LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground Water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

ANSWERS:

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS,ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed for Mr. Gore is "an inconvenient truth".

Again, the title of this thread is "When the truth is inconvenient." The article posted by L8BloomR is written by the Hudson Institute. The "Institute", which calls itself non-partisan is funded by major corporations including Eli Lilly, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, etc. It's members include a who's-who of neo-conservatives.

The information in the article comes from Dennis Avery who has written, among many other questionable writings, one that claims that organic foods are more dangerous than those that are sprayed with pesticides.

This particular global warming piece is compiled from information contained in Mr. Avery's book. The book, interestingly, only uses warming data up to 1985. Why? Because the data after 1985 muddies his waters considerably. His so-called 'explanations' for global warming don't account for the meteoric rise since 1985. (Another interesting note from Avery's book is that it is not warm enough in England to grow wine grapes. The owners of the 150+ vineyards that are located there would probably beg to differ.)

I, personally, am still not decided on exactly how much of global warming is attributable to humans vs. nature. One thing is for sure, however. In making up my mind I am sure to closely evaluate the source of my material. Relying on research from a 'think tank' funded by the very corporations that would be most impacted by more rigid environmental regulations is not something I would consider doing. I also don't accept Al Gore's assertions at face value. I'm still researching his sources and will probably be doing so for quite some time. In the end, we may find out that all this to-do about man-made global warming is junk. Or, we may find out the opposite.

I encourage everyone to do their own research on the subject before arriving on their settled opinion. Keep in mind, though, articles and books by either far-flung faction (right or left) probably aren't the best hooks on which to hang one's hat.

The point of my post was that there are way too many people with differing, conflicting studies regarding global warming to consider the debate "over". I have posted links and articles on recent studies by scientists who vehemently disagree with the current conclusions being promoted by the mainstream. And as for bias, if you have watched any of the History Channel's "documentaries" on this subject, or seen the not-so-subtle promotion of the theory in a Disney animation, you are seeing G.E., the owners of these companies, promoting THEIR bias....as they own the patent on expensive "green" technology that will pay off nicely if we all switch to alternate forms of energy. There is nothing wrong with someone having an opinion one way or another, I just don't like the idea that only one side has all the answers, especially when it is obvious to many of us that there may be many reasons and answers that apply.

especially when it is obvious to many of us that there may be many reasons and answers that apply.

Your post is well-taken by me. I agree that advancing one view over others is frustrating and sometimes, downright dishonest. While I haven't taken a firm side one way or another, I have been surprised that the number of anti-global-warmists are miniscule compared to the number that believe in it and mans role in creating it. That doesn't, however, mean that it is true. There was once a "Red-Scare" in this country that nearly everyone believed in. Careers were destroyed, lives were ruined... and all for nothing.

I'm glad that some people believe that it is "obvious.. that there may be many reasons and answers that apply." I'm just not one of them, yet. So far I've found it difficult to refute many of the global-warmists theories (although I may, indeed, one day be able to do so). It has not been difficult, however, to refute those of the anti-global-warmists. Somehow they never cover their tracks very well and expose their flaws rather quickly. Hopefully, if this global-warming belief is not to be believed... that someone will offer some real evidence to the contrary, as opposed to what they have so far.

Again, I don't know the right answer. I believed vehemently in the war with Iraq when our government asserted that there were weapons of mass destruction to be found there. I was full-force in favor of invasion of the country and the take-down of Saddam Hussein. I was shocked that there were people who didn't believe what our government was saying. I thought, in fact, in light of the 9/11 tragedy that their views maybe even bordered on treason. What a difference a few years make. Wow! Was I ever wrong!

I learned a lesson or two from that mistake. I consider my sources much more carefully, now. You may be absolutely correct in your belief against global-warming. You may turn out to be among those in the minority who had it right all along. I wish I had reviewed the anti-war people's positions more clearly. They knew what they were talking about. That's why I will continue to review carefully everything that you and others post. You (or they) may offer some convincing evidence that clearly refutes the current view of the majority.

Reread the article. The extensive remodeling was already going on at the time that he was 'exposed.' Please don't let your disdain for Al Gore override everything that you read. You don't have to like the man. Many many people don't. But also don't rely on misleading stories to fuel your disdain. I'm sure you can find many other true things about him that will fuel it just fine.

It's my understanding from the article that the remodel was done to make the mansion more eco-friendly. Again I ask: why did it take him 5 years (mansion purchase in 2002, remodel done in 2007) to make his humble abode eco-friendly? I would think, based on his protestations about the environment, that this would be the FIRST thing he did upon moving into his 10,000 square foot mansion.

Thanks for posting this, Elenation. This is just one of many, many studies done by scientists and meteorologists who believe that even if global warming is real, it very well may not be man-made. Many of these scientists are being fired, ignored, or silenced in other ways. In fact, the founder of The Weather Channel calls the theory "the biggest scam ever perpetrated on society" and he has been excoriated by many of his fellow meteorologists for saying so. It always makes me wonder: If man-made global warming is such a proven "fact", why fear further studies, scrutiny, or discussion with others? Al Gore will not attend debates on the subject and, as the above article states (and as I have read in many other places), a scientist can lose his/her grant if they don't follow the politically-correct global warming agenda. I have posted links before on this subject, here is another:

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

Anyway, I appreciate Elenation, Gadgetlady, and the other posters who don't just accept one side of this debate. There are just too many discrepancies to consider it "case-closed", IMO.

I'm SO HAPPY to see you here again L8BloomR!!!!!!! I have missed you here a lot! your posts are always so informative and ....well...., right on the money....!

Yes, that's exactly true, I don't accept just one side of this debate, it's far from being a case closed and in my opinion, it's stupid and narrow minded to not consider all the facts and take into consideration all the discrepancies, again, you are right on the money! THank you! and thank you for posting the article, just great!

Much like WCFG---I find myself swayed back and forth on things and tend to want to carefully examine many different sides on things, as I have found myself convinced thoroughly of something----only to find I was wrong at a later date. Outdated, and one sided materials, and articles abound....on most every subject. It is the same with everything, you want a fact, or a statistic------you can usually dig one up to support your belief.

In this I honestly think the final answer will lie somewhere in the middle between the 2 extremes, but as BJean pointed out several posts back-----what is wrong with attempting to live green and save some resources? It is one of those things I think it would be better to live like there is a problem---and find out there isn't, than to live like there isn't--------and find out there is.....

Years ago, people did not generate the trash they do now, they used things until they wore them out. Going back to that frame of mind--using solar power as much as possible, going green when we can, cannot hurt us, cannot hurt our planet. My Dad has a wooden sign on the wall of his shop that says "Use it up, Wear it out, Make it Do....or Do without"....our earth as well as our overall economy could learn from his take on humor!

This seems to have pretty much turned into a thread that is not about whether global warming is being exacerbated by humans, but rather one about whether or not Al Gore is to be believed. I would imagine he is about as believable as any politician!!!

Without a doubt he should have put his money where his mouth was from the beginning....and unless we personally had been there we will probably never know how much of his remodel had been started or planned when he became so vocal. Because articles, can be made believable for both sides....making them all irrelevent.

Wouldn't a poll for whether you like and believe Al Gore or Not have been more to the point?

Kat

The question I originally posed was why do so many Republicans believe that Al Gore invented the term and theory of "global warming"?

If you don't believe that, then ignore the question. If you do believe that, why do you?

To me, it's like behaving as if Bill Clinton invented hanky panky in the White House.

Thank you so much West Coast Fat Guy. It is easy to post items that are political propaganda and pass them off as the gospel. It is always great to have someone saavy enough to reveal the other side of the claim. No matter which side of the political debate we're on.

Of course at Rants & Raves, it is often just about opinion. Or beliefs. That's what makes it important to have points on both sides of the question represented when "research" is posted. Otherwise one poster may feel ganged up on. Not that much fun, eh?

Whoo-hoo!!! Right on, Kat!!! I vote for your Dad! with you as VP.

I think things often get way out of hang during discussions just because of political leanings - not due to the pros and cons of the real question at hand.

Your point about what's wrong with living as if it were a problem is cool and one I wholly support.

But the thing is, corporations do not want that. Big business will be hurt in the pocketbook if we do that. That's what all the shouting is about. That's what all the misdirection to Al Gore is all about.

Republicans are experts at misdirecting our attention to a person or behavior that is not relevant to the real question. That's why they're so good at winning political races - in spite of their performance in office.

And I suppose there are no liberal corporations or political groups misdirecting the public? You have got to be kidding!! Please do some research....and start with G.E. (don't forget they own NBC who is doing more "green" programing than anyone else..... but the list goes on and on.) And Republicans also drink the water and breathe the air, so to imply that we don't care about the environment is just wrong. We just disagree with the hysteria and the "religion" that environmental issues have become. Of course there is nothing wrong with living "green"---that is great and something we should all do no matter what because it will clean up the planet. But this thread had become about whether or not the man-made global warming debate is a done deal, and my point was that for many people, it is not. Do you know who Patrick Moore is? He was co-founder of Greenpeace. He disagrees with the current "belief" that global warming is man-made. Would you call him a Republican with an agenda? People keep trying to make this a liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat issue, but I don't see it like that. Some people are just quicker to jump on the bandwagon than others. And since many good and intelligent people are still disagreeing on the answer, many of us aren't ready to make that leap just yet.

Kat: Your Dad sounds like my dad!! I used to hear that all the time when growing up. Still is great advice. Thanks for the memories....

And I suppose there are no liberal corporations or political groups misdirecting the public? You have got to be kidding!! Please do some research....and start with G.E. (don't forget they own NBC who is doing more "green" programing than anyone else..... but the list goes on and on.) And Republicans also drink the water and breathe the air, so to imply that we don't care about the environment is just wrong. We just disagree with the hysteria and the "religion" that environmental issues have become. Of course there is nothing wrong with living "green"---that is great and something we should all do no matter what because it will clean up the planet. But this thread had become about whether or not the man-made global warming debate is a done deal, and my point was that for many people, it is not. Do you know who Patrick Moore is? He was co-founder of Greenpeace. He disagrees with the current "belief" that global warming is man-made. Would you call him a Republican with an agenda? People keep trying to make this a liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat issue, but I don't see it like that. Some people are just quicker to jump on the bandwagon than others. And since many good and intelligent people are still disagreeing on the answer, many of us aren't ready to make that leap just yet.

Kat: Your Dad sounds like my dad!! I used to hear that all the time when growing up. Still is great advice. Thanks for the memories....

Thank you for the info and I totally agree...

You know, GW may or may not be the environmental crisis of the next century, but regardless of whether it is or isn't, in my opinion, really not much will done about it. We may argue over it and may even make some solemn sounding commitments to avoid it, but the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, I think the less likely they are to be observed, frankly I personally think little will be done. . . . I think GW will become a good source of national hypocrisy. I for one certainly refuse to join the hysteria at this point since I'm certainly not convinced or anywhere near being convinced right now.

Sure, nothing wrong to live a "green" lifestyle, if that's ok with you, but I wish nobody was trying to force it on me unless they were absolutely sure, so I guess I don't want to have to give up so many things that I enjoy just in case.... not really... :biggrin:

I really don't think that anybody here is trying to post political propaganda and pass them off as the gospel.... I very much disagree with that, I believe that we are all adults here and with at least some decent degree of intelligence that gets us debating on important issues, so why would anybody think that they are going to fool others with "political propaganda" I find that absurd...

Republicans are experts at misdirecting our attention to a person or behavior that is not relevant to the real question. That's why they're so good at winning political races - in spite of their performance in office.

The above comment is just plain funny to me... it seems as a desperate attempt to defend your views by attacking the other party...? wth?

Do you know who Patrick Moore is? He was co-founder of Greenpeace. He disagrees with the current "belief" that global warming is man-made. Would you call him a Republican with an agenda?

I would call Patrick Moore a 'corporate consultant' with an agenda. He now owns a public relations firm that specializes in communications companies involved in mining, fossil fuels, logging and nuclear power. He has completely flip-flopped from his Greenpeace roots of being against nuclear power and now sits on a board that encourages it as the replacement for fossil fuels (not exactly the type of person conjured up in ones mind when thinking of him as a co-founder of Greenpeace).

The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Mr. Moore: "In direct opposition to common environmentalist positions, Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees."

The right wing loves to throw up Patrick Moore's background in Greenpeace so as to confuse people into believing that even though he shares the core beliefs of Greenpeace that he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. This is not only misleading, but downright dishonest. Mr. Moore makes his living by taking money for services from interests that he used to abhor. He is nothing more than a sell-out who learned that using his past alignments with Greenpeace could make him enormous amounts of money by joining his former enemies.

As for researching G.E....

There has been a huge uproar from shareholders and shareholder advocacy groups (including a proxy statement in the 2007 GE Annual report highlighting the need for a global warming report) because of fears that GE will lose money and adversely affect the shareholders and even the economy as a whole.

It's not as cut-and-dried as some would make it appear.

The problem with global-warming proponents and environmentalists is they are so frothing at the mouth to further their cause, they often propose "solutions" that have their own problems.

Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break - The Boston Globe

I don't know, I think I'd rather be less "environmentally conscious" and safeguard my children from mercury poisoning. But that's just me. I'm sure there are many others who care more about mother earth than they do their children.

The right wing loves to throw up Patrick Moore's background in Greenpeace so as to confuse people into believing that even though he shares the core beliefs of Greenpeace that he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. This is not only misleading, but downright dishonest. Mr. Moore makes his living by taking money for services from interests that he used to abhor. He is nothing more than a sell-out who learned that using his past alignments with Greenpeace could make him enormous amounts of money by joining his former enemies.

I don't know Mr. Moore and I doubt you do, either. So neither one of us can know his motives... what made him change his views. I think that the argument can be made that he learned more info and did more research and that made him favor a different way than he did earlier. You have obviously decided he "sold out", but that sounds like sour grapes to me. It is human nature for one side to deride and belittle someone who leaves their side to go to another; it happens in politics all the time. So just as you have decided that you don't want to be fooled again and want to look at all sides of the issues (which I admire and try to do myself), you have to give the other person (like Mr. Moore) the same respect to do the same...even if that person's research leads him in an opposite direction than yours. If Mr. Moore was applauded as a great thinker when he started Greenpeace, did he suddenly turn stupid and ignorant when he changed his mind?

If you don't believe that this debate has much to do with Democratic vs. Republican alignment, why don't we take a poll here and see exactly who of us believes that global warming is a non-issue vs. those who believe it potentially an important issue?

You Republicans here sure do hate me don't you? Or is it still not personal? I can't believe little ole' me can rile some of you up so much. I say what I think because we aren't in the same room. If we were across the table from each other, I wouldn't dare.