Al gore- What the fuck?

[Groovebox]

If I hand you $500 and simultaneously steal $500 from you, do I contribute to your wealth or to your poorness? Oh, neither?

Exactly.

Learn what carbon-neutral means before posting again. Please, I fucking beg of you.

But I still end up with nothing, which is what I had in the first place.

Carbon emissions destroy the environement and green emissions do NOT REPAIR WHAT WAS DESTROYED, so there is no going back to what it previously was.

[Enkidu]

If I hand you $500 and simultaneously steal $500 from you, do I contribute to your wealth or to your poorness? Oh, neither?

Exactly.

Learn what carbon-neutral means before posting again. Please, I fucking beg of you.

Do you still think that renewable sources of energy take CO2 out of the atmosphere? Because that's pretty fucking stupid.

[archibaldcrane]

If I hand you $500 and simultaneously steal $500 from you, do I contribute to your wealth or to your poorness? Oh, neither?

Exactly.

Learn what carbon-neutral means before posting again. Please, I fucking beg of you.

But I still end up with nothing, which is what I had in the first place.

Carbon emissions destroy the environement and green emissions do NOT REPAIR WHAT WAS DESTROYED, so there is no going back to what it previously was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
edit: for you too Enkidu
There are some controversies regarding Carbon offsets and credits, and if you want to argue the validity of particular carbon offsetting strategies that's fine, but I am in no way saying that purchasing green energy = eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere. That is what plants (and in turn, carbon offsetting) are for.

[Slapper]

Now i didnt watch the entire movie, just skimmed through it like im watching porn, but did Gore argue that humans were responsible for global warming? From what i saw he just posted a picture of a glacier and the same one like 50yrs later.

[Day]

LOL. Who should we listen to, scientists that argue humans do not cause global warming, or scientist who argue we do cause global warming, GEE WHAT A CONUNDRUM. Maybe you were under the impression that Global warming was made up solely by Gore without any scientific backing?

Funny that you bring up the whole scared to lose his grant, as i would assume the situation would be similar on both sides, possibly even more so for those who defend global warming.

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes I would say thats a conundrum. A meterologists proves that the earth has gone through several temperature changes... Global Temperature Change, not Global Warming. While on the other hand scientists proving the opposite.

I wasn't under any impression, I'm just asking how do we know whos right or wrong here. Or do we waste billions of dollars on this, then like dude said, realize how rediculous we are 15 years from now? Or do we save billions of dollars then go "oh shit should have listened to gore".

Honestly I'm not educated enough to have a debate here, I had just read that article not long ago and thought that it would be interesting to see what people's thought were on that.

/goes back to lurking.

[Groovebox]

If I hand you $500 and simultaneously steal $500 from you, do I contribute to your wealth or to your poorness? Oh, neither?

Exactly.

Learn what carbon-neutral means before posting again. Please, I fucking beg of you.

But I still end up with nothing, which is what I had in the first place.

Carbon emissions destroy the environement and green emissions do NOT REPAIR WHAT WAS DESTROYED, so there is no going back to what it previously was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
edit: for you too Enkidu

"Due to their indirect nature, many types of offset are difficult to verify. Some providers obtain independent certification that their offsets are accurately measured, to distance themselves from potentially fraudulent competitors. The credibility of the various certification providers is often questioned."

EDIT: Yeah yeah Arch, I saw your edit.

[archibaldcrane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
edit: for you too Enkidu

"Due to their indirect nature, many types of offset are difficult to verify. Some providers obtain independent certification that their offsets are accurately measured, to distance themselves from potentially fraudulent competitors. The credibility of the various certification providers is often questioned."

EDIT: Yeah yeah Arch, I saw your edit.

It's an emerging field, and scrutiny of it is justified. But it exists, and it's getting better and more regulated. Do you understand more what I am arguing?

[Groovebox]

It's an emerging field, and scrutiny of it is justified. But it exists, and it's getting better and more regulated. Do you understand more what I am arguing?

I understand what you are arguing, I just do not agree with you. Honestly, I do not like Al Gore at all... never will, nothing will change my mind. I think he is a corrupt, greedy douchebag.

However, I also hate Bush, so I'm not some hardcore conservative that will believe anything anti-liberal.

[Kuya]

It seems that alot of people in this thread have let their dislike for Gore blind them to the fact that, regardless of his reasons for doing so, he has in fact helped make global warming a important issue in the public's eye. I get the feeling alot of people let their opinions get swayed by South Park too easily. ( not implying you are btw)

[Khamsin]

The idea isn't that Gore uses carbon based energy, and then buys just as much green energy. It's that he buys all of his energy as green energy, thereby not contributing to CO2 production.

Imagine a power pool, with electricity from green sources and electricity from CO2-producing sources all flowing into it. Gore then draws his power from the pool. He can either buy the energy from CO2-producing sources and contribute to global warming, or he can buy the energy from the green sources and contribute nothing to global warming.

All of Gore's power is obtained through green sources, such as solar, wind, and hydro power. He doesn't buy that nasty "carbon based" energy. It's like going to the store and buying the dolphin-free tuna versus the other kind. No dolphins are getting chopped up on his watch.

The people saying that he is still responsible for CO2-producing energy are confused. Power plants are still generating energy from CO2-producing sources, and so that carbon is going into the atmosphere either way. But it's not Gore that's doing it. He's buying the green energy. It's the people that don't buy green energy that are getting stuck with the CO2-producing energy.

Think of it like the vegetarian debate. If I decide I don't want to eat meat, that's fine. I'm not contributing to the slaughtering of defenseless animals. However, whether or not I decide to buy that slab of beef in the store, that cow is already dead. The deed is done. Will my personal decision not to eat it really make a difference? If I don't, someone else will. But it won't be me.

This is kind of where the green energy market is now. Sure, if you don't buy carbon based energy, someone else will. That energy is already being generated and it doesn't really matter who buys what, that carbon is going into the atmosphere anyways. However, as with the vegetarian debate, what'll happen 10 years from now, if nobody buys meat or carbon based energy? Those carbon-producing power plants and the meat farming market won't be very profitable, and so the power companies will use only green energy sources and less animals will be slaughtered.

[Groovebox]

All of Gore's power is obtained through green sources, such as solar, wind, and hydro power. He doesn't buy that nasty "carbon based" energy. It's like going to the store and buying the dolphin-free tuna versus the other kind. No dolphins are getting chopped up on his watch.

It's not all green energy, it's a fact that he uses "carbon-offsets"... simple way to explain: he uses carbon energy, but then neutralizes it by planting some trees, etc. Yeah whatever, I'm sure it's more complicated than that... but imo, it's still pretty phony because he still uses carbon energy, and quite a bit of it.

Also, he purchases his offsets from a company that will not disclose numbers... and it's a company he helped found >.>

[Groovebox]

It seems that alot of people in this thread have let their dislike for Gore blind them to the fact that, regardless of his reasons for doing so, he has in fact helped make global warming a important issue in the public's eye. I get the feeling alot of people let their opinions get swayed by South Park too easily. ( not implying you are btw)

Al Gore has done an excellent job at bringing a somewhat pointless issue to the public's eye. I feel it is pointless because imo global warming is something that man cannot STOP.

I'm not going to lie to myself, he did a great job at making people more aware. Personally, I'd rather see money go to environmental causes than to Iraq, but I still think that Gore is a hypocrit and should not have won the nobel prize.

They should give the Nobel Prize to someone who has to make some kind of sacrifice... not just spend shitloads of money to counter all their carbon emissions and make a movie about global warming. I feel instead of earning his nobel prize, he bought it.

The only good thing to come out of this is that Bill Clinton is probably full of jealous rage right now

[Kuya]

I wouldn't say we can't stop it or reverse it. We certainly shouldn't keep agravating the situation.

[Charla]

What are you talking about? We could stop global warming any time we wanted, if we just put our minds to it! (fourth bullet point, the one about the diffraction grating. Yes, I realize it's both overkill and completely infeasable right now, but that's not that point).

As for "wasting money": even if you believe that the effect of the greenhouse gasses produced and released as a result of human actions is insignificant (which is not an indefensible position), ceasing to use fossil fuels and other nonrenewable energy sources has numerous other benefits, including not having to go to OPEC with our hand out every few years. Given the assumption that the scientists are not completely sure about the first part, the worst we would be doing by "wasting money" on renewable energy sources is err on the side of caution.

If as chocobo avatar's quote says, Gore is putting up the solar panels, his house will probably end up producing almost all the electricity it needs right there (depending on the surface area being used and whatnot) thus rendering arguments about carbon offsets irrelevant. Of course, mister zombie pirate avatar doesn't seem to be reading my posts anyway, so feel free to continue arguing with him.

[Maxxthepenguin]

It seems that alot of people in this thread have let their dislike for Gore blind them to the fact that, regardless of his reasons for doing so, he has in fact helped make global warming a important issue in the public's eye. I get the feeling alot of people let their opinions get swayed by South Park too easily. ( not implying you are btw)

Al Gore has done an excellent job at bringing a somewhat pointless issue to the public's eye. I feel it is pointless because imo global warming is something that man cannot STOP.

I hope you're glad to know that nobody's opinion changes the reality of this.

The only good thing to come out of this is that Bill Clinton is probably full of jealous rage right now

I seriously doubt it. He's been doing a lot of good ambassadorship around the world, trying to make people like america like they did when he was prez. He's keeping good and busy.

[Xavier]

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes I would say thats a conundrum. A meterologists proves that the earth has gone through several temperature changes... Global Temperature Change, not Global Warming. While on the other hand scientists proving the opposite.

Its not so much that they've proved the opposite as it is that they've proved that our carbon emissions are being trapped in the atmosphere, which in turn trap heat from the sun, which in turn leads to a warming of the planet, which in turn leads to an inconvienant truth for society. The science is basically in, and there isn't much room to deny that our carbon emissions are building and responsible for trapping heat, and the consequence of this is pretty obvious.

A Meterologist is technically right in that the planet has always undergone fluxuations in temperature, but if you're trying to suggest that our carbon emissions are irrelevent or that global warming is a myth, thats irrational.

I wasn't under any impression, I'm just asking how do we know whos right or wrong here. Or do we waste billions of dollars on this, then like dude said, realize how rediculous we are 15 years from now? Or do we save billions of dollars then go "oh shit should have listened to gore".

The cost of not acting far outweights the cost of meaningful changes now. Even if you think Global Warming is full of shit (idk how you could really, but if you did), it makes economical sense in the long run to make efficient use of our energy.
___________________________________________

I personally think Al Gore lives a far more carbon friendly lifestyle than the majority of people posting here, who leave their A/Cs on 24/7 with the windows open, never turn off their computers and have every light on their house on all day. The fact that he uses more energy overall is a result of more responsibilities, more money, etc. The hard line is that his overall presence on Earth is balanced, while the majority of yours (mine included), is not. He uses more energy than the average person, but at the same time, he uses it far more responsibly than the majority (if not all) of his critics.

Attacking the messenger (this isn't directed at you Day) because you can't argue the message is the first sign of concession. Al Gore served in Congress, served as the Vice President, won the popular vote in 2000, champions global warming, has won an emmy, an oscar, and now the Peace Prize. His resume is fucking impressive by any standards, and even if you disagree with his policies, I don't understand how you can't at least respect him for what hes accomplished.

[Olo401]

If the sum-total of his actions makes him "carbon-neutral", then he's not affecting global warming, and yes it's ok. Do you know what carbon-neutral means?

Yes, I do understand what it means. However, it's pretty fucking obvious that Al Gore's carbon footprint is about 10x the size of the average american. I don't give a fuck if he balances it out with his millions and millions of dollars, the average american cannot aford to do that.

Actually, the average American can do this - it's simply a matter of contacting your power supplier and telling them that you would like some or all of your energy to be supplied by environmentally-friendly power plants (solar, wind farms, hydroelectric, etc.). In turn, the power company that supplies your home or apartment with electricity is required to do so by law, and show you this on your billing statement each month.

If enough people did this it would change the balance between renewable energy and fossil fuels. It's a matter of taking initiative for yourself and spreading the word.

Here's a helpful link btw: Green Energy on Wikipedia

[Jer]

Well, I said I was done earlier, but this isn't about Gore and whatever his practices may be.

Amazing. So what do we do then, pick a side and hope we are right?? Sounds like fun.

What you, or anybody could do, is look at studies and data that have been done before on this topic and make a decision. Preferably the right one, but not everybody is so lucky.

Here's a couple links if you are actually interested in it. Most, if not all, of them have their sources where you can go and look them up and go their sources etc etc etc and nit pick them all you want.

First, we can go back in time a little bit. Throughout this entire century, alarmists have been flip-flopping back and forth between global warming and global cooling. The earth does have climate cycles, and within those the temperature will fluctuate. The most recent 'global cooling' scare wasn't at the beginning of the century, it was in the '70s. The Newsweek article can be found here. In all, we've went from a freezing demise, back to a fiery pit, and then froze again more than a few times just in the last 100 years.

This one details some of the mistakes, oversights, and blatant lies that were put into the assessments done by the U.S. and U.N. A few of the high points in this is the Antarctic (not the North Pole) has actually been cooling and gaining ice-mass. There's also the bit about how the snows of Kilimanjaro are not vanishing because of increasing temperature (summit temperature has stayed constant), but how deforestation has dried the air, leading to moisture loss.


Yet another link to historical temperature data that shows what is currently happening is nothing new, it will get hotter no matter what we do, and the planet will still be here.

This is an older article (2003), but I don't have the time or energy to find more recent ones. Basically, at this time scientists discovered that Mars was also experiencing global warming. Obviously this is due to all the CO2 emissions from the billions of Martian vehicles. Since then, it has been found that many of the planets in the solar system have been warming. Including Pluto. This link is not a news article, but pretty much sums it up. If the planets (plural) are warming, what could be causing it? What do all of them have in common? There's that large ball of fire that is pulled by the Chariot of Apollo through the sky, but that's about it. Maybe that's enough.

Just another link. You may see it as being in favor of warming or not. The only thing really to note is it's mistakes that have happened in the past when everybody was convinced something else was going to happen.

Just to show that I am aware that global temperatures are rising (that's pretty much been the point of this), here's an article about some animals. You know, the things that people say global warming is going to kill because they can't adapt. But once again, just because it is happening, does not mean that man is *solely* responsible.

Edit: Oh, and one more random link that was a floor speech given.

[Demosthenes11]

While your argument is sound Xavier, the fact we don't know exactly how much of an effect we are having on the atmosphere. It is fact humans contribute to the problem, but if it is such a negligible amount, there is really nothing we can do. On the other hand, if we are a leading contributor to global warming, then there is a lot we can do to hinder. The problem is, science has pointed to both.

The effects of global warming also are very debated subject. There are estimates that temperatures will have risen by 4-10 degrees in the next 50 years. Other science suggests that it will raise only .1-.5 degrees (all this in F btw). Global warming is happening, your guess is as good as mine as to what will happen because of it. There is a lot of science suggesting a rapid rise in temperature, such as what we may be in (temperatures still not that high compared to only a few millennium ago), this has happened a lot and to often greater extenses. Are we in a spiral out of control? again, nobody knows. The only thing that is really different so far is CO2 content in the air, which is at huge record highs. Sound logic suggests temperatures should therefore be off the charts, but for some reason they are not.

Action on this issue is highly debatable as well. If we try and bring out changes, it will HAVE to be in a global sense, because if only western countries participate in an overhaul, there really won't be that drastic a change (hi2u china). This is not to say such a change would be terrible, but perhaps the cost doesnt justify the reward, especially if we are wrong. Then again, if we are really wrong and we could do something as easy as slowing our emissions to save the planet, being wrong would be devastating.

Someone flip a coin

[Kuya]

But once again, just because it is happening, does not mean that man is *solely* responsible.

Which i hope no one said, because that is not what is being argued for.