Cast, I am not doubting you, but can you provide some documentation for these statements? Indisputable 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 yr old evidence sounds like a tall claim, even for a scientist.
Global Warming - Questions and other BS.
- Thread starter webbie
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
AP story The Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem. "We wanted to see if he was living by his own recommendations and walking the walk," said think tank president Drew Johnson.
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: "Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger." Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.
Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said
Okay, castiron, a couple things. First, if this TCPR group doesn't think global warming is a serious problem, then why would they care who used how much electricity, right? They are just trying to change the subject. Also, where in this whole thing is Al Gore lying? You keep saying he is a lying hypocrite, could you be more specific about what he said that isn't true? That is what LYING means.
FYI, his house is a home not only for himself and Tipper, but also to some offspring and grandchildren. It also contains his office, and his wife's office, they do a lot of work from their home. So this isn't just a single family home, it is a home for multiple families, plus the workplace of the very active former vice president of the United States. At one point I imagine Secret Service stayed there also. Do you really expect him to live in a small house? He is attempting to offset his electrical usage, and I am sure he does use compact flourscents and the like.
I don't expect a former world leader to live in a small apt. I am sure he is truly concerned about the environment. I recall a book he wrote on said topic around 1990, hubby and I reviewed it for a small newsletter a friend put out, before he was even vice prez. Give him some allowance for being a famous rich guy with a lot going on. Is it realistic to expect him to ride a bicycle to travel around the continent to educate people about the environment? He has an important message and he has to travel long distances, and that means planes. He does travel commercially sometimes. What he is saying is true, you don't like it, so you are attacking him personally. If this is going to be so much ranting and raving, go to the Ash Can.
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: "Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger." Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.
Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said
Okay, castiron, a couple things. First, if this TCPR group doesn't think global warming is a serious problem, then why would they care who used how much electricity, right? They are just trying to change the subject. Also, where in this whole thing is Al Gore lying? You keep saying he is a lying hypocrite, could you be more specific about what he said that isn't true? That is what LYING means.
FYI, his house is a home not only for himself and Tipper, but also to some offspring and grandchildren. It also contains his office, and his wife's office, they do a lot of work from their home. So this isn't just a single family home, it is a home for multiple families, plus the workplace of the very active former vice president of the United States. At one point I imagine Secret Service stayed there also. Do you really expect him to live in a small house? He is attempting to offset his electrical usage, and I am sure he does use compact flourscents and the like.
I don't expect a former world leader to live in a small apt. I am sure he is truly concerned about the environment. I recall a book he wrote on said topic around 1990, hubby and I reviewed it for a small newsletter a friend put out, before he was even vice prez. Give him some allowance for being a famous rich guy with a lot going on. Is it realistic to expect him to ride a bicycle to travel around the continent to educate people about the environment? He has an important message and he has to travel long distances, and that means planes. He does travel commercially sometimes. What he is saying is true, you don't like it, so you are attacking him personally. If this is going to be so much ranting and raving, go to the Ash Can.
BeGreen said:
BeGreen,
Think about it......by definition 100% of all previous warming periods (most recent one was around 1550) cannot have been caused by man because 1) we weren't heavily industrialized then and in most of these cases that go back hundreds of thousands of years, we're talking cavemen who inhabited the earth and 2) CO2 levels were lower...had to be because climatologists are telling us the CO2 levels NOW are the highest they've been so, by definition, they had to have been lower previously. Combine these with the fact that as recent as 1500 or so in England, there was a warming period where the temp rose about 6 deg F and it allowed them to grow grapes in England. So.....in the past we had little-to-no activity by man, lower CO2 levels and yet we had LARGE temp rises....much higher than the 1 deg F we're seeing now even though we have higher CO2 levels AND a large amount of human activity.......so much for the GW being caused by human activity......because if it were, given our high CO2 levels and much greater human activity, we'd expect significantly larger temp rises and we're NOT seeing that..........
Some Like It Hot said:
Ok...let's see.....
1) He said he's the father of the internet......let's see.....LIE
2) When he made those illegal campaign calls from his VP office, then got caught in a lie and told the press there was "no controlling legal interest"...lets see....LIE
3) When he tells us in his book that "the internal combustion engine was the worst invention ever".....let's see....LIE
4) When he tells us to consume less while he jets around in his private jet leaving dinosaur-sized carbon droppings...let's see....HYPOCRITE
5) when campaigning he told one group how tobacco killed or almost killed (I think) his sister, then he told the tobacco people "I howed it (tobacco), I reaped it, I sold it...."....let's see....HYPOCRITE
need me to go on and on and on....? Thought not....
Also, the answer as to why the TCRP group picks on Gore even though they don't think GW is real is because it's GORE HIMSELF who puts Al Gore forth as an advocate for a cause (in this case GW) and tells us how to live our lives, then jet-sets around the globe leaving a carbon footprint 100 times what the average person leaves.......so, it's got nothing to do with GW but just the fact that he advocates something and then can't "walk the talk" himself.......in this case the "talk" just happens to be GW.....might just as well have been something else he advocates and then fails to practice what he preaches....
castiron said:
No argument that there have been regional fluctuations of temperature at various time around the planet. El Nino cycles are an example. (Though 1550 was the beginning of the little ice age. It was actually warmer around 1000AD.) But regional examples are not the same as global temperature rises. It takes a lot to move the global mean temperature up a degree. Large scale global temperature changes are infrequent events. True there are natural causes found historically, but that does not mean that the current cause is not man-made. Compare the scale of the temps for the past 1000 years.
As to whether man can influence planetary climate, that's been proven many times over. Man has started desertification in several areas by deforesting regions. Look at the Mediterranean, Egypt and the Saharan regions. As to recent examples, look at the ozone hole. This is a man made phenomenon caused it is thought by catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine. The catalyst is the accumulation of man-made gases in the upper atmosphere, primarily chlorofluorocarbon compounds.
Attachments
![[Hearth.com] Global Warming - Questions and other BS.](/talk/data/attachments/3/3198-71851d1b9a280ef73293e3fc5acef4e9.jpg?hash=03WXNzrc9X)
Ah, the ozone hole closed, without a lot of fan fare from the global warming, the sky is falling crowd. Solar activity and volcanoes have much more to do with global climate fluctuations than man will ever have. There has been a pattern of increasing solar turbulance for many years (also cyclical) that has lead to the current normal climate change. Should we endeavor to use energy more wisely and look for new technologies to replace oil and gas? Absolutley! But for the crowd who thinks the sky is falling because of man made activity, you drank the Al Gore kool aid.
Wrong. Sounds like someone's overdozed on Limbaugher cheese. The ozone hole is not closed, but fluxuating in size. In August 2006 it covered approx. 28 million square kilometers. Check the size again next August before claiming it's closed. There has been slow progress, amazingly correlated with a global reduction in chlorofluorcarbon usage. Hmmm.
Sure there have been lots of volcanic activity. The temp graph for the past 1000 years includes such notable eruptions as Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo, Krakatoa etc. None have created such a spike. You have to go way back in time to find that kind of volcanic influence. "By digging up and releasing this buried carbon and CO2 at the present rapid pace, mankind is undoing in perhaps two centuries what Mother Nature required literally geologic ages to accomplish.
So in the course of two centuries, the one just past and the one upon which we are all about to embark, mankind may well force the Earth's atmosphere to regress by about 30 million years from a post-Pleistocene (or "Holocene") state of about 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, to an Eocene state of nearly 1,000 ppm CO2. What will happen? Nobody knows, and that's the problem. Will CO2 buildup lead to global warming and severe climate changes? If we wait to find out, we might learn to our eventual sorrow that mankind has triggered atmospheric alterations that are beyond the ability of anyone or any technology to control. Whoops."
http://www.energybulletin.net/21857.html
Sure there have been lots of volcanic activity. The temp graph for the past 1000 years includes such notable eruptions as Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo, Krakatoa etc. None have created such a spike. You have to go way back in time to find that kind of volcanic influence. "By digging up and releasing this buried carbon and CO2 at the present rapid pace, mankind is undoing in perhaps two centuries what Mother Nature required literally geologic ages to accomplish.
So in the course of two centuries, the one just past and the one upon which we are all about to embark, mankind may well force the Earth's atmosphere to regress by about 30 million years from a post-Pleistocene (or "Holocene") state of about 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, to an Eocene state of nearly 1,000 ppm CO2. What will happen? Nobody knows, and that's the problem. Will CO2 buildup lead to global warming and severe climate changes? If we wait to find out, we might learn to our eventual sorrow that mankind has triggered atmospheric alterations that are beyond the ability of anyone or any technology to control. Whoops."
http://www.energybulletin.net/21857.html
BeGreen said:
The Ozone problem is really a "distribution problem".....think about it ....too little in the upper atmosphere and way too much at or near ground level where is causes smog......there was an article years ago I think in Time magazine about novel ways to solve one or both of these two problems......one idea was to use high-flying U-2 aircraft to "seed" the upper layers with Ozone......
Some Like It Hot said:
You miss the point about Gore...forget for a minute that we think he's wrong...let's say for arguments sake that he's correct...that GW is the problem......at a minimum he should be "walking the talk" (practicing what he preaches) but instead he comes off as a huge hypocrite which totally takes away from and destroys the very message he's trying to get across......I think what we're saying is this: if he really believes what he's spouting, why can't he be more like Ralph Nader who at least practices what he preaches and live the SAME LIFESTYLE that he's (Nader) asking the rest of us to live? That's all.
So, for all you Al Gore libs out there, please tell us why Al Gore can't/won't also live the SAME lifestyle he asks the rest of us to live.....? After all, Ralph Nader does it.............
BeGreen said:
Not true. The Sahara is a result of Earths wobble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390097.stm
Some 9,000 years ago the tilt of the Earth's axis was 24.14 degrees; today it is 23.45 degrees. Today, the Earth is closest to the Sun in January. Nine thousand years ago, our planet was closest to the Sun at the end of July.
......
The climate model suggests that land use by man was not an important factor in the creation of the Sahara.
Nice wiki quote....... :roll:
So, to summarize (Just like the SPM
), the Sahara was created by Earth's axis changing, thereby affecting GLOBAL climate. Who's to say it can't happen again, thereby affecting the climate today?
Good point about the Sahara Don, China would have been a better example. It is accepted that man changed the Eastern Mediteranean climate due to deforestation which in turn caused the desication of the soil, loss of cooling and microclimate.
Twas a summary of the Wiki. There's a difference.
Twas a summary of the Wiki. There's a difference.
I see no reason to defend Al Gore. To me, he's the guy who should have won by a landslide, but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Look at the mess we're in now as a result.
Sounds to me like maybe he should be focusing his efforts on building his own power plant.
Sounds to me like maybe he should be focusing his efforts on building his own power plant.
Anyone having any questions on the validity of global warming should check out Al Gore's film on the subject, "An Inconvienient Truth" This film is not political ravings...its a clear, consise presentation of the issue.
Eric Johnson said:
Eric,
He lost then because he did too much then of what he's doing now.....being a hypocrite.......... and he doesn't even realize it...........what else can we say about a guy who flunked out of divinity school and didn't finish Vanderbilt law School..... etc........here's Gores academic record according to this web site:
(broken link removed)
"Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard)."
The press hounded Bush about his academic record but Bush had far better grades than Gore OR Kerry did.......
BeGreen said:
BeGreen,
Your chart only shows temp.....NOT what's causing it.....how about a chart showing solar activity and closeness of earth to the sun....or might that chart validate the higher temperatures because earth is receiving more solar radiation?????
It's about the carbon cycle. The earth was once much warmer and around 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period great quantities of carbon were stored underground in the form of coal (and other fossil fuels). Since it remained underground all that time since that period, it was not in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and thus the planet was able to cool to what the planet was before we started digging it up and burning it. In other words, we're taking it out of storage and putting it back really quickly. For those talking about stopping and actually reversing global warming, the only way to reverse it would be to find a way to put it back into storage. Good luck. And to stop it where it is today would mean 100% stopping all burning of fossil fuels today globally. Good luck doing that too. The sea levels will rise and yes ocean currents will get screwed up and yes mass extinction of species will occur. To think humans will escape these effects unscathed is not very realistic. Not to say we'll go extinct, too, but it won't be fun during the adaptation period and it's hard to imagine all 7 billion people of the planet surviving. Particularly 3rd world areas experiencing mass displacement will die because Red Cross, UN, USA, whoever, won't be dropping food or come to the rescue - don't forget, we're talking a billion+. Other nations will have their own problems. And if the Great Depression seems like a bit of an inconvenience, imagine the economic collapse following this. Hang on to that wood stove, it might come in handy.
Glen said:
Glen,
It's only partly about the carbon cycle because about 500 yrs ago or so there was a massive warming period in Europe that allowed even grapes to be grown in England....and last time I checked, we weren't burning massive amounts of fossil fuels in the 15th century and the total human population was virtually nil.........so warming and cooling has been going on for several billions of years on the earth during the entire life of the earth......and all this was BEFORE man and fossil fuels............ so, to be academically truthful about this, you must, as Paul Harvey says, tell "the rest of the story"......... how about factoring in such things as solar activity, earth proximity to this same changing solar activity (i.e., distance from the sun), volcanic activity, earths changing magnetic shield strength and direction, etc........
This is kind of in relation to not too much or maybe everything. It has occurred to me that perhaps we humans are really nothing more than the ultimate biological decay organism. You know, fungus and bacteria chew up wood, leaves; ants homogenize even more effectively, earth worms chew things up to a fine compost. Typically these organisms use up their environment and then are forced to move on to another suitable place or perish. When it comes to truly homogenizing on a grand scale, seems to me humans are king. Use up a planet and move on or perish. I mean we can take the insides of the earth, bring them to the surface, digest them, and spread them throughout the entire earth's surface. We can convert one substance to another, man we can even launch it to another planet! We do have the potential to take the entire world, chew it up and excrete it and be left with nothing but our own s...t! Maybe its not CO2 that does us in, perhaps it's something else. But pollute we do. You cannot have 3 billion (talk about having a hard time grasping enormity, yes that's 3,000,000,000 (and we are not insubstantial organisms)) people and not have a ton of their excretement in whatever form it takes, organic or chemical, start to rear its substantial presence on our planet. Seems to me the million dollar question is "are we smart enough to anticipate and mitiagate the impact our success has on the place we call home?" Will we use it up and be forced to move on or can we find anoher way? Iron, oil, aluminum, clean fresh water, arable land, whatever; they all are finite. Our environment is a delicate balancing act. Neither Venus or Mars are cutting it. We have not found another place to go if we screw this one up. 3 billion...that's a lot to balance! We are pretty friggin smart aren't we? Or are we? Take a graph of CO2 atmospheric concentrations over the last 100 years and impose it over a graph of global temeratures from the last 100 years and tell me you don't see an eerily similar correlation. Ask the greatest human intelligence we have, our super computers, to predict what happens when we increase CO2 and see how it corresponds to what is actually happening. I have to tell you, if we do not get this one right, we are looking for a new home and I don't know of any other home to go to. And damn it, if we get our head out of our asses, we can fix this!! By the way, I should have prefaced all of this with IMHO :cheese:
For a completely different look at global temperature cycles thoughout the millenia check out a book titled "Ice Age, the theory that came in from the cold" by John and Mary Gribbin. It is a relatively short and easy to read discussion of the origins and eventual scientific analysis and data that led to our current understanding of the coming and goings of ice ages. Now this is something we don't have control over! Last ice age had a mile of ice over my house. And I think shoveling my drive is tough now! No where have I heard a discussion of what happens when global warming meets the inevitable solar and planetary changes that are theorized to regularly cause ice ages. Kind of like King Kong meets Godzilla! If you have a chance to read this book, it sheds some light on the really big planetary climate changes.
jpl1nh said:
Good points, but as of 2007 the world population estimate is 6.7 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Gad zooks!! Guess I'm having a really hard time grasping the enormity...! Thanks Glen :red:Glen said:
- Status
Similar threads
