Why are so many people so gullible? I smell snake oil asap it seems.

Gorebalism on the rise

Reduce Green house gas = Goodness (ALL AGREE?)

gmcjetpilot on April 26, 2007 at 6:30 PM

If the real scientists can’t agree whether it makes any difference or not on normal, cyclical planetary temperature fluctations, why should we? The dinosuars reached tremendous size in warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric pressure than we have now, not to mention the incredible plant life that used to exists in those warmer epochs. All we’ve got to go on is computer modellings that are only as rational as the programmer plugging numebrs into them.
If real scientists have to be threatened by politicians to agree with things they haven’t been able to test, what’s really going on?
The United States is already one of the cleanest countries on the planet right now, so why isn’t Gore in India yelling at them or in Russia or China? Need a facemask in December in Inidan cities ’cause they have coal-fired electrical plants and crematoriums blowing out black soot all day long and the inversion layer just holds the icky grey cloud at just above head-height.

There ought to be a Godwin’s corrollary: when the “if you don’t think so or if you believe that, you’re an infant” card is played.

Read it again, it’s optional. And keep that quiet, they may just do it.
I also just found out that the state will help subsidize the cost, too. Oh, and make that 2017, too.

Woody

Reduce Green house gas = Goodness (ALL AGREE?)

No, its

Reduce Green house gas = waste of resources that could be spent on actually saving lives

The C02 level has doubled and there has been a tiny increase in temperature, which is explained by increased solar output and the impact of solar output on cloud formation.

In the meantime, expensive energy sources such as solar are being foisted on third world countries that need to bootstrap there economies in order to provide adequate food, medicine, etc.

If you think we need to reduce pollution, that’s fine, but CO2 is a plant nutrient, not a pollutant.

Reduce Green house gas = Goodness (ALL AGREE?)

OK How are we going to do this with the MOST commons sense, least impact on economy and lifestyle and make it in Americas favor, while all nations take the full and equal brunt of the responsibility. The problem is China is an emerging super power and they WANT energy. LOTS OF IT. What are we going to say, sorry no you can’t become a first world nation, back to the dark ages. Its a tough problem but rocket scientist on this thread and the ones in the white house are definitely not going to solve it. At LEAST Gore has some ideas. The carbon credit thing sounds stupid. I think cleaning-up all the super dirty coal power plants around the world would have a huge impact. Nuke power plants as well. Most of the Greens have come around to saying Nuke power is part of the solution. Its like the Evangelicals and Republicans that are anti abortion rights but don’t want birth control even mentioned. Its an idiotic position.

Hummmmmmmmmmm COME ON SMART GUYS. Lets hear your idea about this global world plan you have. Right, you have nothing, no new ideas but just stuff in you diaper. Typical of conservatives and republicans, no ideas or any thing constructive to contribute. The GOP plan is to do nothing and make fun of Gore or just SUCK the tit of the OIL companies and get that mother freaking OIL check contribution. The republicans should be ashamed of their special interest pandering self.

We are in the process of setting up a carbon offset company. We are signing up land-owners here in my part of the country to plant fast-growing trees on open land in order to bind carbon produced by regular folks in their day to day activities.

And then make more money when you sell the wood or paper. A win-win scenario, unless you are the poor schmuk paying for the carbon credit.

I did not build this house because I am “green” or an eco-freak, but because in 1979-80, the Khomeini were screwing America by cutting off our oil and you didn’t need a fortune teller to see that the cheap energy we enjoyed until then was a thing of the past. It was a good decision that continues to cut my costs in a home that I have lived in for 27 years now.

I would do it again in a heartbeat.

georgej on April 26, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Hey, I think that’s cool. Really do.

I have nothing against environmentalism, and as a conservative libertarian type, I love the idea of being able to (mostly, or even partly) power my home all by myself.

We’ve been watching that show “Jericho” (post-nuclear attack America) and I keep wondering why nobody in the whole town had a set-up like yours. I think its sweet.

Conservation, environmentalism … they aren’t the problem.

It’s the wacky fundamentalist cult that’s been built up around it that’s the problem. If more environmentalists would just shut up and do what you’re doing (whatever your motives), they’d accomplish a hell of a lot more.

As it is, I’m tempted to buy another SUV, just to be ornery.

Kind of funny that you’re a conservative, but you’re doing what Al Gore isn’t even coming close to ….

Most cars cost 20-40 grand, and if you have that kind of money, what is an extra 5 grand right? Sure, we’re going to have to charge this on all resellers, and some cars might be cheaper; but we’re just trying to find a way to force people to do thing the way we want them done.

And if forcing people to do things my way even if it is more expensive is wrong… well how could it be wrong, I’ve got good intentions while forcing you to conform to my ideals. Right?

I’m always concerned when I read a “everyone should have to…” idea. If its a good enough idea, persuade people to do it. If it isn’t a good enough idea, why are you trying to force it?

I’ve never seen a brilliant idea that required the government to force compliance.

I get 55% of my annual heat supplied by the sun, as well as preheating my hot water to 85 degrees before it gets to the hot-water heater. The rest of my heat comes from a conventional natural gas and a forced air furnace. The solar system paid for itself within 3 years, not 30. True, it helped that in 1980 that there was a tax credit up to $4000, but the savings were immediate and the sun is like Rosie: a “gift that keeps on giving.”

Solar voltaic generated electricity does take many more years to pay back the investment at today’s state of the art, this is true. There are breakthroughs, though, coming from research being done in Canada that have the potential to lower costs to that approaching wind power. Using today’s technology, the cost to generate enough electricity to run my house during daytime is about $45,000 — which is much more than I am willing to pay.

For what it is worth, GE is selling roof “shingles” that are really low-efficiency photovoltaic cells that eliminate the need for ugly panels.

When I first looked at wind generation of electricity, I took advantage of a federally funded program that required the electric companies to do an audit of alternate energy sources for any specific home. The audit included calculations using insulation values (R38 walls, R57 ceilings in my home) and heat loss through windows as well as whole-house air exchanges. It was really rather thorough.

In my case, the required wind generator, tower, batteries, and inverter for my house and local wind velocity values, necessary for me to become a zero net KwH customer of the power company, would have been paid for in 15 years, which was the expected life of the equipment. That was in 1981. Today, the payback is between 5 and 7 years, depending on if the new rate increase is rolled back as the legislature is considering.

I did not build this house because I am “green” or an eco-freak, but because in 1979-80, the Khomeini were screwing America by cutting off our oil and you didn’t need a fortune teller to see that the cheap energy we enjoyed until then was a thing of the past. It was a good decision that continues to cut my costs in a home that I have lived in for 27 years now.

I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Al Gore’s centerpiece strategy for letting the rich live rich while buying a soothed conscience is nothing but a scam.

… you’re kidding, right?

P.S. Dear environmentalists, for sale: bridge, excellent condition. Cash only, unmarked bills please.

Perhaps the “False Acacia”?

profitsbeard on April 26, 2007 at 11:48 AM

I’ve heard that prairie grass is tops on the list, not trees. The roots go very deep.
Stick some buffalo on it and looks nice. But, you have to burn it every two years and the huge fire will frighten the neighbors … and well, you’ll need quite the fence for the buffalo …

And tree with a lot of “suckers” would probably be perfect.

Perhaps the “False Acacia”?

The problem with solar panels… Shivv on April 26, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Well, most new homes sold will be owned for 30 years, and the cost will be included in the home. And they will stay with the home, sorta like a 75-year ceramic tile roof.

Anyway, here in So Cal, a new home is about $500K. If you have that much money, $25-50K doesn’t matter that much.

Mazztek on April 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM

That is good news about the solar panels. When we lived in Nebraska there were tax breaks for people who bought the high efficiency gas furnaces and A/C units. If the same is done for solar panels, it is likely more people will purchase them making the price fall further as the market expands.

naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 11:17 AM

CFC bulbs were one example of several low pain – high gain measures that if adopted by many people would reduce the energy consumption. If you are right about the CFC bulbs, fine I am willing to look at any proof.
However, there is a tendency of some who disagree with the global warming theorists to go to the other extreme and poo pah any conservation measures. If people are not willing to help reduce consumption then we are doomed to have big government dictate how we will do it. I doubt that is what you would like to see either.