There are lots of things Surrendie loves: some good brie, French bread, a nice Bordeaux, pre-emptive surrender. One of his others is when a port-sider decides to extend their 15 minutes with some sort of craziness, such as with Cindy Sheehan, Wes Clark, and now, Al Gore. Though, Surrendie is conflicted, as he has never really liked Al, since he smells vaguely of oil and ozone, and refuses to share his food
Former Vice President Al Gore, seeking to shake up an energy debate that is focused mostly on drilling, challenged the United States to shift its entire electricity sector to carbon-free wind, solar and geothermal power within 10 years, and use that power to fuel a new fleet of electric vehicles.
The goal is the most ambitious energy plan by a major U.S. political figure – and one many energy experts say is unrealistic. Gore insists the only real obstacle is the reluctance of America’s leaders to seek bold solutions to high energy prices and global warming. He likened his challenge to President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 call to put a man on the moon.
“Hey, someone pay attention to me! I was the Emperor of the Moon on Futurama, after all! This Obama guy is a flash in the pan!”
You can read his entire speech over at the DotEartblog at the NY Times, where they probably wet their panties, and do not understand that the United States doesn’t really have that many areas that can be tapped in to for geothermal power, and the return on power for solar and wind is low, and requires massive tracts of clear cut land. They are nice as supplemental, but, unrealistic for complete.
Meanwhile, there is a wee bit of a problem regarding Al’s consensus theory (beyond the fact that consensus is not science, of course)
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
Uh oh. There’s that word the Goracle hates: debate. Because, damnitall! anthropogenic climate change is real, it is killing us, and, hey, have you thought about buying carbon credits from the company where I am on the board of directors?
Is it any wonder Gore decided not to run for president? Otherwise, well, he would have to debate his wild a**ed ideas.
See tons more at Memeorandum.
Heh heh: There’s video over at Michelle Malkin’s regarding the Goracles climahypocrisy.
Read the update. Even Jonah added it to his commentary on the subject.
Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
Is it “climahypocrisy†if someone acknowledges the livestock industry is contributing to anthropogenic global warming but continues to eat meat?
is it climahypocrisy to have taken the side that Man is mostly responsible for “climate change” yet do absutely nothing urself? why yes, it is.
Do you consider yourself a “climahypocrit†for believing that man’s contribution to global warming is because of livestock yet you continue to eat meat?
Teach as I posted before Gore has retrofitted his house and now buys 90% of its energy from green renewable sources. I think that in addition to Gore many who support his position have done things to reduce their carbon footprint.He also donates all of his fees as a director of the carbon offset company into green programs. Gore is rather wealthy taking these steps was rather easy for him to do.At this point in his life personal finacce is not one of his concerns.
Teach can you a pattern here in your behavior ? You read something like the American Phusical Society has reversed its stand on Global Climate Change. Then it turns out that they really have not, only that some opponents discussed it on one of its forums. Or you post that Gore’s house is using 10 times the energy of a regular house, and yes true but that 90% of his energy is bought from green companies using rennewable sources (even though this is more expensive) You read something that you think supports your position and then you cut and paste without trying to do any further research, and then often it proves false.
Teach also accepts some scientific studies but not others (even though the others are more up to date and contain a wider range of data, including the study he accepts). He also likes to criticize other people for being hypocrites but won’t accept any responsibility for his own actions.
Hmm, let’s see: you believe that Man is the major, if not sole, cause of global warming. Yet, you refuse to change your lifestyle. If I remember (I can go back and find the quote), you wrote “I cannot afford that.” So, you are a hypocrite, expecting everyone else to change their lives, just not you.
Me, I believe Man has a small piece of the puzzle, which is the price we pay for our advanced lifestyles. However, I do actually do things, such as better power use, conservation of water, I have actually asked the mayor of Raleigh if there is anything that can be done about the garbage dump in Raleigh. But, I am not constantly complaining about how evil Man is and how we have to change our lives or the Earth will burn in 10 years. Y’all do.
So, walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.
Teach, I freely admit I can and should be doing more to reduce my carbon admissions. I have made some adjustments but I am not willing to stop driving my car tomorrow – nor do I expect others to. The difference between you and I is that I do not criticize others for something I am not willing to do. I am simply pointing out that you seem to have a double standard.
I understand your decision to continue eating meat. What I don’t understand is why you criticize me for not changing my lifestyle. I also don’t understand why you accept the FAO’s study from 2006 but do not accept the IPCC’s study from 2007. What is your standard for accepting scientific evidence?
Oops…that should read carbon emissions, not “admissions.” ;)
Please provide a link to the “the earth will burn in 10 years”