Energy Guzzled by Al Gore's Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

Originally posted by MrBender
reply to post by DaleGribble

 

First, Thank goodness that you and I will never see eye to eye. I would have myself euthanized if I ever did something that would gain your approval.

Second, the fact that the global temperature is rising has been confirmed with the use of thermometers and other scientific equipment. Thermometers cannot be brainwashed into giving us inaccurate readings. I also do not believe that generations of scientists have been brainwashed into reading thermometers incorrectly.

Third, I have seen nothing in the Climate Crisis Project that bears any resemblance to religion. Can you provide any examples for me?

me too i dont think id kill my self but it would turn my world upside down to agree with someone who follows a myth in the same way people did thousands of years ago.

global temptures havent been rising at any steady rate for any amount of time. its funny really. do you know why storms have been so bad in the US this year? because the increase of artic winds. do you know why the polar bear population has increased so much because they have more ice to breed and feed on. i could go on and on.

i used religion because millions are following one man in an occult way based on nothing but bilnd faith. just as i stated in the post you responded to.

do some research that comes from somewhere other than cnn and a sadly failed attempt by a joke of a politition. then we can discuss this matter. the sad fact is that there is more proff and evidence that golbal warming is a myth. that is why the media refers to it as climate change now and not warming and there is still too little prof that this is not just normal earth cycles.

Polar Bears are being threatened because the ice is melting:

US Geological Survey

Melting Ice Threatens Bears

polarbears.org


If thermometers, melted ice, and dead bears are just not enough for you, then there is no helping you. Luckily, those who want to ignore all evidence will still benefit from the work of those of us who want to improve things.

reply to post by MrBender



then please explain why the polar bear population is higher than it has ever been in recorded history. and your articles are over 2 years old read some new ones and you will sing a diffrent tune my friend. ill give you credit it was a nice try..


edited for more scarcasim

[edit on 15pmu102007 by DaleGribble]

reply to post by DaleGribble


Here is an up to date website that says the same thing: global warming is real, polar bears are threatened, temperatures are rising, and ice is melting.

Natural Resources Defense Council

Here is the temperature gallery. The temperatures for 2 to 20 years ago haven't changed since they are in the past, so this site hasn't been updated recently.

Temperature Data

You say that my site are outdated, yet you provide no links whatsoever, only your own opinion. I see...

Anyway, back on topic now:

Global warming is real.
Gore is educating people about it.
He often makes money from doing so.
His house is huge (it serves as a home and two full size offices)
so it uses a lot of energy.
He has taken some steps to make it a bit greener.

I have no problem understanding that.

reply to post by MrBender


Here you go:

A prime example of the effectiveness of truthiness came in late December when environmental lobbyists persuaded the Bush administration to recommend that the polar bear be listed as threatened due to global warming. In lieu of evidence, environmentalists offered mostly anecdotes that polar bears are at risk: isolated reports of a few polar bears drowning in Arctic waters normally containing sea ice as well as a few instances of cannibalism among polar bears. Then they posited first that human caused global warming will melt most of the ice at the North Pole within 50 years, and that without the ice, polar bears will be unable to hunt seals, their preferred prey.

Environmentalists presented only one study which shows that one population of polar bears in Canada's Western Hudson Bay had seen a decline of 21 percent following a loss of the average weight of female polar bears which led to reduced cub survival.

Fortunately, both for policy and the polar bears, the plight of this one population does not reflect the population trend as a whole. Indeed, since the 1970s -- all while the world was warming - polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today (higher than at anytime in the 20th century). And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

Polar bears have thrived during warmer climates because they are omnivores just like their cousin's the Brown and Black bears. Though Polar Bears eat seals more than any other food source at present, research shows that they have a varied diet when other foods are available including, fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds, the occasional beluga whale and musk ox and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, pointed out in testimony to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that modest warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available.

source

As you can see, the rubbish about polar bears dying out was a PR move by dubya - polar bears are NOT dying out

As for AIT, there are at least 35 MAJOR errors in the film - which can be seen here

There is NO accurate historical temp. data which is just one more of the lies put forth by gore, and nor is there any real peer review for the IPCC document.

Instead of repeating gore and mouthing senseless platitudes, perhaps you could take a look at the REAL figures provided, which prove him wrong beyond any measure of doubt.

You may also want to look at the Urban Heat Island Effect, here and here which AGW does not take into account, even though many measuring stations are close to cities.

Good enough for you?

Let me know if you need any more real information, rather than the rubbish spewed forth by gores propaganda machine.

[edit on 20/6/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

A prime example of the effectiveness of truthiness came in late December when environmental lobbyists persuaded the Bush administration to recommend that the

source
Your source is funded by these people.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
www.sourcewatch.org...
And specialises in this

It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'"

Its only interest is that of efecting policy for its interest groups, none of which are enviromentalists groups....go figure. puppet masters and spin doctors....we know whose strings they are pulling. Yours.
You want to know why polar bear numbers have increased. Conservation management.

Prior to passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), polar bears in Alaska were reduced by excessive hunting. The MMPA now prohibits polar bear hunting except by Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes. Harvest monitoring has been conducted since 1980.

alaska.fws.gov...

Now global warming is putting these healthy populations at risk again.

As you can see, the rubbish about polar bears dying out was a PR move by dubya - polar bears are NOT dying out

www.whoi.edu...

Caswell and Hunter, along with USGS polar bear biologists Erich Regher and Steven Amstrup; Michael Runge from the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland; and Ian Sterling from the Canadian Wildlife Service, issued two reports on the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, in September 2007. They were among nine reports presented to the FWS and USGS administrations and to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

“These are very discouraging reports,” Caswell said. “You could see the expressions on the faces of the audience change as the presentation went on and they became aware of the severity of the situation.”

9 reports.

Instead of repeating gore and mouthing senseless platitudes, perhaps you could take a look at the REAL figures provided, which prove him wrong beyond any measure of doubt.

.....who cares about gores movie....check out the real thing.
www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (June 14, 2008) — Wilkins Ice Shelf has experienced further break-up with an area of about 160 km² breaking off from 30 May to 31 May 2008. The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced extraordinary warming in the past 50 years of 2.5°C, Braun and Humbert explained. In the past 20 years, seven ice shelves along the peninsula have retreated or disintegrated, including the most spectacular break-up of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002, which Envisat captured within days of its launch.

This happened last week, in the middle of the winter season, ice melting. Lots of ice. Lots of melting......get it yet. How about you start reading science instead of crap from "think tanks". Better still, how about thinking for yourself, instead of having it spoonfed from special interest groups and then regurgitating it.

Good enough for you?

Let me know if you need any more real information, rather than the rubbish spewed forth by gores propaganda machine.

Take a good long look at what you have written, a good long look. That rock you are hiding under, you may need to stand on it soon.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


Ah yes, that old chestnut - attack the source, but fail to provide any other information apart from your own biassed sources.

You see, we can all do that, but it is always those with little or no truth to their argument who try it.

I'd also appreciate less of the veiled insults, such as "the rock I am hiding under"

This thread is about al gore - so I am perfectly justified in pointing out the errors in his film

If you want to be an acolyte of the church of gore, that is your affair - but my eyes are open thanks very much.

Unlike those who preach the gospel according to AL.

Originally posted by budski

Ah yes, that old chestnut - attack the source, but fail to provide any other information apart from your own biassed sources.

Ah...that old chestnut.....my source is a source and it cannot be attacked. What fool does not question the information he bases his beliefs on. Always check the facts and those passing them on as such. And always follow the money.....as you seem to be following Al Gores.

You see, we can all do that, but it is always those with little or no truth to their argument who try it.

Go ahead and check mine....all you will find is truth, which is why you use some BS excuse not to question my sources. The fact is you are too lazy too, and would rather have your truth spoon fed to you. I have linked all the sources you need in my previous thread.

I'd also appreciate less of the veiled insults, such as "the rock I am hiding under"

It was not veiled. Nor an insult. A statement of fact based on you as a source. You are welcome to question the source, it is needed.

This thread is about al gore - so I am perfectly justified in pointing out the errors in his film
If you want to be an acolyte of the church of gore, that is your affair - but my eyes are open thanks very much.

This thread is about gore, i replied to your thread and your sources(lol). If you can't handle the truth in what i present then that is ok. But your pitiful attempts at debasing the truth i share with you as religious hyperbole only highlites your inability to discredit the information i have offered to refute your "think tank" mis-information. Whose aim is shovelling half truths, lies and propaganda to those lazy minds willing enough to swollow it as fact and pass it on as such.

reply to post by atlasastro


The sources you provided add nothing except propaganda for the debunked nonsense about AGW - and this is what al bore is about, blaming man for all the worlds ills whilst making a ton of money out of naive and gullible fools.

Your "sources" do nothing except state that polar bears are not dying out because of AGW - so you in effect proved my point that the previous poster was wrong in his assertion that AGW was causing polar bears to be wiped out..

AGW has been considtently proven to be false - which is why they changed the name to climate change.

And now I'm going to put you on ignore, because you have repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

When you can discuss in a calm and reasoned manner without resorting to these puerile tactics, then I may give you the benefit of the doubt.

Until then, the ignore function is in use.

Originally posted by budski


The sources you provided add nothing except propaganda for the debunked nonsense about AGW - and this is what al bore is about, blaming man for all the worlds ills whilst making a ton of money out of naive and gullible fools.

LOL. Then prove it is propaganda, as i easily did with yours.

Your "sources" do nothing except state that polar bears are not dying out because of AGW - so you in effect proved my point that the previous poster was wrong in his assertion that AGW was causing polar bears to be wiped out..

My sources state they will. That is the point. They are in danger. They have now been listed as in danger due to climate change and GW. Fact. Your sources spin numbers to say they are not in danger but have infact prospered negating GW debate. The fact is they have prospered due to conservation and will on survive with further conservation. Which in this case a reduction of climate temperature so as to maintain their environment. Concepts not that difficult to comprehand, you would think.

And now I'm going to put you on ignore, because you have repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

How is this surprising, you seem to ignore alot of things. You previous links on Al Gore and sources are themselves designed to attack ad hominem. In fact this whole thread is. If you are going to suggest this not applicable to you then why apply it to others.

When you can discuss in a calm and reasoned manner without resorting to these puerile tactics, then I may give you the benefit of the doubt.

You mean when i agree with you and and accept your sources. The benefit of your doubt, you actually think i will benefit from your doubt, now that is funny.

Until then, the ignore function is in use.

Now, that is a benefit.

Originally posted by MrBender
reply to post by DaleGribble

 

First, Thank goodness that you and I will never see eye to eye. I would have myself euthanized if I ever did something that would gain your approval.

Second, the fact that the global temperature is rising has been confirmed with the use of thermometers and other scientific equipment. Thermometers cannot be brainwashed into giving us inaccurate readings. I also do not believe that generations of scientists have been brainwashed into reading thermometers incorrectly.

Third, I have seen nothing in the Climate Crisis Project that bears any resemblance to religion. Can you provide any examples for me?

The problem with Gore's "analysis" is his conclusion...Global warming is caused by people. The temperature is rising not only on Earth but also on our own moon, Mars and Venus. Why? A thing called the Sun seems to be going through a cycle of increased activity. Maybe 'ol Al should consider addressing that problem. Ah, but the solution there is far to difficult for even 'ol Al to address. The Earth and all the solar system are subject to the Sun's evolution. Man is better off not listening to meglamaniacs such as 'ol Al.

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. (meaning it has not been tracked as long as the North Pole) Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice edge were sporadic.

Source

Image

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

Interesting that antartic sea ice has been increasing during the so called warming period.

Originally posted by budski

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. (meaning it has not been tracked as long as the North Pole) Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice edge were sporadic.

Source

Ok, i'll show you one more time how easy this is budski.
Firstly your source is a Blog.The material the blog uses comes from a man called James Taylor who is from here.

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] Heartland campaigns against what it refers to as "junk science"; supports "common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto protocol aimed at countering global warming and promoting genetically engineered crops and products; it supports the privatization of public services; it opposes tobacco control measure such as tobacco tax increases and denies the health effects of second-hand smoke; it supports the introduction of school vouchers;, and it promotes the deregulation of health care insurance. Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks". The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[2]

They are funded by these people.

Philip Morris to Heartland (probably an incomplete list):
$25,000 in 1993[8]
$65,000 in 1995[9]
$50,000 in 1996[10]
$50,000 in 1997[11]
$50,000 in 1998
Exxon Funding
(unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[27]
Contributions include:
$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$109,000 in 2005; and
$230,000 in 2006.

Look at the dollars, now go back and read what the group stands for, i have highlighted it to make it easier for you and others.This is the third time you have sourced material from right wing think tanks like this. Can you see a pattern emering Budski. How about you post some science. So i can make my self clear, this is what think tanks do, especially to you.

On the issue of climate change, for example, neo-liberal think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the Lavoisier Group were instrumental in sowing the seeds of doubt about the existence and extent of the greenhouse effect and in promoting market-based solutions to environmental problems.

www.australianreview.net...

The rising influence of numerous smaller conservative think tanks has been a notable development during the 1990s. Together, these and other conservative policy groups have been able to define policy issues and approaches for public attention, skillfully using mainstream and alternative media outlets to create a powerful echo effect in and beyond the nation’s capital.

commonwealinstitute.org...
Your sources are all paid to provide propaganda to suit a political agenda. Namely that of those that fund them. Can you see a pattern yet. Global Warming Doubt and denial through spin.
more info source and here source
Now back to your sources claims, that you believe.

Interesting that antartic sea ice has been increasing during the so called warming period.

Trends we Observe
Based on the global passive microwave sea ice data sets collected since late 1978, sea ice extent has decreased in the Northern Hemisphere at the rate of approximately 3.0+0.4% per decade, whereas sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere has actually been increasing, at a rate of approximately 1.0+0.5% per decade. Both trends are statistically significant. Upon examining data back to the early 1970s (some of lesser quality), it's found that both the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere have reductions in ice extent since the early 1970s, the Northern Hemisphere more so than the Southern Hemisphere.

nasascience.nasa.gov...

The greatest environmental change seen in Antarctica so far is substantially reduced sea ice cover. This is probably linked to global warming. What is more important - to protect Antarctica from the impacts of activities in Antarctica, or protect it from the effects of activities elsewhere in the world?

www.classroom.antarctica.gov.au...

The overall growth in Antarctica's sea ice over the past two decades masks significant regional declines in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas – the destination for glaciers flowing from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Researchers say these glaciers are losing ice to the sea faster than snow is replenishing the ice. Thus, the large regional drops in sea ice could also signal the presence of "a very big threat to glacier ice" on the continent, says Xiaojun Yuan, a polar scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. The leading suspect: relatively warm water upwelling near the coast as a result of global warming's effect on wind patterns in the region.

www.csmonitor.com...

here is a some good sites for you. source
source
source
source

All sources you named are those with a vested interest in keeping this propaganda machine going.

You see, they get funded to promote scare stories.

Antarctic sea ice grows, arctic sea ice lessens - it's called a climate and is affected by weather, not by CO2 levels.

Once more, just for the hard of hearing - CO2 levels do not drive temperature change, temperature change drives CO2 levels.

NASA data has been proved to be flawed, by their own admission.

Anthropogenic "global warming" is a scam desigend to enrich individuals and governments, and "scientists" provide "evidence" to "prove" their theories in order to maintain their funding, because that is where the money is.

Try changing the record - you bore me - I've heard all this nonsense before.

Jeez, some people are just SO gullible - if there was a public figure who said that AGW is caused by vasectomies they'd believe it

You're back on ignore - bub-byeeee.


[edit on 21/6/2008 by budski]

GW itself is a scam - it's natural.

They're going on about the ice in the Arctic at the moment - so? We're still coming out of the last ice age!!! The worst that happens? Uhh - low lying land floods.

Sheesh............

I see the arguments put forward about "Global Warming" and so-called "tipping points" and "runaway climate" as nothing more than the guy stood at the corner of the street with a sign that says "THE END IS NIGH!" when in fact it isn't.

Have people become so dumbed down that they've forgotten the origins of this planet? It was once a molten ball of rock. Today it is solidified. It's warming now to the point that ice melts, that's all.

The politicians are only in this for the money. Carbon trading schemes aren't there for the good of the planet (or the "third world" countries either). It's there to line the pockets of the companies who run the schemes, the financiers who manage them on the stock markets, and the politicians who own shares in all the above.

Oil, it seems, isn't even just about to run out. We're being lied to and manipulated, all in the name of profit.

Anyone noticed that everyones answer in government to tackling global warming is to hike taxes?? As if paying more money to the government will prevent what is a natural process anyway!!! People are stupid.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by budski



Geez, budski, this is the second time this week that I've agreed with a post of yours.

You're finally coming around. Good, good.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by budski

 

Geez, budski, this is the second time this week that I've agreed with a post of yours.

You're finally coming around. Good, good.

Now that we have established Gore uses fear mongering maybe youll come to realize bush is using fear mongering too

reply to post by budski


You tell them budski

I am so sick and tired of people acting like they know all about how we are ruining the planet when it's 4.5 BILLION years old, think about that BILLION there folks, ice age about every 10,000 years or so...and we have been keeping track of weather for what...200 or 300 YEARS now? Give it a rest!

Unless there's someone on ATS here, right now, a member, that claims to be 4.5 billion years old and can tell us all about the good old days, for a 1,000 years of 24/7 reporting to us every single weather event, ice age where the glaciers creep forward, and where they melt back, and can categorize every single hurricane from day one, all the tornadoes, all the earthquakes from DAY 1, then no study that is out there, can tell us jack. That's just the way it is, IMO.

Originally posted by budski
All sources you named are those with a vested interest in keeping this propaganda machine going.

You see, they get funded to promote scare stories.

Instead of making accusations, please provide proof.

Antarctic sea ice grows, arctic sea ice lessens - it's called a climate and is affected by weather, not by CO2 levels.

sea ice is and glacial ice is being reduced. It is fact.

NASA data has been proved to be flawed, by their own admission.

And your blog source and Think Tank BS is a superior source than NASA. OK. Sure. What about all my other sources. Are they wrong too. Please show. Please....do not use a think tank or blog.

Anthropogenic "global warming" is a scam desigend to enrich individuals and governments, and "scientists" provide "evidence" to "prove" their theories in order to maintain their funding, because that is where the money is.

More opinion with no fact. So the smear campaign goes. That you have bought hook, line and sinker. You actually are proof of Anthropogenic "global warming". As all you offer is hot air. In fact the money is on maintaining the way we live. Massive throw away consumer culture. Massive Use of fossil fuels. Deforestation. Minning(see fossil fuels). Large scale agriculture. Just to name a few. Scientifc evidence has changed our perception of these. Liberal views on global warming and climate change are advocating changes to these behaviours. That is why people give money to "think tanks" to promote the status quo. Which you do. By creating doubt. Smearing the issues and individual that engage them in the public forum( see the OP of this thread and your sources).

Jeez, some people are just SO gullible - if there was a public figure who said that AGW is caused by vasectomies they'd believe it

Show me the record. I bet it is from some think tank blog funded by an Oil company. Your bored, you peddle the same crap, not once, not twice, but three times now. Same adhoc non scientific sources, spinning science to fit an agenda of a vested interest. It is science when your think tanks use it. But when i show it in ts pure form(from scientific organisations....not right wing institutions) it is a propaganda scare campaign.

You're back on ignore - bub-byeeee.

LOL. It appears i was never on Ignore as you have repiled. More of your fine logic and rationale. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Man has constantly come up against walls. They are eventually knocked down. And we move on. Change is happening wether you like it or not. The smart people are the ones that will create a better climate and enviroment while making it economically viable. While those despairing to hold on to a crumbling wall shall be left behind to ponder what could have been had they not been so lazy as to hope that our bad habits would always be maintained. Doubt to support your apathy. That is all you have.

Originally posted by MrBender
If thermometers, melted ice, and dead bears are just not enough for you, then there is no helping you. Luckily, those who want to ignore all evidence will still benefit from the work of those of us who want to improve things.

Yes, thermometers show temperature rises and some polar bears are no doubt affected.

However, the key piece that you and so many "Gore-o-philes" fail to show is the link to any of this being caused by humans.

And if that can't be shown, then we all can't be (quite literally) held up for the fix. Try to understand that if this is being caused by the sun, then we can't do anything about it except try to adapt.

I guess if you can't understand that, there's no helping you either. Unless, of course, you've got workable plans to alter the sun's behavior.



[edit on 6/23/2008 by centurion1211]