How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Stop global warming now   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Stop global warming now

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Jaime Fradera
Senior Member
since 11-25-2000
Posts 582
Where no tyranny is tolerable


25 posted 04-05-2007 06:58 PM       View Profile for Jaime Fradera   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jaime Fradera

One should also bear in mind the evanescent nature of social and religious movements.  In 1975 leading authorities were telling us that the Earth was cooling and there were many popular stories and documentaries speculating on what we had done or what we could do about it.
Remember that? ... ... ...
what could have happened in 30 odd years? ...
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


26 posted 04-05-2007 07:02 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

I don’t care if those who are now concerned about global warming,
with their own personal resources, build a big air conditioner
in Siberia; I’ll bundle up.   It’s when they burden
the rest with the expense directly or by tax subterfuge
that I take issue.

.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


27 posted 04-05-2007 07:51 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

quote:
LOLOL! That's a beautiful thing, LR,and exactly what I mean. Obvious bias and/or prejudice cannot even acknowledge irrefutable fact without a disclaimer. No problem....aside from the fact it has been well-documented and even verified by Snopes (Which is an excellent reference whenever it agrees with one's point), I wouldn't expect you, Noah, Kacey, or anyone else to acknowledge it. After all, there are limits to what one can mentally endure.


Actually, I believe you brought up a very good point, regarding the virtue of practicing what you preach, and how less convincing one might seem if one's lifestyle contrasts with ones mission statement.

Although I believe "An Inconvenient Truth" is indeed an important documentary that I recommend to anyone regardless of political ID, I also believe it's fair to highlight the living accomodations of the architects of these sorts of projects and see how they add up to what they talk about. And I believe Gore shouldn't be surprised that he's being critiqued for his living accomodations in that they make him appear out-in-touch with the cultural mainstream and snobbish, and that he would be all the more persuasive and convincing if his living accomodations were more earthly and closer to the cultural mainstream.

Making personal profit from such a film project as this, or staging a potential 2008 presidential bid from it, I believe is unfortunate. Having said that, I still believe the film is more than worth watching and regardless of some of these personal hypocrisies, the film is itself well-researched and scientifically-based, and its thesis presents how global warming is truly a moral issue, which is an American mainstream belief.

On that note, I also admire the efforts George W. Bush have made in promoting sustainability and conservation on his home ranch. As I've pointed out in previous threads, I wish his presidential and administration's environmental record was parallel to his efforts at home (I believe him to be the worst environmental president thus far in American history) but despite that I'm glad he's doing his part on the local level.

*

Which brings me to another point and that is, I yearn for the GOP to return to their core principles and roots, one of which is their environmental roots.

After all, it was the Republican Party that spearheaded and led the environmental movement. It was Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt and Senator John Chafee who worked the hardest to protect our public lands and the health and safety of our communities, as well as enact the National Parks system and national wildlife refuges. It was Richard Nixon who signed the legislation that established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the modern amendments to the Clean Air Act. It was Republican John Weeks who was the chief patron of the bill that allowed the federal government to establish national forests in the eastern United States. It was Republican Congressman John Saylor who led the effort to pass the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. And in a general sense, the Republicans were the party that ignited the conservation movement in particular.

Republicans understood even more than Democrats in previous decades the values of transcendentalism, a philosophical movement which rose to national promience following the famous writings of Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson that expressed the virtues and necessities of the natural world, which inspired the moral ground of the conservation movement that peaked during the Roosevelt Era and lasted onto about 1976 when The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was passed in Congress. For it was Theodore Roosevelt who said: “The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.” And that's exactly what he did; protecting more public land than ALL previous presidents combined.

Reflecting on that history, all I can say is, "What happened?" Ever since the Reagan Era, and especially beginning with the commencement of the 104th Congress in January of 1995, this same party has been attacking their own environmental legislation, their own accomplishments, their own philosophy, and all that progress has eroded, sadly.

The GOP is now currently riddled with anti-environmental nuts who are parrots of big oil corporations and their lobbyist influences. I was glad to see one of the worst of them, Richard Pombo, defeated last November in his district, but then there's still individuals like James Inhofe, John Doolittle, Heather Wilson, Charles Taylor, Deborah Pryce, Saxby Chambliss, Mitch McConnell and Brian Bilbray who simply represent much of what's wrong with the GOP nowadays, and how the GOP have not only abandoned their core principles; they've ran against their own landmark achievements.

It's truly embarrassing to see people like Inhofe representing the party today, and I sincerely hope the GOP establishment finds its way again, which they can find the light through the eyes of Republicans like Republicans For Environmental Protection Government Affairs Director David Jenkins, former congressman Pete McClosky, former EPA head Russell Train, and former Senator Lincoln Chafee.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


28 posted 04-05-2007 07:59 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Mike- why does everything have to be politics? I commend Bush for his eco-friendly ranch- I think that's really cool, and also an interesting fact I did not know. Can't say I'm too surprised about Gore's house- a lot of celebrities don't don't practice what they preach.

But... what does that have to do with the discussion people were already having about the practicality of environmentalism in everyday life?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


29 posted 04-05-2007 08:08 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I am nodding with hush here.

I mean, let's suppose that global warming has nothing to do with carbon based pollutants, etc.

Why NOT just start living as clean and efficiently as we possibly can NOW?

You don't think I live here in New Orleans a little more than paranoid, after all those chemicals spilled over, and I watched a city develop what became known as Katrina Cough? And ya'll prolly didn't hear about the weird nose bleeds, ear bleeds, and inexplicable rashes either.

I do know Murphy Oil did do SOMETHING cleanly--that was a generous and speedy settlement and buy out of surrounding properties in St. Bernard Parish.

Just start NOW.

Why does that have to be political?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


30 posted 04-05-2007 08:11 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think there is a big difference between earth itself in general and earth's ability to accomodate life in a stable way.  Earth without specifying life or life's comfort will be able to overcome almost anything, and will so whether or not it has life, just as Mars and the other planets.  But earth, when specifying the ability and continued ability for earth to sustain life in a stable and accomodating way is far more sensitive, limited, and influenced by differences, including everyday choices than just the stability of the planet itself.  This ability is very small and sensitive compared to the rest of the solar system. The planet itself, will get thro it, just like Mars did/does. But will it get thro it and still be able to sustain life, and sustain life in such a way that it is not ever more endangered?  This is something that our choices can make a difference to, even if they obviously cannot wholly determine it.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 04-05-2007 08:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good question, hush. The answer is....it DOESN'T have to be political at all. I could have just as easily used the same example, but saying that house #1 belonged to Joe Smith and house #2 belonged to Sam Spade, in which case there would have been responses that Smith was an energy abuser and Spade was a model citizen, using whatever resources possible to make his house environmentally sound. However, by using the actual people the houses belonged to, NO ONE had anything bad to say about house #1 and NO ONE, until you,  had anything good to say about house #2. Why is it political? Ask THEM, not me.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 04-05-2007 09:20 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So whatami Mike?  Chopped Liver?

Me;
quote:

Mike -- it would appear that Laura is green.  



That's a compliment.  It aint easy being green.  It's good to see that when GW built his make-believe ranch in Crawford that he decided to conserve energy.

Frankly I don't care why people choose to conserve.  My father couldn't leave a room without turning off the lights -- even if it was going to be for just a couple of seconds.  Didn't have a thing to do with anthropgenic global climate change.  Just the fact that he didn't want to pay for the electricity.

Now, if Bush had chosen to implement those same measures across the country -- that would be one thing -- but instead he and his Congressional cohorts put out Orwelian titled systems like the 'Clean Air Act' that gutted the previous environmental standards.

If you'd wanted to go a-political you could have merely included all the information -- but, instead we got the same old cavil --

quote:

Yet another story you won't
hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
Washington Post.  Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."



Clicking the link http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp  contained on the resourse you use leads us to some more information;

quote:

A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house — it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home.  The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources).  Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area.
The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures is misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a "carbon-neutral lifestyle," by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home uses:



Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.
The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."





Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


33 posted 04-05-2007 11:55 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

quote:
Good question, hush. The answer is....it DOESN'T have to be political at all. I could have just as easily used the same example, but saying that house #1 belonged to Joe Smith and house #2 belonged to Sam Spade, in which case there would have been responses that Smith was an energy abuser and Spade was a model citizen, using whatever resources possible to make his house environmentally sound. However, by using the actual people the houses belonged to, NO ONE had anything bad to say about house #1 and NO ONE, until you,  had anything good to say about house #2. Why is it political? Ask THEM, not me.


Then why was it necessary injecting politics into the thread on your very first response on Reply #12, as you did here:

quote:
So whose house is gentler on the environment?  Yet another story you won't
hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
Washington Post.  Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."


Then, in response #20, you add:

quote:
Don't worry, Pete or Denise, people like LR are never going to acknowledge that someone like Gore and his inconvenient thruths are a sham and that Bush actually does practice what energy conservationists want to see done......at least, not without disclaimers.


With the exception of Jaime Fradera's opening post arguably having a political intent or point to it (sometimes I'm not sure if it's meant to be 100% sarcastic or not) as the rest of us were focusing directly on the issue of global warming in a non-political fashion, you were the one who first carried a political tinge to the conversation.

Then, toward the end of the first page when the thread began digressing somewhat, I felt it necessary to point out that while Gore makes decisions on a personal level that contrast from the points and mission statement of his film, book and lectures, the president and his party do likewise, where I commended in Post #27 the president for his genuine conservation efforts on his Crawford ranch, but also sharply critiqued his poor environmental record in how the same sort of sustainability he promotes toward his home and family is seldom seen through his administration's policies, and offered a brief history lesson to show how the GOP was once the undisputed environmental and conservation party that revolutionized the environmental movement, and how now it has become a party tainted by big oil lobbyists and big business interests that rail against our environmental milestones, where the GOP have abandoned these values of conservation.

I am most interested in talking about this issue free of politics most of all, but when one intends to toss some political punch unilaterally into the discussion, I will feel it necessary to respond and address another side to the political ends of the debate, and that is despite a majority of all political affliations believing in global warming/climate change and that we must do much more to reverse its effects, there are some naysayers in the GOP establishment who insist it is a hoax or merely hype, including a senator from Oklahoma whose primary source in arguing against global warming is a work of fiction written by Michael Crichton.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


34 posted 04-06-2007 08:00 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

About the house thing:

Does anybody know why Bush made his house eco-friendly?

Does this mean that his policies in the administration are eco-friendly?

I don't know, is it okay for a smoker to say that you shouldn't start smoking?

Is it okay for a non-smoker to say that you should start?

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


35 posted 04-07-2007 04:08 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood


I don't think Al is insincere, misled maybe? I honestly believe he believes the planet is dying along with many others. I'm sure he's liking the spotlight too much. I shake my head at the things printed about his house and have a good mind to knock on his door and see what he has to say about it. That's how approachable Al Gore is. But Reb's article and others have suggested his home is better suited to green than previously charged.

Something of such extreme reach should be practiced if preached. It's not like he's pushing a deodorant or a shampoo like many stars who never use it.

[This message has been edited by rwood (04-07-2007 07:41 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 04-08-2007 12:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Folks consider me quite charming
When I speak of global warming
My passion strikes them to their very core.
They hear my strong foreboding
Of the atmosphere exploding
And applaud their newest hero - Albert Gore!!

I'm on a holy mission
To erase all gas emissions
Cutting back on all the power that we use.
We must learn to be more frugal
(Here I sound my "Save Earth!" bugle)
Or planet will be doomed if we refuse.

Hey, let's be a little lenient
For these truths are inconvenient
That I never seem to practice what I preach
But every watt that my house uses
Can  be backed up by excuses
Students! You must follow what the teachers teach!

Got a big, best-selling movie
Hollywood has called me "groovy"
There's an Oscar sitting on my bedroom shelf.
I tell everyone to wake up
Or the earth is gonna break up
And these rules apply to all except myself.

I'm a little teddy-bear type
Cashing in on all the big hype
Preaching gloom and doom for all that don't comply.
Should I find my words aren't fooling
I can switch to global cooling
Everyone knows I'm a versatile kind of guy!!!

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


37 posted 04-08-2007 01:27 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

ROFLMAO I think you absolutely nailed the country's biggest hypocrit right on.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


38 posted 04-08-2007 04:24 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

On that note, Michael, I did find your poem "Earth Day Rambles" in Open to be most enjoyable and thought-provoking indeed, and indeed it's one I'd recommend to the rest of you in that it well reflects on the breadth of man/woman's relationship to Nature.

Having said that, while I absolutely admire your immense optimism, there's one verse in the poem that I took deep concern with:

*

"Mother Nature is not worried.
Man cannot hurt her
Man can only hurt Man.
Mother will simply
shrug her shoulders
and start over, if necessary
create another bacteria
in a million years or so."


*

I believe it's important to be optimistic, but there's something between being a responsible and pragmatic optimist, and an irresponsible and naive optimist. And while I too have faith that both God and Mother Nature work in benevolent, mysterious ways and in Mother Nature's womb hold all the sacred remedies and healing secrets of our living Earth, it's also naive to approach the world as though it's "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest", where fairies and a bat voiced by Robin Williams will somehow stop all of the world's deforestation problems and convince all lumberjacks that the clear-cutting of all old growth forest ruins the native habitat of thousands of species and leaves the area deficient of natural minerals.

I'm optimistic, but not in the sense of that 1998 Talking Heads song "(Nothing But) Flowers" where in a post-apocalyptic world all parking lots will become oases, all Pizza Huts will become covered with daisies and discount stores will become cornfields, but in the sense that man/woman worldwide truly value their natural surroundings and enough will rise to the occasion to rejuvenate their relationship to the natural world, that man/woman will provide Mother Nature the space and faith to start over without interference, that most men and women will help rather than hurt Mother Nature.

There is one verse in your poem I 100% agree with, however:

*

Earth will survive.
We are the ones
with a problem.


*

It doesn't at all mean we are evil, nor that we are hopeless, nor that we are all irrational. It simply means because we are human, and thus have the ability to both reason and to bend things to our will, our challenge is through our decision-making; how we choose either to fuse these passions and direct them for altruism and the common good, or if we use them in manipulating and exploiting the good intentions of others. And I'm optimistic that ultimately most will do the former, and the Earth will be rejuvenated.

But we are by no means absent of responsibility in being good stewards of the Earth, of maintaining our relationship to the Earth. I realized all too well when I was fourteen reading T.S Eliot's "The Waste Land" what it's like to be divorced from the natural world, and is partly up to us to decide whether our children will continue to cherish Walden Pond in its original splendor, or if we'll be wrapped up in some brown fog of a winter dawn.

And while I believe Mother Nature holds faith, I believe She has a right to be worried also.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


39 posted 04-08-2007 04:41 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Everyone's surely entitled to his/her opinion on how authentic Al Gore and his concerns are.

Having said that, there's one question I wish to argue those openly criticizing, even detracting him here:

*

"Have you even seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet?"

*

In my opinion, the documentary was well-researched and scientifically-grounded, and its purpose is to persuade that global warming is a moral issue. Others here can certainly argue otherwise, and I encourage the debate, but I feel there's a lack of credibility in those that ridicule a work and its narrator without observing it for themselves, while those that have seen it and critique it are far more credible and convincing.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


40 posted 04-08-2007 05:46 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I guess I just don't get it.

If this is about hypocrisy, then both houses should be discussed. How can the standing president not be the number one hypocrite?

If Gore were running, I would at least understand the subtext.

But Gore isn't running -- at least for the moment -- so why focus on him?

Where does this come from? Is it really just subterfuge?

What is the right thing to do?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 04-08-2007 05:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Noah, it is very easy to ridicule the narrator when his actions entirely go against what he is preaching, much like listening to a man speaking about the virtues of vegetarianism while munching on a Big Mac. Al Gore is an extremely poor example of what he is preaching for others to do. Pardon me for being political but I feel that, were he Republican, he would be lambasted for his actions. How anyone cannot see through this man, regardless of political affiliation, is beyond me. He is nothing more than a snake oil salesman using environmentalism as his schtick to be in the public eye.As far as his documentary is concerned, it appears to be a feel-good piece in which the specifics of it have been challenged by scientists. Gore, for example, warns that, due to global warming, Florida and California could actually go underwater with the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the icebergs. Scientists agree that is true but, if it were to occur, it would take a minimum of 4-5 centuries. They declaim several other points in the same way.

Did you notice anything strange at the Oscars? They had a cute little set-up after the presentation where Gore was to be asked about his intentions for a presidential run. At that point, Gore said something like, "I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the world that..." and then the music signaling out-of-time began to play, at which point Gore smiled, waved goodbye, and walked off. It was a cute little idea that got some laughs. Funny thing is that no one was supposed to know about the Oscar results until the envelope was opened! The presenter acted surprised, Gore looked flabbergasted...how 'bout dat? Hooray for Hollywood!
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


42 posted 04-09-2007 03:48 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

quote:
Noah, it is very easy to ridicule the narrator when his actions entirely go against what he is preaching, much like listening to a man speaking about the virtues of vegetarianism while munching on a Big Mac. Al Gore is an extremely poor example of what he is preaching for others to do. Pardon me for being political but I feel that, were he Republican, he would be lambasted for his actions. How anyone cannot see through this man, regardless of political affiliation, is beyond me. He is nothing more than a snake oil salesman using environmentalism as his schtick to be in the public eye.As far as his documentary is concerned, it appears to be a feel-good piece in which the specifics of it have been challenged by scientists. Gore, for example, warns that, due to global warming, Florida and California could actually go underwater with the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the icebergs. Scientists agree that is true but, if it were to occur, it would take a minimum of 4-5 centuries. They declaim several other points in the same way.


If Gore were a Republican, I for one would be praising him just the same, just as I praise any Republican currently who has the courage to stand up to the oil and energy company lobbyists and special interests plaguing their party's leadership currently, including former congressmen like Pete McCloskey (who was a co-author of the Endangered Species Act and co-chaired the first Earth Day in 1970), former governors like Christine Todd Whitman (who successfully funded to preserve one million acres of open space and farmland in her home state of New Jersey with the help of voters) and any Republican who follows in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt, John P. Saylor, John Weeks and other ecologically conscious conservationists.

Having said that, I believe when you look back on Gore's record, he appears quite consistent and genuine toward sustaining and conserving the environment. From what I've heard, he was one of the first politicians to publicly argue about climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases, and in fact co-sponsored the first congressional hearings on this subject in the late 1970s (he was actually a student of Roger Revelle, chairman of the National Academy Panel) as well as co-sponsored other hearings during the same time frame on toxic waste and global warming.

I, too, have reservations about Al Gore, particularly of his personality to a degree and how he has a propensity of whining and holding grudges too often. However, regardless of some questionable living accomodations, I don't doubt that he genuinely cares about this issue, and if it turns out this was all about staging his comeback presidential campaign, well, you can rest assured that I for one won't vote for him, as would 58% of Americans saying there'd be "no chance" one recent poll revealed.

quote:
Did you notice anything strange at the Oscars? They had a cute little set-up after the presentation where Gore was to be asked about his intentions for a presidential run. At that point, Gore said something like, "I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the world that..." and then the music signaling out-of-time began to play, at which point Gore smiled, waved goodbye, and walked off. It was a cute little idea that got some laughs. Funny thing is that no one was supposed to know about the Oscar results until the envelope was opened! The presenter acted surprised, Gore looked flabbergasted...how 'bout dat? Hooray for Hollywood!


Of course Hollywood got cozy with him, they have a biased love toward many Democrats and a biased dislike toward many Republicans down there.

It's obviously a wet dream among many in Hollywood that Al Gore will announce his candidacy, no question about that. Having said that, I actually interpreted that moment with Leonardo DiCaprio on the podium as nothing more than a pre-planned, staged joke, where he already knew many were hoping he'd declare his candidacy during his acceptance speech, and so, still insisting he won't run, pretended to rouse the spirits of the crowd until the incidental music drowned him out.

Look, Gore KNOWS he'll have no chance and gain no traction in the Democratic primary UNLESS Obama plunges in the polls. Obama has struggled to gain ground this past month, stuck at 22%, but hasn't lost any support either, and frankly, Gore doesn't even look like he wants to run, given how out of shape and overweight he looks.

*

By the way, I hope you didn't mind I put your Open poem on the spot, which I did enjoy despite some light disagreements. I kind of felt you were actually expecting a response from me or others, given you wrote in parentheses in the poem's title (recycled for the Alley cats)

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 04-09-2007 04:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

However, regardless of some questionable living accomodations,

That's exactly what I mean, Noah. There are not only some (there are many) and they are not only questionable, they are unquestioned, documented and irrefutable. It seems to be impossible to just acknowledge that, doesn't it?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


44 posted 04-09-2007 04:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Which thing is it that you want us to acknowledge Mike?  That Al and Tipper have a BIG house?  Acknowledged.  That in addition to living space they operate two offices there? Acknowledged.  That they pay a premium on thier electric bill to obtain electricity from non-CO2 producing sources?  Acknowledged.  That they are in the process of installing solar panels to make some of thier own electricity?  Acknowledged.

What are you willing to acknowledge?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


45 posted 04-09-2007 06:00 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I offered a slice of my opinion of Al Gore, and if we are to further discussion regarding the credibility or discredibility of his project, I would strongly urge we start a new thread, as what concerns me particularly is that Al Gore's name is brought up as a distraction or red herring from the general issue of global warming itself, and an easy red herring in that he's a highly polarizing American politician along with George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential outcome debate.

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Svante Arrhenius (Published 1896)

What must be understood is that the global warming issue/discussion didn't begin with Al Gore. In fact, the earliest evidence of global warming in the public eye dates back over a century, to 1904, when Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius became, as NASA has acknowledged, "the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate."

It was before then, in 1896, when he published a paper titled "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. It was here that he studied the increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions, where in his studies he came to the conclusion that "the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries."

It wouldn't be until about 65 years later when the scientific community collectively would no longer find his claims implausible, when a geophysicist by the name of Roger Revelle, who had served on the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965, assisted in publishing the first high-level government mention of global warming. Then by 1977, the non-partisan National Academy of Sciences issued a study called Energy and Climate, which suggested with caution that the possibility of global warming "should lead neither to panic nor to complacency." but added it should "engender a lively sense of urgency in getting on with the work of illuminating the issues that have been identified and resolving the scientific uncertainties that remain."

That is perhaps the central problem here; there is a divide between many panicking about the issue and many being too complacent about the issue. Perhaps I myself have been speaking too strongly on the potential worst-case scenarios inaction can result in in the future, but I believe much of it is that "lively sense of urgency" and the attempt of "illuminating" the bigger picture, that this issue could not merely affect shelves of ice, but farmers, critical habitats and perhaps your own backyard as well, depending on where you live.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


46 posted 04-09-2007 11:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

But Red-Herring is Mike's best dish!  (he gets it in bulk down there in Florida yanno) -- A liitle Cayanne, Sea-Salt, Garlic, and Onion -- hoooooweee -- let it simmer for a while and you got yerself a new source of natural gas!  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


47 posted 04-10-2007 07:11 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Here's an amusing article:

StarTribune

I like the way the writer, Nick Coleman, handled the little piece.

He used words like "right-wing wood-chippers," "phlegm," "kerfuffle," and "goobers." Ha. Hadn't heard that in a while.

I think he made a great point with this:

quote:
Everyone loves a juicy bit of hypocrisy, and I am prepared to believe a politician might say one thing in public and act another way in private. But the Gore electricity kerfuffle offers an opportunity for Americans to point a finger.

At ourselves.


I disagree about the scientific evidence being rock solid as far as some of the extreme conditions in extremely remote areas,  ice caps here, and on Mars, etc.

but my backyard is the Smoky Mountains, and I don't need to tell anyone how polluted they are. When I was little, the water was pure and now you can't even wade in the streams. The flora/fauna is suffering, even hiking there can cause respiratory problems. To stand on my porch and to look across and see the magnificent beauty (on a halfway decent clear day) I can't help but care.

I do my part all I can. I'd love to be able to do more to my 100 year old home, but the expense is more than I can handle. Aside from  rebuilding it, I've done all I could from new windows, doors, siding, roof, insulation, water heater, appliances, etc. Broke now, and broken hearted. I had to tear down and cover up a dual fireplace that proved to be too dangerous.

It does make me mad that I do what I can to help with what little I've got, and yet the big fat coal burning cats in the area are still not up to par with their millions. Feels defeating, you know?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 04-10-2007 01:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Red herring, LR? Well, it beats possum, which seems to be yours Of course, I can understand your admiration for anything that plays dead when in danger

What were all of those excuses again that carry so much weight with you? Oh, yes, there was the climate at his place, which I assume would mean his neighbors would have that same excuse or are we talking a particular weather anomaly that hangs directly over his house alone? He and his wife work at home....so do about 20,000 other Americans. Wanna show me how that skyrockets energy usage? The green energy program? According to the TVA's Green Power Switch program Gore has been a resident of his mansion for 16 months but has only been participating in the green energy program for just over two months, despite the program being around for several years. Two months?  Wasn't that in the area of Oscar time? The solar panels he is installing which SOME day in the future will cut down his energy usage?

).I've also estimated how many solar panels Gore would need to put on his roof in order to generate his own green power so that he can move clean off the grid. A common panel is 60W peak and measures roughly 2.5' x 3.5'. Judging by the average insulation measured at Oak Ridge, Gore would need *2324 such panels on his roof to **theoretically meet his annual load of 220,800kWh. He can purchase the panels wholesale for about a quarter million dollars... plus another $100,000 in various "electrical accoutrement." (And of course there's the issue of his huge natural gas usage for both home and swimming pool heating. He'll still need that carbon source.)
The man is a phony. The claim is that the bills are due to retrofitting his house to make it more energy efficient:

Kreider says she's confident that the Gores' utility bills will decrease. "They bought an older home and they're in the process of upgrading the home," she said. "Unfortunately that means an increase in energy use in order to have an overall decrease in energy use down the road."
http://www.710kiro.com/showdj.asp?DJID=31726


It's not hard to see that Gore is just scrambling to make excuses and cover his tracks since his own disregard for his own policies have been made public and he even gets people like you to bite. Is  it true that your favorite novel is Gullible's Travels?

Here's some more reading material if you're interested...unlikely, I know.

Al Gore has claimed (through a spokesman) that he offsets 100% of his Tennessee mansion’s electricity bill by purchasing renewables through a green power program. Upon reviewing the figures, this seems unlikely. Either Gore’s spokesperson is lying, or the AP has made a significant error in their reporting about Gore’s power usage.

According to the AP (not the conservative think tank that originally broke this story), Gore’s electricity bill averaged $1200 a month last year, while using 191,000 kilowatt-hours. (Compared to an average Nashville household usage of 15,600 kwh.) That comes to $14,400 in electricity expenses, which is around 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour.

According toNashville Electric Service, Al’s power company. Al (says he) subscribes to “Green Power Switch“, the renewable option offered by NES. (Seems like a good program, btw.) Green Power Switch will sell you 150 kilowatt-hour blocks of power for an extra $4 charge - adding 2.67 cents per kwh to the ordinary 7.38 cents that NES charges residential customers. That’s 10.05 cents per kilowatt-hour.

But the figures from Gore’s power bill, reported by the AP, show Gore paying about 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour - pretty much exactly what he’d be paying if he bought his juice from the big coal-fired plant up the road. Something doesn’t add up, here.

Either Gore is not, in fact, buying green power, or the AP has badly misreported his power usage over the last year, or perhaps there are special sweetheart deals available for “residential” customers who order enough juice to light up Versailles. Or - and please forgive the cynicism - Gore is buying a teeny weeny bit of green power - perhaps enough to account for the 0.12 cents per kwh disparity in the posted rate and his actual bill - and the rest of his “green power” offset is coming in the form of “investments” in various renewable energy companies. Which is all well and good, of course, but which is a far cry from having all your power be renewable, which is apparently the claim being made.
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/is-gores-electricity-100-green/



The TVA's Green Power Switch program has several solar generating sites. During the period of Nov. through Jan. those sites produced a total of 90,147kWh of power while the Gores averaged power usage for those months was 55,200kWh- likely closer to 60,000 because of increased winter power requirements even in mild TN. Put another way, one guy and his wife used two-thirds of TVA's total solar power production leaving roughly 30,000kWh for the other 5,999,998 TN residents to divide among themselves. Or put still another way, Gore and Trigger each used 30,000kWh ... leaving 5 watthours apiece for each remaining state resident. Five watthours will burn a 60W bulb for 12 minutes. (Note: TVA covers several states, not just TN... I didn't feel like doing the additional math. The bottom line is that the Gores sucked up about 2/3 of the solar power available in several southern states.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


49 posted 04-10-2007 01:57 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Although there are indeed some pundits from the right who seem to assume global warming is merely hype because Al Gore believes the issue is real, I do happen to believe this truly is a non-partisan issue and majorities among all political ideologies believe global warming is "probably happening" (about 80% polled recently believe it is probably happening, with 49% believing it is definitely happening) thus I believe most that are traditionally more on the right side of the aisle are far more fair-minded and flexible on the issue than some of these water-carriers in the establishment are.

I regret that this thread has become more about Al Gore than about global warming. However, one interesting point was brought up which I feel is worth responding to.

Post Gazette: August 3, 2006

It is curious, I believe, that many of the most outspoken detractors of both Al Gore and global warming in general are linked to oil companies and lobbying firms associated with them. Take, for instance, a YouTube video that surfaced last August spoofing Al Gore, characterizing Gore as a penguin and raising a "penguin army" in brainwashing Americans about the issue of global warming, suggesting that the Middle East crisis and Lindsay Lohan's anorexia are to be blamed by global warming.

Interesting details of the creator's background are revealed via the link above:

*

"The video's maker is listed as "Toutsmith," a 29-year-old who identifies himself as being from Beverly Hills in an Internet profile.

In an email exchange with The Wall Street Journal, Toutsmith didn't answer when asked who he was or why he made the video, which has just over 59,000 views on YouTube. However, computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith's Yahoo account indicate it didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

Instead, the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp.

A DCI Group spokesman declines to say whether or not DCI made the anti-Gore penguin video, or to explain why Toutsmith appeared to be sending email from DCI's computers. "DCI Group does not disclose the names of its clients, nor do we discuss the work that we do on our clients' behalf," says Matt Triaca, who heads DCI's media relations shop.

Dave Gardner, an Exxon spokesman, confirms that Exxon is a client of DCI. But he says Exxon had no role in creating the "Inconvenient Truth" spoof. "We, like everyone else on the planet, have seen it, but did not fund it, did not approve it, and did not know what its source was," Mr. Gardner says."


*

Even if we can take and accept Gardner's word for it they weren't directly involved in the creation of the ad, the lobbying firm is nonetheless heavily linked to the attempted debunking of global warming:

*

"DCI is no stranger to the debate over global warming. Partly through Tech Central Station, an opinion Web site it operates, DCI has sought to raise doubts about the science of global warming and about Mr. Gore's film, placing skeptical scientists on talk-radio shows and paying them to write editorials."

*

Washington Post: November 24, 2006

Then there's the hypocrisy highlighted in the above editorial, where the National Science Teachers Association rejected the offering of DVD's of "An Inconvenient Truth" to use in their classroom studies because they didn't want to offer a "political" endorsement of the film, yet they've been frequently affliated with ExxonMobil, which has outspokenly denied global warming and has even offered to pay scientists if they reversed their position on global warming:

*

"That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits."

...

"And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education."

...

"In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school."


*

It gets more interesting still:

*

"NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence.

The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto."


*

Guardian Unlimited: February 2, 2007

And, as mentioned earlier, the attempt to pay scientists so that they would reverse their positioning on the global warming issue:

*

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees."


*

*

This relates exactly to what I was talking about earlier; how Washington has become corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists, and while the Democratic Party establishment has become hijacked and corrupted by organized labor activists and such in particular, the GOP establishment has become hijacked and corrupted by energy company activists and big oil interests, and so the GOP establishment has distanced itself from its core principles and roots of conservation and environmentalism. Richard Pombo is out, but you still have ghosts of Pombo resonating in the likes of James Inhofe and Mitch McConnell and John Doolittle and Deborah Pryce and Saxby Chambliss just to name a handful.

It is saddening, and I truly believe most Republicans today hold values and ideals that differ from these interests, and rather go hand in hand with the conservation of both our traditions, ideals and environment. Ergo, I am optimistic that these genuine conservatives will take back the party from these interests and again practice what they preached in previous decades championing conservation, but sadly they still have some ways to go.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Jaime Fradera will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Stop global warming now   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors