Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • An Inconvenient Statistic

    Posted by Dan from Madison on June 18th, 2008 (All posts by )

    At the Gore estate, electricity conservation is something they simply talk about rather than do something about.  According to this, the Gore house in Tennessee uses almost twenty times more electricity than an average home.  Gorebal warming indeed.

    From the article:

    A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home.

    A very appropriate comment.

     

    8 Responses to “An Inconvenient Statistic”

    1. Ginny Says:

      On the other hand, as I’ve posted repeatedly, Bush’s house is a showcase for smallfootprint, environmentally sound, reusable resources. Then there is this site. It observes

      Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States fell by 1.8 percent in 2006, compared to a 0.3 percent increase in emissions in the European Union (EU), according to newly released data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

      The site goes on to note:

      “It isn’t just 2006 which saw a disparity,” observed Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). “Under any relevant modern baseline, say 1997 when the Kyoto promise was made or thereafter, U.S. emissions have risen far more slowly than those of its noisiest antagonists whose model we are supposed to follow.”

      “For the past seven years for which we have data (2000-2006), the annual rate of increase for U.S. CO2 emissions is about a third of 1 percent, compared to more than 1 percent by the EU,” Horner added.

      I don’t know anything about the site, though it observes that “Crichton is right” and links to one of his interviews. This probably means it tends more toward Vaclav Klaus than Albert Gore. Nonetheless, I’ve seen these facts elsewhere. And we’ve long understood that saying you are doing something is not quite the same as doing something; signing Kyoto isn’t quite the same as reducing emissions.

    2. fred lapides Says:

      Fred Lapides/Joseph Hill – you are not allowed to comment on my threads since you sockpuppeted one of my threads a few months ago. Waste your time spouting nonsense somewhere else. Dan.

    3. toddk Says:

      You’re damn right it makes his message invalid.

      He (along with all the other GW minions)are the ones saying that if WE don’t cut back on CO2 emissions that the world is going to end. Yet they emit CO2 in prodigious scales with Al’s house, numerous summits all over the world (apparently they’ve never heard of teleconferencing), etc, etc.

      IF the world was really going to end with increased CO emissions from humans why are THEY not serious about it as well. I know the answer(s), do you?

    4. Dan from Madison Says:

      Well spoken Toddk. I wish someone would compute Al Gore or others pollution output from private jets. I bet it would be staggering compared to the average persons pollution output.

    5. deichmans Says:

      But wait! He bought OFFSETS so that he could burn through 400,000 kWhr/yr at the compound. And… and … all those speaking gigs means he has to run that big screen LCD monitor with KEYNOTE so that he can fine-tune his $100,000/gig pitch!

      Someone once described “Offsets” as “The Al Gore Diet: Eat *WHATEVER* You Want (just as long as you pay some kid in the Third World to starve)!”

    6. Jonathan Says:

      Revealed preferences. He doesn’t believe his own talk. It’s a racket.

      Whether the GW prediction models are valid is a separate issue. But it’s interesting that so many people seem to be benefiting personally from AGW evangelism. Who is getting rich expressing skepticism about AGW?

    7. Helen Says:

      Offsets are like those Indulgences. Remember the trouble they caused last time?

    8. tyouth Says:

      “Offsets are like those Indulgences. Remember the trouble they caused last time?”, Helen said, and other posters and commenters lead me to believe that:

      As anthropogenic global warming becomes more effective as a driving rationale for economic decisions and actions it is realistic, appropriate, and useful to consider it the Next Economic Bubble. I expect short term “stimulus” and a crash in the long. Unfortunately, it seems as though we (taxpayers) will be investing in it.