gore :loser: to Crank Up Heat on Senate as Snow, Ice Hit Washington
Former Vice President is urging Congress not to be sidetracked by the current financial crisis and to take 'decisive action' this year to reduce greenhouse gases.
WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Al Gore is urging Congress not to be sidetracked by the current financial crisis and to take "decisive action" this year to reduce the heat-trapping gases responsible for global warming.
Gore, scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, planned to tell lawmakers that a bill capping greenhouse gas emissions is needed if the U.S. is to play a leading role in negotiations for a new international climate treaty.
He also was pressing Congress to pass President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, saying investments in clean energy and green jobs will help dig the country out of its economic rut, according to his prepared testimony.
The Bush administration pulled out of the last treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, because of the lack of participation by developing countries. Negotiations on a new agreement are scheduled for later this year in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gore -- recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize whose book on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," became an Oscar-winning documentary -- said the economic recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should not cause another delay.
"The road to Copenhagen is now very clear. It starts with the passage of President Barack Obama's stimulus bill in its entirety. And then, secondly, we need to put a price on carbon by passing cap and trade legislation," Gore said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press. "In other words, this crisis is an opportunity."
Gore's appearance is another sign that the Democratic-controlled Congress plans to act quickly on climate change. It comes days after Obama signed orders that will boost the fuel efficiency of the nation's cars and trucks and could allow states to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from exhaust pipes.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also named a special climate envoy this week to lead U.S. negotiations on a new international treaty. She picked Todd Stern, a former White House assistant who was the chief U.S. negotiator at the Kyoto talks.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he asked Gore to testify before the panel so "the message can go out loud and clear that the committee is going to be relentless and super-focused" on preparations for Copenhagen.
Gore is the perfect messenger, Kerry:loser: said.
fredjacksonsan
01-28-2009, 11:16 AM
Gore's hypocrisy in the heating costs of his mansion(s) is what sticks in my gullet the most.
Perhaps global warming is a problem, perhaps it's not but the man needs to practice what he preaches before he'll be taken seriously.
Perhaps global warming is a problem, perhaps it's not but the man needs to practice what he preaches before he'll be taken seriously.
ericn1300
01-28-2009, 06:05 PM
Gore's hypocrisy in the heating costs of his mansion(s) is what sticks in my gullet the most.
Perhaps global warming is a problem, perhaps it's not but the man needs to practice what he preaches before he'll be taken seriously.
Where did that out dated sentiment come from? Got any new info on Gore's heating bill since your complaint seems to be about 6 years out of date?
Perhaps global warming is a problem, perhaps it's not but the man needs to practice what he preaches before he'll be taken seriously.
Where did that out dated sentiment come from? Got any new info on Gore's heating bill since your complaint seems to be about 6 years out of date?
VR43000GT
01-28-2009, 07:41 PM
03cavPA
01-28-2009, 09:32 PM
Where did that out dated sentiment come from? Got any new info on Gore's heating bill since your complaint seems to be about 6 years out of date?
I wouldn't call 2007 six years ago. I'm sure somebody else can dig up newer stuff.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
Here’s the story:
MONDAY • FEBRUARY 26, 2007
A VERY INCONVINIENT TRUTH: POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’:
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:
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, [20-room, eight-bathroom] 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 to 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.”
.............................................
How about six months ago?
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
June 23, 2008
Al Gore’s Personal Electricity Consumption Up 10% Despite “Energy-Efficient” Renovations
Energy guzzled by Al Gore’s home in past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month
NASHVILLE – In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The cost of Gore’s electric bills over the past year topped $16,533.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore’s film won an Oscar, and he won a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
There's some inconvenient truth for ya. :rolleyes: He's a self impressed jackass. :headshake
I wouldn't call 2007 six years ago. I'm sure somebody else can dig up newer stuff.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
Here’s the story:
MONDAY • FEBRUARY 26, 2007
A VERY INCONVINIENT TRUTH: POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’:
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:
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, [20-room, eight-bathroom] 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 to 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.”
.............................................
How about six months ago?
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
June 23, 2008
Al Gore’s Personal Electricity Consumption Up 10% Despite “Energy-Efficient” Renovations
Energy guzzled by Al Gore’s home in past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month
NASHVILLE – In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The cost of Gore’s electric bills over the past year topped $16,533.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore’s film won an Oscar, and he won a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
There's some inconvenient truth for ya. :rolleyes: He's a self impressed jackass. :headshake
VR43000GT
01-29-2009, 01:44 AM
^^QFT. AL Gore is a joke though and through.
thegladhatter
01-29-2009, 09:11 AM
Algore did not invent the internet....
...but he DID make up global warming.
...but he DID make up global warming.
HotZ28
01-30-2009, 02:15 PM
Yeah, one hot summer day after weird Al quit grieving over his lost bid for Pres, one of his campaign aids told him to “quit crying & get another job”! Al responded; “It sure is hot today” and his aid said; "thats it, you should do something about that!" So Al set out with a new agenda, he thought if he could BS enough people to nearly be elected Pres, he could at least convince the fools who voted for him, he would remain dedicated to their cause & help them stay cool. Four years and 400-million dollars later, it still get's hot in the summer! :evillol:
BNaylor
01-30-2009, 05:39 PM
Four years and 400-million dollars later, it still get's hot in the summer! :evillol:
:lol:
And it still gets cold in the winter too. :grinyes: Gore is so full of carbon dioxide it is coming out his you know what. Obviously a real education matters in his case. :twak:
At least half the country is still sane.
Source: Rasmussen
January 19, 2009
44% Say Global Warming Due To Planetary Trends, Not People
Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Link to Article (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people)
:lol:
And it still gets cold in the winter too. :grinyes: Gore is so full of carbon dioxide it is coming out his you know what. Obviously a real education matters in his case. :twak:
At least half the country is still sane.
Source: Rasmussen
January 19, 2009
44% Say Global Warming Due To Planetary Trends, Not People
Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Link to Article (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people)
VR43000GT
01-30-2009, 06:20 PM
Where did that out dated sentiment come from? Got any new info on Gore's heating bill since your complaint seems to be about 6 years out of date?
Yep, even though he claims taking measures to make his mansion more environmentally friendly, his energy consumption has risen 10% more in 2008 than 2007. He uses this energy to power his electric gate, heated swimming pool, etc. Truly an upstanding guy.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
Yep, even though he claims taking measures to make his mansion more environmentally friendly, his energy consumption has risen 10% more in 2008 than 2007. He uses this energy to power his electric gate, heated swimming pool, etc. Truly an upstanding guy.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't call 2007 six years ago. I'm sure somebody else can dig up newer stuff.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
Read it. Nussbaum states in the second paragraph “someone did some analysis of his carbon footprint and found it was pretty big. I don’t know much about the source”
Hearsay on his part, hearsay on yours.
How about six months ago?
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research are a bunch of political hacks
protecting their own asses: http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/2008/03/tn-center-for-policy-research-files.html
There's some inconvenient truth for ya. :rolleyes: He's a self impressed jackass. :headshake
How inconvenient that you choose doctrine over thruth.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
Read it. Nussbaum states in the second paragraph “someone did some analysis of his carbon footprint and found it was pretty big. I don’t know much about the source”
Hearsay on his part, hearsay on yours.
How about six months ago?
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research are a bunch of political hacks
protecting their own asses: http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/2008/03/tn-center-for-policy-research-files.html
There's some inconvenient truth for ya. :rolleyes: He's a self impressed jackass. :headshake
How inconvenient that you choose doctrine over thruth.
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 06:49 PM
:lol:
And it still gets cold in the winter too. :grinyes: Gore is so full of carbon dioxide it is coming out his you know what. Obviously a real education matters in his case. :twak:
At least half the country is still sane.
[/i]
No science in that article, just poll numbers. I thought you Bush'ies didn't care about polls.
And it still gets cold in the winter too. :grinyes: Gore is so full of carbon dioxide it is coming out his you know what. Obviously a real education matters in his case. :twak:
At least half the country is still sane.
[/i]
No science in that article, just poll numbers. I thought you Bush'ies didn't care about polls.
BNaylor
01-30-2009, 06:55 PM
No science in that article, just poll numbers. I thought you Bush'ies didn't care about polls.
Now thats a cheap shot! Do you have any thing intelligent to add to the discussion other making attacks? If the science proves it then put it up so it can debated.
Ericn1300 you are good at criticizing but you have not posted anything credible or worth looking at to support your position.
Now thats a cheap shot! Do you have any thing intelligent to add to the discussion other making attacks? If the science proves it then put it up so it can debated.
Ericn1300 you are good at criticizing but you have not posted anything credible or worth looking at to support your position.
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 07:02 PM
Yep, even though he claims taking measures to make his mansion more environmentally friendly, his energy consumption has risen 10% more in 2008 than 2007. He uses this energy to power his electric gate, heated swimming pool, etc. Truly an upstanding guy.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
I repeat, The Tennessee Center for Policy Research are a bunch of political hacks protecting their own assets: http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/...rch-files.html
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
I repeat, The Tennessee Center for Policy Research are a bunch of political hacks protecting their own assets: http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/...rch-files.html
BNaylor
01-30-2009, 07:07 PM
I repeat, The Tennessee Center for Policy Research are a bunch of political hacks protecting their own assets: http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/...rch-files.html
At least put up a link that works or please do better than that. It is an independent, non-partisan, non profit organization just like organizations like factcheck.org that many believe are pro Obama.
About Tennessee Center for Policy Research
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research promotes personal freedom and limited government through policy solutions that:
* Generate economic growth through reduced tax and regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses
* Create unmatched educational opportunity by empowering parents, students and teachers with choices and opportunities
* Advanced healthcare solutions that restore dignity and encourage personal responsibility
* Identify opportunities to reduce cost and increase efficiency in all levels of government
* Protect and defend the rights guaranteed by the Tennessee and United States Constitutions
* Reflect the Founding Fathers’ vision of a free society grounded in property rights and individual liberty based in personal responsibility
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the ideas of liberty to achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.
About TCPR (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php?page_id=27)
At least put up a link that works or please do better than that. It is an independent, non-partisan, non profit organization just like organizations like factcheck.org that many believe are pro Obama.
About Tennessee Center for Policy Research
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research promotes personal freedom and limited government through policy solutions that:
* Generate economic growth through reduced tax and regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses
* Create unmatched educational opportunity by empowering parents, students and teachers with choices and opportunities
* Advanced healthcare solutions that restore dignity and encourage personal responsibility
* Identify opportunities to reduce cost and increase efficiency in all levels of government
* Protect and defend the rights guaranteed by the Tennessee and United States Constitutions
* Reflect the Founding Fathers’ vision of a free society grounded in property rights and individual liberty based in personal responsibility
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the ideas of liberty to achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.
About TCPR (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php?page_id=27)
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 07:18 PM
Now thats a cheap shot! Do you have any thing intelligent to add to the discussion other making attacks? If the science proves it then put it up so it can debated.
Ericn1300 you are good at criticizing but you have not posted anything credible or worth looking at to support your position.
No, that was not cheap shot, it was a legitimate response to your post. Al Gore (the Noble Laureate) has put up the science and all I'm doing is shooting down cheap ass rhetoric and quasi science as it rears it's ugly head.
Ericn1300 you are good at criticizing but you have not posted anything credible or worth looking at to support your position.
No, that was not cheap shot, it was a legitimate response to your post. Al Gore (the Noble Laureate) has put up the science and all I'm doing is shooting down cheap ass rhetoric and quasi science as it rears it's ugly head.
BNaylor
01-30-2009, 07:37 PM
No, that was not cheap shot, it was a legitimate response to your post. Al Gore (the Noble Laureate) has put up the science and all I'm doing is shooting down cheap ass rhetoric and quasi science as it rears it's ugly head.
Comments such as yours are cheap shots and that is all you do. :nono: Gore hasn't put up any science other snow jobbing people. He has no tech background or scientific educational credentials to support his position and all he sees is the money.
You haven't shot down anything in this discussion other than go off the deep end as usual with your rhetoric, personal attacks and criticizing members willing to go to the effort to support their positions or counter yours which up to now is nil.
You might consider reading the newly revised forum guidelines. Put up the proof and support your position.
Click here (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=935213)
Comments such as yours are cheap shots and that is all you do. :nono: Gore hasn't put up any science other snow jobbing people. He has no tech background or scientific educational credentials to support his position and all he sees is the money.
You haven't shot down anything in this discussion other than go off the deep end as usual with your rhetoric, personal attacks and criticizing members willing to go to the effort to support their positions or counter yours which up to now is nil.
You might consider reading the newly revised forum guidelines. Put up the proof and support your position.
Click here (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=935213)
VR43000GT
01-30-2009, 07:58 PM
It's also nice to take note that last August Gore (and this is after his "go-green setup") used over TWICE as much energy in his mansion in one MONTH than the average American household does in a YEAR.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450
And it is not just his house that he could cut down on. In his guidebook to going green #7 on the list is to fly right. If you must take a plane, go on a commercial airplane right? Nah, that's not going to cut it for our hero Al Gore. Here is a video of Al's transportation (and if you don't like who is reporting that is fine but every word of it is true...prove otherwise ;) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51L6kvaxMBk
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450
And it is not just his house that he could cut down on. In his guidebook to going green #7 on the list is to fly right. If you must take a plane, go on a commercial airplane right? Nah, that's not going to cut it for our hero Al Gore. Here is a video of Al's transportation (and if you don't like who is reporting that is fine but every word of it is true...prove otherwise ;) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51L6kvaxMBk
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 08:11 PM
You might consider reading the newly revised forum guidelines. Put up the proof and support your position.[/url]
I read the new guidelines and you asked for it, as a military man you might want to look into the following links
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
CIA and the Pentagon urged to assess warming's effect on security ...
www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php
The Pentagon Sounds The Alarm On Global Warming; Why Isn't Bush listening? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-13.htm
Does Global Warming Compromise National Security? http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Oh and back to the science:
Global Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Earth Science data and services directory: Global Change Master
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/
The first link and the last two are official government sites, can you come up with something better?
It is the responsibility of each debater to both utilize good sources of information AND to also find creditable sources when stating that someone else's source is unreliable. It is a two way street.
I read the new guidelines and you asked for it, as a military man you might want to look into the following links
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
CIA and the Pentagon urged to assess warming's effect on security ...
www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php
The Pentagon Sounds The Alarm On Global Warming; Why Isn't Bush listening? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-13.htm
Does Global Warming Compromise National Security? http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Oh and back to the science:
Global Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Earth Science data and services directory: Global Change Master
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/
The first link and the last two are official government sites, can you come up with something better?
It is the responsibility of each debater to both utilize good sources of information AND to also find creditable sources when stating that someone else's source is unreliable. It is a two way street.
03cavPA
01-30-2009, 08:18 PM
How inconvenient that you choose doctrine over thruth.
:rolleyes: Find us some information that refutes the numbers that they obtained from the utility company that Gore buys his energy from.
Let's set aside your opinion of the source for a moment and concentrate on the figures given in the links. Are the energy usage numbers they cite for Gore's household wrong, or are they correct?
Disagreeing with Al Gore does not automatically make one a "Bushie". I'm not a "Bushie", but it is my opinion that Al Gore is a self impressed hypocrite. His attitudes toward his personal energy usage bear that out.
I'm addressing Al Gore's rep here, and that's all I'm talking about in my post. If he truly believes in reducing our impact on our environment, he sets a mighty poor example (perhaps none at all) and it damages his credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.
Doctrine? Do you mean the Gore Doctrine? "Do as I say, not as I do". :dunno:
:rolleyes: Find us some information that refutes the numbers that they obtained from the utility company that Gore buys his energy from.
Let's set aside your opinion of the source for a moment and concentrate on the figures given in the links. Are the energy usage numbers they cite for Gore's household wrong, or are they correct?
Disagreeing with Al Gore does not automatically make one a "Bushie". I'm not a "Bushie", but it is my opinion that Al Gore is a self impressed hypocrite. His attitudes toward his personal energy usage bear that out.
I'm addressing Al Gore's rep here, and that's all I'm talking about in my post. If he truly believes in reducing our impact on our environment, he sets a mighty poor example (perhaps none at all) and it damages his credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.
Doctrine? Do you mean the Gore Doctrine? "Do as I say, not as I do". :dunno:
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 08:57 PM
:rolleyes: Find us some information that refutes the numbers that they obtained from the utility company that Gore buys his energy from.
Let's set aside your opinion of the source for a moment and concentrate on the figures given in the links. Are the energy usage numbers they cite for Gore's household wrong, or are they correct?
Disagreeing with Al Gore does not automatically make one a "bushie". I'm not a "bushie", but it is my opinion that Al Gore is a self impressed hypocrite.
I'm addressing Al Gore's rep here, and that's all I'm talking about in my post. If he truly believes in reducing our impact on our environment, he sets a mighty poor example (perhaps none at all) and it damages his credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.
Doctrine? Do you mean the Gore Doctrine? "Do as I say, not as I do". :dunno:
Could be an increase due to increased activity at his home. Shit, I had two daughters move back home after finishing college and not finding jobs that would pay off the student loans. I don't even want to look at my utility bills, just the increase in toilet paper usage is enough to make me scream.
Let's set aside your opinion of the source for a moment and concentrate on the figures given in the links. Are the energy usage numbers they cite for Gore's household wrong, or are they correct?
Disagreeing with Al Gore does not automatically make one a "bushie". I'm not a "bushie", but it is my opinion that Al Gore is a self impressed hypocrite.
I'm addressing Al Gore's rep here, and that's all I'm talking about in my post. If he truly believes in reducing our impact on our environment, he sets a mighty poor example (perhaps none at all) and it damages his credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.
Doctrine? Do you mean the Gore Doctrine? "Do as I say, not as I do". :dunno:
Could be an increase due to increased activity at his home. Shit, I had two daughters move back home after finishing college and not finding jobs that would pay off the student loans. I don't even want to look at my utility bills, just the increase in toilet paper usage is enough to make me scream.
03cavPA
01-30-2009, 09:01 PM
Then you could agree the numbers for his energy usage could be right?
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 09:51 PM
Then you could agree the numbers for his energy usage could be right?
Yes, but maybe not wholly attributable to him. What are your numbers, in Kw and not Pesos amigo (that's in real money for those of you in Rio Linda who used to think the dollar was king). And don't go running to the old lady or the bill pile for the answer now.
Yes, but maybe not wholly attributable to him. What are your numbers, in Kw and not Pesos amigo (that's in real money for those of you in Rio Linda who used to think the dollar was king). And don't go running to the old lady or the bill pile for the answer now.
CL8
01-30-2009, 10:29 PM
I read the new guidelines and you asked for it, as a military man you might want to look into the following links
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
CIA and the Pentagon urged to assess warming's effect on security ...
www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php)
The Pentagon Sounds The Alarm On Global Warming; Why Isn't Bush listening? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-13.htm
Does Global Warming Compromise National Security? http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Oh and back to the science:
Global Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Earth Science data and services directory: Global Change Master
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/
The first link and the last two are official government sites, can you come up with something better?
If the leaders in the old world insisted the world was flat and had so called "proof" did that make it true?
Of course the pentagon and congress are going to assert global warming!
The lying liberal power hungry democrats are in control!
They don't care about the truth, they only care about power and control!
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
CIA and the Pentagon urged to assess warming's effect on security ...
www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php)
The Pentagon Sounds The Alarm On Global Warming; Why Isn't Bush listening? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-13.htm
Does Global Warming Compromise National Security? http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Oh and back to the science:
Global Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Earth Science data and services directory: Global Change Master
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/
The first link and the last two are official government sites, can you come up with something better?
If the leaders in the old world insisted the world was flat and had so called "proof" did that make it true?
Of course the pentagon and congress are going to assert global warming!
The lying liberal power hungry democrats are in control!
They don't care about the truth, they only care about power and control!
ericn1300
01-30-2009, 11:02 PM
The lying liberal power hungry democrats are in control!
WOW, that's the best you can come up with? I'm really glad to see the lying conservative power hungry republicans out of control.
same song, just a different dance
WOW, that's the best you can come up with? I'm really glad to see the lying conservative power hungry republicans out of control.
same song, just a different dance
03cavPA
01-31-2009, 12:38 AM
Yes, but maybe not wholly attributable to him.
Who else are we attributing them to, his gardener? We're talking about Gore's household. As in, the house he owns. Just the one in TN. He has a couple of others, but that one seems to be the hog we're talking about now. I'll make it easy for you and post it in condensed form.
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
.................................................
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The cost of Gore’s electric bills over the past year topped $16,533.
..........................................
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
It's not a hard question. You took issue with the source, but I asked if you had other data to refute those claims.
Do you have other data or not? Is it reasonable to accept those numbers as reflective of the Gores' household energy usage?
It's OK to admit the man doesn't practice what he preaches. :rolleyes: Let's stay on track here.
Who else are we attributing them to, his gardener? We're talking about Gore's household. As in, the house he owns. Just the one in TN. He has a couple of others, but that one seems to be the hog we're talking about now. I'll make it easy for you and post it in condensed form.
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
.................................................
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The cost of Gore’s electric bills over the past year topped $16,533.
..........................................
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
It's not a hard question. You took issue with the source, but I asked if you had other data to refute those claims.
Do you have other data or not? Is it reasonable to accept those numbers as reflective of the Gores' household energy usage?
It's OK to admit the man doesn't practice what he preaches. :rolleyes: Let's stay on track here.
BNaylor
01-31-2009, 09:56 AM
It's OK to admit the man doesn't practice what he preaches. :rolleyes: Let's stay on track here.
:werd:
Good point(s) raised but IMO you are preaching to the choir with this guy. Too blinded by liberal politics. Gore is nothing but a sanctimonious hypocrite.
I read the new guidelines and you asked for it, as a military man you might want to look into the following links
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
What does this link above have to do with the real facts on global warming? Just because it is on a NASA web site? If NASA is depending on the World Book as a source and two unknowns for global warming then we are all in trouble. :rofl: Check out the credit at the bottom of the article. I don't see where it was supported or endorsed by the Pentagon. :grinno: Also, the U.S. Military (Armed Forces) does not rely on NASA. They have their own academic programs, professors, engineers, scientists and trained specialists who are staying clear of any of the false or misleading science or theories pushed by Gore and his buddy NASA scientist James Hansen.
Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.
How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.
I read the rest your links posted and there is really nothing there. Still nothing to support Al Gore's or your position on global warming and if there is global warming what are the real causes. Is that all you have? Feebly anecdotal at best. Where's the beef?
Also, I guess you are not up to snuff on the latest debacle surrounding NASA and the issue of global warming. Not only can they not manage our space program or keep space shuttles flying but the head NASA scientist James Hansen that helped propagate the global warming hype via his position at NASA along with his buddy Al Gore was recently rebuked and debunked. He appeared in Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" and Gore relied on this nut job to sell his story. :rolleyes: Therefore your links referencing any part of NASA and NASA Goddard are meaningless and really do not prove anything or support any position for global warming.
Source: US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Web Site
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June 23, 2008 ]
Link to Article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320)
The first link and the last two are official government sites, can you come up with something better?
:grinyes:
As to the science and dissent against, here are some good detailed reads on the other side of the argument/debate which IMO are fairly credible and further discredit Gore's and Hansen's bogus theories on global warming.
Source: Environmental and Science Policy Project 2008
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf)
Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.
In Science, Ignorance is not Bliss (http://launchmagonline.com/walt-cunninghams-viewpoint/64-in-science-ignorance-is-not-bliss)
Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film An Inconvenient Truth was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges 'notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming' & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Link to Article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8)
ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2007) — In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the northern hemisphere.
Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm)
Source: University of Southern California
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science
Link to Article (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php)
Source: University of Alabama Huntsville
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Link to Article (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875)
Consensus? What Concensus? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate is Not Over
Link to Article (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf)
Source: American Thinker
NASA Flacks for Global Warming and Skirts Scientific Ethics
"If NASA, a US government agency, will not own up fully to its own errors (which have now been corrected, quietly, on its GISS website), the American Physical Society must institute its own ethics inquiry to correct the record. The credibility of NASA and the entire scientific community are at stake."
Link to Article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/nasa_flacks_for_global_warming.html)
And the list of credible, reliable and authoritative sources on the flip side of the debate goes on and on. It just goes to show why the majority of the American public do not believe Al Gore and remain dubious about the theories of global warming and why the politicized liberal view point supporting Gore is being rejected. :loser:
:werd:
Good point(s) raised but IMO you are preaching to the choir with this guy. Too blinded by liberal politics. Gore is nothing but a sanctimonious hypocrite.
I read the new guidelines and you asked for it, as a military man you might want to look into the following links
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
What does this link above have to do with the real facts on global warming? Just because it is on a NASA web site? If NASA is depending on the World Book as a source and two unknowns for global warming then we are all in trouble. :rofl: Check out the credit at the bottom of the article. I don't see where it was supported or endorsed by the Pentagon. :grinno: Also, the U.S. Military (Armed Forces) does not rely on NASA. They have their own academic programs, professors, engineers, scientists and trained specialists who are staying clear of any of the false or misleading science or theories pushed by Gore and his buddy NASA scientist James Hansen.
Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.
How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.
I read the rest your links posted and there is really nothing there. Still nothing to support Al Gore's or your position on global warming and if there is global warming what are the real causes. Is that all you have? Feebly anecdotal at best. Where's the beef?
Also, I guess you are not up to snuff on the latest debacle surrounding NASA and the issue of global warming. Not only can they not manage our space program or keep space shuttles flying but the head NASA scientist James Hansen that helped propagate the global warming hype via his position at NASA along with his buddy Al Gore was recently rebuked and debunked. He appeared in Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" and Gore relied on this nut job to sell his story. :rolleyes: Therefore your links referencing any part of NASA and NASA Goddard are meaningless and really do not prove anything or support any position for global warming.
Source: US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Web Site
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June 23, 2008 ]
Link to Article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320)
The first link and the last two are official government sites, can you come up with something better?
:grinyes:
As to the science and dissent against, here are some good detailed reads on the other side of the argument/debate which IMO are fairly credible and further discredit Gore's and Hansen's bogus theories on global warming.
Source: Environmental and Science Policy Project 2008
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf)
Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.
In Science, Ignorance is not Bliss (http://launchmagonline.com/walt-cunninghams-viewpoint/64-in-science-ignorance-is-not-bliss)
Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film An Inconvenient Truth was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges 'notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming' & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Link to Article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8)
ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2007) — In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the northern hemisphere.
Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm)
Source: University of Southern California
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science
Link to Article (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php)
Source: University of Alabama Huntsville
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Link to Article (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875)
Consensus? What Concensus? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate is Not Over
Link to Article (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf)
Source: American Thinker
NASA Flacks for Global Warming and Skirts Scientific Ethics
"If NASA, a US government agency, will not own up fully to its own errors (which have now been corrected, quietly, on its GISS website), the American Physical Society must institute its own ethics inquiry to correct the record. The credibility of NASA and the entire scientific community are at stake."
Link to Article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/nasa_flacks_for_global_warming.html)
And the list of credible, reliable and authoritative sources on the flip side of the debate goes on and on. It just goes to show why the majority of the American public do not believe Al Gore and remain dubious about the theories of global warming and why the politicized liberal view point supporting Gore is being rejected. :loser:
03cavPA
01-31-2009, 01:04 PM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 21, 2007
GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE
............................................
Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
......................................
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.
“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.
Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge":
As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”
Gore refused to take the pledge.
:uhoh: I wonder why Big Al didn't want to take the energy pledge? :uhoh:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 21, 2007
GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE
............................................
Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
......................................
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.
“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.
Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge":
As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”
Gore refused to take the pledge.
:uhoh: I wonder why Big Al didn't want to take the energy pledge? :uhoh:
BNaylor
01-31-2009, 01:49 PM
:uhoh: I wonder why Big Al didn't want to take the energy pledge? :uhoh:
How many times do we have to mention Gore is a hypocrite! :wink:.......:lol:
Also, Gore's buddy NASA scientist James Hansen is now knocking on Obama's door. He sent the following letter to Obama and his wife. Now this cat is taking his nonsense to a new level and wants to help Obama redistribute wealth via a tax on carbon emissions. :screwy:
29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.
Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. [...]
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.
A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. [...]
James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America
NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate.
Link to Article (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth)
Further supported by the following links:
Columbia University Web Site (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf)
Source: Guardian.UK
Climate change policies failing, Nasa scientist warns Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama)
How many times do we have to mention Gore is a hypocrite! :wink:.......:lol:
Also, Gore's buddy NASA scientist James Hansen is now knocking on Obama's door. He sent the following letter to Obama and his wife. Now this cat is taking his nonsense to a new level and wants to help Obama redistribute wealth via a tax on carbon emissions. :screwy:
29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.
Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. [...]
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.
A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. [...]
James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America
NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate.
Link to Article (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth)
Further supported by the following links:
Columbia University Web Site (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf)
Source: Guardian.UK
Climate change policies failing, Nasa scientist warns Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama)
thegladhatter
01-31-2009, 06:14 PM
Marxist bastards will run crazy for the next 4 years...
CL8
02-01-2009, 02:26 AM
WOW, that's the best you can come up with? I'm really glad to see the lying conservative power hungry republicans out of control.
same song, just a different dance
Too bad your statement isn't true!:iceslolan
same song, just a different dance
Too bad your statement isn't true!:iceslolan
thegladhatter
05-31-2009, 04:29 PM
More global warming???
http://www.uticaod.com/archive/x1175994993/May-to-go-out-under-a-freeze-watch
http://www.uticaod.com/archive/x1175994993/May-to-go-out-under-a-freeze-watch
CL8
06-01-2009, 02:33 AM
Of course they call it "climate change" now since they know people see the "warming" is a hoax!
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025