Al Gore and the UN Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Gore's intent is very positive...and Bush is a moron

Okay. So Bush is a moron. He acts like a moron by doing moronic things. Okay. I can see that.

Gore intends to help the environment. However, he pollutes the environment.

Now, which is more indicative of a moron - a guy who honestly intends to help the environment but cannot prevent himself from burning through more home electricity in one month that the avergae American uses all year? Or an idiot who sets his mind to doign idiotic things and actually comes through.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The problem is people who want to do that and don't give a shit who else it affects.

Like Gore? He makes his $100k per speech.

Offsets ARE better than nothing. But offsets do not prevent an individual footprint.

THAT is my contention. Instead of offsetting a private jet, offset commercial air travel. It's better for EVERYONE in the long run.

Bill - you do TRULY walk the walk. Not in all portions of your life, but more so than anybody I can think of - including Gore. Don't you think that if YOU could install solar at your house then Gore could do it, too?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Bill - you do TRULY walk the walk. Not in all portions of your life, but more so than anybody I can think of - including Gore. Don't you think that if YOU could install solar at your house then Gore could do it, too?

I cant install SOLAR up here.. too cloudy and wet to mnake a difference....

BUT if I burn enough fossil fuels and put plenty of CO2 into the atmosphere it will move the CA weather north.. THEN I can install SOLAR when its warmer and dryer and sunnier so that it will work Then I will also get a nice 45' Sloop so I dont have to burn as much gas when I go boating.

[lawrocket 3]

Then you'll install solar, which, because of the solar power taking over, will result in global cooling, bringing a cloudy and rainy climate to the Pacific Southwest.

The solar panel then becomes useless.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>Don't you think that if YOU could install solar at your house then Gore
>could do it, too?

He did. It took him a long time to get approval; his zoning board wouldn't let him at first.

But that doesn't prove he's a great, virtuous guy. Even if he lived like a monk, someone would claim that producing his film used up X million kwhrs, and they'd be right. He's not making a contribution now; indeed he's part of the problem (as most of us are) and his efforts to publicize it will cause yet more CO2 emissions.

What he WILL be remembered for (I think) is bringing the issue to the public in an accessible way. If his work results in people being aware of the potential effects of CO2 emissions, and that results in reduction of our carbon footprint as a nation, then he will have done a lot of good - no matter how much people personally dislike him.

Again, it's like going after a Nobel prize winner who got the prize working on hunger because he's fat. He might even smell bad, too, and he might not give his spare change to the guy starving in the street. But if his work results in people throughout the world having better access to food - then his work might well be deserving of a Nobel prize, even if he's a "fat hypocrite."

[lawrocket 3]

I agree that he has brought the issue to the forefront of the public consciousness. For that he should be commended.

So did Joseph Hazelton.

Do you find there to be a differences between "Raising the Consciousness" and "Setting an Example?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you find there to be a differences between "Raising the Consciousness"
>and "Setting an Example?"

Absolutely! I know a family in Africa that sets a tremendous example. They use almost nothing that they didn't grow/dig/raise themselves. They don't do much educating, though - they don't have the tools to do so.

Likewise, I recently attended Solar Expo 2007 in Los Angeles. It was located in an air conditioned building and 99% of the people drove their cars to the show. Many people drove trucks to carry their demonstration/exhibition materials. This was a terrible example of conservation; all those people could have stayed home and saved all that fuel.

5pm to 8pm on Tuesday was open to the public, and I saw a lot of people come in who simply had no idea what all this solar stuff was about. "You can put this on my roof? And it will heat my water? I thought that would cost tens of thousands of dollars!"

Thus an event that sets a poor example, but with great educational value.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

And from a guy who advocates reduction of energy usage.

Who would that be? I advocate more efficient use of resources, not the same thing AT ALL.

Tell us again why offsets, originated by President Ronald Reagan and used by companies all across the USA, don't count when Al Gore uses them? Could it possibly be that you are partisan?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I know a family in Africa that sets a tremendous example. They use almost nothing that they didn't grow/dig/raise themselves. They don't do much educating, though - they don't have the tools to do so.

That's not what I am talking about, bill, and you know it. I'm talking about doing what you can to avoid pollution. Al Gore isn't or wasn't doing that.

Quote

Many people drove trucks to carry their demonstration/exhibition materials. This was a terrible example of conservation; all those people could have stayed home and saved all that fuel.

Oh. The trucks carried the demonstration materials? That's not a bad example of conservation - it's actually using trusck to haul stuff.

Now, people driving Hummers without gear to the expo would be a bad example. Taking the 30 foot moving van tot he expo is wasteful if it is used as a transport for a person. Taking a helicopter would be wasteful.

As I have said, I have no problem with al Gore flying or using resources. I have a problem with the outright WASTE that is NOT reasonable from a person who makes his money advising people to lower their energy usage.

What if Al Gore's bedroom was powered with 8 100 watt incandescents? Would you think that Al Gore would want to buy 40 watt fluorescents instead?

It's the little things, like switching to fluorescents. Or not flying private jets on two transcontinental trips in two days. Gore's personal comfort is more important than the planet. He has not sacrificed like he wants other to.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I think offsets, when used by anyone, do nothing to reduce their footprint.

Offsets, on a macro-scale, do good things. however, offsets merely transfer the burden of energy efficiency to those without the money or resources to hourde energy, anyway.

If Al Gore had not suggested to all of us that we lower our energy usage, then offsets for Gore wouldn't be a problem.

Al Gore is showing that he thinks everyone ELSE should lower their energy usage. That's my problem with it.

Offsets, again, do ZERO - ZIP - NADA - NOTHING to REDUCE an individuals carbon footprint. In effect, it allows for gluttony, so long as you pay others not to use the resource.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

AGW is caused by the sum total of all individual's emissions, not one individual's emissions. Ronald Reagan was right in this instance, offsets ARE a way of reducing the overall emissions and have been proven to work well in the power industry.

You simply don't like Gore or his message and are fabricating reasons to oppose him as if you are presenting a case to a jury.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

and you Gore supporter's can't deal with that so you retort to Bush is a Moron or Reagen is the one that came up with offsets.

I tell it how I see it......it happens that 70% of country sees it the same way too. Ill say it again.....Gore's intent is very positive...and Bush is a moron (even if this post has nothing to do with him)

His intent is positive for his bank balance and his ego. And you still miss the point...he is a do as I say, not as I do hypocrite. A person that preaches one thing and does another has no credibility with me. If you have a man-crush on him then that is your business...

Gore’s household used as much electricity in one month as an average American household does in a year. I hear you on that. Gore is in a whole different class of people from your average household. Has anyone looked at how much electricity he uses vs. other households within the same class…the same income level? This isn’t socialism, and we do not all get to live the kind of life styles that the elite get to. If we could, we would...and we would use as much energy. You don’t think so? Talk to me when your success is can be measured by the millions in your bank account. The elite live different lifestyles from average families. So let’s not compare apples and oranges. Instead lets take a look at peoples’ use of energy within the same income level, and them make this comparison.
The issue of global warming is very real whether we choose to believe in it or not. The issue is much bigger than taking a look at individuals. While taking into consideration individual contribution to pollution, increased CO2 levels, the greenhouse effect, etc., is very important, people need to step back a bit and take a look at the bigger picture. Before we can make people change, we need to change the industries which are the leaders in the contribution to global warming. Gore has done a fantastic job at bringing this matter to attention in the US. He is one of the main reasons why you and I are talking about this issue. I think he deserves the Nobel Prize. It’s the success of his work that has global warming in the media almost every day. He has taken the first steps, and I hope our society will follow in his footsteps to clean up this place a bit. I think that makes him quite a positive leader.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[NCclimber 0]

Watching people defend Al Gore's behavior, trying to spin it that he's not a complete HYPOCRITE , takes the term DENIER to a whole new level.


He's not a hypocrite...


He's not a hypocrite...


He's not a hypocrite...


He's not a hypocrite...






Hysterical Deniers

Who'd a thunk it???

[Gawain 0]

Dude, your point is irrelevant. Regardless of how much Mr. Gore spends on utilities for his house compared to other mansions doesn't matter.

His example, regardless of awareness, is akin to me driving a Chevy Tahoe, pulling up to next to you in a Honda Civic, telling you to use fewer resources.

He doesn't believe in his own cause. His net worth is somewhere north of $100M. He's in this for the business. He's in it for the money.

If his message causes a root change in the mindset of people to do a little bit to save here and there, then that's fine.

To mark Mr. Gore as worthy of the Peace Prize as a result, connects two dots that are not on the same plane.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

No. I AGREE with Al Gore's message. I disagree with his treachery.

You know, I saw snippets of an interview with a certain Senator from Idaho who has based his career on a family values ticket. Guess what happened to him when it was discovered that while his message is "family values" he does not exactly practice what he preaches - his supporters left in droves.

Take a look at this from TMZ.com about celebs who claim to be green but fly private jets. http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs-who-claim-theyre-green-but-guzzle-gas This article from the London Times from October, 2006 reported on the TMZ story. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article616799.ece

In January, 2007, the Guardian published a story about which stars leave the largest carbon footprint. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/24/travelsenvironmentalimpact.carbonfootprints Apparently, Tom Cruise's nickname in the environmental world is "emissions impossible" for hsi private jet over-usage.

Quote

Phillip Green
He's the billionaire who owns 2,500 stores including Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Bhs. He avoids paying millions of pounds in tax by living in Monaco, but dumps thousands of kilos of carbon on the rest of us from his cherished Gulfstream jet as he commutes back and forth to his London office.

So, should Al Gore be treated any differently from these people? Why is Al Gore not subject to the same heat or derision as George Clooney or John Travolta? Because the emperor has no clothes?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pop 0]

Quote

Dude, your point is irrelevant. Regardless of how much Mr. Gore spends on utilities for his house compared to other mansions doesn't matter.

His example, regardless of awareness, is akin to me driving a Chevy Tahoe, pulling up to next to you in a Honda Civic, telling you to use fewer resources.

He doesn't believe in his own cause. His net worth is somewhere north of $100M. He's in this for the business. He's in it for the money.

If his message causes a root change in the mindset of people to do a little bit to save here and there, then that's fine.

To mark Mr. Gore as worthy of the Peace Prize as a result, connects two dots that are not on the same plane.

You and I are having this discussion because of Gore. His work made you and I and millions of people aware of global warming. That's worthy of recognition.

When you are worth $100M, you are no longer doing whatever you do for the money. You already have the money. People who are in the same class as Gore are driven by something else besides money. In Gores case....its save the world. Money is a by prodct of the motion that has been set forth by the hard work invested.

And yes, it does matter how much Gore spends on utilities compared to other mansions. You cannot make comparrions of above average households to average households. That's not a valid comparison...but people in this post are continuing to twist it to the advantage of their own argument. You cannot compare apples to oranges, just like you cannot compare above average to average.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[billvon 3,120]

>Oh. The trucks carried the demonstration materials? That's not a bad
>example of conservation - it's actually using trusck to haul stuff.


>Or not flying private jets on two transcontinental trips in two days. Gore's
>personal comfort is more important than the planet. He has not sacrificed
>like he wants other to.

Below are two pictures from the show.

The first one shows a guy being virtuous. He used the tables, chairs and backdrop supplied by the convention hall, thus minimizing his energy usage. He and his partners flew commercially, judging by the baggage tags on their demonstration gear. They had the bare minimum there - just a few inverters - to cut their CO2 emissions to the bone. Your ideal of a "true" non-hypocritical environmentalist.

The second one shows a wasteful booth. Sunpower, the booth to the left, took up about 20 stall spaces. They had people there in matching shirts handing out literature. They had working demos with bright incandescent lights shining on solar panels to show how their inverters worked. They didn't like the chairs the convention supplied so they shipped cooler more comfortable chairs for their booth. They had a two-story structure (that you can't see from the picture) with a meeting room and an employee break room in the second story. It had to weigh several thousand pounds at least.

Did you catch that? They shipped a BREAK ROOM, for their own comfort, on a truck, burning fossil fuels! They shipped more comfortable chairs instead of using the perfectly adequate ones at the convention center! Hypocrites whose personal comfort is more important than the planet!

Now two questions for you. Often, environmentalists are portrayed here as smug, sanctimonious jerks who try to appear environmentally friendly by showcasing their minimalism (while secretly using fossil fuels, of course.) Which booth exhibits that?

But let's say you don't care what people think of you; your one objective is to get people to use more solar power. Which booth will do that more effectively?

[NCclimber 0]

The big difference is Al Gore is promoting a principle, one that he wants everyone on the planet to embrace, whereas those "wasteful" guys are just promoting a product.

[billvon 3,120]

> The big difference is Al Gore is promoting a principle, one that he
>wants everyone on the planet to embrace, whereas those "wasteful" guys
>are just promoting a product.

Ah. So as long as someone has only profit in mind, they're OK in your book - even if they claim to do it for environmental reasons. But if someone wants to try to stop climate change without making a profit on it - they are evil hypocrites! Sort of the penultimate right-winger morality.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> The big difference is Al Gore is promoting a principle, one that he
>wants everyone on the planet to embrace, whereas those "wasteful" guys
>are just promoting a product.

Ah. So as long as someone has only profit in mind,

I didn't say only profit. My point was their primary focus is to move the product.

Quote

they're OK in your book - even if they claim to do it for environmental reasons.

Stellar bit of deductive reasoning, Bill.

Quote

But if someone wants to try to stop climate change without making a profit on it - they are evil hypocrites!

What are you talking about? Can't make a profit? Evil hypocrites?


Do you always miss the point so easily?

Quote

Sort of the penultimate right-winger morality.

Wow! Way to go big on missing a simple obvious point. Sorry you seem to be having issues with this.

[speedy 0]

I keep reading here that Al Gore is worth $100 million. He's only polluting to get the message across.

But, if he's got all that money and the message is that important, WHY do I have to pay to see "An Inconvenient Truth". Why is it not on YouTube?

Is the money perhaps more important than the message?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Dude, your point is irrelevant. Regardless of how much Mr. Gore spends on utilities for his house compared to other mansions doesn't matter.

His example, regardless of awareness, is akin to me driving a Chevy Tahoe, pulling up to next to you in a Honda Civic, telling you to use fewer resources.

He doesn't believe in his own cause. His net worth is somewhere north of $100M. He's in this for the business. He's in it for the money.

If his message causes a root change in the mindset of people to do a little bit to save here and there, then that's fine.

To mark Mr. Gore as worthy of the Peace Prize as a result, connects two dots that are not on the same plane.

You and I are having this discussion because of Gore. His work made you and I and millions of people aware of global warming. That's worthy of recognition.

When you are worth $100M, you are no longer doing whatever you do for the money. You already have the money. People who are in the same class as Gore are driven by something else besides money. In Gores case....its save the world. Money is a by prodct of the motion that has been set forth by the hard work invested.

And yes, it does matter how much Gore spends on utilities compared to other mansions. You cannot make comparrions of above average households to average households. That's not a valid comparison...but people in this post are continuing to twist it to the advantage of their own argument. You cannot compare apples to oranges, just like you cannot compare above average to average.

Gore has you snowed. If you truly think he is Captain Planet here to save the world you have bought the PR hook, line, and sinker. He is doing it for the money and attention. People like him can't have enough money or adoration. He is not Captain Planet but he is a hell of a business man.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 3,120]

>WHY do I have to pay to see "An Inconvenient Truth". Why is it not on YouTube?

Because you reach more people when it's in a theater. Same reason anyone bothers to produce a film instead of putting it on YouTube.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

>WHY do I have to pay to see "An Inconvenient Truth". Why is it not on YouTube?

Because you reach more people when it's in a theater. Same reason anyone bothers to produce a film instead of putting it on YouTube.

And you make more money which is Gore's end game in the first place.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[speedy 0]

Quote

>WHY do I have to pay to see "An Inconvenient Truth". Why is it not on YouTube?

Because you reach more people when it's in a theater. Same reason anyone bothers to produce a film instead of putting it on YouTube.

The reason films are produced is to make money. Or did I miss something important in the last Bond movie?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl