Blowhard Al Gore came to Seattle in May to share some "Inconvenient Truth" about global warming. But Peter Schweizer has some incovenient truths about Gore in today's USA Today.
Al currently uses no green energy sources in either his 20,000-square foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom Memphis home or his 4,000-square foot Arlington, Virginia home. He has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Occidental Petroleum stock even as the company came under attack for drilling in ecologically dicey zones. He gets $20,000 a year in zinc mining royalties from property on which his third home sits, in Carthage, Tennessee.
As Schweizer notes, Gore preaches environmental apocalypse, but lives high on the hog. After Al and Tipper move into a group house or at least nothing fancier than a deluxe yurt, Gore should launch a new lecture series on the Bovine Methane Menace.
UPDATE: A reminder, via our SP Events Caledar, that Dr. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute will critique Gore's claims on global warming in an August 21 lecture in Seattle.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at August 10, 2006 01:06 PM | Email ThisLove the mental picture of the Gore's living in a yurt.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 10, 2006 01:25 PMI've never been to one of those Monster Truck Rallies but I'd seriously think about it if they were to roll a giant truck over a bunch of Prius cars. Especially if AG was in one of them.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 10, 2006 01:40 PMCan't you see that the important work they're doing requires them to bend the rules they impose on us?
Posted by: Maximus on August 10, 2006 02:15 PMWe are following this leader by the leader's example, not by his words.
Posted by: Fred on August 10, 2006 02:35 PMRazeeb--there are many trying to have an intelligent discussion on global warming, but you aren't going to see that in the mainstream press any time soon. Considering most journalists need to spell check "science", I doubt very much they are suddenly going to start writing intelligent articles on the topic. They are much more comfortable with the Chicken Little School of Journalism.
Posted by: Burdabee on August 10, 2006 02:50 PMGranted, they have a dog in the fight, but last month's Car and Driver magazine had a great editorial slam on Al's BS. Well writen and backed up with MIT climate scientists. Another issue had an extensive column about ethenol and how it will never be the road to energy independance. These types of articles hit home to us rational people much as the nut jobs eat up AG's scare tactics.
I think you'll see more writing critical of Al's agenda as time goes on. These big doom and gloom enviro-scares peak everytime there's a GOP administration. The last one was during the Reagan years.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 10, 2006 02:52 PMSince you're up for changing the subject - it's actually more like Bill Clinton kissing Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Larry on August 10, 2006 04:05 PMewww! i didn't need that visual.
all i'm pointing out is that all politicians seem to by hypocrits.
so al gore, envirosavior of the world, isn't as green as he wants the rest of us to be. ooooo! big shocker!
Clinton talked up the importance of public schools, then sends his daughter to a public school. Bush and Cheney talk about the honor and glory of serving in the military, but none of them have served or have sent their children.
how many examples would you like of politicians saying one thing and doing another?
Posted by: Splinter on August 10, 2006 04:10 PMThere's a lot of data that indicates that the Earth is warming. But I know that a lot of people aren't convinced that there is proof that human activity is causing the temperature change. I like to keep an open mind, and I would love to see the link to the Car and Driver editorial.
Just a guess, and I have not seen the article, but if you are looking for factual data (as in peer-reviewed scientific research) on if humans are contributing significantly to global climate change, somehow I don't think "Car & Driver" would be the best unbiased source of information.
Not claiming to be an expert by any means, but it's just a hunch. ;-)
Posted by: Splinter on August 10, 2006 04:30 PMAs much as you'd like to deny it, President Bush served honorably in the National Guard. Tell those Guardsmen and women currently overseas that they never served.
Posted by: jimg on August 10, 2006 04:35 PMOh that's right... he did serve. (although to be honest, the gaurd then was not a ticket to the front line like it is today... it was generally considered a way to avoid getting killed.) I will have to resort to my previous example of his political hypocrisy about "cherishing the culture of life"....
But again... i'm just pointing out that this hypocrisy, like this article on Gore, or my example of Clinton, is not confined to any one political party by any means. I just don't understand why this would surprise anyone... and it has no bearing on the importance of addressing global climate change.
Posted by: Splinter on August 10, 2006 04:42 PMOh, and by the way
Splinter: Clinton... then sends his daughter to a public school.
I assume you meant private school, as in the exclusive Sidwell Friends.
http://www.celebrityprepschools.com/
Razeeb- Point I was making is we're slowly starting to see some intelligent debate regarding global warming. I don't believe anyone is denying that temps have been trending up. Is is cyclical? Are we to blame? Will there be a global climate event of dire consequence? The fact that even C&D is weighing in on the issue is a good thing. Do you disagree?
Splinter- I don't know why I'm bothering, but the data and science sited and footnoted in the C&D piece was provided by MIT climatologists.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 10, 2006 04:50 PMMost homes in Seattle still have aluminum windows. Aluminum is a conductor of thermal energy and thus has negative insulation value, even with double pane glass (R-2). 70% of heat loss is through these windows. But approach a green Seattle-ite about replacing their windows with thermally efficient ones... "later, mine are fine."
Even non-greens should upgrade from aluminum: a good R-10 glass pack, like in the Uniframe window (with an R23 frame), can save up to 66% on your heat bill, and they guarantee a minimum of 40% fuel savings at least. Spend the money on better things.
There's a waiting list for Toyota Prius vehicles even by people who only commute 30 miles to work (less than $100 in gasoline pm) whereas the same people spending $200 a month on heat in the winter are leaving their windows at low levels of efficiency. I guess it may be because a Prius is a status symbol? Either that or they just don't know how much windows affect the bottom line.
Posted by: Brian on August 10, 2006 04:52 PMI don't disagree, and I'm sorry if my post came off critical. Your points are well taken, and I share your hope -- and optimism -- that the discourse on global warming gets a bit more rational and less hyperbolic.
Posted by: Razeeb Hossain on August 10, 2006 05:03 PMgranted--i understand common sense v.i.p. security and safety; but--not a great p.r. thing to brag about for a professed green person; think of the costs & resources and delays;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 10, 2006 06:12 PMI am not that impressed with anyone from the Repubicans either, except possibly Rudy G. Makes me want to see a third party candidate that much more.
Posted by: KS on August 10, 2006 07:06 PMIn addition, upgrading your windows will add many thousands of dollars to the value of your home. I have a modest 1,220 square foot rambler in Bellevue. The appraisal from March 2005 said that my vinyl double pane windows made my house worth $6,000 more than it would be with the old metal single pane windows. When I remodeled in 2003, it cost quite a bit less than $6,000 to replace my windows.
Not only will you save perhaps 1/3 or more of your heating bill, but the market value of your home will probably go up by about the same you spend on replacing the windows, if not more.
And I bet Al Gore has vinyl double pane windows on both of his large fancy homes ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 10, 2006 07:13 PMUm, let me guess. One of you sells windows for a living?
Posted by: pbj on August 10, 2006 07:22 PMFirst learn to post. ( not twice in a row)
Second Al Bore is very much into (BIG OIL) He drives BIG cars,he lives in HUGE homes.
He knows nothing about environment except how to fool you and raise BIGGER bucks for even larger homes and cars.
EXCELSIOR!
Posted by: Insane People for Can't.vote.well on August 11, 2006 08:15 AMYou bother because that is a useful piece of information. Now, if I have the time and inclination, I can find the actual research MIT put out and make up my own mind. Like I said, I'm not an expert... just expressing that C&D probably has a bias on the subject.
Thanks for the info.
Posted by: Splinter on August 11, 2006 08:23 AMBut it's so much more than debunking the specifics of Al Gore's Global Warming claims. Because the real question is not if there is Global Warming, or what causes it, but would humans even be able to reverse Global Warming, and what economic impact that would have on our societies. Is it worth it to try and reverse Global Warming if there's nothing we can do? It's likely that the Earth itself or the Sun are major factors in Global Warming. All previous Global Warming episodes certainly were not caused by humans because there was no industrialization at the time. So, for the sake of argument, let's say the Sun only contributes 30% to Global Warming. Would we be able to reverse that 30%, even by an incredible over compensation, in addition to whatever percentage is caused by man? And what if the earth has a compensation mechanism for Global Warmng. We might in fact find that Global Warming has valuable benefits for increased food production. It is impossible to predict all of the future implication, positive or negative.
And in so doing, what would be the economic and quality of life cost? If we all got out of our cars immediately, and stopped all automobile activity, it might actually have an impact, but our whole way of life would be impossible without cars. Our economy would grind to a halt and we would all starve. And Al Gore's energy efficient lightbulbs and trip limiting suggestions, etc. are nice little bromides, but would have little to no effect, even if implemented on a wide scale unless we stop producing energy from coal and oil and drastically scale back use of combustion engines. And even Al Gore is not calling for such drastic measures.
On top of all of this, is the question of the timing of the threat. Even if we assume that Al Gore is 100% right in forecasting a future threat of rising sea levels, time is an important consideration. A rising sea level that occurs at a very slight pace over 50 years is a far lesser threat than an overnight rise. Over 50 years, humans could easily adapt, sell real estate, create floodwalls, migrate communities, etc. So there would be no real emergency worth doing detriment to our economy.
The bottom line is that Al Gore's movie is a political scare tactic. And most Americans don't appear to have fallen for it at all. I'm going to continue to listen to the many climatoligists that are debating the issue in a far more intellectual and rational way. Scare tactics and panic are no way to address a real problem if it exists.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 11, 2006 10:14 AMThe real movie to watch will be Hillary, Kerry and Gore trashing each other while scrambling for the nomination.
The heat resulting from that nomination will easily dwarf any global warming event.
Posted by: GS on August 11, 2006 11:16 AMWhat still stuns me when reading rightwing blogs, is the seeming incapacity of the audience to seek out for themselves the credible sources on scientific issues (climate, evolution, etc). On issues of even marginal comlexity, we at some point must rely on others. Learning how to find those people is key, whether its car repair or the future of humanity.
On climate, avoid all news sources, left and right. Instead, google 'NCAR', 'Hadley Centre', 'Max Planck Institute'. They'll steer you to the inconvenient truth.
Posted by: ministyra on August 11, 2006 12:55 PM1 - He doesn't believe the dire consequences of global warming that he publicly touts. Or...
2 - He believes in global warming, but his comfort and lifestyle are more important to him than the damage it does to the earth.
Posted by: reason_plz on August 11, 2006 01:49 PMIf you look at my original post, I mention that C&D has a dog in the fight - an obvious bias as does Al Gore.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 11, 2006 02:17 PMConservative or Conservationist. Not quite getting the point. Most want to do good by our planet - I think the issue here is one of do as I say, not as I do.
The bigger question was addressed by other posters more intellegent and elloquent than I. What is the economic cost for something we may not be able to effect one way or another.
Again, I bring up the point of timing, this issue wasn't nearly the urgent "do something now!" until we had a Republican administration. Just like the homeless issue, etc. Never hear much about them when a Dem is in office.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 11, 2006 04:02 PMThere has not been any real serious leadership on the climate change issue (or a national energy policy to rid us of our dependance on foriegn oil) for as long as I can remember. But I think the sudden interest in this has a lot more to do with the nasty set of hurricanes last year, the rolling blackouts from heatwaves, and the more obvious signs of environmental change. And I don't think it's fair to say it's only an issue when the GOP is in office either. The Kyoto Treaty was ready to go six years ago. It wasn't perfect, but it was a start.
I really don't think that waiting to see what *really* happens with our climate is a good long term strategy. It may be expensive and painful to reduce our industrial and personal pollution in the short term, but how expensive and painful will it be if we don't?
Posted by: Splinter on August 11, 2006 04:13 PMI fear I've made my point inadequately. That is, that the "economic cost" you mention is is a socialized cost (socialized, as in socialism). Many conservatives would bridle at an individual not bearing the full cost of activities from which he benefits. Yet as we now see, from evidence of pollution of our atmosphere and oceans, the cumulative effect is that people on every corner of the globe, for now and for centuries, will pick up the tab.
This is where the modern conservative mythos collapses, as do other industrial extractive economic systems. I'm not saying I have the answer, or if there even is an answer. But if humans can transcend our doomed systems of exchange, and create an ethic that places conservation of ecological systems on a par with protection of our families (because it is), then our grandchildren may have a future. But the current corporate culture and its propaganda system are so finely tuned, so nuanced and so psychologically compelling on the entire human race, that I'm not optimistic.
Posted by: ministyra on August 11, 2006 07:18 PMI already have....I donated money to purchase gags for liberals. I figured without all the hot air that they spew the planet would cool 2 degrees (and smell better, too ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 12, 2006 09:19 AMOk "ministyra" then walk the walk. No longer will you utilize anything that has been cut down, pumped out of the ground, or mined. That should put an end to your use of computers right away. Have a nice time living in your yurt.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 10:15 AMThe Earth may be a miracle but it is not supernatural. No god will step in to set the planet's ecology right. The ocean's ecology is collapsing far faster than even the atmosphere. The last decade of decline of the seas does not need computer projections -- ask any fisherman, in any part of the world. And it's not just fewer fish. Strange algae outbreaks, primitive organisms that until a few years ago were uncommon. As one SCripps scientist put it, it is a though the oceans are reverting to an earlier time when simple life forms dominated the seas.
We once thought the oceans were so vast, we could use and abuse them without effect. Same with the atmosphere. That kind of thinking is forever in the intellectual dustbin.
So let's at least make the decision to do nothing based on facts. Don't tell me the Earth is flat to justify a willingness to sacrifice anything and anyone for your least comfort. At least have that much integrity.
It's biogeochemical systems are subject to all the physical laws you learned about in high school physics.
Posted by: ministyra on August 12, 2006 10:29 AMThe reality is that the humans have survived for thousands of years through various calamities. There is no reason to suspect that through our intellect and ingenuity that we will not be able to solve any Global problem, if it even exists, and also do so with a continued high quality of life.
But to do that, we will not put politicans in charge of the effort. Instead, we will put scientists and engineers in charge. I'm an engineer, and I listen to real scientists, not politicans and activist scare mongers.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 12, 2006 11:24 AMYou are an engineer. I'm an evolutionary biologist. As a scientist whose field sustains relentless attacks from rightwing special interest groups, I see the same pattern being repeated against climatology. The strategies being used are strikingly similar, actually.
What should be clear to any objective reader isas well are the credible sources in climate research. For instance, the US �National Center for Atmospheric Research� (NCAR) and the British Meteorological Service�s �Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research�. These groups have no peer on the anti-global warming side. They are as cutting edge as it gets in science, massively funded and beholden to no one except their respective country�s governments.
So, Jeff, I challenge you to show a single climate change research organization doing active, peer reviewed research in climate physics, which is of a stature even close to these two organizations. Just one. That should not be too difficult, if such exists. I look forward to your reply.
Any lab which could overturn current climate change theory would instantly become one of the most famous scientists in history, have his or her choice of facilities, virtually unlimited funding, lectures, books, Nobel Prizes. Surely Exxon and Chevron are capable of funding such research. The US rightwing controls the US government, and could dump billions into such research with the stroke of a pen. So surely you should have no trouble finding just one example, if it exists.
Lastly, to your earlier point, it is outmoded economics to consider environmental degradation as cost-free. The costs are externalized but still real. A national strategy to pursue energy efficiency and alternative energy would make us more efficient and lessen our trade imbalance. Maybe most importantly, it would reduce and maybe one day end the funding going to unstable Middle Eastern countries whose terrorism and nuclear ambitions are funded by oil, which in turn forces us to commit tens of billions of dollars annually to protect our energy supply lines to them.
Can it work? Speaking from personal experience, my own home uses electricity that�s wind-generated, purchased from my local utility (same for AMD's nearby design facility). We pay less than a neighbor whose electricity comes from natural gas (anti-environmentalism can be costly). Now, if an automaker can provide a plug-in hybrid option by my next car purchase, my driving will be 80-90% solar-powered. That would leave my direct consumption of fossil fuels at a tiny fraction of what it was just a few years ago, with my quality of life equal to or better than what it was then. What's needed to tip this on a national scale is the tiniest bit of vision in Washington D.C., and fewer hands down the pants of the fossil fuel industry.
At least you are answering some points, that's a good start. I'm not saying that conserving energy, better technology, and less foreign dependence are not a good thing. What I am saying is that those sensible measures are a far cry from the Armageddon scenarios that Gore is painting. And on a societal level, the cost is far greater than you mention. It's nice that you've decided to use alternate energy, but the reality is that unless it is overwhelming more cost effective for the average Joe to do so, it ain't gonna happen. And so the only way to make it happen is to use governement force, which has a large impact, especially when implemented at a nationwide level. Not to mention, it's entirely immoral. And your hybrid example is a good example of where your plan is just wrong. Hybrids have a much higher cost, and a much higher long term cost. Battery replacements cost enough to obliterate all fuel savings costs. So, whille you might be moving the energy to natural gas, which is more efficient, there was a lot more energy expended to make the hybrid in the first place. And there is still an environmental output from natural gas as well. Have you considered how many new power plants would have to be built, and how much we would become reliant on natural gas if all cars were battery powered? There is no free lunch.
You might argue for a lot more nuke plants (which are the current cleanest, most effiecient and most energy dense fuels,) and that would be a good start, but all of the infrastructure replacement to make every car go to battery and to create the increases in the energy in the grid and build all of the new nuke plants all have costs? Who's going to pay all those costs?
The reality is that any gradual climate change will always be factored in to the economy and to indivdual lives automatically. If oil prices continue to rise, demand will fall. If sea levels continue to rise, individuals will take action as they see fit. New technology will be adopted as it makes sense. Progressives want to ram current technologies down our throats and saddle us with high taxes to make it happen. And in the end, the market will determine what is right and most likely, it won't be the technology that progressives forced on us today, because we don't know what new and wondrous innovation is coming.
There is no need for scare mongering, the emergency does not exist, or at very worst, it is drastically overstated. If Al Gore is not even willing to take the basic measures to conserve energy that you have, and he's the leading advocate for doing so, then we won't see anyone else doing so anytime soon.
And go read some more science. It's not all oil funded. And even if it was all oil funded, that would not mean that it was all false. There's no vast conspiracy to compleltely dismiss global warming any more than there is a vast conspiracy to promote global warming. And the largest reason for this is that it's largely still a little understood phenonmena. Any scientist that tells you they are certain of the future implications of today's warming trend is just plain lying.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 12, 2006 06:29 PMI fail to understand your comment that, "...it's entirely immoral". The use of government force to protect the citizenry from harm is its most fundamental responsibility. There is no fundamental right to emit fossil fuel combustion products into open air, and especially so where there is good evidence those emissions will harm others out of proportion to any benefit they might receive. I argue that this smacks of socialism, the costs of pollution being borne disproportionately to the benefit. Even if gas cost $3, if it cost $2 in biological productivity due to pollution, and $2 to defend the Persian Gulf, the true cost is $6. If the person at the pump does a cost/benefit analysis based solely on the per gallon price, his perception of the energy market is wildly skewed relative to alternatives like gas/electric hybrid or biodiesel that don't require entail of armies and navies and 4-5 gigatons/yr of new atmospheric carbon to implement. It is immoral to socialize the costs of one's activities. Vehicles like hybrids internalize those costs to the user. Perhaps you and I agree that people should pay their own way in the world.
Thank you for bringing up morality. We now understand that our current energy system, if continued, has a high probability of irreversible, planet-wide consequences for the human race now and for centuries into the future. A life morally lived cannot ignore this nor can we shoe-horn this new knowledge into tired old materialistic systems. What is called for is a personal and business ethic to do no harm at an unprecedented scale. This is not wealth redistribution, but an imperative not to impoverish others by destruction of the basic resources that we all by nature share.
In that vein you mention vanishing coastlines. Here again is an example of individuals paying externalized costs disproportionate to the benefit (pollution is not a free lunch). Maybe not so big a deal on a US barrier island, but life or death in some parts of the world. Even if a small portion of the past few years' climatic catastrophes are attributable to global warming, as long standing theory suggests they may be, then we are already seeing costs on an enormous scale. Indeed, the most unlikely of all conclusions is that human atmospheric perturbation is inconsequential, contrary to twenty years of science suggesting otherwise.
BTW, here we pay less -- not more -- for wind energy than for conventional here.
On science, your conjecture for how climate change would potentially play out is naive and inconsistent with the paleontological record. Climatic shifts often happen in the blink of a geological eye, at times cascading with one level of warming triggering a next level. The vagaries of soil, wind and weather make re-adaptation of plants and animals to higher latitudes problematic. You can't grow wheat in coniferous soils. Sure, market forces could eventually grow wheat hydroponically if necessary, but at what cost? Each increment in the price of grain will equate to hunger and to starvation (those externalized costs again).
Whichever way one chooses to judge the complex odds of all this, one must keep in mind the stakes, which are well known, that being that Earth is the only place in the known universe that can support life. The Earth is surely a miracle, but it is not supernatural. The laws of physics apply. We know the biogeochemical systems of the Earth have in the past reacted profoundly to CO2 perturbations from volcanic sources. CO2 is CO2, climatically, whether from a volcanic vent or a tailpipe. That's the game we play.
As to telling me to "read some science", well, my field is computational ecophysiology. :~) I've had formal coursework in most of the subjects we're discussing here including paleoclimatology and global biogeochemistry. I've been reading fundamental research papers on climate change and ozone depletion since 1985. I'm aware of the most prominent and productive research groups climatology (Hadley Centre, NCAR, NASA Goddard, CMI, etc.) I'm also quite familiar with most of the leading so-called climate skeptics given undue prominence by the media... Seitz, Lindzen, Balling, Idso, Singer, Michaels (all recipients of fossil fuel money). I would encourage truly interested readers to read up on these groups and individuals themselves. The objective reader will soon see who's at the cutting edge of science and who's pork at the trough.
And in my sporting message board past I might have dragged you into the really deep scientific water, before sinking you. Maybe I'm just too old a fisherman..
But I'm still confused, I thought earlier you said you were an "evolutionary biologist"?
Oh, and can you explain how "if an automaker can provide a plug-in hybrid option by my next car purchase, my driving will be 80-90% solar-powered." I thought you said that you got most of your electricity from wind power.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 09:24 AMDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology. Within that department my field is ecophysiology. In particular, changes to mitochondrial DNA in Arabadopsis spp. under heat stress. The effects of shortwave UV of Volvox spp.
Posted by: ministyra on August 13, 2006 09:39 AMIt costs less to buy wind-generated electricity from our utility than energy from conventional sources (coal, gas, nuclear). So why doesn't everyone switch? They're trying. We signed up before there was a waiting list, when it was just the moral thing to do.
Posted by: ministyra on August 13, 2006 10:14 AM1) Al Gore thinks he is just a high order animal.
2) He doesn't seem sane.
(Good thing for him that most of his opposition sees him as they see themselvea - containing a spark of the divine.)
But I guess in Al's world we should just sit down and chat with mad animals like Mike Wallace did recently with President Arcantpronouncemyownname of Persia. (On that subject how did it work out for the Persians the last time that they tried to kill off the Lord's people? See the Book of Ester for the answer.)
Posted by: Jericho on August 13, 2006 01:26 PMWhy would my utility subsidize my photovoltaic system if it wasn't in their financial interest?
Why construct a big centralized power station a hundred miles away when they can construct hundreds of small decentralized power stations right in the city? Why publicly finance the big station if homeowners are willing to privately finance the small ones? Why pay for upkeep and repair of the big station, when homewoners will do it for you? Why pay for new employees when homeowners will pay for contractors for you?
Make sense?
Posted by: ministyra on August 13, 2006 01:58 PMI don't think anyone would argue against that. Which city and power company is doing this in your area "ministyra"? Can you provide a link?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 02:50 PMFrom their website: "A solar system with 120 square feet of panels generates 1,000 - 1,400 kWh of electricity per year".
That's not exactly a ton of electricity...even in Austin where the sun shines a lot more that up here in the Pacific Northwest. Charging up any meaningful kind of electric vehicle would eat that pretty fast I think. I'm not knocking this but it seems like a drop in the bucket. I think an equally clean solution would be for us to get over our phobia about nuclear energy and start building some power plants.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 04:04 PMI say, build 'em where they need the electricity! If it's truly safe then downtown Dallas or Seattle will do nicely. Too often here in Texas, special interests with a cause and a check book lobby the state lege to force projects onto smaller towns against the expressed will of their voters (hope your area is different, but Texas politics is as crooked as a fence post).
Posted by: ministyra on August 13, 2006 04:28 PMwhen
the
sun
went
down...
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 13, 2006 09:48 PMThat being said, I do understand that others feel differently. Fine.
Al Gore has an alarmist, scare tactic movie out. Al Gore has been working the environmental issue for decades.
Why aren't Al Gore's homes as environmentally efficient and friendly as one would expect from such an ardent advocate - even after decades of preaching at us and at least eight years in a very high government position?
Why haven't Hollywood millionaires set aside some of their millions as venture capitol to bring environmentally friendly sources of energy to the marketplace?
If the proponents of human caused global warming don't visibly change or restrict their lifestyles to support their advocacy - especially to most visible advocates - why should I listen to them?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 14, 2006 06:55 PMBut then you wouldn't listen to them if they were doing these things, would you.. :~) In any case, do you make important decisions based on what politicians and movie stars have to say? Not me.
I highly recommend you ignore leftwing and rightwing voices on this issue. Do your own research on credible news sites such as BBC, where you can find solid links to dependable scientific sources. Keep an open mind. Do that and you can't go wrong.
Posted by: ministyra on August 15, 2006 12:39 AMThank you for the advice!
As is happens, I did exactly as you suggest and have come to the determination that algore is a hysterical alarmist lunatic. The phenomenon known variously as "Global Warming" and Global Cooling" (depending on which lunatic you happen to hear), as pertains to human influence is so minimal as to literally be a hummingbird fart in a hurricane.
Responsible people don't crap where they eat, but they don't run off madly in all directions screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Responsible people practice pragmatic conservation - not slash~n~burn militant-ecololunacy.
Thank you again for reassuring me that I didn't go wrong...
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 15, 2006 10:45 AMGiven Schweizer's history and connections it's clear that he wants to maintain the status quo with regard to fossil fuel comsumption and because he cannot refute the science of global warming he wants to kill the messenger hoping that that will kill the message as well.
But he does that with a list of falsehoods about Gore.
Gores' green commitment
The op-ed attacking former vice president Al Gore's environmental record was extremely misleading.
Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.
He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero.
He has long since switched to a hybrid car and was already in the process of adding solar photovoltaic units to his home before the commentary was published.
In addition, the Gores have donated 100% of all the profits from his movie and book to the fight against global-warming pollution.
The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.
Rather than vilifying a person who is trying to make a difference, wouldn't it be more fruitful for Schweizer to join the effort to solve the climate crisis?
Kalee Kreider, communications director
Office of Al Gore and Tipper Gore
Nashville
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2006-08-16-gore-letters_x.htm
In a column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.
Page 10A
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060817/correx17.art.htm
Peter Schweitzer, Al Gore, and hypocrisy
...
First things first: I talked to some of Gore's people today, including Kreider, about the specific charges. Suffice to say, they're false. Gore receives no royalties from the mine, which shut down in 2003. (USA Today actually printed a correction about this, way down on page 10A.) Gore owns no stock in Occidental, and never has (his father did; it was all sold over six years ago). Gore does in fact take advantage of the green power options his utility offers, and was in the process of adding photovoltaic solar cells to his house when the article came out. He pays for his own personal carbon offsets, in addition to the institutional offsets purchased by Paramount (movie distributor) and Rodale (book publisher), which make both the book and the movie completely carbon neutral.
...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/17/133652/848
The reader should ask: where is your evidence, Schweizer? Why should I believe you?
Well, Schweizer of course showed no evidence to back up his claims, but apparently that's business as usual in his world.
Beyond the obvious lies there is Schweizer's fallacy that if you own stocks in oil companies or benefit financially from a zinc mine you cannot urge people to reduce their carbon emission without being a hypocrite.
Gore doesn't have any interest in any oil, coal or mining company nevertheless he never advocated that people should sell their stocks in companies which produce GHGs. He never advocated that people should not be in the mining business at all or that we shouldn't mine zinc (which by the way has little to do with the global warming problem). These, if done, would obviously destroy our economy -- and it would be a totally unrealistic proposal anyway.
But he is indeed doing what he has advocated in the book and the movie.
And the vast majority of Americans do not do half what he is doing in order to reduce man-made GHG emission. He has the moral authority to urge others to act like he acts.
Let Schweizer refute that - with facts for a sake of change -, if he can.
Posted by: xyz on August 21, 2006 10:53 PM