Did any of our British members...

[vidcc]

PLEASE WATCH "An Inconvenient Truth"....excellent documentary, best i've seen on this issue.

Would that be the same documentary with the guy who says we need to cut down energy usage but who's very own house uses more energy in a month that the average household uses in a year?

And would that be the same documentary with the guy who would not answer the question of whether he would be willing to cut his own energy usage?

Rather nice bit of misleading spin on gore's usage, but it's not the amount of energy used, it's the amount of pollution the energy usage creates that gore is trying to reduce. You can use all the non polluting energy you like.

Gore purchases "green energy" in his residence (which also contains his offices so you are comparing the average domestic residence against a commercial residence) solar and wind power which do not pollute and he pays a premium to do this.
Now admittedly the grid is set up in a way that shares the energy produced by both wind and traditional polluting generators so the deal is far from perfect, Gore is also hindered with solar power because of local bylaws prohibiting the panels being put on roofs, so he has work and hurdles still to overcome, but he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Which would you rather have pumped into your home.....the pollution created generating power from a coal fired power station of the average american home or the pollution created generating the power using wind and solar that gore purchases?

[lynx]

I watched it, and as Bigboab says, it simply confirmed my opinion that Global Warming thing is a load of hype. Well, not Global Warming as such, just the bit that we are causing it.

Those of you who are hooked on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" should realise that the images he produced could have been taken at any time in the last thousand years, had the technology been available, since these events (known as calving) happen each spring. In fact a thousand years ago he could have got some even more dramatic pictures, since the temperatures then were higher than they are today. Now that is an inconvenient truth.

I see no problem with the idea of reducing our carbon dependency, we only need to look at the way Western Europe's gas prices were hiked by the Russians last year to see the effects of failing to be self sufficient, and since oil and gas deposits can't be conjured up out of thin air then other energy sources are a must.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Would that be the same documentary with the guy who says we need to cut down energy usage but who's very own house uses more energy in a month that the average household uses in a year?

And would that be the same documentary with the guy who would not answer the question of whether he would be willing to cut his own energy usage?

Rather nice bit of misleading spin on gore's usage, but it's not the amount of energy used, it's the amount of pollution the energy usage creates that gore is trying to reduce. You can use all the non polluting energy you like.

Gore purchases "green energy" in his residence (which also contains his offices so you are comparing the average domestic residence against a commercial residence) solar and wind power which do not pollute and he pays a premium to do this.

Funny, when challenged by Inhofe to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”, he claimed city law prevented him from doing so. By the way he refused to the pledge.

[vidcc]

Funny, when challenged by Inhofe to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”, he claimed city law prevented him from doing so. By the way he refused to the pledge.

Funny how you cut this bit off.

Now admittedly the grid is set up in a way that shares the energy produced by both wind and traditional polluting generators so the deal is far from perfect, Gore is also hindered with solar power because of local bylaws prohibiting the panels being put on roofs, so he has work and hurdles still to overcome, but he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Inhofe's challenge was a complete crock anyway. If the challenge was that gore use less than any comparable set up (private house used commercially) then gore already does it by a long way. However the challenge also misrepresents what gore is campaigning about.

it's not the amount of energy used, it's the amount of pollution the energy usage creates that gore is trying to reduce. You can use all the non polluting energy you like.

All Inhofe has is a great mis representative soundbite and a distraction from the issue. He like so many are not addressing the issue but trying to discredit the messenger.
They are trying to make the issue a political thing instead of a scientific thing.

I could attack Inhofe's credibility on the issue because he said we don't have to worry about pollution "because god is still up there and he will protect us"


All that aside, trying to say that gores message should be ignored because his life requires more energy usage than "the average american" is like trying to say that the advice to give up smoking when you have respiratory problems given by a doctor should be ignored because that doctor smokes.

[Biggles]

I didn't watch it - it clashed with a footie match. However, the chap who made it is not new to British TV. He has done a programme on why breast implants are good for women and one on why GM food is good for you. He is a bit of a "gun for hire" and doesn't have a lot of street credibility. That is not to say that some of his contributers are of the same mould but his programmes do come with a health warning.

It will be repeated on one of the documentary channels and I will see it then.

[popopot]

There is no doubt that the Earth is getting warmer but there is not enough scientific fact to back up either theory (Gore vs Swindle).

Gore presented data where the pattern of cause and effect were separated by 800 years. A lot can happen in 800 years and the results are derived from only one source - ice cores. Plus, there was no significant human generated pollution in ages past, so what caused the previous ice ages and changes in climate?

The swindle presented data that was more consistent with the time frame of cause and effect, i.e. the solar activity and global warming. However, bugger all is known about how the sun works, let alone how its activity influences global warming. I also read an article in the Guardian which reported that the scientists involved in the swindle program were not portrayed properly and only their comments about why global warming might not be caused by humans were aired.

Both features showed biased views from both camps on either side of the fence. There has yet to be a serious debate that includes scientists from both sides of the argument in a uncensored and unedited format. Only then can any significant conclusions and future plans of action be taken without squabbling.

There is no question that cutting carbon emissions is a good thing in order to reduce pollution and severe our reliance on fossil fuels. And those that believe that global warming (man-made or otherwise) is not happening are fools, especially if you think it is now okay to go out and buy a hummer to drive down the street!

[Confluence]

I did watch it, I think. Before I watched it, I didn't swing either way on the issue. After I watched it, I still didn't believe it nor disbelieve it. there's just too much differing evidence either way, both believable and not.

One thing though, is saving energy and recycling and all that shit is always good whether Global Warming is happening or not. Two is that I'm fine with the Government promoting it, but NOT if they're raising taxes on the issue. They can go fuck themselves and solve the problem another way, plus if it's happening, it's their fault if they've let it happen, they can find alternative solutions.

The thing with the Ice melting and the sea level rising is interesting. Undoubtedly it is rising, but remember that Ice expands when it's created. Also that there's always gonna be pretty much the same amount of water on earth, the only problem with Ice melting is the changing of the current of the water, which would slow, sink, and the heat carried around would be changed.

However if life survived before, it can survive now.

A final interesting fact - Cows produce waaay more methane than humans combined do. Yeah...

[j2k4]

Funny how you cut this bit off.

Now admittedly the grid is set up in a way that shares the energy produced by both wind and traditional polluting generators so the deal is far from perfect, Gore is also hindered with solar power because of local bylaws prohibiting the panels being put on roofs, so he has work and hurdles still to overcome, but he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Funny as well that you object to the tactic.

Both features showed biased views from both camps on either side of the fence. There has yet to be a serious debate that includes scientists from both sides of the argument in a uncensored and unedited format. Only then can any significant conclusions and future plans of action be taken without squabbling.

What "camps" were represented in Swindle?

In the entire feature, I think I counted one guy who was not a scientist, which fact alone should be cause for an international investigation, since (according to the do-gooder global warming crowd) no such scientists exist.

One side does not make a "squabble", or so I've always been told.

Of course, maybe those rules have been changed, too.

[vidcc]

Funny how you cut this bit off.

Funny as well that you object to the tactic.

you know there are groups out there that offer victim support, obviously they are trying to support real victims but I'm sure they will offer you a comforting ear

Now are you going to continue or grow up and get over whatever it is you feel is victimising you?

[j2k4]

Funny as well that you object to the tactic.

you know there are groups out there that offer victim support, obviously they are trying to support real victims but I'm sure they will offer you a comforting ear

Now are you going to continue or grow up and get over whatever it is you feel is victimising you?

You've lost me.

Are you impersonating a doctor at all (at all).