Al Gore's Tennessee Home Wasting Electricity

[ImWithStupid]

View attachment 1994

 

[hugo]

Damn, might have to change my view. I hate kittens.

 

[Anna Perenna]

Before I commit to paying higher taxes and energy bills the Goreist's need to show the preponderance of the evidence shows:

1) The Earth is warming. (It has not since 1998)

2) A significant part of this warming is due to usage of fossil fuels.

3) That the benefits from reducing the damages caused by global warming will outweigh the huge costs to economies that will be incurred in taxing and regulating fossil fuel usage. (Many believe global warming will be a net benefit to mankind, more food for the growing population. Who can be against that?)

4) That it is possible for worldwide cooperation that actually reduces global warming significantly.

I am not a Goreist, I am a Greenie. But I'll try to answer your four points:

1) The "Earth" is not "Warming". The changes in climate attributed to the large level of CO2 in the atmosphere are collectively referred to as Global Warming, or Climate Change. We will see extreme weather changes and events - including extreme cold. Basically the planet will soon not be able to sufficiently support the human population - if we continue to live the way we currently do. I'm pretty sure I clarified this point earlier.

2) It's not just fossil fuels. In a layman's nutshell: our extreme and unsustainable use of the earth's resources (and use of various power sources to create, move and use these resources) is causing an extreme level of CO2. It makes sense. Common sense. All these buildings, roads, cars, electricity, gadgets, etc etc etc etc everywhere - it's not reasonable to assume that their production, distribution and use can be having NO or even a negligible effect on the planet.

3) People are highly innovative creatures. There is some amazing technology out there. It's just a matter of turning the best science into the right policies -and getting the government and corporations to support the right ideas while following the best processes. (Carbon sequestration has not been sufficiently trialled, unfortunately there are plants springing up all over the place. No wonder people are sceptical).

Also, your economy is already completely and utterly ****ed. Why not try some new things, try to implement some changes to the modern western lifestyle and see if it doesn't improve general happiness and wellbeing? Humans are happier when they are surrounded by nature. And considering the way most US cities are laid out (making you all so reliant upon cars) I'm sure US citizens would be happier if there was a convenient and clever new public transport system (that just so happens to be green).

4) If the idea is sold in the right way and information is shared properly, we could probably convince developing countries to cooperate.

I probably sound grossly optimistic but I don't think there's an excuse here for wilful ignorance. This is a serious issue and trying to look for reasons to not support a reduction in CO2, rather than looking for ways to kill two birds with one stone (stable economy + reduced CO2 = a planet that humans can live comfortably on for years to come) just seems ...... silly.

 

[timesjoke]

And yet one of the greatest temperature increases that we can prove to have happened was during the middle ages, and no industry to blame it on.

One of the greatest drops in temperature was during the industrial revolution with Co2 levels on the rise.



Fact, temperatures have gone up and down for as long as the Earth has existed and most of those massive temperature changed happened when there was no industry or fossil fuel uses at all.


Fact, every person pushing this 'man caused global warming' agenda has political or financial gain as their reason.


Fact, recent information has come out that proves the main scientists involved in things like the UN reports have been manipulating data, discouraging studies that do not agree with them, and even throwing away data so their work could not be independently checked so they can force people to "take their word" on what the data was.




Anna, there is more information proving that solar conditions change our temperatures here on Earth than Co2, but everyone ignores this fact because there is no way to make money or gain political power if this is true.

 

[hugo]

Fact, every person pushing this 'man caused global warming' agenda has political or financial gain as their reason.

Really? Every single one? It would take a lunatic to believe that.

The fact is CO2 is a greenhouse gas which means there is a positive correlation between higher CO2 content in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures. The questions are 1) How significant is CO2 as a greenhouse gas 2) What other factors could multiply or diminish the warming effect of CO2 and 3) What politically possible options are available to diminish CO2 in the atmosphere if it is deemed a real threat. In my opinion the only way to diminish CO2 in the atmosphere, given the economic rise of the developing nations, is to find energy sources that are as cheap as those that produce CO2 emissions. If the Western world simply reduces emissions by artificially equalizing the cost of oil and coal with cleaner energies it will do very little to combat the issue of CO2 emissions worldwide.


The temperature of the surface of Venus right now is about 850 degrees farenheit.

The temperature of the surface of Mercury right now is about 350 degrees farenheit.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Fact, every person pushing this 'man caused global warming' agenda has political or financial gain as their reason.

Just one more of Times every/all, never/always, opinions that he tries to pass off as fact and is only that way in his delusional mind.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Really? Every single one? It would take a lunatic to believe that.

The fact is CO2 is a greenhouse gas which means there is a positive correlation between higher CO2 content in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures. The questions are 1) How significant is CO2 as a greenhouse gas 2) What other factors could multiply or diminish the warming effect of CO2 and 3) What politically possible options are available to diminish CO2 in the atmosphere if it is deemed a real threat. In my opinion the only way to diminish CO2 in the atmosphere, given the economic rise of the developing nations, is to find energy sources that are as cheap as those that produce CO2 emissions. If the Western world simply reduces emissions by artificially equalizing the cost of oil and coal with cleaner energies it will do very little to combat the issue of CO2 emissions worldwide.


The temperature of the surface of Venus right now is about 850 degrees farenheit.

The temperature of the surface of Mercury right now is about 350 degrees farenheit.

Agreed, but it's also true that the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor and that the temps on every planet in the inner solar system + Jupiter have gone up along with the Earth's relevant to solar activity.

My take and I may be wrong, the Earth and the Sun will do what it wants. What man does to effect either will be insignificant on either raising or lowering the temps on Earth.

That said, we should be the best stewards of the earth and yearn for the most responsible means of existence as possible without destroying ourselves in the process.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

That said, we should be the best stewards of the earth and yearn for the most responsible means of existence as possible without destroying ourselves in the process.

Hence my "Privatize the Elephant" thread. The power of private ownership!

 

[ImWithStupid]

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.” In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years. Though the SSRC does not get involved with short term weather prediction, it would not be unusual to see these ill-effects this year much less within the next 30 months.”

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html