Big deal on the SUV. The private jet he flies around in to give his lectures creates enough pollution in one flight that his SUV creates in a year. [1]
[1] Or so I've heard though i have no hard data and no interest to research it.
I didn't want to sound like "a fox news "anchor" (actor) but it was just rather ironic to talk about destoying the environment while driving a huge black SUV. Other's have criticized him for his home energy consumption apparently he spent 30, 000 dollars last year heating and "energizing" his home.
"But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average."
I didn't want to sound like "a fox news "anchor" (actor) but it was just rather ironic to talk about destoying the environment while driving a huge black SUV. Other's have criticized him for his home energy consumption apparently he spent 30, 000 dollars last year heating and "energizing" his home.
"But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 ? more than 20 times the national average."
Who cares how much he spends. He's doing a great deal of good work educating the world on the effects of man made global warming. The "Tennessee thinktank" is really a conservative hit job. Sad that this is enough to get people talking about this rather than dealing with global warming, or dealing with Bush's now admitted release of classified information to try and ruin people who tried to present the facts. Instead Bush covers up of the facts to convince the public to go to war in Iraq which he admits had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a serious topic. Sending 3100 American's to die on false pretenses. I can't think of a worse offense, certainly not having a supposed big electric bill.
Meanwhile the RFID and Wifi idea sound great, very innovative.
And why is AppleInsider so quiet today? No new news?
Who cares how much he spends. He's doing a great deal of good work educating the world on the effects of man made global warming. The "Tennessee thinktank" is really a conservative hit job. Sad that this is enough to get people talking about this rather than dealing with global warming, or dealing with Bush's now admitted release of classified information to try and ruin people who tried to present the facts. Instead Bush covers up of the facts to convince the public to go to war in Iraq which he admits had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a serious topic. Sending 3100 American's to die on false pretenses. I can't think of a worse offense, certainly not having a supposed big electric bill.
Meanwhile the RFID and Wifi idea sound great, very innovative.
And why is AppleInsider so quiet today? No new news?
I don't think Apple will just use RFID with wi-fi. I think they may end up using it in the iPhone as well. Steve did mention in the keynote that you wouldn't have to pair the bluetooth headset. It would automatically configure to the phone and I think this may be through these RFID chips as well.
Who cares how much he spends. He's doing a great deal of good work educating the world on the effects of man made global warming.
Except that there's no real body of scientific evidence supporting that man made global warming even exists. A lot of folks think it's a ploy so that he can sell carbon offsets, which he stands to profit a lot on.
Anyway, I still haven't totally bought into the RFID thing. I'm just not sure it's any more convenient than typing in password or whatnot, and it requires the addition of an RFID reader somewhere in the system.
While the patent implies that Apple would use this to connect OS X to a wireless router, I just don't see that happening. It specifically stated the technology could be used in devices such as remotes that don't have a screen. I highly doubt they would use RFID for authentication to a network when you could just type in your password.
Jeez. My friends already think I'm a rabid Apple fanboy. Now anyone who reads this will think I'm the leader of the Al Gore cheer leading squad too. So much for my reputation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
[1] Or so I've heard though i have no hard data and no interest to research it.
Just a hint... when you're writing a post and you realize that you need to include this disclaimer, the proper thing to do is hit the "back" button. I don't mean to be rude, but all you've done is propagate a half-truth used to attack a man that's legitimately trying to do some good.
Yes, Al Gore flies around in a jet. And yes, jets do produce more greenhouse gases than an SUV. He also claims to live a "carbon-neutral lifestyle", which means he offsets his CO2 production by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere". Maybe that doesn't totally absolve him (Gore could easily drive around in a smaller car and fly commercially, but he doesn't), but it's still more than I (or, I'm guessing, you) do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
"But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 ? more than 20 times the national average."
It's no mistake that this "report" came out just 1 day after Gore accepted an Oscar for his documentary -- that "think tank" isn't without its own political biases. I would suggest reading this link http://www.newscientist.com/blog/env...ption-dig.html because I think it presents a more balanced look at the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
Except that there's no real body of scientific evidence supporting that man made global warming even exists. A lot of folks think it's a ploy so that he can sell carbon offsets, which he stands to profit a lot on.
A large majority of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ic_literature). So maybe they're wrong, and maybe the warming trend we're seeing really is just the result of some natural process (I've seen sunspots mentioned a lot). But here's what nobody disputes:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and significant quantities of it are capable of raising the temperature of the planet
2. The burning of fossil fuels takes significant quantities of carbon that have been sequestered beneath the Earth's surface for millions of years and puts it back into the atmosphere.
Even if the warming trend is natural, it seems foolish to continue our current practices when there are better alternatives. I'm not saying everyone needs to destroy their car and bike to work everyday. If people would just stop actively opposing climate change for political reasons and start evaluating it on its scientific merit I'd be happy.
If people would just stop actively opposing climate change for political reasons and start evaluating it on its scientific merit I'd be happy.
The same people that ignore manmade global warming... even though almost every credible scientist on the planet agrees with it.... these same people are probably those who ignore facts overall... they believe the earth is 14000 years old, humans didn't evolve we just showed up out of no where, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Iraq has/had WMD, that Bush didn't lie to push the country into war in Iraq and that he's not trying to be a dictator even though he acts like one.
There's little evidence that much of the American public listens to facts, much less scientific reasoning. Why should global warming be any different?
The same people that ignore manmade global warming... even though almost every credible scientist on the planet agrees with it.... these same people are probably those who ignore facts overall... they believe the earth is 14000 years old, humans didn't evolve we just showed up out of no where, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Iraq has/had WMD, that Bush didn't lie to push the country into war in Iraq and that he's not trying to be a dictator even though he acts like one.
There's little evidence that much of the American public listens to facts, much less scientific reasoning. Why should global warming be any different?
I'm not an expert, and I don't have an opinion on Global warming simply because my opinion is worthless because I would have no idea what I'm talking about. I'd just be echoing statements made by others. I do know however that not all credible scientists on the planet agree with it. It's debatable! But who cares who's right or wrong, at least it's provoking people to be more environmentally conscious and opening up opportunities for alternative energy sources, that can't be a bad thing.
Regarding your other comments: Sorry, but evolution makes no sense at all to me. DNA and nature are infinitely more complex than say, an Apple computer. But nobody would say that my mac formed into it's current shape over the course of billions of years.
When did this thread become a political debate anyway?
I have no problem with alternative fuels, conservation, etc. In fact, I do my best to conserve. But I don't buy anthropogenic climate change. A lot of books are coming out now that basically say that man-made global warming is a farce to get federal grants, and that the majority of climatological scientist atually do not buy into it. So the jury is still very much out, but since we do know that climates have fluctuated rapidly over the past three thousand years at least, it's hard for me to really believe that it's a man-made debacle.
I read a report in Scientific American that one scientist blames agriculture for Global Warming. This makes sense in that it is very wide spread, effecting the ecology, water flows and temperatures of huge areas of the earth. And the start of agriculture corresponds to the end of the last ice age. But this can be a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg situation. Which came first, the end of the ice age, or the rise of agriculture.
Remember, we are still exiting what is known as the "Little Ice Age" that started about 800 years ago. And don't forget that "Year Without Summer" in the early 1800's. We still haven't warmed up to the temperatures of 2000 year ago.
I thought that was due to the eruption of Mount Tambora, that blew something like 160 cubic kilometers of dust into the atmosphere.
Yes, that caused the the "Year Without Summer". But I thought I read somewhere that we still haven't recovered from that event and have yet to return to the temperatures of the 1700's. Or maybe my source was just stating that the temperatures were still rising. I don't remember.
rfid and rfid reader technology is an amazing process...the wi-fi set up makes sense to me...and there should be no fear of big brother...in my opinion...the posibilities with these technologies are endless!
Comments
Big deal on the SUV. The private jet he flies around in to give his lectures creates enough pollution in one flight that his SUV creates in a year. [1]
[1] Or so I've heard though i have no hard data and no interest to research it.
"But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average."
"But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 ? more than 20 times the national average."
Who cares how much he spends. He's doing a great deal of good work educating the world on the effects of man made global warming. The "Tennessee thinktank" is really a conservative hit job. Sad that this is enough to get people talking about this rather than dealing with global warming, or dealing with Bush's now admitted release of classified information to try and ruin people who tried to present the facts. Instead Bush covers up of the facts to convince the public to go to war in Iraq which he admits had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a serious topic. Sending 3100 American's to die on false pretenses. I can't think of a worse offense, certainly not having a supposed big electric bill.
Meanwhile the RFID and Wifi idea sound great, very innovative.
And why is AppleInsider so quiet today? No new news?
Who cares how much he spends. He's doing a great deal of good work educating the world on the effects of man made global warming. The "Tennessee thinktank" is really a conservative hit job. Sad that this is enough to get people talking about this rather than dealing with global warming, or dealing with Bush's now admitted release of classified information to try and ruin people who tried to present the facts. Instead Bush covers up of the facts to convince the public to go to war in Iraq which he admits had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a serious topic. Sending 3100 American's to die on false pretenses. I can't think of a worse offense, certainly not having a supposed big electric bill.
Meanwhile the RFID and Wifi idea sound great, very innovative.
And why is AppleInsider so quiet today? No new news?
so is he eligible for "carbon offsets"?
Who cares how much he spends. He's doing a great deal of good work educating the world on the effects of man made global warming.
Except that there's no real body of scientific evidence supporting that man made global warming even exists. A lot of folks think it's a ploy so that he can sell carbon offsets, which he stands to profit a lot on.
Anyway, I still haven't totally bought into the RFID thing. I'm just not sure it's any more convenient than typing in password or whatnot, and it requires the addition of an RFID reader somewhere in the system.
[1] Or so I've heard though i have no hard data and no interest to research it.
Just a hint... when you're writing a post and you realize that you need to include this disclaimer, the proper thing to do is hit the "back" button. I don't mean to be rude, but all you've done is propagate a half-truth used to attack a man that's legitimately trying to do some good.
Yes, Al Gore flies around in a jet. And yes, jets do produce more greenhouse gases than an SUV. He also claims to live a "carbon-neutral lifestyle", which means he offsets his CO2 production by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere". Maybe that doesn't totally absolve him (Gore could easily drive around in a smaller car and fly commercially, but he doesn't), but it's still more than I (or, I'm guessing, you) do.
"But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 ? more than 20 times the national average."
It's no mistake that this "report" came out just 1 day after Gore accepted an Oscar for his documentary -- that "think tank" isn't without its own political biases. I would suggest reading this link http://www.newscientist.com/blog/env...ption-dig.html because I think it presents a more balanced look at the facts.
Except that there's no real body of scientific evidence supporting that man made global warming even exists. A lot of folks think it's a ploy so that he can sell carbon offsets, which he stands to profit a lot on.
A large majority of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ic_literature). So maybe they're wrong, and maybe the warming trend we're seeing really is just the result of some natural process (I've seen sunspots mentioned a lot). But here's what nobody disputes:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and significant quantities of it are capable of raising the temperature of the planet
2. The burning of fossil fuels takes significant quantities of carbon that have been sequestered beneath the Earth's surface for millions of years and puts it back into the atmosphere.
Even if the warming trend is natural, it seems foolish to continue our current practices when there are better alternatives. I'm not saying everyone needs to destroy their car and bike to work everyday. If people would just stop actively opposing climate change for political reasons and start evaluating it on its scientific merit I'd be happy.
If people would just stop actively opposing climate change for political reasons and start evaluating it on its scientific merit I'd be happy.
The same people that ignore manmade global warming... even though almost every credible scientist on the planet agrees with it.... these same people are probably those who ignore facts overall... they believe the earth is 14000 years old, humans didn't evolve we just showed up out of no where, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Iraq has/had WMD, that Bush didn't lie to push the country into war in Iraq and that he's not trying to be a dictator even though he acts like one.
There's little evidence that much of the American public listens to facts, much less scientific reasoning. Why should global warming be any different?
The same people that ignore manmade global warming... even though almost every credible scientist on the planet agrees with it.... these same people are probably those who ignore facts overall... they believe the earth is 14000 years old, humans didn't evolve we just showed up out of no where, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Iraq has/had WMD, that Bush didn't lie to push the country into war in Iraq and that he's not trying to be a dictator even though he acts like one.
There's little evidence that much of the American public listens to facts, much less scientific reasoning. Why should global warming be any different?
I'm not an expert, and I don't have an opinion on Global warming simply because my opinion is worthless because I would have no idea what I'm talking about. I'd just be echoing statements made by others. I do know however that not all credible scientists on the planet agree with it. It's debatable! But who cares who's right or wrong, at least it's provoking people to be more environmentally conscious and opening up opportunities for alternative energy sources, that can't be a bad thing.
Regarding your other comments: Sorry, but evolution makes no sense at all to me. DNA and nature are infinitely more complex than say, an Apple computer. But nobody would say that my mac formed into it's current shape over the course of billions of years.
When did this thread become a political debate anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Recent_survey s_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature)[/url]. So maybe they're wrong, and maybe the warming trend we're seeing really is just the result of some natural process (I've seen sunspots mentioned a lot). But here's what nobody disputes:
I have no problem with alternative fuels, conservation, etc. In fact, I do my best to conserve. But I don't buy anthropogenic climate change. A lot of books are coming out now that basically say that man-made global warming is a farce to get federal grants, and that the majority of climatological scientist atually do not buy into it. So the jury is still very much out, but since we do know that climates have fluctuated rapidly over the past three thousand years at least, it's hard for me to really believe that it's a man-made debacle.
Remember, we are still exiting what is known as the "Little Ice Age" that started about 800 years ago. And don't forget that "Year Without Summer" in the early 1800's. We still haven't warmed up to the temperatures of 2000 year ago.
And don't forget that "Year Without Summer" in the early 1800's.
I thought that was due to the eruption of Mount Tambora, that blew something like 160 cubic kilometers of dust into the atmosphere.
I thought that was due to the eruption of Mount Tambora, that blew something like 160 cubic kilometers of dust into the atmosphere.
Yes, that caused the the "Year Without Summer". But I thought I read somewhere that we still haven't recovered from that event and have yet to return to the temperatures of the 1700's. Or maybe my source was just stating that the temperatures were still rising. I don't remember.