Gore Refuses to take The Pledge

[red states rule]

he does use only green electricity...there is no way to only select green electricity for part of your bill...either your supplier is green or it is not.

You do not understand the electicity market and distribution system in America. That is abundantly clear.

He uses a lot of electricty, natural gas, jet fuel, and gas to power his convoy of SUV's

Typical limo lib

 

[maineman]

He uses a lot of electricty, natural gas, jet fuel, and gas to power his convoy of SUV's

Typical limo lib

again you avoid the point.

you are such a cowardly man

 

[red states rule]

again you avoid the point.

you are such a cowardly man

You avoid the facts

Such a gutless lib

 

[maineman]

You avoid the facts

Such a gutless lib

I don't avoid any facts....you make statements in error that you cannot back up and you do not have the grace to retract.

Gore's use of green power electricity is one such case.

 

[red states rule]

I don't avoid any facts....you make statements in error that you cannot back up and you do not have the grace to retract.

Gore's use of green power electricity is one such case.

With no solar panels, and a $1200 electric bill, and $1000 gas bill - only a deranged lib would say Uncle Al walks the walk of "green"

 

[maineman]

With no solar panels, and a $1200 electric bill, and $1000 gas bill - only a deranged lib would say Uncle Al walks the walk of "green"

do you understand that he is having solar panels installed? and do you understand that, if all of the electricity he uses is green, the size of his electric bill is really irrelevant to the issue of global warming?

Do you understand what green power means in today's electric market? ANd if so, please explain why you continue to bring up Gore's electric bill in context of this discussion?

 

[Bern80]

do you understand that he is having solar panels installed? and do you understand that, if all of the electricity he uses is green, the size of his electric bill is really irrelevant to the issue of global warming?

Do you understand what green power means in today's electric market? ANd if so, please explain why you continue to bring up Gore's electric bill in context of this discussion?

Okay I get all that. And please try to forget about who asked the question, but none of that explains why he wouldn't take the oathe. Let's look at this bullet by bullet and remember that to take the oathe Gore essentially has to answer yes to all of them

As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

If Gore has done any research at all and has really looked at all the evidence it probably ends right here because he would have to know that their is very little evidence for this and plenty that contradicts it. But for the sake of argument lets say it is so we can get to the next bulletts....

· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

Probably a yes, I might take exception with the word 'key', but whehter Gore's energy is green or not, it's still energy so that should be a yes.

· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

That should be an easy yes for Gore, because he is. Only reason I can think it would be no is that if in fact Gore knows it won't lower greenhouse gas emissions. I have tried to think how that would actually work. For arguments sake let's say a house that once used any energy now uses no energy. How does that lower greenhouse gas emmissions? I don't know much about how homes emit greenhouse gases if at all, so the logic I guess is that the power plant that supplies the energy is putting out less greenhouse gas?

· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

Most likely no because the next one is no.

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.

Maybe he said no over semantic reasons, I don't know. But you're going to have a hard time getting anybody, Republican, Democrat, lib or conservative to answer yes to that. Practically speaking it would probably require a downgrade in home size for a lot of people and most people simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living, including Gore

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.

Maybe he said no over semantic reasons, I don't know. But you're going to have a hard time getting anybody, Republican, Democrat, lib or conservative to answer yes to that. Practically speaking it would probably require a downgrade in home size for a lot of people and most people simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living, including Gore

As far as I could tell, Gore's never said that energy use in the household was the problem. His campaign against global warming isn't about decreasing energy usage, it's about switching to energy sources that are carbon neutral. I'm sure Gore could care less if energy usage in the average home increased so long as it reduced a family's carbon footprint. Whether you agree with Gore or not, it's illogical to say that he's not changing his lifestyle to reflect his activism. Clearly he is.

After taking a look at the carbon credits program, I'm skeptical about its overall impact to reduce carbon emissions. I'm sure at face value the carbon credits system can work if one's intentions are sincere, but as a whole there's just too much opportunity to profit from fraud and abuse. I think Gore genuinely believes in it but I couldn't say the same for anyone else.

 

[Annie]

As far as I could tell, Gore's never said that energy use in the household was the problem. His campaign against global warming isn't about decreasing energy usage, it's about switching to energy sources that are carbon neutral. I'm sure Gore could care less if energy usage in the average home increased so long as it reduced a family's carbon footprint. Whether you agree with Gore or not, it's illogical to say that he's not changing his lifestyle to reflect his activism. Clearly he is.

After taking a look at the carbon credits program, I'm skeptical about its overall impact to reduce carbon emissions. I'm sure at face value the carbon credits system can work if one's intentions are sincere, but as a whole there's just too much opportunity to profit from fraud and abuse. I think Gore genuinely believes in it but I couldn't say the same for anyone else.

After looking at 'choosing green' and paying the premium on electric/gas bills and carbon offsets, I'm skeptical if we all had the $$$ to do so, it would be possible. There are not enough alternative sources for the masses. The only ones that can afford are the rich.

 

[maineman]

After looking at 'choosing green' and paying the premium on electric/gas bills and carbon offsets, I'm skeptical if we all had the $$$ to do so, it would be possible. There are not enough alternative sources for the masses. The only ones that can afford are the rich.

The market would adjust. If there were demand, at the current rate, there WOULD be more supply....guaranteed. There are all sorts of green projects just waiting for a demand to come along to justify building them...

 

[red states rule]

The market would adjust. If there were demand, at the current rate, there WOULD be more supply....guaranteed. There are all sorts of green projects just waiting for a demand to come along to justify building them...

much like the electric car that libs wanted everyone to drive? Are companies still making them?

 

[red states rule]

Gore's Faith Is Bad Science
By Michael Barone

Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.

He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.

Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future.

To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.

Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.

When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports that Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

Science says that we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. As the economic journalist Robert Samuelson points out, there is little that we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions, though over the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.

As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty that Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.

But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean.

Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.

The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us that the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.

Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.

We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/gores_faith_is_bad_science.html

 

[red states rule]

do you understand that he is having solar panels installed? and do you understand that, if all of the electricity he uses is green, the size of his electric bill is really irrelevant to the issue of global warming?

Do you understand what green power means in today's electric market? ANd if so, please explain why you continue to bring up Gore's electric bill in context of this discussion?

AL'S WARMING LIES
& THE REAL 'INCONVENIENT TRUTH'
By IAIN MURRAY
March 22, 2007 -- AL Gore was born and spent most of his life in Washington, D.C. Yesterday, he returned to the fever swamp to show he's forgotten none of his old political tricks.
Addressing the House and Senate on global warming, he put forth a litany of half-truths that he twisted into a morality tale. But the facts tell a different story. The former veep is a master politician, not a prophet or a planetary savior.
Gore's biggest rhetorical trick is saying that the Earth has a fever. He says that 10 of the hottest years in history came in the last 11 years, and this proves we must do something, because, "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."
This is meaningless. The Earth has been much, much hotter in the past than today. No giant space nanny fed it medicine.
Moreover, a healthy baby has a constant temperature - that's why a fever is bad. The Earth does not have a constant temperature. It has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century, but that has not been uniform. It's had warming phases (the 1920s and 1930) and cooling phases (the 1940s to 1970s).
It's also had periods like today, when temperatures are flat - there hasn't been much warming since 1998. Yes, it's warmer today than it was a hundred years ago, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Talking about fevers is misleading, but it's a great rhetorical trick.
And when it comes to the economics of the issue, Gore is way outside the mainstream. Appearing before a House committee, he said that changing the American economy in the way he proposes - a plan of freezes, taxes, market controls and regulations that would represent a massive expansion of government control over the economy - would not be costly.
Yet he also endorsed the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol (which he helped negotiate). The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that Kyoto would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $100 billion to $400 billion a year.
Gore is a very wealthy man, but it's hard to see why he can't recognize that this is a lot of money lost - and a lot of jobs lost and a lot of families going cold and hungry.
How does Gore address this point? He doesn't; he simply avoids it, with highfalutin rhetoric. It's not just the Earth's "fever" and our supposed moral duty to cure it; he says our descendants will either condemn us as blind or praise us for our moral courage. He also makes veiled references to himself as Churchill, while all around him others appease fascism.
It's not subtle stuff - nor accurate.
If you establish that the Earth is warming, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have a moral duty to reduce emissions. What should follow is an informed debate about the costs and benefits of various policies to address that warming - reducing emissions is just one possible answer. Another debate should focus on those policies' economic costs.
Al Gore doesn't want to have those debates, because the majority of evidence suggests that emissions reduction will be very costly and will have little effect. Kyoto, fully enacted by all its parties, would for all its cost reduce global warming by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050 - a barely detectable amount.
Meanwhile, 2 billion people around the world go without electricity. About 3 million die each year because of fumes given off by primitive stoves. The U.S. economy sneezes when gasoline hits $3 a gallon.
If we have a moral duty, it's to keep energy affordable here and to expand access to it overseas. That's the real moral truth, however inconvenient for Al Gore.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0322200...s_warming_lies_opedcolumnists_iain_murray.htm

 

[maineman]

you really ARE incapable of forming your own thoughts and ideas, aren't you? You really are incapable of doing anything other than posting the editorials of others. And you aren't even embarrassed!

 

[red states rule]

you really ARE incapable of forming your own thoughts and ideas, aren't you? You really are incapable of doing anything other than posting the editorials of others. And you aren't even embarrassed!

No, you are incapable of seeing what a blowhard lier Al is

 

[maineman]

much like the electric car that libs wanted everyone to drive? Are companies still making them?

do you even understand the concept of "market"?

 

[maineman]

No, you are incapable of seeing what a blowhard lier Al is

here's the deal: I write all my own stuff.... you write none of your own stuff.... you are a joke.... you are nothing more than a spambot.

 

[red states rule]

here's the deal: I write all my own stuff.... you write none of your own stuff.... you are a joke.... you are nothing more than a spambot.

I post articles from researchers and the watchdogs of the liberal media and it gets under your skin

You are nothing more the a po'd lib

 

[maineman]

I post articles from researchers and the watchdogs of the liberal media and it gets under your skin

You are nothing more the a po'd lib

no...you post oped piece in lieu of having to form your own thoughts and arguments..... if I wanted to read conservative oped pieces, I would go to national review and do so.... that's why I don't read them here....

and I am far from po'd. We won the election in November and Bush is in deep shit not only in Iraq, but in everything he steps in in DC as well.... I am far from pissed off... I am enjoying watching this administration self-destruct.

 

[red states rule]

no...you post oped piece in lieu of having to form your own thoughts and arguments..... if I wanted to read conservative oped pieces, I would go to national review and do so.... that's why I don't read them here....

and I am far from po'd. We won the election in November and Bush is in deep shit not only in Iraq, but in everything he steps in in DC as well.... I am far from pissed off... I am enjoying watching this administration self-destruct.

We all know libs love to see any bad news for America - they think it helps them politically

So far the Dems have shown their true colors - yellow thru and thru