How Gore's Massive Energy Consumption...
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
Well, if he's been enviro-conscious since the 60s, one would have thought that by now, with his resources, he'd be one of the most conscientious people on the planet. But, instead he's just getting around to solar panels and replacing incandescent lamps????????? Same with the governor of the most environmentally conscious state in the US. Did these people misplace their resources for a while? Forgot about them?
Gore is just a well known blow hard....
Nobody seems to acknowledge on this topic of knowledgeable "greenies"....the name of Ralph Nader...
ho hum.... see how up to date we all are?
The guy has been living environment and pollution mitigation his whole life.... stakes his political ambitions on that issue....and he's lost in a dusty tsunami of "AlBoredom"....
Nobody seems to acknowledge on this topic of knowledgeable "greenies"....the name of Ralph Nader...
ho hum.... see how up to date we all are?
The guy has been living environment and pollution mitigation his whole life.... stakes his political ambitions on that issue....and he's lost in a dusty tsunami of "AlBoredom"....
Bottom line:
Bush doesn't even believe in the climate crisis (or so he is told to say). Gore obviously wants to help the problem by getting the USA (the #1 polluter) to reduce GHG emissions.
Assuming Gore feels that americans care about the climate crisis and he decides to run for president, vote him in and see what he does.
I'm sure he'll improve the polluting and the deception that is going on now. Who knows, maybe he'll even improve the tarnished reputation the US has with most of the international community.
republicans= war + continued polluting + bad international relations
democrats= ???? (but how could it be as bad?)
Bush doesn't even believe in the climate crisis (or so he is told to say). Gore obviously wants to help the problem by getting the USA (the #1 polluter) to reduce GHG emissions.
Assuming Gore feels that americans care about the climate crisis and he decides to run for president, vote him in and see what he does.
I'm sure he'll improve the polluting and the deception that is going on now. Who knows, maybe he'll even improve the tarnished reputation the US has with most of the international community.
republicans= war + continued polluting + bad international relations
democrats= ???? (but how could it be as bad?)
RedGreen - any more adhominem for us....with links???
Oh please - compare primary residence of Bush and Gore and lifestyle.....
They are totally different humans and nobody is "selling" Bush to be an environmentalist either...
Gore would have been absolutely no better in office regarding care of the environment.
He is only latching on to the best available large number crowd which is safe to expound his phony self on..... he wrote a book.... therefore he is an expert? He probably had a dozen writers on the project and he is their front man....
I can't understand why people are hooked on this guy.... he's as much a politician as the next guy when it comes to selling his "wares"...
Oh please - compare primary residence of Bush and Gore and lifestyle.....
They are totally different humans and nobody is "selling" Bush to be an environmentalist either...
Gore would have been absolutely no better in office regarding care of the environment.
He is only latching on to the best available large number crowd which is safe to expound his phony self on..... he wrote a book.... therefore he is an expert? He probably had a dozen writers on the project and he is their front man....
I can't understand why people are hooked on this guy.... he's as much a politician as the next guy when it comes to selling his "wares"...
More Gore
Quote:
Al Gore's Remission of Sin
By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why amongst even the French -- the most secular culture on Earth -- only 25 percent claim to be atheists, and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.
This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London professor Dr. David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.
While I suspect that most global warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World." (Columbia University Press).
As Professor Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."
Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:
"Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists a perfect 21st Century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."
Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.
And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is -- a religion. The trouble with global warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science -- not religion.
And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks -- the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.
At the Academy Awards last month, their spokesman proudly announced that this year's show was "the first green Oscars." These vast consumers of energy -- in their 30,000-sqare-foot houses, their Gulfstream jets and even in their high-energy consumption film production process -- claimed green remission of sin by virtue of driving the last hundred yards to the Kodak Theatre in Priuses and by buying carbon credits.
Likewise, when Al Gore was revealed to be using high quantities of energy to heat and cool his large home, he claimed it was OK because he had purchased carbon offset credits. Substantively, these offsets are of dubious environmental value (see Daily Telegraph article: "Is Carbon Offsetting a Con"; BBC's "U.K. to Tackle Bogus Carbon Schemes"; Wall St. Journal's "The Political and Business Self-interest Behind Carbon Limits.")
But as, what the Catholic Church calls "indulgentia a culpa et a poena" (release from guilt and from punishment), paying carbon offset fees makes perfect religious sense. The Christian sinner pays the church for "a remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the church in the exercise of the powers of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
In the animistic church, any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners -- such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman.)
In the neo-animist church of global warming -- as in all religions -- the truth is acquired by faith -- not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans.
Townhall.com
_________________
Quote:
Al Gore's Remission of Sin
By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why amongst even the French -- the most secular culture on Earth -- only 25 percent claim to be atheists, and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.
This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London professor Dr. David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.
While I suspect that most global warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World." (Columbia University Press).
As Professor Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."
Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:
"Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists a perfect 21st Century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."
Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.
And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is -- a religion. The trouble with global warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science -- not religion.
And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks -- the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.
At the Academy Awards last month, their spokesman proudly announced that this year's show was "the first green Oscars." These vast consumers of energy -- in their 30,000-sqare-foot houses, their Gulfstream jets and even in their high-energy consumption film production process -- claimed green remission of sin by virtue of driving the last hundred yards to the Kodak Theatre in Priuses and by buying carbon credits.
Likewise, when Al Gore was revealed to be using high quantities of energy to heat and cool his large home, he claimed it was OK because he had purchased carbon offset credits. Substantively, these offsets are of dubious environmental value (see Daily Telegraph article: "Is Carbon Offsetting a Con"; BBC's "U.K. to Tackle Bogus Carbon Schemes"; Wall St. Journal's "The Political and Business Self-interest Behind Carbon Limits.")
But as, what the Catholic Church calls "indulgentia a culpa et a poena" (release from guilt and from punishment), paying carbon offset fees makes perfect religious sense. The Christian sinner pays the church for "a remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the church in the exercise of the powers of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
In the animistic church, any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners -- such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman.)
In the neo-animist church of global warming -- as in all religions -- the truth is acquired by faith -- not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans.
Townhall.com
_________________
Oh don't be too sure about that. That is what they said last election. Two years with a Dem controlled house.
Look at the Dem front runners... Hillary and Obama. Hillary is so polarizing even to women. Obama is a minority and that will play a role with a lot of the country. One will go up against either McCaine who is a moderate REP with a lot of Democrat views. Gulianni is America's Mayor and will forever be known for his courage during 9/11.
Mark my words... next election there will be a new GOP Pres.
Gore dump his mansion! This is a big laugh. I have not heard of any for sale sign up on his lawn yet.
Yes... millions of voters that can't stand him and who didn't vote for him the first time.
Do you think America gives two hoots about Oscars?!We like our movies but Hollywood types (and Gore is now one of them) aren't looked on with admiration. And the Nobel prize, although prestigious, will not gather votes. The Dem Party would not even want him.
I have an idea... Canada can adopt him and make him PM.
The following could apply to the cell phone discussion too... but I'll plop it here.
As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.
If you ever wanted proof of how "science" can be bought, all you have to do is look at the fraud being perpetrated by these PhD's who are sucking on the global warming "research" teat. They know that only those who are putting out "results" in favour of global warming get grant money, because the funds are controlled by true believers. And if a huge chunk of your income was tied to what you said, we'd all be sorely tempted to just grin and nod as we cashed those govenment funding cheques.
Amen to that....
As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.
If you ever wanted proof of how "science" can be bought, all you have to do is look at the fraud being perpetrated by these PhD's who are sucking on the global warming "research" teat. They know that only those who are putting out "results" in favour of global warming get grant money, because the funds are controlled by true believers. And if a huge chunk of your income was tied to what you said, we'd all be sorely tempted to just grin and nod as we cashed those govenment funding cheques.
Amen to that....
global climate crisis:
The Science is real and the consequences are real. If we don't want the planet as we know it to change in a way that would seriously complicate our existance, we should be in favour of making the neccessary changes in our civilization to prevent this from happening. Reducing the concentration of climate changing gases in our atmosphere is the only way to prevent such a change.
We need world leaders whose # 1 mandates are to aid in this cause.
The Science is real and the consequences are real. If we don't want the planet as we know it to change in a way that would seriously complicate our existance, we should be in favour of making the neccessary changes in our civilization to prevent this from happening. Reducing the concentration of climate changing gases in our atmosphere is the only way to prevent such a change.
We need world leaders whose # 1 mandates are to aid in this cause.
How bad could it be?
Let me give you a local example. I live here in Massachusetts and for the past 16 years we have had Republican Governors. This past election the field of GOP Gov hopefulls was lack luster at best but the Dems had a real ringer. Deval Patrick. He is an Obama look alike and more style than substance.
But he got elected in a landslide. He crushed the GOP opponent. It was Clintonesque.
So... since he has been in office he has come under fire for using the State Police helocopter to shuttle him around, instead of using the standard Crown Vic state car he bought a fully loaded Caddilac Coupe De Ville with Tax Payer money, and he got rid of all of the Gov Office furniture and spent $24,000 on new furniture (tax payer funded). This is his private office not the staff's office as well.
Now he is involved in his first scandal. He made a phone call to a loan company to get a campaign contributor a loan.
He has been a Gov for 8 weeks! 8 WEEKS!
Dems = continued polluting, war, weak leadership, corruption, scandal, abuse of power, extravagance, hypocricy.
No doubt there are bigger mansions that burn just as much energy but they aren't owned by Al Gore. Al Gore is saying we should all cut back and he has done very little on his own. His millions of dollars subsidize his abuse of energy and wastefullness. His money offsets his abuse (in his mind) and he continues to live a lavish lifestyle.
I fail to understand anyone's outrage at the Al Gore hypocrisy...
He's a member of the community of America, hypocrisy is the benchmark of this nation. He's a politician, ready to flip flop jump change horses in mid stream (Canadian and American politicians share this characteristic)
Just like all the hullabaloo about Suzuki using a greenhouse gas beltching bus to travel around the country to sing the eco-system blues.... this effort to personalize the issues is working...
You can't find a list of Exxon tycoons or Alberta Oilpatch Kids to pin the same degree of doublespeak and lies on...so we're provided examples by the petrochemical lobbyists in Canada and America to demonize instead of the far more culpable stockholders and nabobs at the top of the petro-industry mafia...
Who cares? Al Gore and David Suzuki are "targets of opportunity" not the people most responsible for contributing to the mess we're all begining to recognize we're in...
Media owned and operated by wealth...and an instrument of the status quo...
No suprises here...
He's a member of the community of America, hypocrisy is the benchmark of this nation. He's a politician, ready to flip flop jump change horses in mid stream (Canadian and American politicians share this characteristic)
Just like all the hullabaloo about Suzuki using a greenhouse gas beltching bus to travel around the country to sing the eco-system blues.... this effort to personalize the issues is working...
You can't find a list of Exxon tycoons or Alberta Oilpatch Kids to pin the same degree of doublespeak and lies on...so we're provided examples by the petrochemical lobbyists in Canada and America to demonize instead of the far more culpable stockholders and nabobs at the top of the petro-industry mafia...
Who cares? Al Gore and David Suzuki are "targets of opportunity" not the people most responsible for contributing to the mess we're all begining to recognize we're in...
Media owned and operated by wealth...and an instrument of the status quo...
No suprises here...
Gas or coals?
Do I dare ask which one is more harmful to the environment? :angel8:
Coal of course, if you're gonna screw up the environment, at least do it the right way while enjoying a nice juicy steak.
Coals are the best but I have a gas grill. I did invest in a Smoker that uses coals but you have to get up early in the morning to get a good rack of ribs ready for the evening dinner. Talk about slooooooow cooking. Ever use a Smoker?