Power: Gore Mansion Uses 20x Average Household

bubbamackdaddy69 · February 2007

If this is true about Al Gore then I'm not surprised.... Go make some charts Al Gore about Global warming and keep doing what you're doing...lol..what a joke
Hyprocrite..
I for one don't buy into the Global Warming propaganda scare but still like to be environmentally friendly..just common sense

monkey spanker · February 2007

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

I for one don't buy into the Global Warming propaganda scare but still like to be environmentally friendly..just common sense

thats the same boat i'm in. i have made my home as energy efficient as possible. i re-insulated my attic myself, installed new windows myself. everybody should do what they can to make this planet more livable. but its quite comical to see people that use environmentalism as their religion try to preach it on us.

bubbamackdaddy69 · February 2007

monkey spanker wrote:

thats the same boat i'm in. i have made my home as energy efficient as possible. i re-insulated my attic myself, installed new windows myself. everybody should do what they can to make this planet more livable. but its quite comical to see people that use environmentalism as their religion try to preach it on us.

Exactly...just called common sense.
Most people want to believe it without conclusive evidence and with their so-called charts and they don't realize that there are other "Scientists" as well that believe the opposite..but noooooo can't look at it with an open mind and question things.. If Al Gore says it's true and made a documentary then it must be true !..LOL

inmytree · February 2007

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Exactly...just called common sense.
Most people want to believe it without conclusive evidence and with their so-called charts and they don't realize that there are other "Scientists" as well that believe the opposite..but noooooo can't look at it with an open mind and question things.. If Al Gore says it's true and made a documentary then it must be true !..LOL

wait a minute...if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?

inmytree · February 2007

monkey spanker wrote:

thats the same boat i'm in. i have made my home as energy efficient as possible. i re-insulated my attic myself, installed new windows myself. everybody should do what they can to make this planet more livable. but its quite comical to see people that use environmentalism as their religion try to preach it on us.

I'll ask you too: if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

how? i haven't heard what he's proposing here.

Of course you haven't. Al Gore is too politically savvy to spend much time on solutions. He knows it's much more effective to declare danger, to reference the moral dichotomy of man v nature I mentioned earlier, and to then urge "swift action":

'Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc; it is us.

Last year, the national academies of science in the eleven most influential nations came together to jointly call on every nation to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing" and declare that the "scientific understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

So the message is unmistakably clear. This crisis means "danger"!'

- Al Gore

Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.

MakingWaves · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Where do you see change? In his words? Or in his actions? Because if this article is correct, Gore's usage of non-renewable entergy is increasing right along with his rhetoric about global warming.

I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.

bubbamackdaddy69 · February 2007

inmytree wrote:

I'll ask you too: if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?

But the question is what Scientists..You are only speaking of the Scientists that are for the assumption of Global Warming.
I'm attempting to live more efficiently and conserve because it is "Common sense" to not what to pollute the air we breath and have clean roads rather than garbage all over it.
I don't believe in the Global Warming scare but I do believe in being "Cleaner"
big difference my man

RainDog · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.

I.e. if you're concerned about emissions and pollution, but lack the knowledge to create your own energy source - at levels often requiring industry wide research and development - in your own basement, using tools you invented yourself - 'cause current tools were likely produced through means that create more emissions - then your opinions on the matter don't amount to jack-shit, any attempt to limit your own emissions using currently available means while keeping some modicum of your own lifestyle intact is foolish, encouraging others to take simple steps to clean up their own emissions is tantamount to official decree, so it's best you just shut-up, 'cause you never won the office of president, and only ignorant rubes listen to you anyway.

You know, I have yet to watch An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm going to have to check it out. It's caused more controversy and impassioned response than "Deep Throat" - and I love to see me some prurient fury on both sides.

farfromglorified · February 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.

Fair enough. If that happens, I certainly can't fault Al Gore for doing it. But just remember saying "I'm in the process of converting my house to solar power" is emissions negative. Actually doing it is emissions positive.

josevolution · February 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.

man after all the good guy patting at the oscar's to have this made public talk about pie in your face ,you can't make shit up like this i hope he does not enter the presidential race .........

inmytree · February 2007

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

But the question is what Scientists..You are only speaking of the Scientists that are for the assumption of Global Warming.
I'm attempting to live more efficiently and conserve because it is "Common sense" to not what to pollute the air we breath and have clean roads rather than garbage all over it.
I don't believe in the Global Warming scare but I do believe in being "Cleaner"
big difference my man

sorry, I don't see the difference...

but that's just me...

bubbamackdaddy69 · February 2007

inmytree wrote:

sorry, I don't see the difference...

but that's just me...

Global warming in todays terms is a term meaning "the earth is getting hotter by the day and crazy storms are coming because of human activity"

and well being Environmentally Cleaner means not throwing garbage on the ground, recycling,reusable energy etc...I'm not the Greenest person around but try to do my part

inmytree · February 2007

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Global warming in todays terms is a term meaning "the earth is getting hotter by the day and crazy storms are coming because of human activity"

and well being Environmentally Cleaner means not throwing garbage on the ground, recycling,reusable energy etc...I'm not the Greenest person around but try to do my part

can we agree to disagree....?

hey, if a person is living a "cleaner life", I say "hoooray"....and if your reasons are different from mine, who cares...

at the end of the day, we'll be living in a "cleaner" world...

farfromglorified · February 2007

RainDog wrote:

I.e. if you're concerned about emissions and pollution, but lack the knowledge to create your own energy source - at levels often requiring industry wide research and development - in your own basement, using tools you invented yourself - 'cause current tools were likely produced through means that create more emissions - then your opinions on the matter don't amount to jack-shit, any attempt to limit your own emissions using currently available means while keeping some modicum of your own lifestyle intact is foolish, encouraging others to take simple steps to clean up their own emissions is tantamount to official decree, so it's best you just shut-up, 'cause you never won the office of president, and only ignorant rubes listen to you anyway.

You know, I have yet to watch An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm going to have to check it out. It's caused more controversy and impassioned response than "Deep Throat" - and I love to see me some prurient fury on both sides.

You should watch it. It's very well done. You might want to rent "Reefer Madness" while you're at it too (if you can find it). Also a great piece of hysteria-envoking propaganda that shows what you can do in politics with some very valid science used as a threat of disaster.

Oh, and for your "industry wide research and development" -- you can keep proclaiming that until, yet again, a handful of people yet again solve your problems.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course you haven't. Al Gore is too politically savvy to spend much time on solutions. He knows it's much more effective to declare danger, to reference the moral dichotomy of man v nature I mentioned earlier, and to then urge "swift action":

'Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc; it is us.

Last year, the national academies of science in the eleven most influential nations came together to jointly call on every nation to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing" and declare that the "scientific understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

So the message is unmistakably clear. This crisis means "danger"!'

- Al Gore

Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.

i don't see anything wrong with that message. it sounds like what he wants to achieve is greater awareness and he's succeeding. maybe he's slightly hypocritical, i dont know enough about what he's doing with this green energy thing to say if it's not good enough. but i have to point out that if he was doing heavy homework in 2006 (installing solar panels and the like) that would cause a large spike in energy use due just to the work being done. or it could have been hosting more to promote the movie. who knows. it's possible the 2006 use was an anomaly and i think we're all jumping the gun here. the cost of his consumption is irrelevant depending on energy rates where he lives and who he's buying it from. and yes, the deferment plan he's doing doesn't reduce his use, but it is better than nothing. aren't pearl jam doing that carbon footprint thing too? it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. sometimes the nature of your work demands certain concessions... pearl jam has to use gas to tour and make their living so better to offset the damage than do nothing. to get his message out, al has to play the game to an extent. people gave us shit about that when i campaigned for nader all the time... why are you handing out paper flyers while you talk about the environment? cos you've got to get in the game to change the way it's played. i dont know enough about what al gore's doing in that house to say what he should be doing, but i think we're all a bit eager to string him up.

bubbamackdaddy69 · February 2007

inmytree wrote:

can we agree to disagree....?

hey, if a person is living a "cleaner life", I say "hoooray"....and if your reasons are different from mine, who cares...

at the end of the day, we'll be living in a "cleaner" world...

Of course we can agree to disagree ...LOL..I"m not the Master of Zen for nothing...haha

I'm just one of those guys that don't like to jump the media propaganda train or the band-wagon on issues like this without conclusive evidence..
I'm just a Bylaw Enforcement Officer but I'll bet ya the earth is gonna get cooler within 5-10 years...just my guess..

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

the means of innovation might be the human brain, but let's be real, you need capital and equipment for that kind of research and technology innovation.

Sigh...you have both more capital and access to more equipment than Christian Friedrich Schönbein did in 1840. He invented the fuel cell.

most of that capital and resources is held by industries that have a very vested interest in making sure such innovation does NOT take place because they make most of their profits off the current technology.

"Most of the capital"??? Capital is limited only to the amount of labor that supports it. So, people can sit around and do nothing whilst complaining about others who "control capital", or they can simply generate new capital through their own efforts.

What resources do you need? Exxon et al controls much of the oil, but the whole point here is to get away from oil, right?

it's a cultural problem: unwillingess to make short term sacrifice for long-term gain. in this specific case, lower profits to invest in technology that could put them on top in the long run is not an option becos those low profits might kill company stock before they ever get a chance to turn that profit. it's why america is losing a lot of ground to places like china and japan, who are much more willing to look at the long-term when choosing investments. profits neither make things stagnant nor do they drive innovation. this is why i say profits ensure stagnation. the people who are making the profits don't want to risk losing any and thus won't support anything that might entail a temporary hit on profits.

The "cultural problem" you refer to is the attitude that demands existing industries be responsible for their own demise. In the context of solving global warming, existing industries are an irrelevancy. They've already failed. Your desire for progress relegates them to relics of the past, so long as they refuse to innovate. They don't stand in your way. Your reliance on them is what stands in your way.

i havent seen inconvenient truth, so i dont know what environmental policies it recommends, but it sounds to me like its focus is on individuals reducing their use and buying smart. i dont see what problem you would have for this given your love of the free market? i get the feeling a lot of the environmental movement is changing people's minds and creating a demand for eco-friendly practices. is there anything wrong with that?

I don't have any problem with Al Gore or other's messages about wise consumption. I have a problem with Al Gore's unwise consumption coupled with that message.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i don't see anything wrong with that message. it sounds like what he wants to achieve is greater awareness and he's succeeding. maybe he's slightly hypocritical, i dont know enough about what he's doing with this green energy thing to say if it's not good enough. but i have to point out that if he was doing heavy homework in 2006 (installing solar panels and the like) that would cause a large spike in energy use due just to the work being done. or it could have been hosting more to promote the movie. who knows. it's possible the 2006 use was an anomaly and i think we're all jumping the gun here. the cost of his consumption is irrelevant depending on energy rates where he lives and who he's buying it from. and yes, the deferment plan he's doing doesn't reduce his use, but it is better than nothing. aren't pearl jam doing that carbon footprint thing too? it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. sometimes the nature of your work demands certain concessions... pearl jam has to use gas to tour and make their living so better to offset the damage than do nothing. to get his message out, al has to play the game to an extent. people gave us shit about that when i campaigned for nader all the time... why are you handing out paper flyers while you talk about the environment? cos you've got to get in the game to change the way it's played. i dont know enough about what al gore's doing in that house to say what he should be doing, but i think we're all a bit eager to string him up.

I have no desire to string up Al Gore. And let me say that I think Al Gore should have every right to use every bit of electricity that someone is willing to sell him.

I simply don't trust Al Gore. That's it.

RainDog · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

You should watch it. It's very well done. You might want to rent "Reefer Madness" while you're at it too (if you can find it). Also a great piece of hysteria-envoking propaganda that shows what you can do in politics with some very valid science used as a threat of disaster.

Oh, and for your "industry wide research and development" -- you can keep proclaiming that until, yet again, a handful of people yet again solve your problems.

I still believe that it won't be something developed in someone's basement on their own dime - but rather through research and development done by many individuals (I'm not too clear on the definition of "handful"; so we could be talking about the same number) and funded by many more, through both the public and private sector. It will then create a ripple that will stretch out and make the solution "industry wide." When it reaches that stage, the technologies will be readily available and affordable enough for the average consumer.

You can keep proclaiming that the market is the magic salve to sooth all ills; but, yet again, the issue will be resolved through both the market and regulatory laws.

Power: Gore Mansion Uses 20x Average Household

Comments

Categories