NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html

I don't give a rat's ass about Internet Boy. But the improvements to his home intrigue me greatly. *nod*

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating

Don't you have to be near volcanic/hot spring vents in order for geothermal plants to work?

Don't you have to be near volcanic/hot spring vents in order for geothermal plants to work?For a commercial powerplant, perhaps, but not necessarily if you want to heat your home.

Don't you have to be near volcanic/hot spring vents in order for geothermal plants to work?

Not necessarily. The fact that underground is a constant unwavering temperature once you get more than a few feet down is very useful. Along with heat pump technology, you can draw quite a bit of warmth out of the ground. *nod*

Not necessarily. The fact that underground is a constant unwavering temperature once you get more than a few feet down is very useful. Along with heat pump technology, you can draw quite a bit of warmth out of the ground. *nod*

Don't you need a little more than a shovel and pick?

I wonder how much longer until Wilgrove lets us know he won't let reality change his mind about hating Gore...

Don't you need a little more than a shovel and pick?

Quite a bit more. *nod*

I wonder how much longer until Wilgrove lets us know he won't let reality change his mind about hating Gore...

You know, so many of the people who deny global warming just attack Gore and went on about how he wasn't changing his lifestyle. Well now he has. Will they all be accepting global warming now?

For a commercial powerplant, perhaps, but not necessarily if you want to heat your home.

Not necessarily. The fact that underground is a constant unwavering temperature once you get more than a few feet down is very useful. Along with heat pump technology, you can draw quite a bit of warmth out of the ground. *nod*

No... We're beginning to think alike way too much...

No... We're beginning to think alike way too much...

That could be good for you, or bad for LG.

You know, so many of the people who deny global warming just attack Gore and went on about how he wasn't changing his lifestyle. Well now he has. Will they all be accepting global warming now?

No, they will claim the following:

Gore has caused so much global warming by making that thermal borehole, that it outweighs the energy savings, that he is obviously a scam and hypocrite, and therefor there is no global warming.

fossil fuels spent on powering factories that make
1 equipment for drilling,
2 solar panels
3 wind power generators

fossil fuel spent transporting the stuff from India

etc.

Gore is a total hypocrite. If I ever belive a word he says, or belive that he does something because he really belives in it, shoot me.

Gore is a total hypocrite. If I ever belive a word he says, or belive that he does something because he really belives in it, shoot me.
Does that have anything to do with whether global warming needs to be addressed?

Does that have anything to do with whether global warming needs to be addressed
I don't want to get off topic, but we're not causing the global warming.

I'm ignoring reality because I don't like Al Gore, or want to pretend that Global Warming doesn't exist.

Fixed :)

Fixed
You really need to read some actual data about global warming,and stop beliving the 2 least trustworthy groups in our nation.
1. The Polititians.
2.The Media.

He probably still consume more than most, but good for him.
And I don't like Gore, but still believe in global warming.

You really need to read some actual data about global warming,and stop beliving the 2 least trustworthy groups in our nation.
1. The Polititians.
2.The Media.

I'm not in your nation and don't listen to your media or your politicians about anything.

I don't want to get off topic, but we're not causing the global warming.

oops, sorry, didn't see how topic was not global warming, must have missed something, silly me...

He probably still consume more than most, but good for him.
And I don't like Gore, but still believe in global warming.
I said I didn't belive that WE were making the global warming. Our world goes through hot periods and short periods.

Cold example:The little ice age 1400-1850 c.
Warm example: Mediaval warm period 800-1300

Now don't tell me Medival Europe created a global warming trend with their technoligy

Gore is a total hypocrite. If I ever belive a word he says, or belive that he does something because he really belives in it, shoot me.Does that have anything to do with whether global warming needs to be addressed?
To some people, yes, it would appear that it does. A kind of sad reflection on modern politics, from my perspective.
I don't want to get off topic, but we're not causing the global warming.
The chances of this particular thread staying on topic are not high.

For what it's worth, as I've stated in other threads, I don't believe that we are the sole cause of global warming either - we are, however, plainly contributing to it. It really doesn't matter what the root cause is, though... the data available suggests that it is happening, and we should really be doing whatever we can to, at the very least, slow it down. If we don't, we're going to be royally screwed - the environmentalists, the denialist idiots with their fingers in their ears and their eyes on their bottom line, and everyone else.

You really need to read some actual data about global warming,and stop beliving the 2 least trustworthy groups in our nation.
1. The Polititians.
2.The Media.

This might be interesting indeed... tell me, then, where do you get your information from, if not from the media?

I said I didn't belive that WE were making the global warming. Our world goes through hot periods and short periods.

Cold example:The little ice age 1400-1850 c.
Warm example: Mediaval warm period 800-1300

Now don't tell me Medival Europe created a global warming trend with their technoligy

You might want to read up on population growth, technological advance and man-made changes to the environment during the middle ages...

For what it's worth, as I've stated in other threads, I don't believe that we are the sole cause of global warming either - we are, however, plainly contributing to it. It really doesn't matter what the root cause is, though... the bottom line is that it is happening, and we should really be doing whatever we can to, at the very least, slow it down. If we don't, we're going to be royally screwed - the environmentalists, the denialist idiots with their fingers in their ears and their eyes on their bottom line, and everyone else.

However, the temperatures rose more during the first half of this century, when it SHOULD be in this half the century(More cars and factorys etc,).

However, the temperatures rose more during the first half of this century, when it SHOULD be in this half the century(More cars and factorys etc,).

The fist half of this century only started 7 years ago :confused:

I said I didn't belive that WE were making the global warming. Our world goes through hot periods and short periods.

Cold example:The little ice age 1400-1850 c.
Warm example: Mediaval warm period 800-1300

Now don't tell me Medival Europe created a global warming trend with their technoligy
And that disproves scientific near-consensus that human activity that humanity is the main cause of climate change how, exactly?

You might want to read up on population growth, technological advance and man-made changes to the environment during the middle ages...

Pardon? Technological Advance? You must be thinking of the Rennesaince, the dark ages and high middle ages were hardly advanced. The Romans were more advanced then them!(Before their fall of course) And man-made changes? More than in the 15th century you say?

However, the temperatures rose more during the first half of this century, when it SHOULD be in this half the century(More cars and factorys etc,).
That's true, if you consider the likes of factory emissions to be the sole cause of the current trend, yes, but I've not seen many (and none of those that I have seen have been credible) claims to that effect.

The fist half of this century only started 7 years ago
:headbang: Whoops! mistake on my part! I meant the first half of last century(Gosh you would think after 7 years I would be used to being in the 21st century:D)

:headbang: Whoops! mistake on my part! I meant the first half of last century(Gosh you would think after 7 years I would be used to being in the 21st century:D)
To be brutally honest, and without meaning any serious offence, nothing I've ever seen you post gives me cause to believe that you even inhabit the same world as I do, never mind the same century. ;)

You really need to read some actual data about global warming,and stop beliving the 2 least trustworthy groups in our nation.
1. The Polititians.
2.The Media.

You forgot scientists. They are also the most untrustworthy.
Also, some religious groups are starting get in the act, I think it was the Southern Baptists who agreed at their convention that environmental friendliness was a good thing. So, the full list of the most untrustworthy people in our nation is:

The Politicians
The Media
The Scientists
The Religious Authority
The Parents

I don't know how parents would encourage you to believe in global warming, but if everyone else is on the list, they probably are too.

This might be interesting indeed... tell me, then, where do you get your information from, if not from the media?
It's called "Books" if you check the author you might be able to find a reliable "book".

I said I didn't belive that WE were making the global warming. Our world goes through hot periods and short periods.

But natural changes are done over hundred (for small changes) or thousand years (for drastic changes). Right now we are speaking of changes in 10 years, and drastic changes in 50 years. Something that never existed "naturally".

The icecaps melted more in the latest 10 years than during any other 100 years period, for example. And btw, I tend to not read either media nor politician, but scientists.

The Politicians
The Media
The Scientists
The Religious Authority
The Parents

I agree with all of them, depending on what you mean by Religious Authority. If you mean like a preacher, I don't agree. If you mean somone who proclaims to be the preacher for their whole denonmination,not just their church I agree(cough)Pope(cough).

Pardon? Technological Advance? You must be thinking of the Rennesaince, the dark ages and high middle ages were hardly advanced. The Romans were more advanced then them!(Before their fall of course) And man-made changes? More than in the 15th century you say?

I think you're falling for the old "Dark Ages" myth.
The early Middle Ages (around 600 AD, to be a bit more exact), the heavy plough was invented in Europe. Around the same time, the three-field system was discovered. Waterpower was first harnessed for the use in mills. The increased food production led to a massive explosion of population, which was only reduced just before the onset of the Renaissance, due to the plague.
The increased population went on to turn more and more of Europe's woodlands into farmland, cities spread, and carbon emissions from coal and wood fires rose to levels way above anything the Roman world had ever known.

I'm not claiming that the climate change back then was solely the fault of humanity, but I would say they contributed a fair bit to it.

It's called "Books" if you check the author you might be able to find a reliable "book".

You are aware that a book is a part of the media, right?

The icecaps melted more in the latest 10 years than during any other 100 years period, for example. And btw, I tend to not read either media nor politician, but scientists
Well good for you that you trust neither the media nor politions!(no sarcasm, a lot of people belive them) But not all scientists are doing their job just for the feeling of greatness when they prove somthing wrong! If that was true, we would have never had bad theories that were belived despite being proven continually wrong.

It's called "Books" if you check the author you might be able to find a reliable "book".

Can you please name three (3) reliable books on the subject of global warming?

Apart from the Bible, of course.

not all scientists are doing their job just for the feeling of greatness when they prove somthing wrong! If that was true, we would have never had bad theories that were belived despite being proven continually wrong.
I'm intrigued... can you give me an example of a 'bad theory' that has been believed despite being 'proven continually wrong'? I ask, because that's just not how science works.

You are aware that a book is a part of the media, right?
Dictionary definition:
television, newspapers, and radio collectively: the various means of mass communication considered as a whole, including television, radio, magazines, and newspapers, together with the people involved in their production
Can you please name three (3) reliable books on the subject of global warming?

Apart from the Bible, of course.
:rolleyes:
"Lies, Myths, and downright stupidity" by John Stossel. Admitidly It's not on Global warming in particular, but he talks about it in the book.
Dang it, I tell you more when I remember them:headbang:

I think you're falling for the old "Dark Ages" myth.
The early Middle Ages (around 600 AD, to be a bit more exact), the heavy plough was invented in Europe. Around the same time, the three-field system was discovered. Waterpower was first harnessed for the use in mills. The increased food production led to a massive explosion of population, which was only reduced just before the onset of the Renaissance, due to the plague.
The increased population went on to turn more and more of Europe's woodlands into farmland, cities spread, and carbon emissions from coal and wood fires rose to levels way above anything the Roman world had ever known.

I'm not claiming that the climate change back then was solely the fault of humanity, but I would say they contributed a fair bit to it
Yes but the Romans had Aqueducts, advanced Engineering techniques, and were just more advanced in general then any kingdom in the dark ages or high middle ages! Yet the warming period didn't happen at the height of the Roman empire did it? And I'm not saying we have NOTHING to do with Golbal warming but that we are contributing a small fractioon of what the enviromentalists are saying we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology

...............
:rolleyes:
"Lies, Myths, and downright stupidity" by John Stossel. Admitidly It's not on Global warming in particular, but he talks about it in the book.
Dang it, I tell you more when I remember them:headbang:
..............

Thank you, but make it quick, because writhing in anticipation is very strenuous, and I am of feeble health.

No, they will claim the following:

Gore has caused so much global warming by making that thermal borehole, that it outweighs the energy savings, that he is obviously a scam and hypocrite, and therefor there is no global warming.

fossil fuels spent on powering factories that make
1 equipment for drilling,
2 solar panels
3 wind power generators

fossil fuel spent transporting the stuff from India

etc.
The fair thing would be to do a carbon balance sheet. But, since global warming due to human activity has been largely discredited, I'm a little ambivalent about the whole thing.

Gore has produced a wonderful model of how to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and that's still a good thing.

I'm intrigued... can you give me an example of a 'bad theory' that has been believed despite being 'proven continually wrong'? I ask, because that's just not how science works.
Dang it, you're right :headbang: you have proven me and my caffeein deficent body wrong. I gotta stop posting so early, it messes up what logical capabilitys I still have.

But, since global warming due to human activity has been largely discredited, I'm a little ambivalent about the whole thing.

Oh, well that is a relief. If you wouldn't mind, could you please link us to the scientific papers that demonstrate this - a metaanalysis would be preferred. Just so we can all keep ourselves informed on current issues such as yourself.

And just in case anyone isn't sure - scientific papers are generally peer reviewed and aren't editorials, opinion pages, or polls.

Dictionary definition:
television, newspapers, and radio collectively: the various means of mass communication considered as a whole, including television, radio, magazines, and newspapers, together with the people involved in their production

So books aren't mass communication according to you?


Yes but the Romans had Aqueducts, advanced Engineering techniques, and were just more advanced in general then any kingdom in the dark ages or high middle ages! Yet the warming period didn't happen at the height of the Roman empire did it? And I'm not saying we have NOTHING to do with Golbal warming but that we are contributing a small fractioon of what the enviromentalists are saying we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology

Roman engineering never caused a population explosion anywhere near the levels the increased food production in the middle ages did. Although the Romans sure did their best, the deforestation of Europe happened mostly during the Middle Ages, not during Roman times.
I'm not disputing that he Romans were clever engineers, they most certainly were. But their inventions did not have as great an impact on population numbers and the environment on the whole as did crop rotation. Simple as that.
More people = more polution.

Roman engineering never caused a population explosion anywhere near the levels the increased food production in the middle ages did. Although the Romans sure did their best, the deforestation of Europe happened mostly during the Middle Ages, not during Roman times.
I'm not disputing that he Romans were clever engineers, they most certainly were. But their inventions did not have as great an impact on population numbers and the environment on the whole as did crop rotation. Simple as that.
More people = more polution.
Dang. Your logic runs circles around me. Could you stop with the circles?
I think I'm getting dizzy... But still, wouldn't the pollution happened because of China and India? Their Population was still larger then Europe
http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html
Define, please.
We, people, humans,whatever you want to say.

Fixed :)

Isn't that against the rules?

I don't want to get off topic, but we're not causing the global warming.

Fuck global warming. Don't you want to eliminate our need on those 'moslems' and their evil oil? ;)

Fuck global warming. Don't you want to eliminate our need on those 'moslems' and their evil oil?
But oil tastes good!I would never want to eliminate it!

Don't you have to be near volcanic/hot spring vents in order for geothermal plants to work?

Not if you dig deep enough.

I wonder how much longer until Wilgrove lets us know he won't let reality change his mind about hating Gore...

Eh I actually support him going green, which means he less of a hypocrite, so good for Gore for actually living what he preaches (a little).

You know, so many of the people who deny global warming just attack Gore and went on about how he wasn't changing his lifestyle. Well now he has. Will they all be accepting global warming now?

I actually do accept Global Warming, I just don't accept that it's being done by man. I mean comon how high of a pedestal did we put ourselves on when we say that we're the cause of Global Warming?

But oil tastes good!I would never want to eliminate it!

As good as light sweet crude is, you should try toasted sesame oil. Not THAT is yummy!

Pity I can't afford to run a car on it. :(

I actually do accept Global Warming, I just don't accept that it's being done by man. I mean comon how high of a pedestal did we put ourselves on when we say that we're the cause of Global Warming?

How high a pedestal did Reagan put cows on when he claimed it was caused by their farts?

How high a pedestal did Reagan put cows on when he claimed it was caused by their farts?

Reagan was nuts even before he went senile. :p

How high a pedestal did Reagan put cows on when he claimed it was caused by their farts?

I thought it was PETA and other Animal Rights group that claimed cow farts caused it. SO WE MUST EAT LESS MEAT!!!!1111!!!!!

Well to quote Ron White, I'm doing my part to combat the Cow Farting problem, I'm eating the cows! :D

Reagan was nuts even before he went senile. :p

He was still fun though, he's the fun crazy uncle who could nuke anyone and had his own personal military. :)

I thought it was PETA and other Animal Rights group that claimed cow farts caused it. SO WE MUST EAT LESS MEAT!!!!1111!!!!!

Well to quote Ron White, I'm doing my part to combat the Cow Farting problem, I'm eating the cows! :D

Nah, first time I heard that it was sometime in the 1980s, in a Reagan speech.

If I read the article correctly, he is using the LEED system, and his house has received a gold certification. I guess that the USA has put together a code for certifying single family residences. I hope Canada can get one together soon.

I'm not such a big fan of solar panels. If we look at them over their life cycle, we see that they require all sorts of weird chemical processes to manufacture them, and the actual panel itself can not be recycled, reused or safely disposed in an ecological manner.

Geothermal heating and cooling is alot more friendly in that respect. Simple technology that can be reused or recycled. The only drawback is the large hole you dig on the site, and this is only a problem if it is a virgin site. If it has already been developed, no big deal.

Rainwater collection is also useful and can be done quite simply. This is one of my favourites because it can be done using the simplest technology and is easily implemented.

He was still fun though, he's the fun crazy uncle who could nuke anyone and had his own personal military. :)

http://www.jibjab.com/view/127339 :) [Note=The relevant portion is in the second half.]

You really need to read some actual data about global warming,and stop beliving the 2 least trustworthy groups in our nation.
1. The Polititians.
2.The Media.

You really need to read some scientific data and stop believing two of the least trustworthy sources in your nation:
1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Fox News

Eh I actually support him going green, which means he less of a hypocrite, so good for Gore for actually living what he preaches (a little).

He'd be living it more if he just bought a smaller house.

The fair thing would be to do a carbon balance sheet. But, since global warming due to human activity has been largely discredited, I'm a little ambivalent about the whole thing.


Discredited ... how and by whom? Please cite credible scientific sources.

You really need to read some actual data about global warming,and stop beliving the 2 least trustworthy groups in our nation.
1. The Polititians.
2.The Media.No shit. That's why America is one of the few countries that has been in opposition to decisive action against global warming. The rest of the world lacks American media and politicians.

Reagan was nuts even before he went senile.
says all about those who put him in power, the voters

:rolleyes:
"Lies, Myths, and downright stupidity" by John Stossel. Admitidly It's not on Global warming in particular, but he talks about it in the book.
Dang it, I tell you more when I remember them:headbang:



You mean the part that was discredited because it used selective data and focused on the grievances of 3 scientists out of the 2,000 that drafted the IPCC REports?

Well good for you that you trust neither the media nor politions!(no sarcasm, a lot of people belive them) But not all scientists are doing their job just for the feeling of greatness when they prove somthing wrong! If that was true, we would have never had bad theories that were belived despite being proven continually wrong.Please learn how to spell. I normally don't nag people on their spelling, but you've just come up with two different ways to spell "politicians" incorrectly in two pages.

I thought it was PETA and other Animal Rights group that claimed cow farts caused it. SO WE MUST EAT LESS MEAT!!!!1111!!!!! Cow burps as well. They produce methane while digesting, and if you have enough cows, you end up producing a lot of greenhouse gasses.

No shit. That's why America is one of the few countries that has been in opposition to decisive action against global warming. The rest of the world lacks American media and politicians.That's not a lack.

That's not a lack.Not a regrettable one, but certainly a lacking.

Greener Gore? Gore that is green? Oh no, Soylent Green is here!:eek:

Greener Gore? Gore that is green? Oh no, Soylent Green is here!:eek:German versions of video games frequently feature green gore in order to avoid being censored for too much gore.

Greener Gore? Gore that is green? Oh no, Soylent Green is here!:eek:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/mmm_soylent_green.wav

:)

I teach you that 2 + 2 = 4.

But I don't believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

Therefore, math doesn't exist.

Well good for you that you trust neither the media nor politions!(no sarcasm, a lot of people belive them) But not all scientists are doing their job just for the feeling of greatness when they prove somthing wrong! If that was true, we would have never had bad theories that were belived despite being proven continually wrong.

You know, I'm beginning to get really pissed about this.

May I ask what reason scientists would try to fake evidence FOR Global Warming? There wouldn't really be any profit in it, you see. If it didn't exist, then anything we do to work against it would only harm our economy, which would thusly harm the scientists in one way or another, and thus be a really stupid idea.

Now, scientists are being paid to put out arguments AGAINST Global Warming, where they DO have a profit motive in keeping the economy up and running just like it is. (Not that Global Warming solving would truly hit our economy all that horribly and in the end we'd be far better off that way anyway, but that's completely beside the point.)

I said I didn't belive that WE were making the global warming. Our world goes through hot periods and short periods.

Cold example:The little ice age 1400-1850 c.
Warm example: Mediaval warm period 800-1300

Now don't tell me Medival Europe created a global warming trend with their technoligy

First of all, I'll say that I don't believe that humans are the only cause of global warming. But we certainly contribute to it.

Europe isn't the only place on the map, you're conveniently ignoring the rest of the world. But when it comes to Europe, you talk about the Middle Ages. Now you must realize, things weren't totally dark back then. There was still some invention, some improvement going on. In fact, before the plague hits in the middle of the 1300s, Europe's population had been seeing some big increases, and there was increase in the size of cities, trade, etc. All of this activity could easily lead to increases. As you note, this upwards trend ended around the 1300s, which was also when the plague hit, greatly decreasing Europe's population, and even effecting people/nations in the East.

However, the temperatures rose more during the first half of this century, when it SHOULD be in this half the century(More cars and factorys etc,).

But aren't the factories nowadays more efficient? Don't they do less damage to the environment? There have actually been some improvements going on recently. As well, a lot of nations were attempting to modernize in the first half of the 20th century, and this could also have a great deal of effect as to why this increase occurred.

Now if everyone could do most of what he did, we'd have much less problems and lower bills.

Yay! This piece of Global climate change is laid to rest, permanently. Please?

Greener Gore? Gore that is green? Oh no, Soylent Green is here!:eek:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Soylent.jpg