[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You can calculate your output here

That form is totally broken for me in Safari. Anyone else?

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

The thing is is that this is ultimately a 'straw hat' argument.

Are you...drunk?

This is a poor excuse, the environmental activists version of a tax write-off. It's fancy numbers.

At some point we all have to face the reality. You can't plant 'offset mango trees' and buy 'carbon footprint real estate.' There has either got to be a 'real' alternative or everything is just useless platitudes and dogma.

It's possible to neutralize the amount of CO2 we already produce by planting enough plants to metabolize it all, it's just difficult. It also makes sense to outsource that effort to a specialist instead of expecting each business to do their own share.

Predisposition needs to be set aside and a workable solution needs to be found

I agree. I would be far happier with a technology that removes CO2, adds O2, or both (CO2 <-> O2 + diamonds), because it would allow addressing the damage already done. If you're trying to slow down a car, you don't rely entirely on letting up on the gas, you invent brakes.

And, hybrid cars are pointless as long as it takes a coal fired plant to make the electricity.

Do you know how hybrid cars work? They don't plug in.

[subego]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

And, hybrid cars are pointless as long as it takes a coal fired plant to make the electricity.

What UC said.

Hybrids use your wheels as dynamos when you brake.

This is such an insanely clever idea that it needs to be on all cars, stat.

Oh, and diesel engines run on corn oil.

What was our problem again?

[nonhuman]

Also, if everyone used electric cars powered by coal plants it would still be more energy efficient than everyone using gasoline powered cars.

[Moderator]

I agree he probably ought to cut down on his electric bills but...what the hell is everyone so afraid of. Who is he hurting by travelling around talking to people about what is now known scientific fact. Yes he ought to put his money where his mouth is...but at least someone is actually making a difference.

Anyway..if he lived like Jesus Christ noone would listen to him so whadya gonna do.

Our president is about to wrap up the most damaging and shameful 8 years this country has seen...and by the looks of it...he's going to try and do it with a bang.

Priorities fellas, priorities.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you...drunk?

Let's keep it on topic and not about me, thank you.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you know how hybrid cars work? They don't plug in.

That admittedly was a dumb thing to say because you are right. I was thinking specifically about 'electric' cars because I just finished an article about new all electric 'hybrid.'

Electric Cars Winning Over the White House
This is actually a really interesting article

Anyway, a poor statement on my part.

Aside, the new revised MPG numbers make hybrids out to not be everything we'd hoped… and the way California botched it all with the HOV stickers really tainted the program.

I have been researching 'off the grid' and self-sufficient living for a long time, before it was 'cool.' I will be the first to say fossils are not a long-term solution… but they won't be gone tomorrow, either. To pigeon-hole fossils as the 'cause' of global warming is just too much to accept.

I also remember the first 'wind' movement but that was shot down because we'd kill birds. Hydro, but we'd kill salmon. And my favorite, solar, but that would take up too much space (solar fields) and/or increase the environments ambient temperature (insulators, glass, dissipation, etc)… which borders on ironic now. This was all 'before' global warming but the environmentalists shot them all down.

What I don't like are mass hysterics and delusion running riot over practical solutions and progress. Finger pointing does nothing (and neither do prizes and statues).

I don't agree with Gore. I think he stretches things and takes a lot of things for granted. I also find the "lock step, he's infallible on fact, there is no debate" mantra dangerous. There are those that disagree with him, reputable people. But his position has literally become dogma. It's been said before…it's not that there is warming, but whether we are sure 'why' (don't bother with the links, I've seem them.)

The 4 best alternatives in concert is a actual viable alternative. Unfortunately, there is more effort going into proving something that probably isn't 'really' provable and not as much into 'really' doing something about it. I have a feeling that is because blame is easier than solutions. It's harder to walk the walk

And there are those that aren't going to like it, but nukes are really the most obvious answer. Unfortunately, after being campaigned against for 3 decades the bridge has been burned and enviro-groups like GP and Sierra Club can't go back.

None of this tangental ramble will sway or convince anyone anyway… like I said, it's easier to point, sneer, mock and then go get a latte.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Also, if everyone used electric cars powered by coal plants it would still be more energy efficient than everyone using gasoline powered cars.

Boy, I'd have to see actual numbers on that one. You' d be talking about a pretty massive spike in electricity production and infrastructure improvements for load transference.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just think that there may more to the equation than you make out. However, the above article i linked to says it may not be so.

Things have a way of not following initial notions lately in this dynamic world.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Boy, I'd have to see actual numbers on that one. You' d be talking about a pretty massive spike in electricity production and infrastructure improvements for load transference.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just think that there may more to the equation than you make out. However, the above article i linked to says it may not be so.

Things have a way of not following initial notions lately in this dynamic world.

I've seen numbers backing it up before, I'll have to see if I can find them again.

Edit:
Well, I found one supporting article here: Electro Automotive: FAQ on Electric Car Efficiency & Pollution

EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline (See Table 4). Although there are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power.

There's some tables on the site that show the numbers. I'll see if I can find anything a little more reputable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You also have to factor in that the electricity is going to get to your house through power lines, which are notoriously lossy. We're not talking about the efficiency of converting hydrocarbon energy to electric (chemical), we're talking about the efficiency of transporting energy from the ground to the car. It's two sides of the same coin; the ICE loses efficiency in exchange for being mobile, and the electric distribution loses efficiency in exchange for going over long power lines. I'm inclined to believe the electric will still win, but I'd like to see the numbers too.

Also, electric power is more flexible. For example the DOE tells me 80% of my electricity already comes from hydro. It seems that if our toys depend on electricity they will have more options in an uncertain energy market than if they depend on oil.

Dragonfly, I'm dying to know what a "straw hat" argument is...?

[King Bob On The Cob]

The thing is, alot of the electricity is produced in similar ways to how energy is produced in a car, that is burning a chemical, which in turn causes it to take up much more volume, and harnessing the change in volume as energy. I fail to see how simply by doing it on a large scale you're going to be able to improve efficiency enough to justify the loss that is transmitting electricity in wires over long distances.

(I completely discounted Hydro, Solar, Wind, and Nuclear. I know. I'm sorry, but ask yourself honestly, where do you think is this extra electricity going to come from? [Hint, it's dirty, and it rhymes with toll]).

[besson3c]

It's an unfortunate human condition that whenever somebody comes up with a suggestion as to how to make society better, we make ourselves feel better about our own contributions (or lack thereof) by putting this person under an intense microscope.

His message is valid, and his documentary is a good one on its merits alone. What Gore does with his private life does not affect the arguments made in this documentary, they stand on their own.

[besson3c]

In other words, if you look hard enough, you can find faults and "hypocrisy" in literally anyone that makes a suggestion. I bet even Mother Theresa has been criticized.

Why don't we stop attacking the messenger?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You make out like anyone with any intelligence should be jumping up to "go green" ASAP, but the guys at NASA aren't doing it...aren't they supposed to be pretty smart?

yes exactly...intelligent people should.

[OldManMac]

quote:
___________________________________

Why don't we stop attacking the messenger?

____________________________________



Because that's no fun, and then we'd have to look inward, and that's just too damn painful.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That form is totally broken for me in Safari. Anyone else?

Nope worked for me. I'm glad that I have a footprint of 4.3 especially since I drive a big whole honkin pickup truck Seriously I was surprised but then I only drive it 3 miles a day to go to the subway.

Even if Al's documentary is only partially true don't you think with what we're seeing now a days that global warming is serious. I saw an article on msnbc stating over population and global warming is causing the river that feeds pheonix to start to dry up. Its conceivable that at somepoint between the harsher droughts and more people, populations centers like pheonix will be hard put to sustain themselves there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Boy, I'd have to see actual numbers on that one. You' d be talking about a pretty massive spike in electricity production and infrastructure improvements for load transference.

Everything else being equal, a larger plant is going to be more efficient than a smaller one.

Otherwise we wouldn't have massive steam driven turbines, we'd have internal combustion farms.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You also have to factor in that the electricity is going to get to your house through power lines, which are notoriously lossy. We're not talking about the efficiency of converting hydrocarbon energy to electric (chemical), we're talking about the efficiency of transporting energy from the ground to the car. It's two sides of the same coin; the ICE loses efficiency in exchange for being mobile, and the electric distribution loses efficiency in exchange for going over long power lines. I'm inclined to believe the electric will still win, but I'd like to see the numbers too.

I'm pretty sure the power lines are actually a fairly efficient means of transmitting energy. According to the one site I linked to, they're 95% efficient with jives with the numbers I remember seeing in other places.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Dragonfly, I'm dying to know what a "straw hat" argument is...?

DOH!

Straw man. Sorry. I didn't even notice that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Honestly, if someone can't afford to pay their power bills in the first place, do you think they're really causing enough polution to be a big concern right now?

Great. Us "little people" don't need to worry about any of this then.

We'll let Al Gore and his green lefty friends suck up all the natural resources, then buy their energy hog IOU's and we'll all be okay.

I thought that the Earth was in some kind of desperate serious trouble though? You'd think that Al could convince himself to stop wasting resources, but instead he just pulls out his wallet and refuses to sacrifice. Typical.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

This is a poor excuse, the environmental activists version of a tax write-off. It's fancy numbers.

At some point we all have to face the reality. You can't plant 'offset mango trees' and buy 'carbon footprint real estate.' There has either got to be a 'real' alternative or everything is just useless platitudes and dogma.

Bingo.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Great. Us "little people" don't need to worry about any of this then.
...[Al Gore] refuses to sacrifice. Typical.

Al Gore is paying for his carbon offsets. That's sacrifice enough, because that's all it takes. I suppose he could cut off his arm, too -- and perhaps that would even satisfy you -- but that would be completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. According to reports (I can't verify any of this), he has completely neutralized his carbon emissions. That's all that matters for global warming! It doesn't make a whit of difference to global warming how much energy he is using if it is all carbon neutral.

He could use a hundred times as much energy as he does. As long as the emissions are offset, who cares? Who is being harmed? And if he can afford it, good for him.

[Buckaroo]

This is the biggest crock of crap ever. If he believes the garbage that comes out of his mouth he should cut off all electricity, gas and oil to his property, and install solar panels.

If he draws one single amp of electricity, he is contributing to his scam of global warming.

Just paying more does not make his scam go away. It's only a scam to add additional taxes, that is ALL.

Originally Posted by tie 

Al Gore is paying for his carbon offsets. That's sacrifice enough, because that's all it takes. I suppose he could cut off his arm, too -- and perhaps that would even satisfy you -- but that would be completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. According to reports (I can't verify any of this), he has completely neutralized his carbon emissions. That's all that matters for global warming! It doesn't make a whit of difference to global warming how much energy he is using if it is all carbon neutral.

He could use a hundred times as much energy as he does. As long as the emissions are offset, who cares? Who is being harmed? And if he can afford it, good for him.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Great. Us "little people" don't need to worry about any of this then.

Honestly, we're just doing this one step at a time. Let's take care of the biggest offenders first, and then work our way down.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We'll let Al Gore and his green lefty friends suck up all the natural resources, then buy their energy hog IOU's and we'll all be okay.

I don't think you understand carbon neutrality.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I thought that the Earth was in some kind of desperate serious trouble though? You'd think that Al could convince himself to stop wasting resources, but instead he just pulls out his wallet and refuses to sacrifice. Typical.

Well, Al Gore is using renewable energy. So no resources are being consumed. So no, Al Gore is not wasting resources. Secondly, the debate is not about resources. It is about emmisions.

[Buckaroo]

Carbon offset is only a new TAX by the liberals.

Fight the liberal tax scam. Do not give into the scam.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well, Al Gore is using renewable energy. So no resources are being consumed. So no, Al Gore is not wasting resources. Secondly, the debate is not about resources. It is about emmisions.

Bullshit. Every single watt of electricity that he consumes can not be used by someone else.

If every single person on this planet that believed in this global warming taxation scam would cut off 100% of thier consumption of all forms of energy, then guess what. The rest of us could consum 100% of GREEN energy. We would not consume one single form of his global warming scam energy.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Carbon offset is only a new TAX by the liberals.

Fight the liberal tax scam. Do not give into the scam.

Pollution of public air should be taxed. Companies should pay in order to release chemicals into our air, or at least clean up as much as they put out.

The problem with polution is it does not stay on one's property. It goes onto everyone else's property. Therefore it is in public interest to curb polution.

(Not to mention global warming, if you believe in it, also does not only affect the locations that produce polution. It affects everyone.)

[Buckaroo]

Be careful what you wish for. If Al Scam Gore has his way, gas will hit $10 per gallon, inflation will go throught the roof, and you will loose your sorry ass job. Unfortunately, we all will.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Pollution of public air should be taxed. Companies should pay in order to release chemicals into our air, or at least clean up as much as they put out.

The problem with polution is it does not stay on one's property. It goes onto everyone else's property. Therefore it is in public interest to curb polution.

(Not to mention global warming, if you believe in it, also does not only affect the locations that produce polution. It affects everyone.)

If mankind reduced consumption of energy by 90%, we would be set back 200 years into the dark ages, we would become economically bankrupt, there would be mass deaths in the billions, and we would not be able to phase the change in the Earth's temperature by more than 5%.

Five percent is all we can affect the global warming by killing off mankind.

And this is all based on Al Scam Gores numbers.

Ignore all miss spellings.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Be careful what you wish for. If Al Scam Gore has his way, gas will hit $10 per gallon,

That would solve a lot of problems in the world. We wouldn't have to worry about the Middle East, and alternative energy would go mainstream.

Isn't that what they pay in Europe anyway?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

inflation will go throught the roof,

Doubtful.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

and you will loose your sorry ass job. Unfortunately, we all will.

I'm not sure what sorry ass job you're refering to, but I doubt I'd lose my job.

And work pays for gas anyway, so hey, what do I care about gas prices in relation to performing my job.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

If mankind reduced consumption of energy by 90%, we would be set back 200 years into the dark ages, we would become economically bankrupt, there would be mass deaths in the billions, and we would not be able to phase the change in the Earth's temperature by more than 5%.

Again, you don't understand carbon neutrality. You keep getting confused with energy output. Why? I have no clue.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Five percent is all we can affect the global warming by killing off mankind.

Five percent is a pretty gosh darn big number when we're talking climate. While it's certainly not enough to get close to destroying the Earth, it's more than enough to affect our way of life.

[goMac]

You know, let's say we don't limit gas consumption. Let's say we don't tax it at all. In not too long, we'd just run ourselves out of gas anyway. And then gas prices would go sky high, and $10 a gallon for gas would be dirt cheap.

So actually, when you encourage gas production, you're helping to bring about astronomically high gas prices.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

First of all there is NOTHING Scientific about the garbage that he presented. It was 1000% lies. He spoke nothing but LIES, and he lives that way. If he believed any of his BS, then he would have cut the power to his house and lived in the dark. He dosen't believe any of it, so he lives on the hog. He consumes more electricity then 10 regular families.

He is a hypocryt of the worst kind. The lieing kind.

As opposed to what? The honest kind?

Wipe the frothing from your mouth and accept that you are wrong. And rabid.

V

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Al Gore is paying for his carbon offsets. That's sacrifice enough, because that's all it takes.

All it takes is to live life wastefully, but pay high taxes? I thought the earth was in dire straights? We can STILL pollute to our hearts content as long as we pay for other people not to? Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me. If Gore believes what he says, he's PAY AND cut resources. Of course, he doesn't believe that HE should have to sacrifice. Paying out cash is no sacrifice for him. He's a gazillionaire. On the other hand, it would be a sacrifice for most other people.

I suppose he could cut off his arm, too -- and perhaps that would even satisfy you -- but that would be completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.

No. SImply not being a HUGE natural resource hog would be sufficient. If the planet is in dire straights, and he's the one crying "the sky is falling", he better damn well be setting an example. Currently the example is "don't sacrifice anything, just pay pollution IOU's to left wing causes, and the earth will be okay even if you over-pollute". What a load of bull.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Honestly, we're just doing this one step at a time. Let's take care of the biggest offenders first, and then work our way down.



I don't think you understand carbon neutrality.

I understand it perfectly. It goes something like this:

I DON'T WANT TO SACRIFICE, so I'll pay some company some mighty cash dollars for my polluting and they'll make it easier for someone else to do the heavy lifting.

Well, Al Gore is using renewable energy. So no resources are being consumed. So no, Al Gore is not wasting resources. Secondly, the debate is not about resources. It is about emmisions.

According the USA TODAY article, Al is using mostly energy from coal burning sources. 12 times as much as the average person. That's carbon that's being poured into the atmosphere. According to Gore, simply keeping levels where they are NOW isn't going to help the problem either.

[mac128k-1984]

The problem is for Al Gore is credibility. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that he eats his own dog food, well not really. He's calling us to do less in consuming less resourses. since he is now the point man (self appointed or otherwise) he needs to be above reproach. Regardless if he gets his electricity from renewable/green sources it is hypcritical of him to call us to do less, sacrifice more for the good of the world when he's living in a mansion, that could probably light up a whole neighborhood.

The sad thing is I agree with his message and his documentary but he's coming off as one of those limousine libels - preaching to the unwashed masses on how they must bear the brunt of social change but is unwilling to take up the cross himself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We can STILL pollute to our hearts content as long as we pay for other people not to?

No, carbon credits also involve planting enough trees to remove that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.

[RAILhead]

You people really buy into the Carbon Neutral thing, don't you?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

According the USA TODAY article, Al is using mostly energy from coal burning sources.

Well he's not. So USA today was wrong.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

You people really buy into the Carbon Neutral thing, don't you?

Why not? It would mean that total we would be producing 0 in carbon emmisions. And it allows pollution to still exist for those companies that need to pollute.

Sounds fair to me.

[RAILhead]

Me making a lot of money every year and getting to keep all of it without paying extra taxes because I'm successful sounds fair, too.

But your post hits it on the head. You see, according to your logic, people like Algore can be fat, rich, successful, and do whatever the hell they want as long as they give $$$ to some organization or say they plant a frakking tree. But of course, when I do that -- being the Capitalist, White, High-Income, Conservative I am -- I'm a dirtbag and my efforts are in vain because my views don't jibe with the Socialists' and Commies'.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Me making a lot of money every year and getting to keep all of it without paying extra taxes because I'm successful sounds fair, too.

Great. And I want a Unicorn.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

But your post hits it on the head. You see, according to your logic, people like Algore can be fat, rich, successful, and do whatever the hell they want as long as they give $$$ to some organization or say they plant a frakking tree.

Jealous?

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

But of course, when I do that -- being the Capitalist, White, High-Income, Conservative I am -- I'm a dirtbag and my efforts are in vain because my views don't jibe with the Socialists' and Commies'.

Um no. Last I checked you're not carbon neutral. So no, you're not like Al Gore.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Great. And I want a Unicorn.

And you won't get one. Why? Because there's a thing called reality. Come join us sometime.

Jealous?

You totally missed that point. You see, I AM one of the "wealthy" people in America and I CAN do all of those type things. I choose not to.

Um no. Last I checked you're not carbon neutral. So no, you're not like Al Gore.

And again, over your head. If i were to do all the things Algore does, I would still be villified. Of course, you've been drunk on the Kool-Aid for so long, you don't see that.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

And you won't get one. Why? Because there's a thing called reality. Come join us sometime.

Um. Right. Moving on...

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

You totally missed that point. You see, I AM one of the "wealthy" people in America and I CAN do all of those type things. I choose not to.

Gore is carbon neutral. That means you put out more polution than he does.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

And again, over your head. If i were to do all the things Algore does, I would still be villified. Of course, you've been drunk on the Kool-Aid for so long, you don't see that.

No you wouldn't, because you'd be carbon neutral. But you're not.

Gore isn't using fossil fuels to power his home. He is using, wind, solar, and hydro. He has a special account with his power company where he is only fed renewable energy.

So no, he's not burning up a bunch of natural resources.

[BRussell]

Let me get this straight, Railhead. You're creating a hypothetical (that you're carbon-neutral), you're predicting that others would "vilify" you, and then you're making an argument on other peoples' hypothetical response to your hypothetical behavior? Do I have that right?

That's absurd. It's great if you (or me, or anyone) uses and contributes to renewable energy like Gore does. The only people who deserve vilification are the bozos who claim that the science on global warming is all a big hoax like evolution or the moon landing. If you do that (I don't know if you do), prepare for a well-deserved vilification.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well he's not. So USA today was wrong.

…because Al says so?

You have proof of that other than Gore or his spokesmen merely "saying so"?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

…because Al says so?

You have proof of that other than Gore or his spokesmen merely "saying so"?

Have you never heard of companies providing renewable only power? More and more power companies are doing it. I heard about it well before this whole Gore thing.

So yes, I find Gore's explanation perfectly believable.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Have you never heard of companies providing renewable only power? More and more power companies are doing it. I heard about it well before this whole Gore thing.

So yes, I find Gore's explanation perfectly believable.

That's your choice but it's not necessarily the truth.

I don't really know if he is "carbon neutral" or not but in the absence of facts or evidence I have only experience and common sense. Those things raise some issues:

Al Gore is someone who has spent his life making himself look good so people will like him.

He has a history of dishonest statements, a few of which were referenced in this thread.

He has had environmental concerns since the '70's. He bought into global warming from the start and his book "Earth in the Balance" came out in '92. WTF is a man of his means doing just now "looking into" solar panels?

I am expected to believe that he has offset all the private plane trips, limo rides, hotel usage etc.? Based solely upon his word?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's your choice but it's not necessarily the truth.

Sounds ligit to me. He says he's using a service his power company offers, which is commonly offered many places.

So you're saying you don't believe Al Gore's response but you're willing to believe unverified reports? Nice.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't really know if he is "carbon neutral" or not but in the absence of facts or evidence I have only experience and common sense. Those things raise some issues:

Well, he is carbon neutral, but go ahead.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

He has a history of dishonest statements, a few of which were referenced in this thread.

Um, no. No where in this thread has anyone found inaccurate statements from him.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

He has had environmental concerns since the '70's. He bought into global warming from the start and his book "Earth in the Balance" came out in '92. WTF is a man of his means doing just now "looking into" solar panels?

Because solar panels haven't been efficient until recently?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I am expected to believe that he has offset all the private plane trips, limo rides, hotel usage etc.? Based solely upon his word?

Oh c'mon. Gore being carbon neutral isn't anything new. He's been preaching carbon neutrality forever.

What is absurd is the right is just bringing this up. "Well gee... we just don't know if he's carbon neutral." Obviously the right has not been paying attention to what Gore has been saying for years in the slightest. Heck, last time we had this debate it turned out the same way.

Gore has been carbon neutral for a very long time. It's absurd that the right is rehashing this discussion when we've had this debate before, and the first time around Gore showed that, yes, he is carbon neutral.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Sounds ligit to me. He says he's using a service his power company offers, which is commonly offered many places.

I'm not denying that he uses the service.

So you're saying you don't believe Al Gore's response but you're willing to believe unverified reports? Nice.

I never said that I believe the reports. I said that the only evidence to refute them is Gore's word.

Well, he is carbon neutral, but go ahead.

You still have shown this other than "Al says so".

Um, no. No where in this thread has anyone found inaccurate statements from him.

I didn't say inaccurate, I said dishonest. I guess my words weren't well chosen as I was referring to this:

Just like it killed him to see a relative die from "big tobacco, all the while making loads of cash selling tobacco....all the while making loads of cash from a zinc mine.

Dishonest yes, but not a statement by Al gore. I improperly mashed different statements together.

Because solar panels haven't been efficient until recently?

I don't see what efficiency has to do with anything to someone with his means.
The Green Power Switch program is only 7 years old. What did he do before that?

Oh c'mon. Gore being carbon neutral isn't anything new. He's been preaching carbon neutrality forever.

No, he says he is.

What is absurd is the right is just bringing this up. "Well gee... we just don't know if he's carbon neutral." Obviously the right has not been paying attention to what Gore has been saying for years in the slightest. Heck, last time we had this debate it turned out the same way. Gore has been carbon neutral for a very long time. It's absurd that the right is rehashing this discussion when we've had this debate before, and the first time around Gore showed that, yes, he is carbon neutral.

I didn't see that. I haven't seen anything other than his word which is why I form my opinions on this in the form of questions. I don't really know why you are so defensive.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'm not denying that he uses the service.

Then in since he is using renewable energy, he's not wasting resources, is he?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never said that I believe the reports. I said that the only evidence to refute them is Gore's word.

And the only evidence against Gore is the report's word.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You still have shown this other than "Al says so".

You still haven't shown anything besides "USA Today says so."

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I didn't say inaccurate, I said dishonest. I guess my words weren't well chosen as I was referring to this:

He's not dishonest. He is carbon neutral and using nothing but renewable resources, meaning his house generates no polution from electricity and does not use any fosil fuels. So Gore does practice as he preaches.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't see what efficiency has to do with anything to someone with his means.

Because solar panels wouldn't work well enough to power his house? Sounds like common sense to me.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The Green Power Switch program is only 7 years old. What did he do before that?

He lobbied for green energy programs?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, he says he is.

Do you have any proof that he isn't? No, we don't have a receipt for all his payments, but I'd say the benefit of the doubt is on Gore without proof otherwise. Given that's he's spent millions of dollars to promote carbon neutrality, I'm going to assume he spent some money to make himself carbon neutral as he said.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I didn't see that. I haven't seen anything other than his word which is why I form my opinions on this in the form of questions. I don't really know why you are so defensive.

We already had an entire topic a long time ago on Gore being carbon neutral. In fact, it was the same thing all over again. The right was going on about all the plane trips he was making, and Gore put a stop to it when he said he was carbon neutral.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Then in since he is using renewable energy, he's not wasting resources, is he?

Is a person's home the only energy they use?

Because solar panels wouldn't work well enough to power his house? Sounds like common sense to me.

It was perfectly possible for someone with the money to be "off the grid" 20 years ago.