Page 50 of 111 FirstFirst ... 40454647484950515253545560100 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 1,000 of 2209
  1. #981  
    Just got this email. Thought it would be interesting to people here.
    Snopes says it's true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

    The Story of Two Houses




    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.



    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 about in the New York Times or the

    Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
  2. #982  
    I don't wish to lose Greenland, I just wish it was green again.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #983  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Just got this email. Thought it would be interesting to people here.
    Snopes says it's true.
    You actually buy (and convey) this RNC-inspired propaganda wholesale, eh? That's exactly why you don't see reports like that on 'CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.' Only Sun Myung Moon or Roger Ailes could be behind such a campaign of selective partial truths or misinformation. When the light of the truth is allowed to breathe, it becomes clear that neither the number of KWHs consumed, nor their dollar value, is the appropriate benchmark. What a sad potshot.


    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

    Origins: The above-quoted report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), claiming that Al Gore's Tennessee home uses over 20 times more energy than the average U.S. home, was released the day after the former vice-president's film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award for Best Documentary.

    The specific numbers involved may be disputable (the TCPR claimed Gore's home uses electricity at a rate more than "20 times the national average," while the Associated Press reported that its own review of bills indicated that the Gores' Nashville household used more than 12 times the average for a typical household in that area), but the gist of the claim that the Gores' Nashville residence consumes a substantially larger proportion of energy than the average American home is true.

    A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area.

    The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures is misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a "carbon-neutral lifestyle," by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home uses:

    Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

    A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.

    The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

    Last updated: 28 February 2007
  4. #984  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    You actually buy (and convey) this RNC-inspired propaganda wholesale, eh?
    Um, no. I checked with Snopes. Clearly, you trust them too. (Btw, you should credit them when you quote them.)

    Your highlights don't change anything. It's pretty straightforward. Gore uses more energy than most people. Gore uses more fossil fuel than most people. Carbon credits don't reduce Gore's carbon emissions. Implying that it does is just wrong (both you and Gore's publicist).

    It's not a potshot. I don't think there's anything wrong with using lots of fossil fuel and producing lots of carbon dioxide. He does. And clearly you do too. If I had his money, I'd be happy to live in a mansion and heat it with natural gas just like he does.

    When the light of the truth is allowed to breathe, it becomes clear that neither the number of KWHs consumed, nor their dollar value, is the appropriate benchmark.
    That's right. The appropriate benchmark is how much carbon dioxide you produce. Gore produces more than most people.

    The question is, do you want people to follow Gore's example or Bush's example?
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #985  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    That's right. The appropriate benchmark is how much carbon dioxide you produce. Gore produces more than most people.
    As quantified where and by whom? Subjective, circular opinions need not apply.

    Since we are agreed that the number of KWH's consumed, nor their associated dollars is an appropriate benchmark for a carbon footprint, you must be able to see that you (and your RNC-inspired propaganda) are confusing apples with oranges.

    Glad to see your true blood-red colors showing itself for what they are.
  6. #986  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Since we are agreed that the number of KWH's consumed, nor their associated dollars is an appropriate benchmark for a carbon footprint, you must be able to see that you (and your RNC-inspired propaganda) are confusing apples with oranges.
    You're still confused. I'll repeat:

    Gore uses more energy than most people. Gore uses more fossil fuel than most people. Carbon credits don't reduce Gore's carbon emissions.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #987  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You're still confused. I'll repeat:

    Gore uses more energy than most people. Gore uses more fossil fuel than most people. Carbon credits don't reduce Gore's carbon emissions.
    A deflection of the responsible argument is the best the RNC can produce? Keep swingin' for the fences, slugger.

    Thanks!
  8. #988  
    I see why whmurray gave up with you. You can't participate in a mature, coherent discussion. And you refuse to concede basic facts. Instead you make repeated, random snipes about the RNC.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #989  
    As it relates to global warming, the issue is not purely consumption, to which you've already agreed. I'm still waiting for your quantified answer regarding CO2 emissions, which is the issue. Currently, your only response has been pure avoidance.

    Quantify.
  10. #990  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    As it relates to global warming, the issue is not purely consumption, to which you've already agreed.
    Not quite. I agreed that KwH and $ aren't the best measures because they may include some green energy sources. But consumption of fossil fuels is directly correlated to carbon emissions.

    According to the TCPR, Gore's average gas bill was $1080 per month last year. That means he uses much more fossil fuel than most people.


    I'm still waiting for your quantified answer regarding CO2 emissions, which is the issue. Currently, your only response has been pure avoidance.

    Quantify.
    Read your own posts again. You never asked me to quantify CO2 emissions. No avoidance. You asked where and by whom the CO2 emissions were quantified, which I thought was pretty irrelevant, since we know Gore's consumption of fossil fuels is high.
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #991  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You never asked me to quantify CO2 emissions.
    Your willful ignorance is duly noted.

    You asked where and by whom the CO2 emissions were quantified, which I thought was pretty irrelevant.
    Your gross assumptions and anecdotal opinion are duly noted.

    Your internet 'gamesmanship' is not appreciated, however, it is highly typical. Thanks for removing all doubt.
  12. #992  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I see why whmurray gave up with you. You can't participate in a mature, coherent discussion. And you refuse to concede basic facts.
    .
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #993  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    That's right. The appropriate benchmark is how much carbon dioxide you produce. Gore produces more than most people.
    As quantified where and by whom? Subjective, circular opinions need not apply.

    Since we are agreed that the number of KWH's consumed, nor their associated dollars is an appropriate benchmark for a carbon footprint, you must be able to see that you (and your RNC-inspired propaganda) are confusing apples with oranges.

    Glad to see your true blood-red colors showing itself for what they are.
  14. #994  
    I understand the strategy here, just rag about Al Gore, and pretend like its all about him. And hope people do not actually read the science.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...ea-level_N.htm
  15. #995  
    Do we have an emoticon that shows one biting one's tongue?
  16. #996  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I understand the strategy here, just rag about Al Gore, and pretend like its all about him. And hope people do not actually read the science.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...ea-level_N.htm
    No. You don't understand. There's no pretending or hoping. The discussion about Gore is about Gore. Your link is unrelated.

    Do you agree that Gore burns more fossil fuel than most people on the planet?
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #997  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    That's right. The appropriate benchmark is how much carbon dioxide you produce. Gore produces more than most people.
    As quantified where and by whom? Subjective, circular opinions need not apply.
  18. #999  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    As quantified where and by whom? Subjective, circular opinions need not apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    According to the TCPR, Gore's average gas bill was $1080 per month last year. That means he uses much more fossil fuel than most people.
    Btw, you've used the phrase "circular opinion" several times. That has no meaning in English.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1000  
    ^ Yet, you don't know jack about Gore's carbon footprint. Typical.

Posting Permissions