Play with fire - save the planet.

[Telco]

I was listening to Public Radio today, the topic of the program being whether people are tired of the "green" message and what could be done to make the message more meaningful. One listener said it's time to stop talking and start acting, and then the listener mentioned Al Gore with his green message but actions which are not very green. A similar sentiment has been mentioned in this forum, the implication being that somehow Al Gore's message would have more meaning if his actions appeared to be more in sync with his message.

So, if Al Gore were among the "greenest" of us, would his message have any more power? Are you not accepting his message because his actions aren't green, but you would accept and act on his message if his actions were green? What is the relevance to the message of apparently contrary actions of the message giver?

Actually, yes. If Gorey put his money where his mouth is, he'd be more credible. Well, as credible as anything related to a Clinton can be, anyway. He does have the money to sell a couple of houses, and put up enough solar panels on the house he lives in to go offgrid. He's even got the money to go all LED lighting, now. Plus, he could be pushing to clean up that zinc mine. He could also be telecommuting to all these places that he now flies to for these enviro-rallies. It's a lot cheaper and cleaner to send a local guy out with a 60 inch screen and a microwave shot than it is to fly a private jet out to where the rally is, AND in my opinion would have a lot more impact. Hell, if I had a tenth of the cash he's got I'd have been there 10 years ago, except instead of a 20,000 sq ft house I'd be in a 1500 to 2000 sq ft place, max. I'd already be cruising around in an all electric vehicle too.

 

[sapratt]

If I told you not to use tooth paste when you brush your teeth cause it will kill you. But I kept using it would you beleive me?
Or If I'm running around telling people not to plant flowers anymore because it will attract Killer Bees and I have a huge flower garden
would you beleive me? It's the same thing with Al Gore if he was serious about this and not just in it for the money then he would
practice what he preaches.


Actualy Al has installed solar panels and replaced all his light builbs with the florencent builbs and put a Geo thermal heating and cooling system in his house. Now AL Gore is using more electricity then before.


His private jet is the least efficient jet. If you don't beleive me he has a Gulf Stream 2. Look it up and see how efficent it is.

 

[sapratt]

If you want to believe Al Gore fine but don't just listen to him do some home work
to see if it is true.

 

[gw2kpro]

If I told you not to use tooth paste when you brush your teeth cause it will kill you. But I kept using it would you beleive me?
Or If I'm running around telling people not to plant flowers anymore because it will attract Killer Bees and I have a huge flower garden
would you beleive me? It's the same thing with Al Gore if he was serious about this and not just in it for the money then he would
practice what he preaches.


Actualy Al has installed solar panels and replaced all his light builbs with the florencent builbs and put a Geo thermal heating and cooling system in his house. Now AL Gore is using more electricity then before.


His private jet is the least efficient jet. If you don't beleive me he has a Gulf Stream 2. Look it up and see how efficent it is.

I hear Willie Nelson has noticed that weed is getting to be in short supply. He's going to call a press conference tomorrow to plead with everyone else to stop using so there's no danger of running low. He's got the Nobel prize in the bag. No pun intended.

 

[jebatty]

It seems odd to me that people would be more "green" if Al Gore were more green but not if Al Gore is less green. There certainly are a great many more green message givers than Al Gore, and many of these are very green. So why not act on their message rather than the message of Al Gore?

I think whether one is more or less green is closely related to a person's values and behavior, not to who gives the message.

For example, would an overweight person be more likely to go on a diet based on a message that proper weight would extend life, reduce health issues, and result in better quality of life if the message was delivered by an overweight person or by a thin person? Isn't the credibility of the message contained within the message itself?

Or would a smoker be more likely to quit smoking (similar message) if the message was delivered by a smoker or a non smoker?

Same thing with an alcoholic.

Each one of us makes his/her own choices.

 

[Telco]

It seems odd to me that people would be more "green" if Al Gore were more green but not if Al Gore is less green. There certainly are a great many more green message givers than Al Gore, and many of these are very green. So why not act on their message rather than the message of Al Gore?

I think whether one is more or less green is closely related to a person's values and behavior, not to who gives the message.

For example, would an overweight person be more likely to go on a diet based on a message that proper weight would extend life, reduce health issues, and result in better quality of life if the message was delivered by an overweight person or by a thin person? Isn't the credibility of the message contained within the message itself?

Or would a smoker be more likely to quit smoking (similar message) if the message was delivered by a smoker or a non smoker?

Same thing with an alcoholic.

Each one of us makes his/her own choices.

The whole point is, the front man for global warming is Al Gore. Therefore, Gorey is the one that people associate global warming with. So, if the global warming hero is burning more juice than 20 other families do, if the global warming front man is jetsetting the world pushing more pollution into the air than ten thousand SUVs do (flying emits its pollution directly into the upper atmosphere, while automobile pollution has time to be broken down before it makes it into the upper atmosphere) to transport ONE MAN, just how big a threat IS global warming? Can't be a real threat if the front man is able to pollute that much. Gorey pollutes more per year than my entire family will in a lifetime, and he does this every year. Now if Gorey cuts way back in his travels and his home energy use, if Gorey suddenly cleans up his act, which will cost him REAL MONEY to do, then perhaps his message won't be blown off like he is. Since it's his face that people see when global warming is discussed, it's his lifestyle that will set the bar for how clean you need to be. I can drive a 1960 Suburban, loaded till the framerails are sitting on the axle, with a huge trailer, and a blown carbed 502 big block with bad rings and valve seals, 4.56 gears, in first gear, with jackrabbit starts and stops every 5 seconds, used motor oil added to the gasoline, and still produce less pollution than Gorey does. Gorey's the standard here.

 

[sapratt]

[quote author="Telco" date="1216489854
used motor oil added to the gasoline[/quote]

Its been a while since I've heard that.

 

[gw2kpro]

It seems odd to me that people would be more "green" if Al Gore were more green but not if Al Gore is less green. There certainly are a great many more green message givers than Al Gore, and many of these are very green. So why not act on their message rather than the message of Al Gore?

I think whether one is more or less green is closely related to a person's values and behavior, not to who gives the message.

For example, would an overweight person be more likely to go on a diet based on a message that proper weight would extend life, reduce health issues, and result in better quality of life if the message was delivered by an overweight person or by a thin person? Isn't the credibility of the message contained within the message itself?

Or would a smoker be more likely to quit smoking (similar message) if the message was delivered by a smoker or a non smoker?

Same thing with an alcoholic.

Each one of us makes his/her own choices.

It is obvious that Al Gore doesn't believe that global warming is a threat to the planet, because his personal actions when he is not on camera prove that he is not concerned about the issue. If he really felt that this was an impending issue, he would not act the way he does.

So, if Gore is not concerned about global warming, and he is supposed to be the leader of the movement, what does that say about the entire issue?

What else might be his motivation?

 

[termv]

Everything comes down to the all mighty dollar!

 

[jebatty]

It is obvious that Al Gore doesn’t believe that global warming is a threat to the planet, because his personal actions when he is not on camera prove that he is not concerned about the issue.

I suppose this means that you also do not believe that global warming is a threat to the planet. Fortunately, at least probably so, you will be 6' under when the chickens come home to roost. Your children and grandchildren will be able to think about their grandma or grandpa and how they dissed the Al Gores of the world and continued to live their eat, drink and be merry lives.

Now, I'm trying to think of the scientists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other researchers who think continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate is good for the planet. I can't think of one - maybe you can. We have a ca-zillion who say it's bad for the planet, a small number who say it's planet neutral, and 0 who say it is good for the planet.

In addition to the good/bad for the planet, we have ever increasing, in the pocket, cost of fossil fuel energy, food, and everything made from fossil fuel energy. We each experience this, we experience a decline in our life style, we face economic and political uncertainty, we face dependency on non so friendly nations, and we wonder how we can afford to heat our home this winter.

In this picture I can't see how what Al Gore does is something to emulate or a reason not to hear the merits of what he says. The reasons abound to get off fossil fuel energy addiction.

Today my wife and I are going for our Sunday walk. Used to be a Sunday drive, but we can't afford that anymore. Time to rediscover what our legs are for.

 

[begreen]

This is a bit of a silly tangent from the original subject. It's like saying Bill Gates is not concerned about world health because his kids are not starving. I agree Al could do better at walking the talk, but that doesn't mean he is all wrong or not helping world awareness and action.

If we want to discuss tangible evidence of global climate change let's talk about ocean acidfication, it's connection to carbon emissions and it's implications. This is real, quantifiable and happening right now.

“Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

 

[Telco]

I suppose this means that you also do not believe that global warming is a threat to the planet. Fortunately, at least probably so, you will be 6' under when the chickens come home to roost. Your children and grandchildren will be able to think about their grandma or grandpa and how they dissed the Al Gores of the world and continued to live their eat, drink and be merry lives.

Either love Gorey, or you are killing the planet? But Al speak with forked tongue. He wants us to do as he says and not as he does, does this mean that if we all pay lip service to the environment, but change not a whit, just like Al, that we are doing good? Al Gore on the environment is like the guy who owns a company that disposes of used tires by burning them in an open field complaining about smelling the smoke from your wood fire that you heat your home with. This would be an Al Gore. If you want a positive famous greenie role model, Ed Begley Jr would be a much better choice.

Now, I'm trying to think of the scientists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other researchers who think continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate is good for the planet. I can't think of one - maybe you can. We have a ca-zillion who say it's bad for the planet, a small number who say it's planet neutral, and 0 who say it is good for the planet.

Nobody's saying that petroleum use is good, especially at the rate it's being used. The debate is whether man's existence is a major contributor to global warming when the sun and earth themselves put so much more energy into the environment, to the effect that man's effect is akin to a bird hitting the windshield of a car moving 55MPH. Sure, there's an impact, but will the car slow down? No. Then there's the whole listening to Hypocrite Gore. Not gonna do it. In my opinion, having Gorey as a spokesman for environmentalism is akin to having Carter as a military advisor.

n addition to the good/bad for the planet, we have ever increasing, in the pocket, cost of fossil fuel energy, food, and everything made from fossil fuel energy. We each experience this, we experience a decline in our life style, we face economic and political uncertainty, we face dependency on non so friendly nations, and we wonder how we can afford to heat our home this winter.

I agree with this statement. We all need to become more self sufficient.

In this picture I can't see how what Al Gore does is something to emulate or a reason not to hear the merits of what he says. The reasons abound to get off fossil fuel energy addiction.

Think of it another way. If you were a slob that leaves half-empty pizza boxes on the floor of your kitchen, is anyone going to care if you whine about having roaches and ants, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WON'T STOP LEAVING HALF-EMPTY PIZZA BOXES LYING AROUND?

Today my wife and I are going for our Sunday walk. Used to be a Sunday drive, but we can't afford that anymore. Time to rediscover what our legs are for.

And here's the real impact, can't afford that drive anymore.

Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt that there's good reason for cutting and/or eliminating the burning of fossil fuels, but the reasons for doing them should be real, proven ones. Global warming and peak oil (peak oil comes from only having proven oil reserves for 30 years, which is the most the oil companies will search out; it is not economical for them to search for more than a 30 year supply) simply aren't good reasons. Air and water pollution are good, proven reasons for cutting use. So far as global warming, there is a very real debate in the scientific community about whether or not it's real, and just because a scientist says that it isn't real does not mean he's on the payroll of Big Oil any more than a scientist saying that global warming is a fact is on the payroll of the Sierra Club or ELF. The data the global warming advocates isn't even complete. Just last year it was announced that a large number of underwater volcanoes were discovered off the coast of Greenland, measurably warming that huge volume of water right where the Gulf Stream passes closest to the Arctic Circle. The Gulf Stream also has a major impact on the climate of Europe. Also last year a new underwater current was discovered circling the Antarctic Circle, which scientists say is a major driving force for the climate. How can any model of global warming be accurate that did not take these two events into account considering they didn't just pop up overnight? And if scientists missed these gigantic climate drivers, what else are they not taking into account? And are they even taking astrophysical data into account for any of it? No, I'd sooner listen to a 5th grader discussing advanced calculus as I would a climatologist discussing global warming. At least the 5th grader has access to books on calculus, whether he understands it or not.

 

[begreen]

And your position on ocean acidification as a result of human contributed CO2 in the atmosphere is?

 

[Telco]

And your position on ocean acidification as a result of human contributed CO2 in the atmosphere is?

No position, never heard of it before today.