Al Gore's Electricity Plan 100% Renewable in 10 Yrs.

Getting back to the actual topic:

It is going to take technological improvements in solar power to really achieve this. Government can help with subsidies, but the bottom line is solar technology will have to have a breakthrough to displace very cheap coal plants.

Right now, Goldman Sachs, FPL, and other energy groups are buying up land in the desert in the West to make room for big solar power stations. What's funny is that many environmental groups actually oppose this because of some endangered animals in the area.

But I don't see the point of trying to make generation 100% renewable. It's completely nuts.

 

I'm referring to accusations that al gore has some alternate motive, this is the other problem debating with you, you can't follow along, that's my whole point in every al gore thread, you guys obviously have more of an issue with al gore than global warming

has al gore specifically criticized individuals?

so what, we should wait till we know disaster is for certain?

 

More government control.

 

pgabs, if giddyup decides that the earth is flat, you will not be able to convince him otherwise.

Give up.

 

Typical Gorbitron...

 

This thread became stupid 100+ posts ago. wth are ya'll even talking about anymore?

 

There is no denying that Gore stands to gain from this "movement." That doesn't mean we throw him out. The Oil Guys/Opponents do. It just legitimizes skepticism about both sides of the argument.

I never said to do nothing. I urged to proceed cautiously because this is a political football which has the opponents lining up offsides, trying to get a jump on the snap, and planning on holding when the play is underway.

I can't follow along? Aren't you the one who finds a recollection about a 2002 flight to be more weight than an actual video of Lear jet Al as a testimony to travel habits? As Stoessel so aptly puts it: GIVE ME A BREAK.

I'm NOT following. I'm leading and that's what frustrates you so much. I don't just swallow your assertions hook-line-and-sinker.

I don't think Al Gore is the villain that you seem to think I do. I appreciate his passion, but I don't have to buy all of his argument to appreciate his passion. He's got children and grand-children and must have some of the same concerns that I do about the future.

 

I think the focus should be more on cars rather than power generation

 

Thank you so kindly for your judgment but nobody asked for it nor do we need it. Mind your own business...

 

Fair enough.

 

Yeah, this thread might go on 100 years if need be!!!

 

KING: All right. We have an e-mail from Jerry in Houston, Texas. "Mr. Gore, how can you fly in your private jet, live in a massive mansion and set an example for others?"

GORE: Well, first of all, I fly commercial most of the time. There are a few occasions when that's not possible. I came here on a commercial airliner...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI.../05/lkl.01.html

 

I didn't and don't deny that Gore sometimes flies commercially. We'd really have to look at his travelogue and the commercial airline schedules to know how truly devoted he is about this. I do have a hard time imagining how/when it is hard to fly commercially-- probably international would be the most likely.

Go, Gore, go! Just don't ask me not to question....

 

OK, I'll play.

Notice he doesn't name any of his "some" scientists. So, we can't find out from his statement whether the scientists he uses are recipients of monies from businesses with a vested interest in the subject.

Just like the "some" above, here we have "plenty." And again, none of the "plenty" are named. He also slips the word "independent" in there without any justification. As to the basic point, many scientists say the opposite and you can find most of them listed at this site: http://www.ipcc.ch/.

This is incredibly simplistic and misleading at best. Clouds have long been known to have a relationship to warming. Cloud cover is included in many models. Can we predict with 100% accuracy what will happen with clouds in a certain area at a certain time? Of course not, but the general trends are well understood and the refinement of the modeling continues. NASA even has an International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/) whose goal is to improve understanding and modeling of the role of clouds in climate, with the primary focus being the elucidation of the effects of clouds on the radiation balance.

Again, if the goal of NASA is to improve understanding and modeling, that logically leads one to assume there must be modeling that can be improved upon... as opposed to Stossel's "don't include important variables."

Again with the "these." Who are these scientists? And is activism the same as science?

BS. Even the Bush administration was forced to list Polar Bears as a Threatened Species earlier this year.

Additionally, there were reports of Polar Bears drowning from increased exposure to open water before Gore's film came out.

On the sea-level rise of 20 feet, The current IPCC worst-case estimate is 23 feet and Gore doesn't mention a time frame in the movie, though recent studies have started to shorten the horizons.

A partial melting of the Greenland ice sheet would indeed raise levels and a partial melting that would raise sea levels a foot or two over the next 100 years is possible. Notice how Stossel takes two different things... the partial ice melt over 100 years and the total ice melt over several hundred years and conflates them to try and confuse his audience. This is a prime example of intellectual dishonesty.

As to the English Court ruling, you'll find my response to that in an earlier post in this thread.

Nonsense indeed. Gore advocates changing light bulbs and using alternative fuels (not driving less) as a way to make a difference, not solve the problem in its entirety.

Jeez, not much of an agenda here. There are many practical approaches out there from wind and solar to yes, better nuclear technologies.

Interesting that the only expert he mentions is a Winger economist.

 

I'm deficient in math and stuff. While I tried to read it, I'm not sure I caught it all. I'd appreciate it if you would summarize the article for me. Thanks.

 

Somebody in this thread quoted John Stossel as a rebuttal? That's akin to quoting Ann Coulter in regards to the democratic platform.

 

Here's an interesting rebuttal to one of Al Gore's principle arguments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&feature=related

Is the counter-argument that these scientists are on the take?

One of the points they make is that upon closer analysis, rises in CO2 levels follow rise in temperature not vice versa.

Who to believe?

Some of you might want to enter this contest: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

You could win one of Shaq's game checks if you can prove it!!!

 

Not making fun of Giddy, but all I could think about was him getting slapped by that wrestler


David Schultz incident
On December 28, 1984, during an interview for 20/20 on professional wrestling, wrestler David Schultz struck Stossel after Stossel asked whether professional wrestling was fake. Stossel stated that he still suffered from pain and buzzing in his ears eight weeks after the assault.[47] Stossel sued and obtained a settlement of $425,000 from the WWF. In his book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity he writes that he has come to regret doing so, having adopted the belief that lawsuits harm hundreds of innocent people.[48][49] Schultz maintains that he attacked Stossel on orders from Vince McMahon, the head of the WWF.[50]

from wiki

which really wasn't funny if you saw it, I was 9 when it happened and still remember seeing it when it first aired, its all i can think about when seeing or hearing him or anything about him

 

I don't get Youtube at work. Anything else besides the CO2 stuff?

Speaking of... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

The essence of the above article is that while in certain conditions during climate swings in the past, ice core data shows CO2 moving after and increase in temp, it can be attributed to orbital changes. That dynamic is not what we're seeing over the last century.

 

Who do you think rebuts? Friends?