Not Easy Being Green
Congratulations to Al Gore on his Oscar win for the "scare-umentary" "An Inconvenient Truth."
Perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all, however -- at least for Gore -- is that when it comes to going green, he doesn't exactly walk his talk.
Perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all, however -- at least for Gore -- is that when it comes to going green, he doesn't exactly walk his talk.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:58 AM
6 Comments:
Regardless of one's political ideology, the problem of human-caused global warming is real.
Gore's documentary is based upon good science. It saddens me that such an important issue has been politicised simply because those who believe it are from the left hand side of politics.
And the article that supposedly exposes Gore's "hypocrisy" doesn't seem to understand what "carbon neutral" means. Yes Gore, like myself and millions of others who believe in global warming, continue to use cars and electricity that cause the problem.
What "Carbon Neutral" means is that the carbon dioxide that Gore (and others) are responsible for are balanced out by programs that reduce carbon. Thus for every kilogram of carbon Gore puts into the atmosphere, he pays money to organisations that take one kilogram of carbon out of the atmosphere.
The fact that there is no "public record" of this is immaterial since Gore is a private citizen and can choose how to organise his carbon neutral lifestyle. For example, the houses that he owns which are supposedly not running on green power may be compensated by some other form of carbon neutral activity.
Given that human-caused global warming is true, any political group or organisation that chooses to actively dissuade people from that truth will be condemned by future generations. Does the right and those in the GOP want a future like this?
Politically it is in the interests of the right to embrace this issue.
"Gore's documentary is based upon good science."
This is exactly what is being debated, and being debated by actual scientists. It's politicized because the motivations of those that would ram this down our throats while stifing any counter arguments based on real research are in question. And those that argue for the opposing position are labeled as shills for "big oil" or "big business". Typical of those on the left, these charges are leaned on rather than debate the actual arguments against the GW position. So to say that the impact of human activity on global warming is opinion and will remain so until the Gore-ites get the spine to actually prove the opposition is wrong, which they haven't done, and haven't shown any stomach for thus far.
This is exactly what is being debated, and being debated by actual scientists.
No it's not. There is no debate among scientists.
And there is massive evidence that oil companies and energy companies are paying people to confuse the issue.
The problem is not proving the opposition wrong - the problem is that the "opposition" won't listen to reason.
The only place where global warming is "debated" is in politics and in the media. The scientists made up their minds long ago.
And please, don't wheel out some "Scientist" to prove your position. Bring out a qualified climate expert. Some guy with a degree in biology or an engineer isn't qualified to be an expert in this area.
Dr. David Legates, Director of Climatic Research, Univ. of Delaware, says flawed methodology was used to lay causal blame for global warming on humans.
Dr. George Taylor, Oregon State Univ. Climatologist, is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and past president of the American Assoc. of State Climatologists, and he disagrees about global warming causation. (And for that sin, the Oregon Governor, a Democrat, is trying to have him fired.)
Cornelis de Jager, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, and Ilya Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Finland) have just published an article in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physical laying the blame for global warming on solar activity.
Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg disputes the whole theory that global warming is human caused.
S. K. Solanki (Max Planck Inst.) and M. Fligge (Inst. of Astronomy, Zurich) have done much solar activity research, and say that global warming correlates highly with it. In addition, they point out there was a decline in temperatures from 1956 - 1970, which the carbon-emissions theory has a difficult time explaining.
Nir Shaviv, Israeli astrophysicist, believes 2/3 of the temperature gain can be attributed to solar activity.
Dr. S. Fred Singer has co-authored, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," documenting the Earth's periodic warming and cooling, much of it long before human-caused CO2 emissions were possible. Dr. Singer is currently Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and has been vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres, and was founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami and first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service.
There are, indeed, distinguished scientists who scientifically dispute current global warming hysteria.
The ones mentioned above are just a few of them.
The list of dissenting scientists is old. By 2003 all of them had been discredited for either not having the academic credentials and thus not being the experts they pretended to be or after their work was peered reviewed, they were found to have used ill scientific methodology and/or flowed data.
Sorry, ETC, but every one of those "dissenting scientists" cited is on record answering critics after 2003, and several of the publications cited are only several months old.
Post a Comment
<< Home