Gore vs. .the environment

**Lady's Human** · 06-14-2006, 10:53 AM

Actually, he was quoted as saying one of the reasons he developed his new movie, Inconvenient Truth, is because he wouldn't have to fly everywhere to discuss environmental issues and wasting fuel with his personal jet.

Yet he continues to fly his private jet all over the world.

**Lady's Human** · 06-14-2006, 11:09 AM

This article explains the debate about global warming, and states frustrations with the media's presentation of the issue very well.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

There IS debate within scientific circles about global warming, and it's not just a lunatic fringe who disagrees with the popular view of the issue.

**BOBS DAD** · 06-14-2006, 05:46 PM

I Find It Hard To Criticize Anyone Who Is Honestly Trying To Make A Positive Difference In The World, Irregardless Of Whether I Agree With Their Own Personal Cause. It's Easy To Have An Opinion On A Variety Of Social Issues, But A Lot Harder To Actually Act Upon It! Give Gore Some Credit And Everyone Else Who Is Trying To Make The Climate Stable, The Environment Cleaner Or Just A Better Overall World.

**lbaker** · 06-14-2006, 06:13 PM

I work for a very large non-profit Science Org that happens to publish the weekly journal SCIENCE. You would not believe the letters we've received saying Global Warming is a hoax. The same kooks that write about our stand on Evolution, a "theory". Same ones that didn't like our Reports and Articles warning about the dangers of Agent Orange - oh those many years ago that people forget

- Any step , even a half-step, forward is better than standing in place and closing your eyes *takes a deep breath here*

**Lady's Human** · 06-15-2006, 12:43 AM

Lbaker,You can go back through the climate records and find periods of warming, periods of cooling, periods of severe storms, periods of peaceful weather. What infuriates me about the global warming issue is that there is NO public debate, any doubts get squelched in a chorus of ad hominem attacks.

There are scientists whose field is not climatology calling respected climatologists fools. There are scientists picking and choosing from data. (Prime example, storm records are unreliable before 1890, but they will rely on tree growth data from single trees to determine the temperature and climate when they can't find multiple samples) Above all, like the saccarin scare, cold fusion, and the endless articles from the '70s about the coming ice age, there seems to be a rush to publish first and evaluate later. Technologies are being forced to the fore as solutions when the solution may be worse than the current problem. (example, the hydrogen car, generating hydrogen takes electricity, which we get from where? largely fossil fuel burning power plants, which we will need more of if we are going to generate enough hydrogen to useit as a fuel)

I don't think global warming is a hoax, I just don't think all the facts are in yet.

**BOBS DAD** · 06-15-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Technologies are being forced to the fore as solutions when the solution may be worse than the current problem. (example, the hydrogen car, generating hydrogen takes electricity, which we get from where? largely fossil fuel burning power plants, which we will need more of if we are going to generate enough hydrogen to useit as a fuel)

I don't think global warming is a hoax, I just don't think all the facts are in yet.

Lady's Human,

You and I have chatted before and we have agreed that we likely don't agree on much. Other than the fact that we both agreed that in "disagreeing", nothing was personal. I respect you for that and it makes for a much better world when folks allow for dissent and hold nothing against those they strongly disagree with (even if you think I am an ignoramous at heart)!!! LOL.

Unfortuneatly (as you may have suspected), I disagree with you again!!! You say that others are always jumping the gun and sounding off before they get their facts straight, but it does seem that you yourself are often guilty of this. When we last debated on gasoline powered cars, you said that, "The dirty, obsolete fuel source we use for autos is also the dirty, obsolete fuel source that we use for half of our electricity, being that "environmentalists" have torpedoed wind farms, solar farms, nuclear power plants, and clean coal tech".

That was an impressive and very persuasive comeback... until you consider how inaccurate it is. I responded by telling you,

" I think your statistics on oil for electricity production are a little off. In fact, I think that very little oil is "still" being used to generate electricty. Yes...Oil is the largest source of energy in the United States, providing close to 40 percent of all of the nation's entire power needs. BUT most oil is used for transportation or home heating purposes, while a small percentage is still used as a fuel for electricity generating plants.

While oil continues to decline in popularity as an electricity fuel, in places such as New York (your state), oil still comprises about 8 and only 8 percent or less of the state's electricity fuel mix".

You seemed to be in favor of the current administration's stand on oil production and the drilling for more and used inaccurate information to better support your case - EVEN though the actual data and statistics on the subject are readily available to you on-line! Now that you have some correct information on "electricity" available to you and at your disposal, you contort it for the purposes of disputing "another good idea" in hydrogen powered engines.

I get the impression that if I said that black was black, you would say that there is "no scientific evidence" to support my theory and that no "in-depth studies" have been done to prove that fact. You might even suggest back to me that black "might" be white"! BUT if I first told you that I was a REPUBLICAN, prayed in a Presbyterian Church and said the National Anthem to start my day... you would be more inclined to accept my premise.

**Lady's Human** · 06-15-2006, 04:41 PM

Bobs dad-
I misspoke when I was including just oil as the source for electricity, I meant fossil fuel useage as a whole, not just petroleum.

Fossil fuels includes Coal and natural gas. 90% of the coal mined in the US is used for commercial electricity generation. 30% of the natural gas consumed in the US is for energy production. (stats from US DOE) While oil is a small player in the the electricity generation market, the other fossil fuels make up the bulk of electric generation market. End result? Using hydrogen for fuel (meaning a large increase in electrical generation requirements) without allowing nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants, and wind power means more CO2 emissions from power plants. The end result being that you have no positive effect from the shift in fuels. The other problem with using hydrogen as bulk fuel is that combustion of hydrogen yields water vapor, which also affects weather systems.

I hold no great love for the Republican party,(give me the choice between JFK and GW and GW is on the street) and my knowing that you are a christian republican has no bearing on my disagreement on this issue. It wouldn't matter whether it was Al Gore or Dick Cheney, I don't think that the issue has been decided by the scientific community, just the most vocal part of the scientific community.