terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Al Gore finds it's not so easy being green

▼

Al Gore finds it's not so easy being green

Tripped up by a question from OK Sen. James Inhofe

from JoeUser Forums

Noted in The Washington Times, Inside Politics, Page A6, Friday, March 23, 2007, compiled by Greg Pierce.

"It's not easy being green.  Just ask former Vice President Al Gore, the Fox News Channel's Terry Keenan writes at www.foxnews.com.

While the newly anointed Oscar winner has made what Katie Couric called a 'triumphant return' to Capitol Hill on Wednesday { 3/21/2007 }, Gore was tripped up by a simple question from Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe.  Late into the hearing, Inhofe showed Gore a clip from his film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.'  The clip challenged the audience with this question: 'Are you ready to change the way you live?'

"Simple enough.  But Inhofe took this question a step further, by placing it right at the foot of the former vice president.  Correctly noting that Gore is adored by hundres of thousands for his green message, Inhofe asked the Tennessee Democrat if he'd be willing to pledge to 'consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?'

"It was a 'gotcha' moment, and one that was not widely reported in the mainstream media.  Mr. Gore refused to take the pledge, adding that 'We live a carbon-neutral life.'

"Get read to hear a lot about carbon-neutral living in the days and months ahead.  It's the new euphemism for Escalade-driving environmentalists who 'purchase' carbon credits to assuage any guilt about their private jets and 20,000-square foot summer homes."

"

Great clipping and yes, one heck of a gotcha moment.  That fat bastard Michael Moore would have been proud, though being the liberal leaner that he is, he would never have gone after AlGore to begin with.

{ edited to add the embedded video/link here }

{ that clip really is priceless }

Carbon-neutral is most definitely the new buzz-word for Gore and his followers.  As the blurb notes, it's all about trading credits needed to make up for the bad behavior to get back to carbon-neutral status.  It reminds me of holy-roller church goers that are sitting in their Sunday best listening to the sermon on Sunday to make up for their sinfulness on the other 6 days of the week.

And gee, trading credits... it strikes me that there was some sort of big trading system that went belly up and helped lead to a big meltdown in the stock market back a few years ago.  Of course that trading system was for trading energy, rather than carbon credits, but both work in much the same way.  Enriching the traders and the trading system while not really doing a thing for the masses.

AlGore and his friends get to preach to the rest of us that we all need to be green while they buy these credits to offset the harm that keeping up their luxurious lifestyles is continuing to do to the environment.  As an example, has anyone really checked to see just how much pollution and greenhouse emmissions are generated by the power plant that is generating the $30,000 worth of electricity that Gore's palatial estate in Tennessee uses?  He can claim to be carbon-neutral, but that does nothing for the people that live around the power plants that are involved, nor for the coal miners that are digging coal, or the oil workers that are pulling the black gold from the ground to burn in that plant.

Great job Al { Borat mode on }  NOT!  { Borat mode off }

Excellent job and /salute to Sen. James Inhofe.  Great way to turn the tables on AlGore and his friends.

politics
19,504 views 56 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Think of this the last big ice age had ice three miles thick that covered the entire planet

No, it didn't cover the entire planet. The glaciers of the last ice age covered a large portion of the planet but not the entire planet.


You made a classic mistake, one made by Mr. Gore in his production. The last ice age and the last big ice age are two different ice ages separated by about 140k years. The last ice age was a mini ice age that lasted less than 50 years and is seasonal, meaning we get them on a regular basis. The last big Ice age was caused by a mini ice age when the earth was in an orbit around the sun that gave us a minimum of light and heat while at the same time the sun was much cooler than it is today. Back then it was more elliptical where we are currently in a more circular orbit. In the last big ice age it was three miles thick and covered the entire planet. The last of this debate was settled last year and is now the working theory. Notice I say theory because we have evidence but no witnesses that documented the event. Looking at three of the moons of Jupiter you will notice that they are balls of ice some thought to be as much as sixty miles deep with a warm water core. I bring this up because it shows that it can happen and has been observed by scientist. What got us out of the last big ice age was our volcanic activity that put soot onto the ice and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as well as the orbital change that happens about every 250 million years, or one year for the sun to circle the Galaxy. Man has not been around for one solar year, no animal species has been around for a full cycle so most of this is theory and there is a good chance that we won’t be around for a full cycle as a viable species.

The planet goes through geologic seasons just as we see seasons every year.


Yes, and so does the solar system and the galaxy. As I stated above, the solar system takes 250 million years to orbit the galaxy. This makes the Sun about 18 and a half years old or 4.5 billion earth years old.The Earth is about 4.4 billion years old at the last guess by the experts. No one in homosapien history has seen an entire cycle of the Sun or charted the seasons of the solar system. Man has only been recording history for at best 10,000 years. Man has only been scientifically been documenting the stars seriously for about 100 years out of a 250 million year cycle. So to say we know with any confidence what is causing global warming while ignoring the Sun as at least a major contributor is not serious science it is supersticion at best. I only know what I have learned over the years and that learning does not inclued ignoring the big bright thing in the sky for the little things here on earth.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

bull...george will advocates exactly that.

I must have miss George Will commenting in this discussion.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
must have miss George Will commenting in this discussion.


ya know brad, you are 100% correct there. my error.

actually, guy and i have been discussing the same topic on another thread where i referenced an article talking about that.

and if ya look back into the responses in the 40's back there i believe (i'm guessin and don't feel like jumping back and forth anymore), guy and i got into some back and forth discussion on this thread, then ya jumped in with your statement, and honestly, i crossed the 2 threads in my head. my apologies.

if i had referenced him in this thread, i could be saying that he was referenced here,,,but alas, i am wrong.

but outside of that, he has advocated doing nothing, and you can check that out in the feb issue of newsweek i believe (sorry i don't have the link handy, if ya need it, let me know)

and i wasn't aware that your comment was limited to JU people in this discussion (as i read it again, maybe it was what ya meant). but if so, my apologies again for taking your statement so out of context.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
bull...george will advocates exactly that.


Please tell me when Mr. Will became a scientist. He is as far as I know a political commentator. He expressed his opinion but his opinion does not speak for all people against the Kyoto accords, just like I don’t speak for all people who are against the accords. I follow scientific protocols, if it is not something that can be repeated in a controlled environment than it is not fact but speculation and theory. The working theory is the Sun is the cause for global warming. Man being the cause of global warming is not even a theory among scientist. Yes, some scientists do support the idea of global warming because they can get grant money to pay their bills and for that they will seriously study earthworm crap in connection with global warming. Money does not make good science. Facts are scientifically proven data. Big bang is not a fact it is a theory. It can never be scientifically proven so it is the current working theory.

Mr. Will is qualified to render an opinion as anyone but it does not mean it is a scientifically arrived at opinion the same is true with the people that believe that man is the reason for higher temperatures.

I also advocate doing noting because the last time these groups wanted to save the world it was suggested that we only have twenty years to poor soot on the ice caps to melt them and raise the temperature do save us from the next ice age or we will be doomed to freeze. 30 years later we need to stop burning fossil fuels and bring the CO2 levels down. Yet we have learned that the most serious greenhouse gas is methane, the largest producer of methane gas is flatulence from wild and farm animals. Man not involved in that so Co2 which man does produce a lot of but not as much as volcanoes. Every problem that man gets blamed for turns out there is a natural cause that is worse than what man produces. Lets wait and see, if we did what was suggested 30 years ago the current working stupidity would mean millions of people would be dead because of it. Why not get the facts then do something?
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
I also advocate doing noting because the last time these groups wanted to save the world it was suggested that we only have twenty years to poor soot on the ice caps to melt them and raise the temperature do save us from the next ice age or we will be doomed to freeze.


That is pretty much my position. I dont advocate doing nothing about polution (I defy anyone to find any non-crazy that is advocating letting pollution run amok), but controlling pollution is not the same as "doing somthing" about global warming. As you correctly point out, "doing something" is going beyond controlling (and hopefully reducing) pollution and trying to affect the weather. While most of what we can do and probably would do would be akin to a gnat trying to push a barge - some of it may actually be harmful to human habitation (and by extension animals and plants). And then there is the cost factor. Spending trillions on reflecting sunlight into space - while at the same time allowing millions to starve - is not my idea of solving a problem. It is more like fiddling while rome burns (or my favorite - re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic).
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guy, the argument is perfectly framed for them. If you are against them you are for dirty water and foul air. I don’t know any one that wants this but that is how people like us are positioned if we disagree with their religion.