Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Malene Flagga — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:23:37 -0000

I've read here on this page, that some people believe there is no consensus among climate researchers as to the cause of global warming. I wonder why that is, since there IS consensus. No scientist in the field of climate thinks CO2 is not a major contributor to the current climate changes. It is people from other fields, writing as if though they know what they're talking about, who tries to spread doubts.

Find me ONE professional, university educated climate expert who claims manmade CO2 is not changing our climate, please.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Paulina — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:00:45 -0000

Hey all.
I was just around and well, its some kind of crazy idea we have in my class. We are all wondering if Al Gore would like to come to our University with his conference. Its a matter of some students that would be pleased if this man could come to Mexico. Do you guys know where can we ask for this request needed?

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Doug — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:12:56 -0000

What does Nuclear Power do for gas consumption with regard to transportation?

Using plug-in hybrid cars we can off-load some of current transportation fuel needs to the electric grid.

What does Nuclear Power do for petroleum consumption with regard to plastic?

Oil not used for vehicles is saved for the chemical industry. Coal not burned for electricity is also freed up for use as a feedstock for up to 100s of years.

What does Nuclear Power do to address the not inconsiderable expenses involved with finding a place to store the trash from them. Even the transmutation process ain’t free, and it ain’t perfect. Are you going to make sure that we can process all the waste generated by replaceing ALL our non-nuclear power generation with nuclear BEFORE we start generating tons of waste?

As opposed to coal-fired plants, which just dump their wastes to the atmosphere, in quantities far greater than the amount of nuclear waste. Huge empty areas exist all over the world that would make suitable storage sites. Waste can be reprocessed to eliminate the long-lived wastes (and turn it back into usable fuel). The most radioactive wastes also have the shorted half-lives (on the order of 30-40 years).

Where does the money come from to build the next generation of Nuclear power plants in the numbers needed to replace coal and oil fired?

Where's it going to come from to build any other type of power plant? Or are you just having fun pointing out that we were foolish to be duped by antinuclear activists into building fossil-powered plants for the past few decades?

How long does it take to build a nuke plant? Test it? certify it? Find the engineers to staff it, ’cause you ain’t outsourcing it, and you ain’t getting those folks for the bottom dollar.

It takes 2 years to build a plant with a standardized design, 5 if you go through the normal level of legal bullshit, and an infinitely long time if you allow anti-nuclear lawyers tie you up in court while spouting utopian rubbish about how conservation and renewables alone can replace fossil energy sources.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Ben — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:55 -0000

I have not read An Inconvenient Truth, but will do so once it's available at the library. I picked it up at Barnes and Noble and flipped through it, but the whole layout and design seemed designed to play on emotion, not fact.

Article that shows there is no consensus:

http://www.opinionjournal.c...

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Wesley Parish — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:47:03 -0000

I read a recent edition, 12/6/2006, of New Scientist, the UK-based science mag. Regarding nuclear power and pollution, it had a very interesting article on the invisible part of the problem - the people living where the uranium mine tailings get stored.

And an interesting article on 'Captain William's great obsession' by Geoff Watts:
http://www.pol.ac.uk/home/d...

Which has the interesting words:
"This long stretch of data provides clear evidence that sea level has been rising since the 18th century and that it began to accelerate during the second half of the 19th century - which is what you would expect if today's climate change is related to our output of greenhouse gases."

Food for thought. People aren't hungry?

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

James M — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:28:43 -0000

Still no solution. Still trying to win!

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Lauri — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:55:22 -0000

Farid,

JFK (the first one) wasnt all that awesome of a president.. he did, however, not have a rabid media at his backside 24/7.

"Camelot" was a made up fiction, brought about by Jackie Kennedy.

Ronald, Reagan, now THAT was a president!

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Farid Mashhadi — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:15:44 -0000

"Wake me up when public pressure turns on our politicians to solve these problems with real solutions. Sigh. "

Robert, let's reverse the situation.

Smart companies must come up with real solutions and implement them. Never mind the politicians, most of them are ignorant and massively incompetent to even comprehend what is at stake here.

I have given up on politicians. Afterall, how many John F Kennedy's we have had in the past decades.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Lauri — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:24:04 -0000

for post 70...

Americans wait for how long for specialists? Maybe neurosurgeons are a scarcity in your girlfriend's neighborhood, but on average, not overall.

It would also depend on what type of insurance coverage she has... but thats a whole other issue to debate.

America is where the best and the brightest train for medical careers, and where most people want to come for top notch medical care. My in laws are Canadians and I cannot count the number of people in their town who pay for their own care in the states, because socialized medicine in Canada is so poor.

My father in law went to a major US hospital to be taken off all of the unecessary prescriptions his canadian doctors had him on. It probably saved his life and if he could live in America and pay for his own care, he would do it in a heartbeat.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Lynn Eriksen — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:33:34 -0000

Robert, here's a link to the most interesting Nuclear project on the planet:

http://www.iter.org/

It's a production scale Fusion reaction prototype under development.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

nortypig — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:50:13 -0000

http://hosted.ap.org/dynami...

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

NorwegianThirtySomething — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:56:13 -0000

James - what an excellent attemt at circumventing the actual point of my post, which was this:

The US produces 30% of the world's CO2 emissions, with 5% of the world's population.

If you don't see this as a problem, you are sadly PART of the problem. I really don't care how big your house is (mine is about the same size). We can buy "extra" health insurance just like you americans can - but our *base* coverage includes everything from non-vital surgery (early stage cancer, facial plastic surgery) to life-saving surgery and GP visits. I pay $20 to see a doctor. If I total up more than $200 per year in medical expenses out-of-pocket, the government pays the rest.

I can't really explain any better than this - my country, Norway, has a life expectancy of 79.54 years, the US has 77.85 years.

We have the same unemployment rate as you - 4.2%. How do you fare in supporting those who are unemployed? How about those who have a life-changing accident and can't win through in the legal system?

We have a FREE university system, including several very prominent technical colleges. Sure, there are private alternatives, but they are generally inferior.

But all this is futile, I suspect. The point is - if you want to prioritize the climate, something else has got to go. If you don't want to prioritize the climate, well, I guess you'll keep becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil - we'll happily sell you a few billion barrels a year.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Mano — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:40:10 -0000

BIODIESEL!

. Get a VW Jetta, Golf, or Beetle... the T.D.I. version

(or if you are in europe... *any* diesel car)

. Fill it up with Biodiesel, equivalent cost to regular fossil diesel

The difference?

. 50 MPG (between 40 and 50 on these VW models)
. Made from soybeans! (in the US)
. 90% cleaner
. only release CO2 that soy beans got from the atmosphere in the first place (recycle!)
. Renewable every year!
. if you have time, make your own (I don't)!

There is NO CATCH.
As simple as that.

Been driving that stuff for 7 months, loving it.

-mano

ps: funny thing is, my cousin who has a farm in France said that it is *illegal* to use Biodiesel over there... pretty happy to be here IMHO... Illegal!?

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

ceejayoz — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:18:13 -0000

"Explain to me again how your standard of living is better? With waiting lines for medical care, fewer cars per family (harder to travel), smaller homes, higher taxes, and more expensive fuel."

This speaks to ignorance of the European lifestyle.

Waiting lines for medical care are a myth, and ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans have to wait for their specialist care as well. My fiancée took three months to get into her first neurologists appointment. Fewer cars per family would mean harder to travel only if Europe didn't have a far superior public transportation system - you can take high speed rail just about everywhere. I personally prefer smaller homes, the higher taxes help with amenities like cheaper health care and public transport, and fuel isn't that much of a concern when you can take the train.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

gattsuru — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:19:15 -0000

Spent nuclear waste containers emit neglible amounts of radiation (at eight feet, comparible to background levels). The real danger of them (and the reason they're such a pain to put away) is that they must be prevented from entering groundwater or food sources for a long time. Short term, and in containers that can take a train impact without denting, I wouldn't worry much if there was one sitting in my back yard, other than from an aesthitic or property value viewpoint.

I honestly hadn't heard of the starch-based oil immitation. If it's more economically and environmentally feasible than taking care of oil shale or drilling US soil, I'm all for it - we've got too much damned corn in the US as it is, and it would certainly allow us to give up on fossil fuels.

Hedding, your numbers seem off. The highest value I've seen credibly attributed to the United States in the last year is 25% of the world's CO2. That's not that far off from the EU's 'share', and America isn't that far from the EU in terms of population (and provides a much higher share of the global GDP).

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

James Robertson — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:40:52 -0000

"Us europeans are paying about a buck fifty per litre of gas right now, roughly equivalent to 6 dollars per gallon. Yet we have (Western Europe does, anyway) a higher standard of living and better social support."

Hmm. I've been to Europe, more than once. I live in a middle class neighborhood here in the US, and I have over 3000 sq feet of living space (never mind my basement). I have gas that's scads cheaper than what you pay for (and I get 35+ mpg - I drive a small sedan). The unemployment rate in this area is under 4%, and it's under 5% in the US as a whole. In Germany and France, it's up around 10%. As to health care, I can get an appointment whenever I need one - I pay $15 per visit, my prescriptions are inexpensive, and a referral I recently got to a cardiologist (no problems, thank goodness) cost me nothing (directly - my insurance picked it up). To see the cardiologist? I made an appointment when it was convenient

My parents? My Mom worked as a travel agent, my Dad as a teacher. They are retired, and live 1/4 mile from a beautiful beach - check my blog in the "travel" category for some of the pictures I took of it. They can get appointments for a doctor whenever they need them.

Explain to me again how your standard of living is better? With waiting lines for medical care, fewer cars per family (harder to travel), smaller homes, higher taxes, and more expensive fuel.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

John C. Welch — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:03:58 -0000

Considering how much a friend of mine is paying to fuel his car, (a VW diesel) I'm really thinking about getting one. He's using a mix of 50-50 "diesel" fuel and old french fry oil, costs him about a buck a gallon at the moment.

It's some extra work on his part, but every time he cruises by a gas station, he just laughs.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

NorwegianThirtySomething — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:47:47 -0000

Robert is oh-so-right. The US of A produces 30% of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions with only 5% of the world's population. Some thing has GOT to change, and it better happen fast. The polar ice caps are already melting at an alarming rate.

Us europeans are paying about a buck fifty per litre of gas right now, roughly equivalent to 6 dollars per gallon. Yet we have (Western Europe does, anyway) a higher standard of living and better social support. The reason? Simple, really. The US spends too much money on its military - money which could've been used for environmental subsidies and research into alternative energy sources.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

MattA — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:36:04 -0000

Robert, the car industry already has more efficient engines, but they don't think there is a market in the US for them. I have a Saab diesel (gets about 38 miles to a US gallon) I've just looked on Saab US and they don't sell this model, it's up to you to ask for it.

The reason I have a diesel is partly because it's a company car (company car tax is based on CO2 emissions, therefore most company cars in the UK are diesel), but also that recently fuel in the UK cost £0.99 per UK litre, this works out at about $6-7 per US gallon (is that incentive enough for you?)

I visited the US earlier this year a drove a Chevy Blazer, (I'm not sure if this is a typical SUV but) it had a 4.2 litre engine and was slower than my diesel, it appears to me that you have the worst of both worlds poor performance and poor fuel economy.

Diesels whether we like it or not are the future. Even Audi know this, this is why they entered a diesel in the Sebring 12Hr and Le Mans 24Hr endurance races and won both easily!!

That's not to say that I wouldn't have some 5 litre v12 if I could afford, but it better do 0-60 in under 4 secs and top out at over 200 mph, otherwise what is the point???

Cheers
Matt

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

John C. Welch — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:03:17 -0000

And, of course, you somehow believe that it’s impossible to store the stuff for a few years while the system comes into play. Any real reason, or do you just want to be a prick?

Okay Gatt, how about your back yard. it's safe, right? We'll just bury it in your yard. Hell, why bury it, it's so safe, should be able to just throw it in a shed out back, right? And if it takes ten, twenty years, well, that's fine with you right? if you move, no problem, we'll make sure it follows you.

Because after all, it's safe.

And of course, we can easily afford to spend the billions to replace all fossil fuel power generation in this country with nukes. We're just FLUSH with money right now at the federal level.

Just exactly what world DO you live in where we've got billions to spend on this crap?

Plastics, aspirin, chemical uses of hydrocarbons, those can’t be fixed right now, not in a reasonable way (in theory, with enough energy we can reproduce them from dirt, but it’s nowhere near feasible). Good thing neither you or I ever mentioned them or a possible solution to them before your random shotgun attack, and that they make up a vast minority of our actual energy use.

It's a good thing you took a look into the years of research into starch - based plastics. Of course, that gets no funding, because who suffers if we no longer need oil for plastic?

Hmm. Not the people using plastic.

Not the farmers.

Oh right, the oil companies. Who has huge amounts of money to pay off governments to ensure that non-petroleum plastic sources are starved for funds? Why, your bestest pals, the oil companies.

and since we can't easily replace petroleum based plastic, well why bother, right?

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Lauri — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:50:42 -0000

James Robertson said," I’ll bet you a steak dinner at the restaurant of your choosing that we won’t be staring down the barrel of catastrophe 15 years from now. One of us can collect in 15 years."

well, Big Al says we're all dead in 10 years anyway... so, 15 years is not even in the cards for us at this point... better make that steak dinner reservation much earlier... :-P

Robert, I know you are miffed that the majority of comments on your blog arent buying this issue but you have to remember, a lot of us do remember the Coming Ice Age that was headed our way, then Global Dimming.

Gore is not a climatogist, he's not a scientist, he's a politician who just cant figure out how to stay relevant since he cant be President. At least acknowledge the perspective from which Gore is coming from.

The "facts" that most climatologists can agree on is that the surface of the sun is hotter right now... but since we dont have recorded meterological information for the past million years, I would say its anyone's guess as to what warming issues we are experiencing right now.

But its also summer as well - which, as far as I can recall in my own 42 years... is hot. But again, I'm no climatologist..

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

Lauri — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:22:45 -0000

Robert,

And therein lies the difference between a Leftie and a Conservative; we dont need the govt taxing us yet again to figure out the non-problem of Global Warming.. (I seriously dont buy one shred of Gore's assumptions, cause they sure arent based on any 'facts')

Why cant the private sector do it? Why must politicians be the only people who can save this "doomed" country?

Granted, only a very, very teeny tiny amount of people believe that humans caused global warming, or can stop it.

But at least let the private sector do it without more of our taxes - they most certainly do it far cheaper and far quicker than the beaurocrats.

But I am in agreement about nuclear power; its cleaner and easier to deal with, but alas, lots of lefties are still very afraid of it for some reason.

Maybe the politicians can be of use there; they can teach the public that nuclear power isnt the big boogey man that the Dems have said it is for the past 3 decades.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

James M. — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:27:16 -0000

Robert,

We don't have to agree that there is a problem. We who believe that we can make a change need to agree on a direction and push the technology in that direction. I don't care who is "right/wrong" or if they think there is an issue or not. There is an issue, we pay a lot for energy. It's what drives our economy, our wars, and who has power over our daily lives.

Again right now we have a chance to change our direction.

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

John V Clifford — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:52:31 -0000

Thanks or raising this issue.

You are not the only one arguing for higher taxes on gas to reduce our addcition to foreign oil.

Here is what CEO of AutoNation, the largrsst chain of auto dealers in US is saying:

To shift behavior, you have to change the consumer's mindset. The party is over - cheap gasoline is not in our best interests. We have to have a tax at the pump that will justify a whole slew of technologies that are just sitting there if we can make them economical, both for existing engines and new engines. But $3-a-gallon gasoline isn't going to get it done.

link at http://money.cnn.com/2006/0...

Re: Dear Al Gore: here’s some inconvenient truths

MYoung — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:01:09 -0000

In today's WSJ there is an opinion piece by Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, that makes for interesting reading. I particularly like the idea that "lassitude" leads some to conclude that global warming must be at fault for events such as more hurricanes just because people can't think of anything else that might account for the fact. Lazy thinking leads to false and premature conclusions. I'm reminded of the old joke that claims of new discoveries are probably a sure case of insufficient research of the historical literature. :)