An Inconvenient Utility Bill
What do I think?
In the last few years a number of heretofore unrecognized or at least underappreciated threats to our very existence on this earth have been recognized.
A couple of the most dramatic of these are meteor impact and climate change. The very idea that we could suddenly be struck by a huge meteor, or that our climate could change so suddenly that human life on this planet could be threatened, would have been laughable not so long ago. Presently it appears that these threats are real, and that we ignore them at our peril.
At the same time it appears that climate change is an incredibly complicated subject. To suggest that "the science is in" that there is "consensus" on the subject, and that no credible scientists disagree about what must be done, if anything, is simply wrong. I think we're barely scratching the surface as to our understanding of global climate change. We'd better figure out what's going on, and the quicker the better. To suggest that anyone who disagrees with the current dogma is bought and paid for is unhelpful.
If the current global warming is indeed caused by human activity, and it would seem that that is a pretty plausable idea, I do not believe that we can save ourselves by signing the Kyoto Accord, buying Priuses, and switching to flourescent lights. All this together is a pittance, a mere drop in the bucket. We can do these things, sit around and sing kumbaya, feel self righteous, and all go to hell together.
Because the costs of of taking significant action are so great, and the costs of an insufficient response to the problem are beyond staggering, we'd better get it right. Make sure we've got the science down, and prepare ourselves to accept what we have to do. The neo luddites among us won't be happy to face the inconvenient truth that it is primitive technology that got us into this mess, and only advanced technology can get us out. We'd better get used to the fact that nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and all kinds of other scarey technologies may be central to addressing the problem of global warming.
In the last few years a number of heretofore unrecognized or at least underappreciated threats to our very existence on this earth have been recognized.
A couple of the most dramatic of these are meteor impact and climate change. The very idea that we could suddenly be struck by a huge meteor, or that our climate could change so suddenly that human life on this planet could be threatened, would have been laughable not so long ago. Presently it appears that these threats are real, and that we ignore them at our peril.
At the same time it appears that climate change is an incredibly complicated subject. To suggest that "the science is in" that there is "consensus" on the subject, and that no credible scientists disagree about what must be done, if anything, is simply wrong. I think we're barely scratching the surface as to our understanding of global climate change. We'd better figure out what's going on, and the quicker the better. To suggest that anyone who disagrees with the current dogma is bought and paid for is unhelpful.
If the current global warming is indeed caused by human activity, and it would seem that that is a pretty plausable idea, I do not believe that we can save ourselves by signing the Kyoto Accord, buying Priuses, and switching to flourescent lights. All this together is a pittance, a mere drop in the bucket. We can do these things, sit around and sing kumbaya, feel self righteous, and all go to hell together.
Because the costs of of taking significant action are so great, and the costs of an insufficient response to the problem are beyond staggering, we'd better get it right. Make sure we've got the science down, and prepare ourselves to accept what we have to do. The neo luddites among us won't be happy to face the inconvenient truth that it is primitive technology that got us into this mess, and only advanced technology can get us out. We'd better get used to the fact that nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and all kinds of other scarey technologies may be central to addressing the problem of global warming.
So Larry, if Al Gore is carbon nuetral ( I have no idea if he is or not, or if he claims to be) would you think he is providing a very necessary service by getting the message out?
There is consensus on AWG. There isn't consensus on what must be done, two totally different items and you won't find any journal saying that. Just getting that truth out there has been frustrating as hell because it steps on peoples toes. A major political party in the US has at times taken it upon themselves to refute it and throw up all kinds of roadblocks to deny the science. A good chunk of the religious groups have incorporated denying it as a part of their dogma. I don't know where that comes from, except the mindless lockstep they've both fallen into. It comes from the left, it has to be wrong or evil or at least take a swipe at smearing the messenger ( like your or Mr. Reynolds thread heading)
I think you'll find fewer people opposed to nuclear energy. I heard a Republican Senator the other day going on and on about how we need it and how we have so many safe guards in place as to make it the safest and most environmentaly sound source we have. Well good. Let's go for it. It sounded so ironic because 25 years ago those safety nets and accountability concerns were the thorns in the side of his party. I'm waiting for the whine to roll back those same regulations from his party next, so we can save ourselves. Those damned liberals!
There is consensus on AWG. There isn't consensus on what must be done, two totally different items and you won't find any journal saying that. Just getting that truth out there has been frustrating as hell because it steps on peoples toes. A major political party in the US has at times taken it upon themselves to refute it and throw up all kinds of roadblocks to deny the science. A good chunk of the religious groups have incorporated denying it as a part of their dogma. I don't know where that comes from, except the mindless lockstep they've both fallen into. It comes from the left, it has to be wrong or evil or at least take a swipe at smearing the messenger ( like your or Mr. Reynolds thread heading)
I think you'll find fewer people opposed to nuclear energy. I heard a Republican Senator the other day going on and on about how we need it and how we have so many safe guards in place as to make it the safest and most environmentaly sound source we have. Well good. Let's go for it. It sounded so ironic because 25 years ago those safety nets and accountability concerns were the thorns in the side of his party. I'm waiting for the whine to roll back those same regulations from his party next, so we can save ourselves. Those damned liberals!
Did anyone read the initially linked press release (from the right-wing group) with their brains on? It claims that the main house and the guest house used over $1,000 of natural gas per month over the course of a year. Maybe gas is a hell of a lot more per therm in TN then it is in Chicago, but there's no way even two huge houses in a moderate heating climate like TN could use this much gas.Day wrote:dmw - It is my understanding that Gore's utility bill is not in dispute. Are you suggesting that somehow Exxon Mobile fudged the figures?
So, at least on this point, the claims fail a "reality check" on the numbers. This leads to two additional questions:
1) What is the source for the data?
2) Unless Gore released the information, are utility bills publically available information? (I suspect not)
The combination of the failed "reality check" on the numbers, the lack of a source for the data and the obvious bias of the writer means that we must question the validity of the data until it is proven otherwise.
Bacon is meat candy.
Says the morbidly obese, 500 pound man:Day wrote:[snip]
If the current global warming is indeed caused by human activity, and it would seem that that is a pretty plausable idea, I do not believe that we can save ourselves by signing the Kyoto Accord, buying Priuses, and switching to flourescent lights. All this together is a pittance, a mere drop in the bucket. We can do these things, sit around and sing kumbaya, feel self righteous, and all go to hell together.
Because the costs of of taking significant action are so great, and the costs of an insufficient response to the problem are beyond staggering, we'd better get it right. Make sure we've got the science down, and prepare ourselves to accept what we have to do. The neo luddites among us won't be happy to face the inconvenient truth that it is primitive technology that got us into this mess, and only advanced technology can get us out. We'd better get used to the fact that nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and all kinds of other scarey technologies may be central to addressing the problem of global warming.
"The health crisis that my obesity has led to is incredibly complex! The pain of exercise and a better diet are great! If I don't do enough or if I do the wrong thing, it won't make much of a difference. So until everything is totally worked out, I'm just going to ride my electric scooter to the store and buy a few large frozen pizzas, a few 2 liters of sugary soda and a box of cupcakes for lunch."
But you do deserve credit for sounding like you recognize that warming is actually happening.
And I am with you on the fact that nuclear power generation is probably an important part of reducing the problem (or even a solution). The problem is that the saftey issues from cradle to grave require that it not be left primarily to private enterprise. People who check the price of their company's stock every 10 minutes can't be trusted to deal with problems with thousand year half-lives.
Bacon is meat candy.
tomdarch - I read it with my brains on. The piece said the source for their figures was the power company. A newspaper article I read said Gore's power bill was publicly available information. In their defense of Gore, his office personnel did not dispute the figures. I don't know, maybe you're right, and they're all lieing.
I never suggested we should bury our heads in the sand because the problem is too complex. I just think we need to get serious about it. While Gore has done a great deal to raise awareness of the issue, having a hypocrit as a movement's spokesperson can come back to bite you on the ass.
It would be good to know more about his "carbon credit" purchases. If he's building windmills, great, if he's paying a foundation to plant trees count me as skeptical.
At least we agree on nukes, looks like we need them, and we can't trust them to the care of cost cutters.
I never suggested we should bury our heads in the sand because the problem is too complex. I just think we need to get serious about it. While Gore has done a great deal to raise awareness of the issue, having a hypocrit as a movement's spokesperson can come back to bite you on the ass.
It would be good to know more about his "carbon credit" purchases. If he's building windmills, great, if he's paying a foundation to plant trees count me as skeptical.
At least we agree on nukes, looks like we need them, and we can't trust them to the care of cost cutters.
Seriously, though: How can one 20k house plus a guest house use US$1,000 of natural gas per month in Tennessee? I don't know where in TN this house is, but the locations that I found heating degree day data for were around half the HDDs of Chicago. Even if the place has no insulation (which is likely), they keep it extra toasty, Al and Tipper shag for hours in the shower and they have an outdoor heated pool - how could they possibly use that much gas?
For what it's worth, this story made the Colbert Report!
For what it's worth, this story made the Colbert Report!
Bacon is meat candy.
