...and in other "Al Gore Pipe Dreams" News:

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
115
Location
Charlottesville, VA
...the former presidential candidate unveiled his "bold" plan to build a footbridge to Mars to get water!

Is he f*cking serious? I'm no true-blue Al Gore hater or anything, and I fully realize that our planet is in trouble, but...the biggest polluter on the planet converting to carbon-neutral in 10 years? He's got a better chance of converting everyone to atheism.:rolleyes:
 
While I don't know if we can actually make the complete change over to carbon-neutral living in 10 years, I don't know if that was the actual goal of Al Gore's speech yesterday. I guess the way I took it was "aim high" as opposed to the current trend of complaining but doing nothing.

I was there for this inspirational speech, and I really felt like the point was to show that people really do want to change and to do their part (or at least some do), and that to help make a real change, we need real options offered as far as alternative energy sources go.

His goal may be one that sounds a bit crazy or extreme, but it seems better to aim for a major goal and have people excited about it, than to shoot for mediocrity and leave people with the same bitter taste in their mouths about not making any real progress.
 
Yeah, but there's a big difference between "shooting for mediocrity" and "having realistic goals". If I were Gore, and I wanted people to take me seriously, I'd be concerned about how batsh*t loony my proposals come across. Yes, harm CAN come from aiming too high, because it can distract you from more realistic goals, and it can also alienate people who otherwise might agree with you (like me) by painting yourself as an extremist who is out of touch.
 
realistically as a negotiating point it is a great place to start, just ever so slightly out of reach. It is possible but the investment in it in lifestyle changes and economic resourses would have to be so huge that it would never fly. Americans are very resistant to lifestyle changes. So now when we negotiate becoming carbon neutral and the different plans for it this 10 year benchmark will always raise its head and get us away from the current "maybe without doing much we can be carbon neutral by 2050" policy.
 
...the former presidential candidate unveiled his "bold" plan to build a footbridge to Mars to get water!

Are you serious, Clark?

I believe that the man who invented the Internet must be capable of anything. :D

Seriously though, Al Gore is a hypocritical idiot.
 
He would be easier to take if his house didn't consume more resources than ten average US homes.

This is the same guy that was campaigning for ZPG (zero population growth) with his FOUR children.
 
While his hypocrisy certainly degrades his credibility, I don't think it has any practical bearing on the viability of his proposals. Regardless of how much energy his home uses or doesn't use, transforming nearly 300 million people from largest polluter in the world to carbon neutral in a decade is patently absurd.
 
realistically as a negotiating point it is a great place to start, just ever so slightly out of reach.

Ever so slightly out of reach? That's quite an understatement! Converting to a carbon neutral society in a decade would so drastically change the economics of the U.S. in such a short time that you could bet on major economic collapse. Think about every manufacturing facility in the nation (many of which are already struggling) being forced to make large capital purchases to clean up their act. BTW, I don't believe they would clean up their act; I think they'd probably just move out of the country. Not to mention that U.S. automakers, one of the largest industries in the country, is not ready to roll out efficient carbon neutral vehicles on a large scale yet..........and if they were, to be truly carbon neutral, every family in the U.S. would have to buy one!

Americans are very resistant to lifestyle changes.

No argument on your point here technically, but let's not make it sound like Americans are the only society resistant to having their lifestyles mandated by government. Virtually everyone would have the same resistance.
 
Ever so slightly out of reach? That's quite an understatement! Converting to a carbon neutral society in a decade would so drastically change the economics of the U.S. in such a short time that you could bet on major economic collapse. Think about every manufacturing facility in the nation (many of which are already struggling) being forced to make large capital purchases to clean up their act. BTW, I don't believe they would clean up their act; I think they'd probably just move out of the country. Not to mention that U.S. automakers, one of the largest industries in the country, is not ready to roll out efficient carbon neutral vehicles on a large scale yet..........and if they were, to be truly carbon neutral, every family in the U.S. would have to buy one!



No argument on your point here technically, but let's not make it sound like Americans are the only society resistant to having their lifestyles mandated by government. Virtually everyone would have the same resistance.

+1000000 on all dat. Gore seems to operate in a vacuum where everyone would be willing to drastically, voluntarily lower their quality of life and watch the economy collapse even further. It's almost as if he just doesn't want to think about the external consequences of his proposals because it's too complex.
 
...the former presidential candidate unveiled his "bold" plan to build a footbridge to Mars to get water!

Is he f*cking serious? I'm no true-blue Al Gore hater or anything, and I fully realize that our planet is in trouble, but...the biggest polluter on the planet converting to carbon-neutral in 10 years? He's got a better chance of converting everyone to atheism.:rolleyes:

That's why so many environmental scientists, conservationists and ecologists have such a hard time with environmentalists and their wacky, counterproductive ideas. They've embraced Al Gore as their pseudo-deity, and he is increasingly influenced by them instead of reason.
 
That's why so many environmental scientists, conservationists and ecologists have such a hard time with environmentalists and their wacky, counterproductive ideas. They've embraced Al Gore as their pseudo-deity, and he is increasingly influenced by them instead of reason.

pseudo-deity? Methinks the "pseudo" part is unnecessary...

GoreforGod.jpg


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
How can you talk this way about the guy who invented pants?


FOR SHAME!!!!!!!!!


Thank you Al Gore for perpetuating the typical Liberal Whacko Stereo type. LOL, not only that but you are their leader.


This guy is a Brain Wizard for sure.
 
I thought he was talking about Energy production only. Not every factory in the US.

His goal is not unreachable in the least. But it takes collaboration from Greenies, Oil, Energy and the Government to do it.

Wind/Solar/tidal/Nuclear could have us off foreign oil for electricity production. That would take a sizeable chunk out of consuming which would dramatically lower prices of oil.

I dont see how this is a bad plan. We went from just barely having et engines to sending a car to the moon in a decade. Why cant we do this?
 
where can I get the drugs he is on...they sound fantastic to me! C'mon guys, I'm super cereal!
 
Ever so slightly out of reach? That's quite an understatement! Converting to a carbon neutral society in a decade would so drastically change the economics of the U.S. in such a short time that you could bet on major economic collapse. Think about every manufacturing facility in the nation (many of which are already struggling) being forced to make large capital purchases to clean up their act. BTW, I don't believe they would clean up their act; I think they'd probably just move out of the country. Not to mention that U.S. automakers, one of the largest industries in the country, is not ready to roll out efficient carbon neutral vehicles on a large scale yet..........and if they were, to be truly carbon neutral, every family in the U.S. would have to buy one!
.

Ever so slightly out of reach, yes actually it could be done, but the government would have to spend a LOT of money on the technology and re-training all of the workers who will have to adjust to the new economy. The speech draws certain paralells to a speech given in 1962 about a certain other goal that was also ever so slightly out of reach:

In a 1962 speech given at Rice University in Houston, Texas, President John F. Kennedy reaffirmed America's commitment to landing a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s. The President spoke in philosophical terms about the need to solve the mysteries of space and also defended the enormous expense of the space program.


I bet on major economic collapse today even without the addition of having to be carbon neutral. Although many people don't want to hear it, the only way for us to not totally screw up the finances in this country over the upcoming retirement boom and leave huge debt for the next couple generations is to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time, but that will never happen.
 
I thought he was talking about Energy production only. Not every factory in the US.

His goal is not unreachable in the least. But it takes collaboration from Greenies, Oil, Energy and the Government to do it.

Wind/Solar/tidal/Nuclear could have us off foreign oil for electricity production. That would take a sizeable chunk out of consuming which would dramatically lower prices of oil.

I dont see how this is a bad plan. We went from just barely having et engines to sending a car to the moon in a decade. Why cant we do this?

There is no reason it can't be done. In fact it will be, but thanks to the oil/fossil-fuel sector essentially controlling the dialog in this country, it will be happening elsewhere. A major government investment in nuclear power, along with an end to the shell games that is the regulation of the construction of plants, would almost single-handedly produce carbon neutrality. My only suggestion would be to keep the waste somewhere industry can get to it easily. A number of the isotopes in "waste" will be vital to future industrial efforts.
 
A number of the isotopes in "waste" will be vital to future industrial efforts.

But Greenies and most people dont see that. They only see the Incredible Hulk and the TNMTs and thing NUKE BAD
 
But Greenies and most people dont see that. They only see the Incredible Hulk and the TNMTs and thing NUKE BAD

I know, its very frustrating. Unfortunately ill-informed people still get to vote. In the words of Kent Brockman:
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work!"

Did Gore mention nuclear? He usually pretends it doesn't exist. I don't know how the Oak Ridge people haven't sent a hit squad out for him.
 
I am so exhausted with all the carbon and energy garbage going on now. We want green power!.... but not from nuclear, wind, and solar might be bad too. We have to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming!...although, most scientists and smart people admit that we likely have nothing or extremely little to do with global weather changes.

It is just such crap.:mad: Has anybody told these people that they are driving our nation into the ground. 30 years ago, we thought the earth was going to freeze over because of global cooling. In another ten years there will undoubtedly be another "catastrophe" that requires billions of dollars to fix. I can't express how bad all this chaps my ass. In fact I think I am going to invest all my money in ass chapstick in anticipation of all the other people who's asses will be chapped by this idiotic and very costly environmentalist fad. I'll be the guy who struck it rich on ass chappery.
 
although, most scientists and smart people admit that we likely have nothing or extremely little to do with global weather changes.


it's not global warming, it's solar system warming...duh, any person who isn't an idiot (Mr. Gore) can understand that...hello, the sun is gonna blow up in a few billion years
 
Ever so slightly out of reach, yes actually it could be done, but the government would have to spend a LOT of money on the technology and re-training all of the workers who will have to adjust to the new economy.

The government subsidizing or wholly paying for the construction and staffing of cleaner power plants would be more fiscally irresponsible (fiscally mind you, not environmentally) than continuing with the failed experiment that is Social Security. The free market will correct its environmentally un-friendly ways on its own when petroleum products become prohibitively expensive (pretty much there already). If the government intervenes while in its current debt-ridden state, the "new economy" you speak of will be very, very ugly. Who knows, maybe we'll all be fleeing to Mexico for good jobs.

I don't think we can, in good conscience, raise taxes at a time like this. Raising taxes on the middle-class puts them in a position where they're unable to raise their family. Raising taxes on business owners causes them to either (a) pass the tax cost on to the consumer in the price of their service or product, or (b) go out of business. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that either of these choices are unacceptable for all Americans. You can pay an inflated cost for the things you need, causing your individual financial collapse. Or you can lose your job because your boss went out of business, causing your individual financial collapse.

Cutting spending though, that's a different story. We certainly can do that! Revising or eliminating failed spending programs like the aforementioned Social Security wouldn't be a bad start. We could also reduce the troop count and overall military presence in Iraq. It's been said before but it bears repeating: No self-respecting business owner would operate their business in the same manner as the U.S. government........they'd have gone bankrupt long ago. The bright side is that there's a lot of room for improvement.
 
I am so exhausted with all the carbon and energy garbage going on now. We want green power!.... but not from nuclear, wind, and solar might be bad too. We have to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming!...although, most scientists and smart people admit that we likely have nothing or extremely little to do with global weather changes.

It is just such crap.:mad: Has anybody told these people that they are driving our nation into the ground. 30 years ago, we thought the earth was going to freeze over because of global cooling. In another ten years there will undoubtedly be another "catastrophe" that requires billions of dollars to fix. I can't express how bad all this chaps my ass. In fact I think I am going to invest all my money in ass chapstick in anticipation of all the other people who's asses will be chapped by this idiotic and very costly environmentalist fad. I'll be the guy who struck it rich on ass chappery.

Dude, what you are saying about climate change couldn't be father from the truth. But that's, once again, thanks to wacky extremists who have cried wolf one too many times. No wonder the public can't tell apart propaganda from science any more.
 
Dude, what you are saying about climate change couldn't be father from the truth. But that's, once again, thanks to wacky extremists who have cried wolf one too many times. No wonder the public can't tell apart propaganda from science any more.

How do you explain the massive climate changes that have occurred over time then? For example, did the dinosaurs get into some crazy industrial stage that none of us know about that somehow triggered the ice ages (joke)? We went through a mini ice age in the 1500's and I am sure that all sorts of crazy climate changes will continue to occur throughout the planets future. I just think it is preposterous to say that you know why the climate is changing and that it is because I am driving an SUV (I don't BTW). For every article and scientist who says we are causing global warming, there is at least one, who says that is a garbage theory. Just because the media and the outspoken "Gorists" talk loudly doesn't mean that their side of the story is correct.

(For some reason I am irritable today)
 
How do you explain the massive climate changes that have occurred over time then? For example, did the dinosaurs get into some crazy industrial stage that none of us know about that somehow triggered the ice ages (joke)? We went through a mini ice age in the 1500's and I am sure that all sorts of crazy climate changes will continue to occur throughout the planets future. I just think it is preposterous to say that you know why the climate is changing and that it is because I am driving an SUV (I don't BTW). For every article and scientist who says we are causing global warming, there is at least one, who says that is a garbage theory. Just because the media and the outspoken "Gorists" talk loudly doesn't mean that their side of the story is correct.

(For some reason I am irritable today)

I know because it's - literally - my job to know. And not a thing you are saying in the post I am quoting is true - you are spreading misinformation about a subject you know nothing about. It's like you telling a doctor that he is performing your open heart surgery incorrectly, or telling a NASA engineer that his engine design is critically flawed without having any training in the field whatsoever. Again, you are one of the many people who has become completely apathetic and misinformed thanks to the constant, ignorant, misinformed banter between radical environmentalists and their equivalents on the other side of the political fence that dominates the media.

If you are serious about wanting your questions answered and misconceptions corrected, please read this . It's not a flawless document, but it does a pretty damn good job covering the basics of the science.
 
I know because it's - literally - my job to know.
...

If you are serious about wanting your questions answered and misconceptions corrected, please read this . It's not a flawless document, but it does a pretty damn good job covering the basics of the science.


The IPCC shared the peace prize with gore, if you're going to reference somebody and convince me then it needs to be something from an outside and unbiased study. It is also a scientific opinion and shouldnt be construed as hard facts.

So I take it you are a climatologist?
 
ArcaneXor, thanks for the article. Although, I think it will take me some time to read through. I have to respectfully agree with Virtuous though. While you points may be good, as a scientist, you should know that science is not all "facts" and that there are many other scientists who disagree with you. None the less, that you for the article, so far it is a very good read.
 
ArcaneXor, thanks for the article. Although, I think it will take me some time to read through. I have to respectfully agree with Virtuous though. While you points may be good, as a scientist, you should know that science is not all "facts" and that there are many other scientists who disagree with you. None the less, that you for the article, so far it is a very good read.

Absolutely. Science is basically the process by which we attempt to come ever closer to an understanding of how the universe truly works. We'll never get there all the way, and sometimes we are simply wrong. Is there a chance that the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change is wrong? Yes, but it's very small, and there are very few scientists who actually work in this field who disagree with it completely. Do we understand all the details and their implications? Hell, no! The climate change-tropical cyclone link is a great example of this - almost weekly, papers are published on that topic that contradict each other. It's really very fascinating.
 
The IPCC shared the peace prize with gore, if you're going to reference somebody and convince me then it needs to be something from an outside and unbiased study. It is also a scientific opinion and shouldnt be construed as hard facts.

So I take it you are a climatologist?

I don't see how the joint (and unfortunate) Nobel Prize has anything to do with the credibility of what is one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world - it's basically a collection of something like 2500 scientists who volunteer their time to summarize the state of the science every few years. The assessment reports are not original research. The political meddling that some have criticized tends to extend only to the Summaries for Policymakers - the actual reports tend to be free from that influence.

The IPCCs projections have, to date, been quite conservative. Temperature change has progressed along the higher end of the envelope, while the rate of sea level rise is exceeding projections.
 
I don't see how the joint (and unfortunate) Nobel Prize has anything to do with the credibility of what is one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world -...

You know, I almost spun on my heels with that one. I said to myself, 'Self, had Al Gore not been associated with the IPCC would I look at the whole thing with such a jaundiced eye? Probably not.'

You didnt answer my other question though ;)

Edit- And I counter with another article!:D
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009
ps. this is all in the name of fun...
 
You know, I almost spun on my heels with that one. I said to myself, 'Self, had Al Gore not been associated with the IPCC would I look at the whole thing with such a jaundiced eye? Probably not.'

You didnt answer my other question though ;)

Edit- And I counter with another article!:D
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009
ps. this is all in the name of fun...

Ah, I see good old Robinson is still around and up to his old tricks.

I recommend reading some articles by Dr. Roger A. Pielke (Sr.) for a perspective of what constructive climate change skepticism constitutes. Pielke, unlike Robinson, actually publishes on the subject. I don't agree with him on everything (and we don't really work in the same area of the science), but I have a ton of respect for him.
 
...the former presidential candidate unveiled his "bold" plan to build a footbridge to Mars to get water!

Is he f*cking serious? I'm no true-blue Al Gore hater or anything, and I fully realize that our planet is in trouble, but...the biggest polluter on the planet converting to carbon-neutral in 10 years? He's got a better chance of converting everyone to atheism.:rolleyes:

tboon pickens is beating on some of that. he is building one hellava wind farm in the tx pan handle. pretty neat at night when ya drive through. the foils are built just south of tulsa. seriously the length of an entire flat bed semi trailer. he is making a big push in ad's right now as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/index.html

so gore is listening to others.
 
Back
Top