Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: festus on February 26, 2007, 05:10:42 PM

Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: festus on February 26, 2007, 05:10:42 PM
Gore seems to have an energy appetite for destruction of the human race

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Gunthr on February 26, 2007, 05:26:53 PM
wait just a minute now... Gore said this was not a political issue, but a MORAL issue.   hmmm. oh, geez, that means...  heck, i don't want to even say it.... G g g g Gore is... immoral?  

maybe hypocritical might be a better word.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: GtoRA2 on February 26, 2007, 06:00:55 PM
Come on guys, asking gore to live by what he preaches is like asking any politician to do it.


He is just a typical politician, and he found his little niche, you know, as the high priest of the church of environmental scare mongering.

It won't mater a bit to those who worship..  er I mean believe his BS, he is their god and can do no wrong.


To the rest of us, he should be what he is, just another scumbag politico.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: cav58d on February 26, 2007, 06:49:09 PM
After watching part of the Academy Awards last night, I would not be at all suprised to hear that Al Gore becomes the alien master leader of scientology in the next year or two.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Xargos on February 26, 2007, 06:54:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by cav58d
After watching part of the Academy Awards last night, I would not be at all suprised to hear that Al Gore becomes the alien master leader of scientology in the next year or two.


:rofl
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 26, 2007, 07:39:39 PM
hahaha, lets all point fingers at Gore.  Really guys, I have no love lost for Gore, could care one way or the other.  I may also not agree with his "documentary" but think about it just abit and stop letting them spoon feed ya.

You dont take something thats out of the norm and try to compare it to an average

I have a about 2000 sq ft house,  4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, all electric house, no gas.  my electric bill runs about 1400 to 1700 kwh a month depending on the weather and how sucessful I am at chasing the kids around the house and shutting stuff off.  4 tvs, 5 pcs assorted electronics.
so in a year I probably average about 18,000 kwh.   now their report only says a 20 room house, usually when they describe a house they say number of bedrooms, so I'll go with that.  If we use my numbers thats 375 kwh a month per bedroom.   Using that a 20 bedroom house would average 7,500 kwh.  But this is Al Gore so that house probably has alot of extra security stuff than most of us have.  Plus you gotta figure secret service guys.

Also where do they get the figure The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  What year?  What do they consider an average household?  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html

that report is from 2001.  Could he use less electricity?  probably.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: john9001 on February 26, 2007, 07:47:02 PM
how can big AL afford a house like that, he doesn't even have a job?


BTW, his Oscar was for best science fiction movie.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Maverick on February 26, 2007, 08:02:53 PM
This is a surprise, how?
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Halo on February 26, 2007, 09:29:02 PM
The Internet

The Environment.

The Beard.  

Nothing is too big for A. Gore to master.

Except perhaps:

The Election.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Mustaine on February 26, 2007, 10:03:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
Also where do they get the figure The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  What year?  What do they consider an average household?  
take this for a piece of meat to mentally chew on....

In the community I live there are many condos, in fact I grew up in one, and group has over 400 in that one little condo "community"

compare that to 400 houses, what takes up more space? add in the mass localization of urban complexes, and you have a WHOLE bunch of people in a small area... hence condo's and apartments.

you take NYC alone which has a population bigger than some states in itself, add in all those small stacked APT's, and condos, you can get low "average household" numbers for many things.


ALL and I mean [SIZE=10]ALL[/SIZE] numbers "given" for stats regarding anything with the environment can be skewed because of reasons like I stated above.


"statistics" PHHPT, worthless unless you survey EVERYONE on the planet individually, otherwise worthless.

let's say for example they try and say "every person on the planet consumes XXX fossil fuels per year" are they REALLY taking into account the 3rd world population of China (which mind you their population living in "poverty" and "3rd" world status outnumber ALL of the USA population by far).

for every fire breathing eco-terrorist that drives an SUV there are at least 3 possibly up to 20 people on the planet who don't even own a car, or know how to drive one.

if you SERIOUSLY want to talk about humanity's impact on the global environment and infrastructure, you MUST include the whole friggin planet, otherwise you are NOT talking about "humanity" or you are not talking about the "planet" just a part, or more correctly a smidgen of the whole picture.


al fuggin gore is one of the most useless, band wagon jumping, moronic, clueless, pandering, exaggerating, flat out lying, socially inept, mentally retarded, sign waving, spokesperson pretending persons ever to have invented the internet.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Maverick on February 26, 2007, 10:26:51 PM
So what you are saying is that since the US is already condemned for using a disproportionate amount of the earths resources and since gore uses 20 times the average American's usage of resources. That means that based on the entire freaking planet he is even worse compared to the average energy use of an Aborigine in the Amazonian jungle!

Inconvenient hypocrisy indeed.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: straffo on February 26, 2007, 11:52:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
hahaha, lets all point fingers at Gore.  Really guys, I have no love lost for Gore, could care one way or the other.  I may also not agree with his "documentary" but think about it just abit and stop letting them spoon feed ya.

You dont take something thats out of the norm and try to compare it to an average

I have a about 2000 sq ft house,  4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, all electric house, no gas.  my electric bill runs about 1400 to 1700 kwh a month depending on the weather and how sucessful I am at chasing the kids around the house and shutting stuff off.  4 tvs, 5 pcs assorted electronics.
so in a year I probably average about 18,000 kwh.   now their report only says a 20 room house, usually when they describe a house they say number of bedrooms, so I'll go with that.  If we use my numbers thats 375 kwh a month per bedroom.   Using that a 20 bedroom house would average 7,500 kwh.  But this is Al Gore so that house probably has alot of extra security stuff than most of us have.  Plus you gotta figure secret service guys.

Also where do they get the figure The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  What year?  What do they consider an average household?  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html

that report is from 2001.  Could he use less electricity?  probably.


And meanwhile the average household ins France consume 4000kWh per year.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Debonair on February 27, 2007, 12:55:42 AM
ya but 5 billion calories of wine evens things out
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 01:20:52 AM
A yes... but per capita, the USA uses 12,500 KWhr,  France uses 7,118, but Canada uses 15,738, and Iceland uses 28,789!

So who's the real culprit here....

source (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con_percap-energy-electricity-consumption-per-capita)

If we all could emulate Burkina Faso, with only 25.125, KWhr, think how much better the world would be....
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Xargos on February 27, 2007, 01:36:04 AM
Those numbers are not fair for the people who live in the colder regions.  I do not need heating as badly as the people up north and I have sweated it out many times in the summer when I did not have enough money to pay for A/C.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: SirLoin on February 27, 2007, 02:17:52 AM
Gore just blew through Toronto with his tour..He arrived at the conference in a stretched limo...lol
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 02:21:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Xargos
Those numbers are not fair for the people who live in the colder regions.  I do not need heating as badly as the people up north and I have sweated it out many times in the summer when I did not have enough money to pay for A/C.


You think that those in colder regions could not wear a coat?
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: straffo on February 27, 2007, 02:28:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Xargos
Those numbers are not fair for the people who live in the colder regions.  I do not need heating as badly as the people up north and I have sweated it out many times in the summer when I did not have enough money to pay for A/C.


you're right so let look at another statistic :
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_usa_per_per-energy-usage-per-person
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 02:41:17 AM
and yet another: (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp)
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Xargos on February 27, 2007, 02:59:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You think that those in colder regions could not wear a coat?



If I did have kids I would very very scared to let them get too cold.  I hate the cold, that's why I live in the South.

P.S.  Those number are weird.  There are so many variables like, how old your heating system is, How old your house is, if your old and get sick easy and use more heat or get sick when it's too hot so your A/C is set low.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Mustaine on February 27, 2007, 03:06:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You think that those in colder regions could not wear a coat?
nice to show per capita per usage, USA is doing great, but to talk about "wearing a coat" I am in WI, and we are a cold north region, my best friend has 4 children and a small house, they keep the temp @ 68 all winter, and 74 in the summer sometimes higher, as to not pay the electric bill....


me in my APT, heat is "imcluded" so whatever I do I don't have a choice, but I pay around $10 a month electric bills in the winter, around $40-60 in the summer when I have to run the AC,



great info for the "Al Gore" stats, where do I fit in?
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on February 27, 2007, 04:10:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A yes... but per capita, the USA uses 12,500 KWhr,  France uses 7,118, but Canada uses 15,738, and Iceland uses 28,789!

So who's the real culprit here....

source (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con_percap-energy-electricity-consumption-per-capita)

If we all could emulate Burkina Faso, with only 25.125, KWhr, think how much better the world would be....


Iceland produces its energy through vulcanic activity inherent there so they can enviromentally speaking spend as much as they like. And they like, Iceland being on arctic levels so a major part of electricity will go to heating.

France = warm country, no need for much heating.

My household spends around 37 000kwh yearly because our house is electrically heated and the temperature dips to -35c during winters.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 04:52:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
... Iceland being on arctic levels so a major part of electricity will go to heating...


Quote
link (http://www.visitreykjavik.is/displayer.asp?cat_id=213)
Icelandic homes are relatively inexpensive to heat, thanks to abundant resources of hot water under the earth. >.....<  Geothermal heating of houses began around 1930, and today all of Reykjavik is heated by the Reykjavík Energy district heating system. Throughout Iceland, about 90% of the population now enjoy geothermal heating (not all parts of the country have utilisable hot water resources).


Iceland produced about 7000 GWh of electricity in 2005, appx 500 GWh of which were geothermal.  6500 GWh were hydropower.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: FastFwd on February 27, 2007, 05:16:31 AM
What also needs to be taken into account is how much gas some of these countries use. In many countries, due to mountainous terrain or being in a remote area, it isn't feasible for gas lines to be laid and so they rely more heavily on electric power - and bottled gas in some cases.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: FBplmmr on February 27, 2007, 05:21:12 AM
at least Jimmy Carter put on a sweater;)
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Mustaine on February 27, 2007, 05:33:20 AM
and yet anyone to quote me or try and "prove" a single "statistic" of their fuzzy math ;) ;)


I'd really like to see the ub-baised and real survey of China's 1 BILLION + they have above the USA's population, in any real study, with actual responses in it.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
" Mustaine",
 
I don't know why "you" need to see "proof" of any "statistic" even though  "China" has one "BILLION" so don't look for any "actual" "responses"  ";)" ";)"
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on February 27, 2007, 06:03:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Iceland produced about 7000 GWh of electricity in 2005, appx 500 GWh of which were geothermal.  6500 GWh were hydropower.


I stand corrected, anyway their electricity is being produced enviromentally friendly.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: storch on February 27, 2007, 06:28:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
hahaha, lets all point fingers at Gore.  Really guys, I have no love lost for Gore, could care one way or the other.  I may also not agree with his "documentary" but think about it just abit and stop letting them spoon feed ya.

You dont take something thats out of the norm and try to compare it to an average

I have a about 2000 sq ft house,  4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, all electric house, no gas.  my electric bill runs about 1400 to 1700 kwh a month depending on the weather and how sucessful I am at chasing the kids around the house and shutting stuff off.  4 tvs, 5 pcs assorted electronics.
so in a year I probably average about 18,000 kwh.   now their report only says a 20 room house, usually when they describe a house they say number of bedrooms, so I'll go with that.  If we use my numbers thats 375 kwh a month per bedroom.   Using that a 20 bedroom house would average 7,500 kwh.  But this is Al Gore so that house probably has alot of extra security stuff than most of us have.  Plus you gotta figure secret service guys.

Also where do they get the figure The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  What year?  What do they consider an average household?  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html

that report is from 2001.  Could he use less electricity?  probably.
good job AS.  I was going to post something along the same lines.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 06:31:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I stand corrected, anyway their electricity is being produced enviromentally friendly.


I shall have to tell the fishing interests here in the USA's Pacific Northwest that hydropower is environmentally friendly.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on February 27, 2007, 06:52:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I shall have to tell the fishing interests here in the USA's Pacific Northwest that hydropower is environmentally friendly.


Most hydproplants have pathways for fishes. In addition to that, hydropower produces pollutionless energy day in and out.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 27, 2007, 07:17:44 AM
MrRiplEy[H]:
 
Google things like... dam removal... northwest... Columbia River....Snake River... Salmon...
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on February 27, 2007, 07:50:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
MrRiplEy[H]:
 
Google things like... dam removal... northwest... Columbia River....Snake River... Salmon...


Some private small dams probably didn't have built-in pathways to ensure fish migration. They're mandatory at least here.

Are you sure Icelandic dams hinder salmon migration? Do they even have salmon rivers down there?

Then another question: 6500 gigawatts of non-polluting energy against 1 species worth of hobby fishing.. Anyone?
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: lazs2 on February 27, 2007, 08:09:44 AM
straffo.. if we didn't wash our clothes or bathe we would use a lot less electricity too.

airscrew..  mustain...  it is not just that, like all socialist politicians, algore uses 20 times the resources of the average man he wishes to impose restrictions on... it is that he is getting fatter..  he is using more now than he did the last year and will use even more next year while telling us to suffer and use less.

The other point is that most of us used less energy this year... we didn't do it our of fear of so called "man made global warming" either... we did it for free market reasons..   it was more expensive so we tried to use less.   algore won't use less because he doesn't have to.   no one is making him and he can afford to waste as much as he likes... he can take private jets and ride in limmo's .

He is too important to live like the people he wishes to rule.

lazs
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 08:56:24 AM
Laz, I dont disagree that Al Gore is probably hypocritical, a man that tells me I should be doing more to save the enviroment and save the planet and then rides in limos and uses a butt load of electricity.   My disagreement lies with people going all apesh** over some report from the Tennesse Center of Policy Research that uses some incomplete information to make a halfprettythang conclusion.  
from their report

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House

2006
High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month


Looks to me like they cherrypicked the data to show the results they wanted.  they only used 4 months out of 12.   Did they pick the months with highest usage?  why not give me all the information?    The truth is probably bad enough, but that just looks like poor reporting...
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Gunslinger on February 27, 2007, 09:02:56 AM
Well at least he killed "man-bear-pig"  He was super serial about that project.  EXSCELCIOR!




lets see who gets it.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 10:03:15 AM
Gun, try looking in the Cave of Winds for your spiritual answer

See i think that the DOE numbers might be a bit screwy too, oh wait its the gubernet

DOE says average kwh consumption is 10,656 per year.   I used their kwh usage per item and household to check my house.

Central Air     2796
water heating     2552
Lighting                     940
Clothes Dryer     1079
Furnace fan     500
Dishwasher     512
electric range top      536
electric oven      440
microwave oven       209
electric toaster oven    50
coffee maker       116
Color TV x4        548
VCR/DVD x2        140
Satellite dish 1 x4 receivers   520
PC desk top x5        1310
Printer w/ fax copier        216
Ceiling fan x3        150
Clothes Washer        120
Compact Stereo         81
Component Stereo         55
Portable Stereo         19
Answering Machine         35
Cordless telephone x2   52
Rechargeable tools         43
Routers x2         70

based on the DOE my average kwh usage should be 13089, but in reality is its closer to 18,000 per year.

so how did they arrive at an average of 10,656?  I would agree that my house is likely not an average representation so let me try building an average usage from their list
Central Air     2796
water heating     2552
Lighting                     940
Clothes Dryer     1079
Furnace fan     500

thats  7867 kwh so far

everyone maynot have a dishwasher so I'll leave that out
electric range top   536
electric oven   440
microwave oven   209
color TV                137
clothes washer    120
VCR/DVD             70
compact stereo    81
at least 1 PC       262

thats another 1855, so 9722 so far
average household might have
coffee maker      116
electric toaster oven  50
answering machine  35
cordless phone  26

another 227 kwh per year brings that total to 9949, still not hitting the 10,656 average

lets see
Cable box  120
Freezer?  i dont have one but maybe the average home does  1,039
portable stereo 19

that adds another 1178 which brings us up to 11127

all that means is my numbers do not make anymore sense than the DOE's numbers,  just made up and thrown around to make a meanless statistic.

footnotes say they used a 1997 report,  Energy Data Sourcebook for the U.S. Residential Sector, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1997.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Flatbar on February 27, 2007, 11:42:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by SirLoin
Gore just blew through Toronto with his tour..He arrived at the conference in a stretched limo...lol



Those calling Gore a hypocrite should read up on what he's personaly doing to reduce his carbon footprint. Better yet, calculate yours and see what you can do to reduce yours.

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html

Mine is 2.3 tons, can't afford offsets but we're looking for green energy options and some solar. The average US home with 2 people is responsible for 7.8 tons.

Al's home is powered by green energy wherever possible. The house uses electricity from renewable sources and solar pannels. Every time he flys or drives the carbon emissions are calculated and he buys energy offset credits to make up for any excessive emissions.

Buying offset credits, for those with the means to, is a way of reducing your footprint by funding green energy production.

So, go ahead and bash Gore all you want, just make sure you're using facts instead of hyperbole.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 11:56:33 AM
another useless gubernet calculator.   first of all its for the UK, second

Quote

Food and Drink   585 *
Clothes and Shoes   486 *
Car Manufacture   715 *
Buildings, Furniture and Appliances     982 *
Recreation and Services   1,546 *
Finance and other services   361 *
Share of Public Services   1,276 *  
* Your secondary Carbon Footprint from indirect emissions has not been calculated here. We have used UK average figures only.


does not apply.  cars listed are european, does not apply.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Flatbar on February 27, 2007, 12:08:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
another useless gubernet calculator.   first of all its for the UK, second


does not apply.  cars listed are european, does not apply.



Well, since people here tend to not believe scientists unless the're paid by big energy, I posted a link to a different calculator than the ICT one, here it is anyhow...

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: SFRT - Frenchy on February 27, 2007, 12:19:39 PM
At any rate, and so what? It's totally unrealistic to expect a man of power/fat wallet to relocate and live in the "average American house", privating himself of "his toys and comfort". Frustrated little environemental Nicole with limited political views trying to ratle trees to make her life meaningfull.

:lol
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: oboe on February 27, 2007, 12:29:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
hahaha, lets all point fingers at Gore.  Really guys, I have no love lost for Gore, could care one way or the other.  I may also not agree with his "documentary" but think about it just abit and stop letting them spoon feed ya.

You dont take something thats out of the norm and try to compare it to an average

I have a about 2000 sq ft house,  4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, all electric house, no gas.  my electric bill runs about 1400 to 1700 kwh a month depending on the weather and how sucessful I am at chasing the kids around the house and shutting stuff off.  4 tvs, 5 pcs assorted electronics.
so in a year I probably average about 18,000 kwh.   now their report only says a 20 room house, usually when they describe a house they say number of bedrooms, so I'll go with that.  If we use my numbers thats 375 kwh a month per bedroom.   Using that a 20 bedroom house would average 7,500 kwh.  But this is Al Gore so that house probably has alot of extra security stuff than most of us have.  Plus you gotta figure secret service guys.

Also where do they get the figure The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  What year?  What do they consider an average household?  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html

that report is from 2001.  Could he use less electricity?  probably.


I live in a medium sized 3 BR house built in 1967, with gas furnace.   I just checked my bills for the last 6 years, and my average energy consumption per year is over 13,000 kWh.    Now thats a northern climate.   You can really see the spikes in usage during  Jan-Feb and again in Jul-Aug.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Ripsnort on February 27, 2007, 12:35:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flatbar
Those calling Gore a hypocrite should read up on what he's personaly doing to reduce his carbon footprint. Better yet, calculate yours and see what you can do to reduce yours.

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html

Mine is 2.3 tons, can't afford offsets but we're looking for green energy options and some solar. The average US home with 2 people is responsible for 7.8 tons.

Al's home is powered by green energy wherever possible. The house uses electricity from renewable sources and solar pannels. Every time he flys or drives the carbon emissions are calculated and he buys energy offset credits to make up for any excessive emissions.

Buying offset credits, for those with the means to, is a way of reducing your footprint by funding green energy production.

So, go ahead and bash Gore all you want, just make sure you're using facts instead of hyperbole.


"Do as I say, not as I do".  Uh huh.

Meanwhile...

Quote
Al Gore is deciding to throw a 7-city blowout concert, which could:

Cause mass congestion in the host cities, burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of auto fuel as cars idle and as concertgoers try to get to the concerts. This will also create more smog and pollution in those cities.

Burn hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and limo fuel to fly/drive your celebrities to and from the sites.

Use hundreds of thousands of megawatts of power to broadcast the show simultaneously from all sites, burning tons more fossil fuels from the cities’ power plants.

See thousands of shrimp fished from the sea and flown to the sites as celebrity appetizers, further overfishing the fragile ocean ecosystem.

See merchandise sellers kill thousands of trees to product overpriced “collectors” programs of the event, furthering deforestation. And think of all the oil by-products needed to create the souvenir t-shirts!!
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 12:47:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flatbar
Well, since people here tend to not believe scientists unless the're paid by big energy, I posted a link to a different calculator than the ICT one, here it is anyhow...

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/

so I should believe one thats paid for by the climate crisis people?  Al Gore?

only has 1 selection for a car, I have two. 5 people,  all electric, no airplane trips, no gas, no oil, no propane.  If I use just the mileage from 1 car I'm larger than average 9.65,  but if I enter my true mileage from both cars I go up to 16.15  so I must be a bad person if I own 2 cars.  then read how they caculate and they say

Quote

Size of household: Because many households have more then one person, and energy use is generally recorded for the household as a whole, the calculator allows the user to input number of people in the household. Children will generally have a smaller impact on carbon emissions than adults, thus the calculator suggests including only children of driving age or those who have active schedules. Final energy emissions are divided by the number of people in the household to get the per capita emissions.


so go back and redo and change 5 to 2 and my average jumps to 21.7.  Just who do they think uses most of the electricity in my house?  

its slanted and not very realistic
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Flatbar on February 27, 2007, 01:00:07 PM
These calculators are just to get a general idea of what you are using and producing. If you are serious about finding out exactly what your numbers are then you have quite a bit of work ahead of you.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 01:08:34 PM
but even if I'm only expected to use this gubernet calculator to just get a "general idea" then it's still wacked.   I dont need a calculator, I get my electric bill every month, it tells me how much I use and how much I gotta pay.  I dont want to keep paying a lot so I smack the kids around to save energy....

I just think this calculator is miscalculating by ignoring a second car and telling you that children under the driving age have no impact, HA.  If I had no kids there would be no need for 5 pcs, 4 tvs.  Fewer trips in the car, less hot water used.   So save the climiate, stop having kids....
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: SFRT - Frenchy on February 27, 2007, 01:08:56 PM
Flatbar/Airscreew ...

You are missing the point, true or not, the intent was to raise your awarness. Mission accomplished as some of you digged up their eletrical bills to compare.

:cool:
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 01:19:15 PM
thanks Frenchy,  no slam intended but for me I have always been aware, I see my electric bill every month, and see how much I pay for gas just to go to work.   I guess I'm just messed up somehow, but if someone is going to go through all the trouble of creating a "calculator"  then it should be based on something closer to reality.   Once they start screwing around with the numbers to make something fit their "views"  it becomes worthless.

remember "give a hoot, dont pollute"

(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1172604346_150px-woodsy-owl-original.jpg)
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: straffo on February 27, 2007, 01:21:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
straffo.. if we didn't wash our clothes or bathe we would use a lot less electricity too.


Last year my family used 3542kw (in  153m² house)

We have washer ,dryer ,oven etc ...


Where able to buy the dryer last year after saving during the last 55 year (fortunately we were able to have to 40 year credit from the bank).

WTF do you think ? I'm living in a third world country ?
Title: To Goron's Morons: "Do As I Say, Not As I Do"
Post by: Eagler on February 27, 2007, 02:00:43 PM
the guy's a twit

the sky-is-falling global warming folks should pay him NOT to be their spokesperson if they want to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't have a bong in their face or like same sex partners ...
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Yeager on February 27, 2007, 02:06:02 PM
Eagler be bustin down those walls that divide us :D
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: lazs2 on February 27, 2007, 02:16:44 PM
I think the real point here is that algore is using more energy than he did last year.

straffo... I can't recall a time when I didn't have a washer and a dryer.  The smallest home I have owned was 1100 square feet.

How I use energy is based on what I can afford not on someones bogus "man made global warming" theory.

lazs
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Mightytboy on February 27, 2007, 02:21:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flatbar
Those calling Gore a hypocrite should read up on what he's personaly doing to reduce his carbon footprint. Better yet, calculate yours and see what you can do to reduce yours.

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html

Mine is 2.3 tons, can't afford offsets but we're looking for green energy options and some solar. The average US home with 2 people is responsible for 7.8 tons.

Al's home is powered by green energy wherever possible. The house uses electricity from renewable sources and solar pannels. Every time he flys or drives the carbon emissions are calculated and he buys energy offset credits to make up for any excessive emissions.

Buying offset credits, for those with the means to, is a way of reducing your footprint by funding green energy production.

So, go ahead and bash Gore all you want, just make sure you're using facts instead of hyperbole.



I don't need a calculator to figure mine out.

Mine is just right for my lifestyle. No need for changes.

Oh and I heard Al talking the other day and he mentioned he was going to put Global Warming in a lock box........
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: straffo on February 27, 2007, 02:26:45 PM
I was joking Lazs I don't remember either not having a washer dishwasher etc .. :)

Yet , I'm still surprised my 1650sq feet use so less electricity than airscrew house.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Airscrew on February 27, 2007, 02:39:24 PM
Straffo, do you have an 18 year old daughter that comes home in the winter time and cranks the termostat up to 80 degrees cause she thinks it will warm up the house faster?  Or a wife that has the hot water heater set as high as it will go?  every light on from the front door to the laundry room on?  do you come home and find 3 tvs on and nobody watching them?
Then the kids wonder why I go beserk when the electric bill comes.

it doesnt help its a double wide mobile home (or as my wife calls it "a manufactured house)
I think I'm going to get a heat pump next year, the electrian said it should cut my electric usage in half
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: straffo on February 27, 2007, 04:03:43 PM
Well I plan to kill my daughter just before she got her 1st lover :)

A heat pump is a good investment ,I'll probably have one in my next house
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Shuckins on February 27, 2007, 04:42:53 PM
Welp, Flatbar, just imagine how much energy Gore could save and the reduction in his carbon footprint if he lived in an average sized home instead of a 20 room mansion.

The same could be said for Barbara Streisand's 10,000 square foot, air-conditioned garage which she uses to store and preserve her antiques and collectibles.  Oh....and her gargantuan mansion which makes the White House look like a summer cottage, and who buys full-sized SUVs.

And take John Travolta...please.   He whose posh digs include a private airstrip and a modified Boeing 707 which he flies from coast to coast when the wanderlust hits him.

What do they all have in common?  All three have served or are at present serving on the boards of institutions working to promote energy conservation and prevent global warming.  All are constantly urging their social underlings to change their lifestyles, think green, and drive smaller vehicles.  

The sheer magnitude of their HYPOCRISY is staggering.  :rofl
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: GtoRA2 on February 27, 2007, 04:49:46 PM
I saw this blurb on another site.


Quote
CommonDreams.org wrote:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude


Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.


Don't know if it is true but the its pretty funny if it is.
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Maverick on February 27, 2007, 05:45:40 PM
Hehehe, I see all of the calculations here for some folks energy usage and it's nuts how much it takes.

I live in a 4009 sq ft "house". The power feed for the entire thing uses the same input as a single electric dryer or electric stove. That's a 220 volt feed actually used not as 220 volts but as two 120 volt feeds split in the "house".

I also have a heat pump and it does save propane. I have used 10 gallons of propane since last November. We did get down to 20 degrees here and had snow. The heat pump is nice but it loses efficiency once the temp goes down to 40 degrees. At 32 degrees it can't pull heat from outside and shuts down reverting to the propane furnace.

Since the heat pump is nothing but an air conditioner that has had the coolant flow reversed it will use the same power as you use in the summertime. It's efficiency loss in low temperatures means it will run longer and add less heat per hour of operation the colder it gets. Like I said it will save gas or propane but it does not put out as much heat as a regular furnace once it's cold outside.
Title: Re: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: Krusher on February 27, 2007, 07:27:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by festus
Gore seems to have an energy appetite for destruction of the human race

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm


Bush the evil tree hugger (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php)

Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive."
Title: Re: To Goron's Morons: "Do As I Say, Not As I Do"
Post by: Shifty on February 27, 2007, 08:16:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
the guy's a twit

the sky-is-falling global warming folks should pay him NOT to be their spokesperson if they want to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't have a bong in their face or like same sex partners ...


:rofl :rofl :rofl  oh man I've needed a good laugh.

Thanks Eag!:aok
Title: Inconvenient Truth Indeed
Post by: E25280 on February 27, 2007, 08:51:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
Laz, I dont disagree that Al Gore is probably hypocritical, a man that tells me I should be doing more to save the enviroment and save the planet and then rides in limos and uses a butt load of electricity.   My disagreement lies with people going all apesh** over some report from the Tennesse Center of Policy Research that uses some incomplete information to make a halfprettythang conclusion.  
from their report

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House

2006
High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month


Looks to me like they cherrypicked the data to show the results they wanted.  they only used 4 months out of 12.   Did they pick the months with highest usage?  why not give me all the information?    The truth is probably bad enough, but that just looks like poor reporting...
Average of 22619 and 12541 does not equal 18414.  Rather, it looks like they give the same information I receive from my own electric company - the highest, lowest and average of the last 12 billing periods.  Jan-Feb and Aug-Sept represent two billing periods, say from Jan 15 to Feb 15, and Aug 15 to Sept 15, and represent the highest and lowest of the 12 billing months they looked at.

They did not just average 4 months or cherry pick data.  They did give all the relevant information about the 12 month period they looked at.  FYI.