Gore's Hypocrisy Exposed in Video: His Lincoln idles w/ac on

[Maggie]

[quote="Wuzee"][quote="Maggie"]

Here is more food for thought from the American Physical Society – I do not think the scientific consensus everyone has been told exists is real….

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...nderforprint=1

APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

http://www.aps.org/

I might also add in the interest of disclosure: Without outing his identity — At least one poster here is a former oil company flak who is now paid to attack industry regulation of any kind wrapped in the flag of "prosperity."

That, I believe, is called "having an axe to grind."

I stand corrected with regard to the whole of APS -- that is what I get for not double checking. Thanks.

However, I still don't think this is a settled issue.

[rayc]

Wuzee:
.... The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." ...

They could have also stated:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from India's growing population of cows are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Both statements are true and equally relevant, or not.

This is a pretty weak position statement. To me at least, it is saying that they understand the political necessities required for obtaining research funding but just can't/won't outright endorse AGM.

[rayc]

Maggie:

... Here is more food for thought from the American Physical Society – I do not think the scientific consensus everyone has been told exists is real ...

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...nderforprint=1

I agree, and the very fact that the "scientific consensus" is seeming widely debated appears to undermine the "consensus" thing.

Have you read the two opinion papers the link you provided called for? Interesting reading although probably a little technical (and dry) for most people.

[ABC]

I might also add in the interest of disclosure: Without outing his identity — At least one poster here is a former oil company flak who is now paid to attack industry regulation of any kind wrapped in the flag of "prosperity."

That, I believe, is called "having an axe to grind."

RJL, please tell us more.

I don't think you've added a lot of facts to this debate just jabs and insults. Nice!

I have no axe to grind. I am just interested in the truth. Gore and other's proposals to "fix" climate change would add millions and billions to our tax burden and would do little to nothing to affect climate change.

Why not try discussing the issue? In my 20 years of politics, when your opponent doesn't have facts on their side, they lob personal attacks.

Please respond to the WSJ piece after you cool down.

[rayc]

Wuzee:
… I might also add in the interest of disclosure: Without outing his identity — At least one poster here is a former oil company flak who is now paid to attack industry regulation of any kind wrapped in the flag of "prosperity." …

If this is an attempt to discredit anyone who dares disagree with Al Gore on AGW, you have just recruited an opponent who will get downright nasty with his disciples and their beliefs if these are the new board rules.

If I’ve misread your message, I apologize – however this tactic is rather common on some non-sports forums I participate in and -- well if you want an attack dog coming at you, this is the way.

[BOBB]

Those that care about our environment do a disservice when we let the debate devolve into a question of whether global warming is man made or not as if that is the only consequence of a dependence on fossil fuels, when in fact it is the least tangible and immediate consequence of our dependence on fossil fuels. More importantly is the fact that a growing world economy is relying on a finite resource for energy.

That the majority of the world's oil is imported from places that use the revenues to prop up inequitable and otherwise unsustainable politcal systems (Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia).

That whatever portion of our economy that goes for energy represents an equal portion not invested in the US or an alternative imported product. Remember, energy is isn't a good or service unto itself. It's a necessary input to create the goods we use everyday.

That many US cities are forced to post air quality ratings daily so their citizens know if it's safe to enjoy the outdoors.

My point again is that whether global warming is man made is not the end of the debate on our dependnce on fossil fuels for energy.

[Wuzee]

I'm just interested in transparency.

If you read this thread and think it's only public citizens talking about issues, you're mistaken. One of the people driving the discussion is billing hours while he's writing.

It may be smart viral marketing for his organization's Web site, but I don't think it's right to use ShockerNet that way, regardless of issue or viewpoint.

Other than that, my only concern was that there was a misstatement about the position of APS on the issue at hand, which the writer has graciously acknowledged, to their credit.

Regardless of what rayc would like to pretend he/she knows about the APS' motives for making their statement, or what he/she wishes they would have stated instead, the facts are what I posted.

I haven't held forth on anything other than that —— not Mr. Gore., not global warming, not nothin'

[Maggie]

Maggie:

... Here is more food for thought from the American Physical Society – I do not think the scientific consensus everyone has been told exists is real ...

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...nderforprint=1

I agree, and the very fact that the "scientific consensus" is seeming widely debated appears to undermine the "consensus" thing.

Have you read the two opinion papers the link you provided called for? Interesting reading although probably a little technical (and dry) for most people.

No, I didn’t read the position papers, yet. I read a lot but I can’t get to everything. Care to summarize?

[Maggie]

I'm just interested in transparency.

If you read this thread and think it's only public citizens talking about issues, you're mistaken. One of the people driving the discussion is billing hours while he's writing.

It may be smart viral marketing for his organization's Web site, but I don't think it's right to use ShockerNet that way, regardless of issue or viewpoint.

Other than that, my only concern was that there was a misstatement about the position of APS on the issue at hand, which the writer has graciously acknowledged, to their credit.

Regardless of what rayc would like to pretend he/she knows about the APS' motives for making their statement, or what he/she wishes they would have stated instead, the facts are what I posted.

I haven't held forth on anything other than that —— not Mr. Gore., not global warming, not nothin'

Do you have an opinion on Al Gore's plan for America? If so, please share. I for one don’t mind a little friendly debate.

Full disclosure: I don’t have a connection to any group with a vested interest in this topic.

[Maggie]

Well I'll start things off...

This is not my bailiwick but a few thoughts on Al Gore’s plan (this is a bit long….sorry):

Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free sources” by 2018 seens to flout technological, economic, and political reality.

Let’s start with the politics. Congress has never been able to bring itself to pass a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to obtain 10 percent of all the electricity they sell from renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal energy. So Gore proposes a 100-percent RPS applicable not just to IOUs but also to rural cooperatives and municipality owned utilities. Pie in the sky does not even begin to cover it.

The economics are even sillier. Maybe Gore is right that “enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year,” and that “ enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.” But that tells us nothing about how economical — or uneconomical — it is to collect and harness diffuse energies like wind and sunlight, or to transmit electricity from solar collectors in, say, Phoenix, Ariz., to consumers in Buffalo, N.Y.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that under current policies, which include numerous state-level RPS programs and a multitude of federal and state subsidies and tax breaks, wind power will grow from 0.6 percent of total generation in 2006 to 2.4 percent in 2030, geothermal will grow from 0.4 percent to 0.6 percent, and biomass (both dedicated facilities and co-fired with coal) will grow from 1 percent to 3.2 percent. Solar power’s contribution is projected to remain so miniscule by 2030 that EIA does not even assign a percentage. In all, EIA projects that non-hydro renewable sources will supply only 6.8 percent of all U.S. electric power by 2030.

Most notably, building a whole new electric supply system in ten years would not only cost a fortune, it would also require scrapping hundreds of billions of dollars of capital assets long before the end of their useful life. It is hard to imagine a more wasteful misuse of public and private capital.

Finally, Gore’s plan ignores the inherent limitations of wind and solar power. It seems to to me that wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Solar cells generate electricity only when the sun shines. Wind turbines generate electricity only when wind blows. Yet homes and businesses need electric power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is why wind and solar power are unsuited to provide base load power. Even as supplemental peaking power, their value is limited. In California, for example, peak demand is greatest on hot summer days, but often times it is hot precisely because the wind isn’t blowing.

As you’d expect, Gore’s leading rationale for terminating carbon-based power is the “climate crisis,” which, he says, “is getting a lot worse.” For example, Gore says that “the Jakobshaven glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day.” But why is that alarming?

Presumably, Gore alludes to the doomsday scenario he presented in An Inconvenient Truth, in which “moulins” — vertical water tunnels formed from surface ice melt — bore down to the bedrock and destabilize the Greenland ice sheet, causing half of it to break off and slide into the sea. But, Gore had to misconstrue a 2002 study in Science magazine to make the prospect of sudden, catastrophic sea level rise seem plausible, and a recent study in Science concluded that Greenland’s main outlet glaciers, including Jakaobshaven Isbrae, are “relatively insensitive” to “basal lubrication” by moulins. Contrary to Gore’s fantasy, moulins pose no threat to civilization.

Gore also says “there seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory” – something that you people in Kansas may know more about that I at this point. However, this is not exactly a scientifically testable proposition. In An Inconvenient Truth (p. 87), Gore is a bit more specific, claiming that, “in 2004, the all-time record for tornadoes in the United States was broken.” In fact, tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (i.e. F-3 or greater), there is actually a slightly downward trend since 1950. Consider this figure from the National Climate Data Center (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...s-summary.html)

Gore claims that his 100-in-10 Plan will not only save the planet but also lower energy prices and enable us to create jobs at home with billions of dollars that we currently “send . . . to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day.” Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time…. But I bet few people outside of Berkeley or Hollywood believe that scrapping 70 percent of our electric supply system and replacing it with more costly, under-performing technologies will lower energy prices, or that building windmills will have any effect on gasoline prices or OPEC revenues.

Unsurprisingly, Gore compares his 100-in-10 Plan to the Apollo Project. “When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.” Gore implies that all we need to achieve carbon-free electricity in ten years is a similar level of commitment. This is the thinking of a child — or the rhetoric of a demagogue, take your pick.

Electric supply systems have to meet market tests — consumer satisfaction and investor confidence. There was NO market test for the Apollo Project, because its goal was NOT commercial but geopolitical — to beat the Soviets in the Cold War space race. Gore might as well say that if we can put a man on the moon, then we can also cure cancer, eradicate poverty, and end war — all in ten years.

The scale of Gore’s project would make even the Pharaohs blush, and executing his plan would require a literal Energy Czar. Never before has the global warming movement’s ambition to control and dictate and commander been so prominently on display. Never before has the movement’s flight from reality been more open to public view.

Sorry to be so skeptical – but I would like some response to this…, it seems to me Gore is overplaying his hand (so to speak) on an important issue and it drives me crazy.

[ABC]

I'm just interested in transparency.

If you read this thread and think it's only public citizens talking about issues, you're mistaken. One of the people driving the discussion is billing hours while he's writing.

It may be smart viral marketing for his organization's Web site, but I don't think it's right to use ShockerNet that way, regardless of issue or viewpoint.

Other than that, my only concern was that there was a misstatement about the position of APS on the issue at hand, which the writer has graciously acknowledged, to their credit.

Regardless of what rayc would like to pretend he/she knows about the APS' motives for making their statement, or what he/she wishes they would have stated instead, the facts are what I posted.

I haven't held forth on anything other than that —— not Mr. Gore., not global warming, not nothin'

Weak, weak, weak.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not billing any hours on this topic.

This is a major issue confronting us and it deserves debate.

I might have confused you with RJL, I am not sure. When you dip down into discussing personalities and so-called motives, you lose.

If you don't have facts, that's what you do.

I work for AFP and AFP did a wonderful job exposing Al Gore's hypocrisy on this issue. Nothing more, nothing less.

One major item int the debate that needs to be discussed more is the economic consequences of these solutions. I can't imagine how high our electricity bills would be if we had a 100% RPS standard.

If you think that is fine (raising electricty rates), then argue that, and not my motives or anyone else.

It appears you have the ax to grind.

[Wuzee]

I'm just interested in transparency.

If you read this thread and think it's only public citizens talking about issues, you're mistaken. One of the people driving the discussion is billing hours while he's writing.

It may be smart viral marketing for his organization's Web site, but I don't think it's right to use ShockerNet that way, regardless of issue or viewpoint.

Other than that, my only concern was that there was a misstatement about the position of APS on the issue at hand, which the writer has graciously acknowledged, to their credit.

Regardless of what rayc would like to pretend he/she knows about the APS' motives for making their statement, or what he/she wishes they would have stated instead, the facts are what I posted.

I haven't held forth on anything other than that —— not Mr. Gore., not global warming, not nothin'

I work for AFP and AFP did a wonderful job exposing Al Gore's hypocrisy on this issue.

Thanks for admitting that. It was big of you.

[ABC]

Why does it matter?

Last I checked I'm a citizen too.

[1979Shocker]

Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free sources” by 2018 seens to flout technological, economic, and political reality.

Let’s start with the politics. Congress has never been able to bring itself to pass a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to obtain 10 percent of all the electricity they sell from renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal energy. So Gore proposes a 100-percent RPS applicable not just to IOUs but also to rural cooperatives and municipality owned utilities. Pie in the sky does not even begin to cover it.

The economics are even sillier. Maybe Gore is right that “enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year,” and that “ enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.” But that tells us nothing about how economical — or uneconomical — it is to collect and harness diffuse energies like wind and sunlight, or to transmit electricity from solar collectors in, say, Phoenix, Ariz., to consumers in Buffalo, N.Y.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that under current policies, which include numerous state-level RPS programs and a multitude of federal and state subsidies and tax breaks, wind power will grow from 0.6 percent of total generation in 2006 to 2.4 percent in 2030, geothermal will grow from 0.4 percent to 0.6 percent, and biomass (both dedicated facilities and co-fired with coal) will grow from 1 percent to 3.2 percent. Solar power’s contribution is projected to remain so miniscule by 2030 that EIA does not even assign a percentage. In all, EIA projects that non-hydro renewable sources will supply only 6.8 percent of all U.S. electric power by 2030.

Most notably, building a whole new electric supply system in ten years would not only cost a fortune, it would also require scrapping hundreds of billions of dollars of capital assets long before the end of their useful life. It is hard to imagine a more wasteful misuse of public and private capital.

Finally, Gore’s plan ignores the inherent limitations of wind and solar power. It seems to to me that wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Solar cells generate electricity only when the sun shines. Wind turbines generate electricity only when wind blows. Yet homes and businesses need electric power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is why wind and solar power are unsuited to provide base load power. Even as supplemental peaking power, their value is limited. In California, for example, peak demand is greatest on hot summer days, but often times it is hot precisely because the wind isn’t blowing.

As you’d expect, Gore’s leading rationale for terminating carbon-based power is the “climate crisis,” which, he says, “is getting a lot worse.” For example, Gore says that “the Jakobshaven glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day.” But why is that alarming?

Presumably, Gore alludes to the doomsday scenario he presented in An Inconvenient Truth, in which “moulins” — vertical water tunnels formed from surface ice melt — bore down to the bedrock and destabilize the Greenland ice sheet, causing half of it to break off and slide into the sea. But, Gore had to misconstrue a 2002 study in Science magazine to make the prospect of sudden, catastrophic sea level rise seem plausible, and a recent study in Science concluded that Greenland’s main outlet glaciers, including Jakaobshaven Isbrae, are “relatively insensitive” to “basal lubrication” by moulins. Contrary to Gore’s fantasy, moulins pose no threat to civilization.

Gore also says “there seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory” – something that you people in Kansas may know more about that I at this point. However, this is not exactly a scientifically testable proposition. In An Inconvenient Truth (p. 87), Gore is a bit more specific, claiming that, “in 2004, the all-time record for tornadoes in the United States was broken.” In fact, tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (i.e. F-3 or greater), there is actually a slightly downward trend since 1950. Consider this figure from the National Climate Data Center (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...s-summary.html)

Gore claims that his 100-in-10 Plan will not only save the planet but also lower energy prices and enable us to create jobs at home with billions of dollars that we currently “send . . . to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day.” Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time…. But I bet few people outside of Berkeley or Hollywood believe that scrapping 70 percent of our electric supply system and replacing it with more costly, under-performing technologies will lower energy prices, or that building windmills will have any effect on gasoline prices or OPEC revenues.

Unsurprisingly, Gore compares his 100-in-10 Plan to the Apollo Project. “When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.” Gore implies that all we need to achieve carbon-free electricity in ten years is a similar level of commitment. This is the thinking of a child — or the rhetoric of a demagogue, take your pick.

Electric supply systems have to meet market tests — consumer satisfaction and investor confidence. There was NO market test for the Apollo Project, because its goal was NOT commercial but geopolitical — to beat the Soviets in the Cold War space race. Gore might as well say that if we can put a man on the moon, then we can also cure cancer, eradicate poverty, and end war — all in ten years.

The scale of Gore’s project would make even the Pharaohs blush, and executing his plan would require a literal Energy Czar. Never before has the global warming movement’s ambition to control and dictate and commander been so prominently on display. Never before has the movement’s flight from reality been more open to public view.

Here's the link to the article you quoted but didn't give credit to Marlo Lewis.

Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]

[Maggie]

1979Shocker -- that was an unintentional omission on my part (I thought I gave a link). Like I wrote, this area is not my bailiwick