I read the whole thing. And Gore's staff is waffling and quibbling with excuses the whole way. You still haven't answered my question about what Gore's business is in his own home that warrants a $30,000 utility bill. No surprises there.:yep:

Even though you've claimed before how non-partisan you are. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You've discredited nothing. Especially by using links from environmental kooks. Who obviously have an agenda to push. You still leave alot unanswered like why Gore won't debate anyone in any open forum. Or how he generates humongous utility expenses, and can get away with telling everyone that they must reform their ways. I can't help you if you can't see the fraud.

The real funny thing is you work so hard googling up the world for bunk resources and get absolutely nowhere here. You simply cannot change minds, and have no effects on the amount of people waking up to Gore's ridiculous claims and hypocrisy.

By the way, did you know you're contributing to "global warming" right now in your own world? Computers use electricity you know. :)

No. I don't think you did. Who on there is Gore's staff? Where are the waffling and quibbling bits? I saw a reasonable scientific article myself.

I save the uninteresting stuff for last. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Yeah, they say Gore is trying to do these things. Alot of speculation about reductions and offsets. But still his energy usage is tremendously large. Geez, I can say the same and let everyone know what a good little greenie I can be, especially if I "try" to offset and advocate a "carbon neutral lifestyle". It's almost hilarious how you look at this. Remember his utility bill remains the same, and his energy consumption is still high regardless of how he tries to rationalize it. Let's not get started on his use of jet fuel to go to his shindigs. And you still cannot answer any of my questions. And Gore still cannot lead by example.


Edited to add. The csmonitor article is the one you're talking about up top...my bad. Actually it is a rather good article and totally shows that there is indeed a debate going on. And many questions left unanswered. It is not a settled debate at all. When I spoke of Gore's staff, I was referring to the second article.

Seriously brad. Can you not see how it's wrong to advocate a certain lifestyle and push guilt and false premises to do it, and then become a glutton for energy usage in the reverse direction? Are you really incapable of seeing that? :) Do you know what leading by example is? It's really not that hard.

We're definitely playing a role of some sort in Global Warming. Why this debate continues is something I've never known.

Why can't we just accept it? Burning natural gases is contributing to the equation.

Pure and simple.

Temperatures weren't this high in the 1700's. Hell, my grandmother could remember how cold winters were in the 1800's. Now, it's all starting to heat up with all this new technology... and from Earth's cycle that it goes on.

In short, I think we'd be screwed either way: SUV's or not. Just the factor of time that changes with what we do.

I think that's more the point.

Dude, your grandmother would have to be well over 110 years old to remember temperatures from the 1800's.

I think he means something like, in the 1960s his grandmother recalled cold weather from the 1800s.

Stop arguing:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...james_lovelock


And:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...eals-0007.html

And you would be wrong.....once again.

Sorry to requote myself, but you obviously didn't get the point. And I still think it might be over your head still.

:rotfl: More then 3/4 of your post talk about Gore. If you don't accept Gores reasons thats immaterial it's up to the individual. If you don't agree fine, don't, but what I gather from your posts is that if Gore has anything to do with the environment it's automatically wrong. Did Gore look stupid because of some of his non facts? Yes he did. Does that nullify the rest of what he is saying? No it doesn't. I've made my points plus discredited every reference you've shown in this thread because you don't research anything. You see a paragraph that suits your needs and go on about how great that scientist or meteorologist is because he is saying what you want to see and if you spent a minute to see who this person was you'd see if this person is credible or not and you wouldn't look like a fool when they are shot down. Before you go on about discrediting any references I've made, if you can't list them you don't have anything to say. Also if you think I haven't answered any of your questions tell me what I've missed and I'll address them because as far as I can tell you haven't asked any questions you just rant.
Here's a case in point:
You didn't even know what you were referencing because it's a scientific article about different theories. There was nothing to disagree with. So check your own eyes and mind.
Let me tell you something. I would love to be proved wrong on this subject. It would make my day because I worry about mankind's future (yeah, really). Specificly I worry about my grandkids and their kids and I believe this is as serious as being rained on by nuke missiles.

No Gore looks like a hypocrit because of his refusal to practice what he preaches. When advocating a lower use lifestyle, one cannot become an energy glutton in the reverse. It's really not that hard to understand this. And yes, he and his message become suspect to many as a result. But then again, what business is Gore running from his home that warrants such huge energy usage. And why 2 homes? What about his constant travel in jets which put out emissions from jet engines? He's really doing a bang up job there, you think? You consider anything that goes against your grain of thinking as ranting. Maybe because you have no clear answers for anything yourself. I taalk of Gore alot because he is carrying alot of water for the movement. And many in the movement almost look at him like he's some sort of prophet, despite alot of inaccuracies in what he attempts to portray.

It's not a criticism, but you are seem totally devoted to man-made global warming theories and refuse to question any of it. You refuse to listen to any voices that totally disagree with the frauds of the warming movement. Why can't Gore debate in any open forum? I think you know the answer to that one. And that should make anybody with half a brain become at least a little skeptical. Why don't anybody in the warming movement ever adequately address solar radiation, historical temperature fluctuations, sunspot activity, the releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from natural sources like volcano's and the ocean floor itself. And how man-made emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions annually? They don't dismiss the data, they just actually ignore it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong here. But I wanted to show that it is not a settled issue. And I think I've succeeded in showing that there are voices who disagree. Rather than be closed minded, and allowing the warming movement people to think for you, you might want to listen to what everyone has to say. Indeed Al Gore has not convinced everyone that we are all causing doom. In fact he claimed on January of 2006 that we have 10 years left before it's all over. This is a very dubious claim, and it also means that we have 8 years and a couple months left before we're all dead. Throughout all of Earth's history, with all it's temperature changes, and cosmic anomalies that it's been through, do you really think we're all going to die in 8 years??? Please.

I think a lot of the resentment towards Al Gore is that he's asking you to make a change and live your life in a more sustainable way, but it's percieved that he's not willing to practice what he preaches.

Does that make the message of "change your life and live in a more sustainable way" any less valid? Of course not. The benefits of reducing waste, lowering energy consumption and finding alternative energy sources are not in doubt. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to argue against the fact that these are good things.

So I think it really comes down to nobody having the fortitude to actually give a damn and do something and make a change. Do you really need Al Gore to do it first? If he did, would you care? Is that the only thing stopping you from carpooling, buying sustainably farmed food and recycling your trash? I highly doubt it. This just becomes another sideshow that people bicker about because it takes the onus off of them to do something they'd find uncomfortable. If they argue about Al Gore's electric bills, then they draw the attention away from themselves and don't have to defend the fact that they haven't really done squat in their own life to make a difference.

Hammer right on the nail.