Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Al Gore Goes Greener-The Belle Meade Makeover
A couple of months ago, Oscar-winning envirohero (and former VPOTUS) Al Gore was subject to a little good natured ribbing about how much energy his house uses in comparison to the homes of other Americans. Estimates vary, but it uses somewhere between 20x and 12x as much. Gore responded that his family buys carbon credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the criticism must have stung because Gore is giving his home at Belle Meade a green makeover. He is installing 33 solar panels, a new furnance and radiant floor heat, among other energy saving features.
By the way, Snopes.com has an amusing comparision between Gore's home energy use and that of a certain rival. Check it out here.
|4.20.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Must be nice. I wish I could afford all that wiz-bang
stuff.
I know! Tax credits!
Give me fossil fuel or give me|4.20.07 @ 1:24PM|#
It's nice to see that Mr. Gore is rich enough to care about the environment.
|4.20.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Why doesn't he get one of those generators that connects to a treadmill to power his house? Oh, right. How about this, then: A generator that connects to his donut caddy? He could power his house and his neighborhood too!
|4.20.07 @ 1:29PM|#
The energy saving features at the ranch are pretty cool, wonder how much they offset all the energy used in conducting a war halfway around the Earth?
|4.20.07 @ 1:31PM|#
"Nevertheless, the criticism must have stung because Gore is
giving his home at Belle Meade a green makeover."
FWEEET! Yellow card! At the time of the original hubub it was
reported that Gore's pre-existing desire to install solar had been
stymied by the regulatory busybodies in his neighborhood.
This is confirmed by the story you link to, which states the rule
was finally changed, allowing solar panels as long as the nosy
neighbors can't see them.
|4.20.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Gore's hypocrisy makes everything he says untrue. That's how hypocrisy works, right?
Calculator|4.20.07 @ 1:36PM|#
As Senator, he took the initiative in creating dead soldiers to offset his gluttony.
|4.20.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Estimates vary, but it uses somewhere between 20x and 12x as
much.
Hmmm That's an awful lot of electricity, even for a 10k sqft
mansion. Looks like the Gores are greener than we suspected. (And
raising campaign funds?) Hey Al, do you inhale?
Happy 4/20 everyone :D
|4.20.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Oh, I'll bet Dubya's buddies in the oil industry LOVED seeing what their cash cow is heating his home with these days.
|4.20.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Gore's hypocrisy makes everything he says untrue. That's how
hypocrisy works, right?
Nope, Gore's alarmist, most-unlikely-outcome-as-the-truth rhetoric,
make alot of what he says untrue. The fact that he is a hypocrit,
is just more fun to poke at.
|4.20.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Val, sounds like you're still weighing the evidence of climate change.....Honestly, I suspect the right will eat crow for 50 years on this issue.
|4.20.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Lamar,
Did somebody actually say that, or is this one of your wacky funny
jokes?
|4.20.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Regarding Gore's energy usage, if you're going to be fair
shouldn't you take into consideration what the energy is used for?
You might say that it takes energy to convince people to conserve
energy.
Not to mention how lame it is to compare Gore's primary residence
with George W. Bush's vacation house. How much energy does the
White House require, you think?
|4.20.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Honestly, I suspect the right will eat crow for 50 years on
this issue.
And then it won't matter, since all the blue states will be
underwater.
|4.20.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Gore's hypocrisy makes us question how much he really believes his own alarmism. These are not the actions of a man who truly believes carbon consumption will ravage the earth and mankind. The claim that regulations kept him from puting in panels is probably true but Democrats really have no business complaining about over-regulation and restrictions on property rights.
|4.20.07 @ 1:54PM|#
All right Lamar, we'll compromise.
Global warming: true.
Al Gore being an asshole: also true.
|4.20.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Lamar, yes Im still weighing the evidence. Not in the sense of
wether its happening at all, but to what degree if any humans are
causing it, and how much if anything we should do in order to stop
it.
Honestly, I suspect the right will eat crow for 50 years on
this issue.
I have no idea what that means. I mean that litteraly, I've never
heard that expression before. The right as in the right vs left, or
the right vs wrong? And what does eating crow mean?
|4.20.07 @ 1:57PM|#
HoI,
How does Gore's mansion convince people to conserve energy?
Also, are you suggesting that Gore wouldn't have moved into the
White House had he won?
|4.20.07 @ 1:58PM|#
val,
It means eating your words, being embarrassed at being wrong. He
means right wing.
|4.20.07 @ 1:59PM|#
"Gore responded that his family buys carbon credits to
offset their greenhouse gas emissions."
I've heard but not verified that the Gore owns the organization
that he pays his carbon offsets to.
|4.20.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Eating crow will only make things worse. The terribly smelly gas that (I've heard) happens as a result is a much worse pollutant than dumping mercury right into the Everglades.
|4.20.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Puuhleeeze. I just had crow liver foie gras last night and....uh oh, you're right.
Tim Lambert|4.20.07 @ 2:06PM|#
"good natured ribbing"? Is this a joke? What was good-natured about it?
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Big Big Slacker posted about the GWB mansion being green when we
were beating up Gore the last time.
Even better, the story showed up at Treehugger.com a few months
back under the title of Is GWB a closet
Greenie?
|4.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Hey, Tim, if I give you a quarter, will you go to K-Mart and buy a sense of humor?
|4.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Tim: Please relax--it's called sarcasm. It is a low form of humor in which I occasionally indulge.
|4.20.07 @ 2:20PM|#
buying carbon credits is such a lame fake-enviro thing to do. If he really believed his own bunk, then he just wouldn't use the engergy to begin with. So....if you're rich, you're allowed to use as much energy as you want, but if you're poor, then you'd better buckle down and hope for a warm winter? Wait... that's what we're trying to avoid.
|4.20.07 @ 2:24PM|#
"Tim: Please relax--it's called sarcasm. It is a low form of
humor in which I occasionally indulge."
Way to go, Ron. No doubt Tim's going to pop back in here any minute
with a link to his blog wherein there will be a graph showing that
the meanness of your comments has fluctuated by .045% in the last
16 hours, and that it's incontrovertible proof of what a poo-poo
head you are.
|4.20.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I wonder how many who have posted on this thread are actually
familiar with Al Gore's message? I get the sense that many are
simply repeating other people's opinions about it.
For example, what is up with the claim that Gore is an "alarmist"?
Are folks seriously saying that they believe Gore's environmental
crusade only serves to fullfill some strange need he has to alarm
people?
Geez, give the guy some credit. He's been one of America's top
environmental advocates for many years now, so we should give him
the benefit of the doubt that he's not just making stuff up.
|4.20.07 @ 2:34PM|#
I had a class in law school where the professor, a big lefty
lawyer for the Sierra Club was lauding how right environmental
groups were buying up land in the west to keep it from being
developed. I raised my hand and said we used to have a system where
a few rich people owned large areas of land and were so good at
protecting them from development an ordinary person could be hung
for so much as taking one stick of firewood from them. It was of
course called feudalism and that I was glad to see the modern
environmental movement embracing such traditional methods. He got
so mad he threw me out of his class.
I was of course being a smart ass but there is something to the
idea that environmentalism is for the rich at the expense of the
poor. What does Al Gore care about the cost of putting solar panels
on his house? That or buying carbon offsets isn't much an option
for like 99% of the world. Environmentalism is a wonderful way for
the rich to do something about the hoi polloi's terrible
consumptive ways. That is why it is so appealing among people like
Hollywood Stars and rich sons of career politicians.
|4.20.07 @ 2:34PM|#
For example, what is up with the claim that Gore is an
"alarmist"? Are folks seriously saying that they believe Gore's
environmental crusade only serves to fullfill some strange need he
has to alarm people?
I was refering to the doomsday message he delivered in 'An
Inconvenient Truth'. And in that case the more dier the predictions
the more gripping the movie, so the 'alarmist' message definetely
surves a purpose.
|4.20.07 @ 2:37PM|#
"If he really believed his own bunk, then he just wouldn't
use the engergy to begin with."
If part of his "bunk" is that paying somebody to plant trees or
green-out on his behalf, why wouldn't he believe it? You can't just
pick and choose the bunk. I'll admit that I don't know much about
carbon offsets, but I can't find any reason that planting trees is
a bad thing.
|4.20.07 @ 2:38PM|#
John, any sustainability initiative will adversely affect the poor because the poor have immediate economic needs that cannot be fully satisfied with sustainable models.
|4.20.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Yeah but Lamar,
If you were truly committed to lowering work consumption and really
beleived that over consumption was the problem, how could actually
engage in the kind of conspicuous consumption Gore does? I mean
Jesus, do you really need a 28,000 square foot house or whatever?
Couldn't you fly commercial just to make a point and set an
example? The fact that his lifestyle is so over the top and his
only concession seems to be to pay money he will never spend anyway
to buy carbon offsets from a company he owns tells me that he
doesn't beleive a word of what he is saying and only says it
because it keeps him in the public eye.
|4.20.07 @ 2:41PM|#
we should give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not
just making stuff up.
Why? They'll just throw him out of the 'Ol Pols Club if he stops
moving his lips.
|4.20.07 @ 2:46PM|#
If you were truly committed to lowering work consumption and
really beleived that over consumption was the problem, how could
actually engage in the kind of conspicuous consumption Gore does? I
mean Jesus, do you really need a 28,000 square foot house or
whatever? Couldn't you fly commercial just to make a point and set
an example? The fact that his lifestyle is so over the top and his
only concession seems to be to pay money he will never spend anyway
to buy carbon offsets from a company he owns tells me that he
doesn't beleive a word of what he is saying and only says it
because it keeps him in the public eye.
Along those lines, I've noticed that pro football coaches often
tell the players what to do but don't put on the helmet and pads
themselves. They must not believe in the plays they're
calling.
And of course George W. Bush says we should fight in Iraq but don't
expect him to "set an example" by joining the front lines.
|4.20.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm sorry, I just don't give a shit that Gore is a hypocrite and rabbit molester. It doesn't make what he advocates wrong. If we're talking about hypocrisy, I haven't seen conservatives criticize someone's wealth this strongly ever.
|4.20.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Along those lines, I've noticed that pro football coaches
often tell the players what to do but don't put on the helmet and
pads themselves. They must not believe in the plays they're
calling.
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
|4.20.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I don't criticize his wealth Lamar. I criticize the fact that he criticizes other people's wealth and advocates policies that will make everyone but him poorer all the while living an obscene lifestyle. I really don't care how much money Gore and his daddy stole from the public purse while they were Senators. That is how the system works. Good for him. God knows there are enough Republicans who have done the same thing. I just wish Gore would go off and count his millions or whore himself out to K Street or something. What I do care about is the fact that he is a sanctimonious bastard who advocates horrible policies and is a scientific know nothing. Even if he is right about Global Warming, which I don't' think he is, Gore is still a sleazy propagandist hypocrite.
Miggs|4.20.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"Along those lines, I've noticed that pro football coaches often
tell the players what to do but don't put on the helmet and pads
themselves. They must not believe in the plays they're
calling."
That's possibly the worst analogy ever. Thanks for the chuckle.
|4.20.07 @ 3:08PM|#
"I suspect the right will eat crow for 50 years on this
issue."
Don't be surprized if it's the left that ends up eating crow when
we find out that it's not CO2 that's driving the climate, but the
sun and cosmic rays.
|4.20.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"Regarding Gore's energy usage, if you're going to be fair
shouldn't you take into consideration what the energy is used for?
You might say that it takes energy to convince people to conserve
energy."
Gore's use of energy is for the purpose of luxurious living, who
are you kidding?
|4.20.07 @ 3:13PM|#
HOI, we know
[Gore's] been one of America's top environmental advocates for
many years now
which is exactly why we won't
give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just making
stuff up.
|4.20.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Fair enough, John. It wouldn't be the first time that a
politician took a stand and was heavily criticized. And he won't be
the first to have been right or wrong, however it ends up. Can we
at least agree that a lot of SOBs make up their minds on certain
issues, climate change being one of them, based on whether they are
sympathetic towards the champion of said issue?
Rattlesnake Jake, quite possible. I should note that you are not an
acquaintance of Gore's, you know very little about him, and your
conclusions about his lifestyle are emotional drivel, like a little
girl crying at the end of Charlotte's Web.
|4.20.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"Gore's use of energy is for the purpose of luxurious living,
who are you kidding?"
You could say he's...living large.
(sorry)
|4.20.07 @ 3:19PM|#
The saddest fact is that his daddy's, and likely his, fortune was payed for by Big oil. Communist Big Oil, but Big Oil nonetheless.
|4.20.07 @ 3:26PM|#
For example, what is up with the claim that Gore is an
"alarmist"? Are folks seriously saying that they believe Gore's
environmental crusade only serves to fullfill some strange need he
has to alarm people?
No, the alarmism is a means, not an end. This is a common feature
of propaganda. You have to create a sense of crisis in order to
push through a radical program.
Gore is just playing the game. He's no worse than others.
|4.20.07 @ 3:27PM|#
so we should give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not
just making stuff up.
I totally saw ManBearPig yesterday, guys. C'mon I'm super
serial.
|4.20.07 @ 3:31PM|#
"For example, what is up with the claim that Gore is an
"alarmist"? Are folks seriously saying that they believe Gore's
environmental crusade only serves to fullfill some strange need he
has to alarm people?"
Claiming that sea level will rise by 20 feet sounds like alarmism
to me.
"we should give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just
making stuff up."
Gore is on record as saying that he will exaggerate in order to get
people's attention.
|4.20.07 @ 3:33PM|#
HOI: "Along those lines, I've noticed that pro football coaches
often tell the players what to do but don't put on the helmet and
pads themselves. They must not believe in the plays they're
calling."
Are you really this ignorant or does it take work? I agree with MP:
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
|4.20.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"...but I can't find any reason that planting trees is a bad
thing."
unless of course they're oaks
"You might say that it takes energy to convince people to conserve
energy."
lets be real, jetsetting to give speeches to people already
convinced is not a good use of energy, especially in an internet
age. since he's covered in the news whatever he does, he should
just have a stage in his home, where he pretends to give speeches,
and just have the news carry it, no jetsetting involved. kinda like
Capricorn One.
|4.20.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"Couldn't you fly commercial just to make a point and set an
example?"
I read in the new issue of Liberty that Gore has recently flown in
a commercial plane, but he didn't have to go through the checkout
line.
|4.20.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"And of course George W. Bush says we should fight in Iraq but
don't expect him to "set an example" by joining the front
lines."
Nor did Bush serve in Vietnam. Gore and Bush are both hypocrites in
their own ways.
|4.20.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Lamar,
A lot of people are opportunists on issues. I think Gore is one.
Who knows he may be right about global warming. I won't deny that
there are opportunists on the other side as well.
|4.20.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Gore obviously doesn't think that global warming is enough of a
crisis to change his own lifestyle.
So why should I?
|4.20.07 @ 4:05PM|#
"Gore obviously doesn't think that global warming is enough
of a crisis to change his own lifestyle. So why should
I?"
Because the actuaries do think it's a big deal?
|4.20.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Yup, those ultra-liberal, anti-capitalist hippies take climate change very seriously.
|4.20.07 @ 4:17PM|#
"Because the actuaries do think it's a big deal?"
Not all climatologists are in agreement on this, so until they are,
I will remain skeptical.
|4.20.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Because the actuaries do think it's a big deal?
Actually, they've simply discussed the possibility. I've found no
credible evidence that they've incorporated global warming models
in their actuarial models.
|4.20.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Yup, those ultra-liberal, anti-capitalist hippies take
climate change very seriously.
This is the first time I've heard that the actuaries have weighed
in on climate change.
Could you provide a cite of the actuaries' stance on the issue?
|4.20.07 @ 4:41PM|#
I work with them, and I wouldn't be working for them much longer
if I spoke out. However, I can suggest looking at the reinsurance
industry's take on climate change.
This is a start. Ironically, whether the science is real or
not, it will hit us in the wallet. OK, I'm not sure how that's
irony. but still...
|4.20.07 @ 4:42PM|#
I should also note that insurance companies stand to gain a lot from climate change, whether it's real or not.
|4.20.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Ah. The actuaries are insurance actuaries.
For a while I thought the actuaries were some new band from
Sheffield that I hadn't yet heard of.
|4.20.07 @ 4:53PM|#
I should also note that insurance companies stand to gain a
lot from climate change, whether it's real or not.
Unless overreaction by governments, partially in response to
inflated predictions of doom by insurance companies, causes a
decrease in world economic growth. Smaller economy: smaller
insurance industry take.
|4.20.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Yeah, actuaries are insurance people, but around here we refer to the reinsurance people as actuaries, though it applies to both.
|4.20.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Actually, since actuaries do deal with probabilities I wouldn't
not be surprised if they were considering Climate change since it
is one of the possibilities that has entered the mix.
However it is important not to confuse that with the insurance
crisis in Florida and other coastal states. That is entirely due to
the fact that populist inspired insurance regulation has kept
premiums far below the levels required to meet the hisorical risks
of storms.
|4.20.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Most people don't dispute global warming. It's just a matter of how dramatic it will be and how much man is contributing to it if any and what is the major driver of it, greenhouse gasses or solar activity and cosmic rays.
|4.20.07 @ 5:40PM|#
John Wrote:
"I criticize the fact that he criticizes other people's wealth
and advocates policies that will make everyone but him poorer all
the while living an obscene lifestyle."
The specific polices advocated by Gore (WRT to homes) are as
follows
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/
31ish things to do; the vast majority of which will save money,
making one richer.
Whether or not (and to what extent) he follows these specific steps
is a question I haven't seen fully answered. The article helped
fillin some of the blanks.
Whether or not his lifestyle is 'obscene' is judgement I have
neither seen detailed in context with being an
ex-veep.
It would be an interesting to compare him with his immediate
neighbors though.
|4.20.07 @ 5:52PM|#
P.S. amd slightly OT
Al Gore has a new book coming out
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594201226/reasonmagazineA/
"A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy,
cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the
public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to
reason
At the time George W. Bush ordered American forces to invade Iraq,
70 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11.
Voters in Ohio, when asked by pollsters to list what stuck in their
minds about the campaign, most frequently named two Bush television
ads that played to fears of terrorism.
We live in an age when the thirty-second television spot is the
most powerful force shaping the electorate's thinking, and America
is in the hands of an administration less interested than any
previous administration in sharing the truth with the citizenry.
Related to this and of even greater concern is this
administration's disinterest in the process by which the truth is
ascertained, the tenets of fact-based reasoning-first among them an
embrace of open inquiry in which unexpected and even inconvenient
facts can lead to unexpected conclusions.
How did we get here? How much damage has been done to the
functioning of our democracy and its role as steward of our
security? Never has there been a worse time for us to lose the
capacity to face the reality of our long-term challenges, from
national security to the economy, from issues of health and social
welfare to the environment. As The Assault on Reason shows us, we
have precious little time to waste."
|4.20.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Most insurance and reinsurance companies have no doubt that
the rising tide of losses from weather-related disasters is linked
with climate change.
Although last year's hurricane season was pretty mild.
The possibility of a one trillion dollar loss year is one
scenario out of many, but whatever the precise figures the losses
are already large and set to increase.
And much of the increase in losses from weather probably has more
to do with the fact that we have more to lose than anything
else.
Insurance companies trade on fear of catastrophes. I detect a tad
bit of conflict of interest here - the more widespread fear there
is of Climate Change, the more premiums people will be willing to
fork over.
|4.20.07 @ 7:28PM|#
"Regarding Gore's energy usage, if you're going to be fair
shouldn't you take into consideration what the energy is used for?
You might say that it takes energy to convince people to conserve
energy."
Oh right. Much as PETA's Marybeth Sweetland defended her use of
insulin, though presumably she'd rather I don't get any:
PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of
insulin, which was tested on animals:
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take
synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal
products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take
the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see
myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of
animals."
--Glamour, January 1990
Paul|4.20.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Gore responded that his family buys carbon credits to offset
their greenhouse gas emissions.
Gore buys potential carbon savings (or "credits" as they
call them). He invests in projects which may or may not ever see
the light of day, or may turn out to not mitigate as much co2 as
advertised. This is not to say that it invalidates Gores credit
system, but it should be pointed out.
Paul|4.20.07 @ 7:57PM|#
How much energy does the White House require, you
think?
Or the corporate offices for the Center for "Science" in the
"Public Interest". We could do this all night.
Paul|4.20.07 @ 7:59PM|#
We live in an age when the thirty-second television spot is
the most powerful force shaping the electorate's
thinking
You can say that again. Now you know why I never trust a
thirty-second PSA from some nutcase environmental group.
|4.20.07 @ 8:44PM|#
Lamar,
It has apparently just dawned on the insurance companies that they
are insuring lots of houses in coastal zones.
Coastal land masses are highly mobile and normal coastal processes
are going to wreck these houses some day.
Geologist and coastal engineers have known this for years. The fact
that global warming is being attached to this issue is another
illustration of the ongoing attempt to stick as much bad results as
possible to that rather amorphous term "global climate change" I
expect global warming will soon be blamed for bad breath.
The fix is simple. Stop subsidizing insurance, this is the only
thing that allows people to build in coastal zones.
|4.20.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Lamar,
You said
any sustainability initiative will adversely affect the poor because the poor have immediate economic needs that cannot be fully satisfied with sustainable models.
You mean needs like adequate food and water??? Do you seriously think you will get sustainability if it means not meeting poor peoples immediate economic needs?
|4.20.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Lamar,
You said
Val, sounds like you're still weighing the evidence of climate change.....Honestly, I suspect the right will eat crow for 50 years on this issue.
I hate to break the news to you but the "lefts" attachment to
global warming closely resembles religious passion, not scientific
investigation.
It has been described as "gore said it, I believe it, that settles
it"
I don't think it would be psychologically possible for many
advocates and believers of AGW to accept the possibility that the
output from their computer models might be wrong or incorrectly
interpreted.
|4.20.07 @ 9:33PM|#
Lamar,
I am pretty sure the big policy push on AGW will have the following
results.
1. Policy development and implementation will be guided buy rent
seeking companies. The primary criteria for policy design will be
to make money for these companies.
2. The resulting policies will be expensive
3. Carbon emissions will not decrease or even remain static.
4. The policies will cause more environmental destruction then
doing nothing would have.
Ethanol and biofuels provide a good example of this process in
action.
You can find a brief introduction to the environmental destruction
here
What
About the Land?
And related to AGW you will be relieved to know that they are going
to be taking land that is acting as a carbon sink and converting it
to carbon emitting farmground so they can produce "Green biofuels"
to reduce Global Warming.
Corn on
Conservation land
Advocates of AGW are going to get schooled in a rather ugly fashion
in the next few years.
Hope you enjoy it.
|4.20.07 @ 11:03PM|#
It has apparently just dawned on the insurance companies
that they are insuring lots of houses in coastal zones.
No. In fact, they've known for years what the risks are. First they
set flood insurance rates so high that only the Federal Government
would assume the risks at subsidized rates, but after that for the
remaining risks they were at the mercy of populist state insurance
commissioners.
Coastal land masses are highly mobile and normal coastal
processes are going to wreck these houses some day.
Indeed they are. They have in fact been happening for years. The
problem is that much of the damage has not occurred until the last
few years. ie Until unprecedented development along the coasts had
happened.
|4.21.07 @ 1:35AM|#
Geez, give the guy some credit. He's been one of America's
top environmental advocates for many years now, so we should give
him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just making stuff
up.
That's m'boy.
|4.21.07 @ 1:37AM|#
Regarding Gore's energy usage, if you're going to be fair
shouldn't you take into consideration what the energy is used for?
You might say that it takes energy to convince people to conserve
energy.
And in another recent article, R.B. was asking
how did early hierarchical civilizations in which the incomes
of priests and kings were significantly higher than those of
peasants come about at all?
Maybe we've got some live, on-the-hoof cases to study here.
|4.21.07 @ 1:42AM|#
The biggest reason to dislike -- and oppose -- Al Gore, is that
his whole act is a transparent power grab.
I predict that he wouldn't make it in a second run for president.
He's made himself too much of a one-issue parrot. But he still
pulls some weight.
|4.22.07 @ 11:57AM|#
TJIT: I thank you for your predictions. I should note that I'm
talking more about the concern of the reinsurance industry. As
opposed to the "front lines" of the casualty industry, reinsurance
people see climate change from a much higher perspective. Insurance
companies worry about writing policies in coastal zones, but
reinsurance companies worry more about the broader economic
implications of climate change. That includes insuring the actual
property, but it also includes macro level trends in the energy and
automobile industries (in addition to property). I'm not saying
that reinsurance people know everything, but they do an inordinate
amount of research and are one of the few industries that has a lot
of money riding on the outcome. It isn't dispositive, but it should
tell the skeptics that there is a significant risk that climate
change could cause real economic damage.
"Do you seriously think you will get sustainability if it means
not meeting poor peoples immediate economic needs?"
Obviously not. I said that sustainability initiatives will always
suffer from this fundamental problem. What do you think I said it
for, my goddam health or something?
"I hate to break the news to you but the "lefts" attachment to
global warming closely resembles religious passion, not scientific
investigation."
I can't tell if you are a climate change skeptic or merely a
skeptic of the left and Al Gore. You pay more attention to
who is saying something rather than the thing they are
saying. It's like your whole political philosophy is based on one
giant ad hominem. Fine, you don't like Al Gore.
Climate change involves real and significant risks, and those who
dismiss global warming because they hate Al Gore are doing
themselves a disservice.
|4.22.07 @ 12:26PM|#
"Not all climatologists are in agreement on this, so until they
are, I will remain skeptical."
So because there are some scientists who doubt (fill in you
favorite theory here) you will remain skeptical. That is the right
frame of mind for science...
I will point out, however, that it would lead you to doubt
evolution because their are scientists who are working on
intelligent design.
Now, given your healthy skepticism, why do you continually repeat
the solar forcing argument without ever mentioning the weaknesses
in the theory?
Try reading this article and the comments all the way through (the
comments are quite important). And remember, be a skeptic about the
content. Evaluate the response to the "cosmoclimatology" position.
Evaluate the cosmoclimatology evidence then get back to us.
|4.22.07 @ 12:33PM|#
"any sustainability initiative will adversely affect the poor
because the poor have immediate economic needs that cannot be fully
satisfied with sustainable models."
That is just nonsense, but lets consider.
The poor are the most at risk from climate change.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003645933_climate01.html
They are the most risk from its solution also, then?
This would have to assume that measures to remediate climate change
are necessarily a drag on the economy. This is not a given. Many of
the measures that should be taken will be economically positive
(shifting tax burdens from labor and income to materials
throughput, for instance, will be a net positive for the poor).
|4.22.07 @ 6:09PM|#
No coffee for you, NM. Why, it has to be imported from thousands
of miles away! Think of the burned carbon from all the fuel
expended! Can't you make do with some ground okra and
chicory?
Kevin
|4.22.07 @ 7:44PM|#
Lamar,
I could give a flying rats a** about al gore.
What I do know is
1. Climate change has happened at rates and extremes worse then
what the IPCC predicts long before humanity was on the scene.
2. The evidence for AGW is built on computer models. Computer
models are useful but modelling climate is an exceedingly difficult
job.
3. It appears to me that there is an immense amount of pressure to
accept what the climate models say without question. That raises my
eyebrows more then a little bit.
4. The AGW advocates appear to be concerned only with getting
everyone to accept AGW as a fact. The difficulty in coming up with
workable policies that will actually reduce carbon emissions
appears to be at best a secondary concern.
5. The usual rent seeking suspects are crawling out in force around
AGW. They range from GE and ADM to the traditional environmental
groups.
The policy proposals being driven by the urge to do something about
global warming right now range from
a.) Massively destructive to the environment and ineffective at
reducing carbon emissions [biofuels]
b.) Potentially damaging to the environment, definitely destructive
to the view shed and ineffective at reducing carbon emissions [wind
power]
I have seen the massive environmental destruction poorly thought
out policies cause.
Because of this I don't care who is saying something I am
concerned about the policies that result
from their statements.
Bad policies, driven by the hysteria and rent seeking surrounding
global warming, involve real and significant risks.
Those who dismiss concern over these policies because they hate
"global warming skeptics" are doing themselves and the
environment a disservice.
|4.23.07 @ 5:11AM|#
"2. The evidence for AGW is built on computer models.
Computer models are useful but modelling climate is an exceedingly
difficult job."
I don't have time for everything you just said, but I'd like to
point out that John Tyndall waaaaay back in 1859 showed that CO2
was in fact a greenhouse gas. And in 1896 Svante Arrhenius made the
first working (if uber simplistic) climate model. This was during a
time when a 'computer' was some guy with a pencil and eraser you
paid to do manual calculations. Also measurements of CO2 increases,
whose isotope ratios clearly indicate an anthropogentic origin, do
not depend on computer models at all.
|4.23.07 @ 10:18AM|#
"the politics of fear"
This describes Gore. His "An Inconvenient Truth" is nothing but
fear mongering.
"embrace of open inquiry"
Al Gore is opposed to open inquiry. He thinks the time for debate
is over pertaining to his position on global warming. He has
refused to engage in debates with others on this issue.
|4.23.07 @ 10:29AM|#
"Most insurance and reinsurance companies have no doubt that the
rising tide of losses from weather-related disasters is linked with
climate change."
First of all, insurance agents are not experts on climate change.
Second, the reason for the increase in costs of damages is due to
more people building more expensive homes on the coast, plus an
increase in population on the coast. An inconvenient truth that
Gore chooses to ignore.
|4.23.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Rattler: climate change has been a debate going on since the 1970s and will continue indefinitely. Don't give us this "Al Gore is opposed to open inquiry" BS. Gore is a "fear monger" to the same extent that skeptics are "conspiracy theorists." Both sides claim that the other side doesn't really believe in its rhetoric and are on the pay of nameless, faceless villians. Just gross.
|4.23.07 @ 10:41AM|#
"I don't think it would be psychologically possible for many
advocates and believers of AGW to accept the possibility that the
output from their computer models might be wrong or incorrectly
interpreted."
These models are predicting a rise in temperature due to a doubling
of CO2 anywhere from .5 to 5 degrees Celsius. With global warming
going on, probably due to the actions of the Sun and cosmic rays,
one of those models may coincidentally come true, but it won't be
due to an increase in CO2. According to some climatologists, CO2
will have very little impact on the temperature.
|4.23.07 @ 11:02AM|#
"I will point out, however, that it would lead you to doubt
evolution because their are scientists who are working on
intelligent design."
Intelligent design is not a scientific position. The Sun and cosmic
ray theory behind climate change is a scientific position that
needs to be looked into before we promote policy on the basis of
CO2 being the main driver of climate or of even having that much of
an overall effect.
|4.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#
"I don't have time for everything you just said, but I'd like to
point out that John Tyndall waaaaay back in 1859 showed that CO2
was in fact a greenhouse gas. And in 1896 Svante Arrhenius made the
first working (if uber simplistic) climate model. This was during a
time when a 'computer' was some guy with a pencil and eraser you
paid to do manual calculations. Also measurements of CO2 increases,
whose isotope ratios clearly indicate an anthropogentic origin, do
not depend on computer models at all."
There is no dispute that man is contributing to an increase in CO2
to the atmosphere. The issue is how much of an effect does CO2 have
on the climate? How much of an effect does man have on the overall
climate worldwide?
|4.23.07 @ 1:39PM|#
"why do you continually repeat the solar forcing argument"
Because something had to drive climate before anthropogenic CO2.
What caused the medieval warming and the little ice age?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245