There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

Recently, on the Conan O'Brien show, the Nobel peace prize winning Al Gore discussed how the using geothermal was a good idea (and I concur). However, inconveniently, he again has bungled his basic facts suggesting that the Earth's core is several million degrees, and that you need to drill a couple of kilometers into the earth (or so) to get to the energy.

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/11/18/al-g...illion-degrees/

I don't know how this guy has any credibility to anyone serious about science, or facts, or truth for that matter.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . he again has bungled his basic facts suggesting that the Earth's core is several million degrees, . . .

Admittedly, a mistake. He's a politician, not a scientist. I doubt that he really understands what he speaks of, but that's OK since he is the spokesman for Green, not a scientist doing research. You don't need to understand thermodynamics to be a driver training instructor.

. . . and that you need to drill a couple of kilometers into the earth (or so) to get to the energy.

And that is indeed a fact. You can get a little bit (relative to overall needs) at naturally occurring hot spots. To get it elsewhere, you need deep drilling.

I don't know how this guy has any credibility to anyone serious about science, or facts, or truth for that matter.

Yeah, yeah. He's a POS because he is a liberal. Nothing to do with your bias.

Why does he have credibility? Because most of his facts are right. Because he is one of the few in public life that actually gives a damn about the future of this planet and of the human race. And that, compared to most conservatives (and, I'm beginning to think, libertarians), he is the epitome of truth.

--Pete

Shouldn't that be "There is no goddess but Gaea and Gore is her only prophet." That is, if it is your intention to mock Gore by mocking Islam.

[eppie]

Recently, on the Conan O'Brien show, the Nobel peace prize winning Al Gore discussed how the using geothermal was a good idea (and I concur). However, inconveniently, he again has bungled his basic facts suggesting that the Earth's core is several million degrees, and that you need to drill a couple of kilometers into the earth (or so) to get to the energy.

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/11/18/al-g...illion-degrees/

I don't know how this guy has any credibility to anyone serious about science, or facts, or truth for that matter.

Anyone serious about science, facts or truth will read the IPCC report. And people that don't understand the science can watch Gore's movies and hopefully get convinced about the seriousness of climate change.

This is getting sad.

[kandrathe]

You can get a little bit (relative to overall needs) at naturally occurring hot spots. To get it elsewhere, you need deep drilling.

From a practical point of view, the biggest benefit of geothermal can be access within a few hundred feet of the surface. There is no need to tap the heat of the core, since the heat radiates to the lithosphere.

Yeah, yeah. He's a POS because he is a liberal. Nothing to do with your bias.

Who said POS? I don't care if he's a liberal. I just think he's an embarrassment as the self declared spokesperson.

Why does he have credibility? Because most of his facts are right. Because he is one of the few in public life that actually gives a damn about the future of this planet and of the human race. And that, compared to most conservatives (and, I'm beginning to think, libertarians), he is the epitome of truth.

Pete, if someone wrote the kind of crap he spews on the lounge, you'd hand him his butt daily. I feel he's a promoting his own interests by generating hysteria. It's no better than Bush promoting oil, when his family and friends are soaked in it. Check out his involvement with Silver Springs, or Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, or Generation Investment Management, which then subsequently benefit from the recent "stimulus" of 34 billion into the clean energy promotion. At best, he's a lobbyist who uses his status and prestige to convince his erstwhile cronies in Washington to spend taxpayers money and enact policy that directly benefits him.

P.S. Potato, Tomato. Gaia, or Gaea. Perhaps you might write to these folks and instruct them on their error.

[Kevin]

From a practical point of view, the biggest benefit of geothermal can be access within a few hundred feet of the surface.

Again I've never really heard this, not for any type of moderate or larger scale generation. Of course all geothermal is is dictated by local geography, but there is a reason that commercial application has only been in places where there are natural hotspots, or that the single house geothermal stuff doesn't work anywhere. You do a few kilometers drilling and you can pretty much get geothermal anywhere.

Check out his involvement with Silver Springs, or Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, or Generation Investment Management, which then subsequently benefit from the recent "stimulus" of 34 billion into the clean energy promotion. At best, he's a lobbyist who uses his status and prestige to convince his erstwhile cronies in Washington to spend taxpayers money and enact policy that directly benefits him.

Not all lobbyists are in it for the personal gain. Some actually believe in what they are preaching, I know it's hard to believe that with any thing connected to politics at this stage in the game.

P.S. Potato, Tomato. Gaia, or Gaea. Perhaps you might write to these folks and instruct them on their error.

I don't think it was Gaia or Gaea that he was picking on, I think it was the phrasing, at least that's how I read it.

[Jester]

I don't think it was Gaia or Gaea that he was picking on, I think it was the phrasing, at least that's how I read it.

I would presume that comment was about the Kalima.

Mix the "environmentalism is a religion" meme with a light dusting of anti-Islamic sentiment, bake for a few minutes, and there you have it.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I would presume that comment was about the Kalima.

Yes. Thanks for the link. The form I used was what I had learned when studing Islam in the early '60s. Apparently, that was not a literal translation.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

P.S. Potato, Tomato. Gaia, or Gaea.

Actually, I'd originally written 'Gaia' and ieSpell suggested 'Gaea'. I clicked 'change' without giving it a thought. My comment wasn't intended to correct your spelling.

--Pete

[Jester]

The form I used was what I had learned when studing Islam in the early '60s. Apparently, that was not a literal translation.

Well, I'm no expert on Arabic translation, but so long as the idea is Allah = only god and Mohammed = prophet, I think the rest is really just style.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Mix the "environmentalism is a religion" meme with a light dusting of anti-Islamic sentiment, bake for a few minutes, and there you have it.

No need to over read it. I distrust fanatics whether they are Islamic or Environmentalists. Both would have us revert to the stone age, but for different causes.

[Jester]

No need to over read it. I distrust fanatics whether they are Islamic or Environmentalists. Both would have us revert to the stone age, but for different causes.

Yeah, Al Gore is big on that whole "revert to the stone age" thing. Which is why he's heavily invested in green technology. All just a sham, really - he's planning on selling the whole lot and exchanging it for flint tools, cornering the market just before we're all wearing loincloths again.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Yeah, Al Gore is big on that whole "revert to the stone age" thing. Which is why he's heavily invested in green technology. All just a sham, really - he's planning on selling the whole lot and exchanging it for flint tools, cornering the market just before we're all wearing loincloths again.

You play that intentionally obtuse, "put words in your mouth" role very well don't you?

I think I was pretty clear that Gore is really a flim flam artist, using his position to sucker people in order to realize significant increases in his portfolio. But, the lunatic fringe of environmentalism would just as soon flip off the power switch and plunge society back into the dark ages, heedless of the human toll. The special elite, who've purchased their carbon offsets, would of course live the life style that Mr. Gore leads with his mansions, and his private jets. The laws would really penalize the bulk of us middle class and poor folks, who will suffer the rationing. The way things are headed, I see a future of rationing of energy, of food, shelter, and health care.

[Skandranon]

You play that intentionally obtuse, "put words in your mouth" role very well don't you?

I think I was pretty clear that Gore is really a flim flam artist, using his position to sucker people in order to realize significant increases in his portfolio. But, the lunatic fringe of environmentalism would just as soon flip off the power switch and plunge society back into the dark ages, heedless of the human toll. The special elite, who've purchased their carbon offsets, would of course live the life style that Mr. Gore leads with his mansions, and his private jets. The laws would really penalize the bulk of us middle class and poor folks, who will suffer the rationing. The way things are headed, I see a future of rationing of energy, of food, shelter, and health care.

As opposed to our current paradise of infinite energy, food, shelter, and health care?

[kandrathe]

As opposed to our current paradise of infinite energy, food, shelter, and health care?

Things aren't perfect, but at least most of us are able to purchase what we need. As opposed to being beholden to the government to stand in line and theoretically get an equal share (except for the elite, of course) of the shrinking pie.

[Jester]

You play that intentionally obtuse, "put words in your mouth" role very well don't you?

If you're drawing a distinction there, then this is new, because you sure didn't draw it before. You just waltzed straight from the thread title to Islamist fanatics to environmentalists that want to drag us back to the stone age. Gore to stone age in three easy steps. If you feel that's putting words in your mouth, then maybe you might want to curb your enthusiasm for colourful exaggeration.

I think I was pretty clear that Gore is really a flim flam artist, using his position to sucker people in order to realize significant increases in his portfolio.

Right. Which is why he's been advocating for environmentalism for *thirty years*, and investing in green technology for *five*. How does this argument never stick? I repeat it every time this canard comes up - the timeline is off by decades.

Al Gore did not mastermind a diabolical plot beginning in the seventies to enrich himself thirty years later. Nor has he managed to somehow snooker the scientific community into backing his elaborate, Blofeldesque plan for personal enrichment for all that time. Al Gore has been an environmentalist his whole public life, and now that he's no longer in office, he's devoted himself to doing what he thinks is important. A green future means either poverty or technology - why on earth shouldn't he invest in technology? He's not in office. He's a private citizen, doing what he thinks is right - the same things he thought long before he had any financial interest.

-Jester

Afterthought: Obtuse is not the same as sarcastic. I'm making fun of you, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding your point.

[Occhidiangela]

Yeah, Al Gore is big on that whole "revert to the stone age" thing. Which is why he's heavily invested in green technology. All just a sham, really - he's planning on selling the whole lot and exchanging it for flint tools, cornering the market just before we're all wearing loincloths again.

-Jester

Until the population reduction policies are put into effect, all of Gore's visions of a better future are pap.

People want more, and if you think you can sell this energy virtue, you might want to first look at how well the birth control virtue has sold all over the globe.

Oh, wait, it hasn't, except at the point of the knife in China, and with mixed results in the "advanced" nations.

My description of Gore's efforts is "pissing up a rope" with the exception of getting attention paid to a particular problem set in a confined circle of interest. For that, he gets a passing grade.

Occhi

[eppie]

Until the population reduction policies are put into effect, all of Gore's visions of a better future are pap.

Thank you mister obvious when me and my friends were 9 we already 'knew' this was the solution to save the environment. But later I found that this statement as such is far from correct. You can destroy the earth with a billion people.....true it goes faster with 7 billion, but in both scenarios you can try to do something about it.

People want more, and if you think you can sell this energy virtue, you might want to first look at how well the birth control virtue has sold all over the globe.

Ok, so your suggestion is to wait for an effective global birth control system first?

Oh, wait, it hasn't, except at the point of the knife in China, and with mixed results in the "advanced" nations.

When a nation thrives birth rates go down (even though I read a article recently stating that in some developed countries this changed again), a good working, rich and clean society will not grow in terms of population (population growth occurs through immigration). Problem is that our western societies need growth to sustain our consumption based life-style (plus the social aspect that tells us to host refugees).
One 'solution' is trying to do it on our own and don't let refugees and immigrants in. Just like we could also stop aid to poor countries. There are of course several negatives to this 'solution', first it being not humane (at least for our conscience), and 2nd we need our involvemnet in 3rd world countries for cheap stuff that we can consume.

My description of Gore's efforts is "pissing up a rope" with the exception of getting attention paid to a particular problem set in a confined circle of interest. For that, he gets a passing grade.
Occhi

Many things have to be changed before we have a fair and honest world.....but most of them likely take longer than investing in a cleaner environment and low C emitting energy sources.
Gore does more than most of us, and also more than most of us in his 'situation' (situation being an upper class guy with loads of money etc. etc.).
And I get really sad if people start complaining (whining) about that this is going to cost them 'a bit more taxes'. Well if you have problems with that find an extra job instead of playing video games 6 hours per day and surfing the web 3 hours per day. I will try to get hold of a Bangladeshi farmer living in the Ganges Delta to see what he thinks.....I will post his remarks when I do.

[Jester]

Until the population reduction policies are put into effect, all of Gore's visions of a better future are pap.

I don't understand this. Industrial nations are polluting far more than the third world, both per person and in absolute terms. The third world could disappear entirely, and if the first world kept polluting as we do now, we'd still face serious global warming challenges.

People want more, and if you think you can sell this energy virtue, you might want to first look at how well the birth control virtue has sold all over the globe.

Quite well? Birth rates everywhere are dropping downwards, and have been for decades. What were you expecting, a one-generation population crash across the entire world?

Oh, wait, it hasn't, except at the point of the knife in China, and with mixed results in the "advanced" nations.

Demographic transition. European and North American birth rates are hovering around the rate of replacement, usually a lot lower (US is just barely over 2, most of Europe is under 1.5). That's not "mixed", that's unambiguous. Also, India hasn't been using the "point of the knife," but their fertility rate per woman is down to 2.7 (from almost 6 in the 1960s) and it looks like it's on its way to 2 or lower. (Interesting to note that Kerala is well below 2 already, being the most developed Indian region.) Brazil is the same story, a little further along, with rates down barely above replacement.

Check the map and table here. Development drops birth rates.

Now, until the average rate is below 2, world population will keep growing. But the rate of population growth is slowing down, and will continue to slow down until we peak at somewhere between 8 and 12 billion, then start to drop. Most of those extra billions will be in countries that pollute almost zero in terms of greenhouse gases at present. I'd like it to be faster, but it seems pretty clear to me that it's not population growth that's driving global warming, it's the developed world (shrinking but for immigration) throwing carbon up into the atmosphere.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If you're drawing a distinction there, then this is new, because you sure didn't draw it before. You just waltzed straight from the thread title to Islamist fanatics to environmentalists that want to drag us back to the stone age. Gore to stone age in three easy steps. If you feel that's putting words in your mouth, then maybe you might want to curb your enthusiasm for colourful exaggeration.

I don't mind the risk of being made fun of by you. I think if you read what I wrote, rather than the words you attribute to me, you will see that I've separated Gore from the fanatics. I don't suffer the delusion that you might of seeing Gore as a true believer. From his life style it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that this guy is no environmentalist. He burns as much carbon in a day as you or I do in a month.

Right. Which is why he's been advocating for environmentalism for *thirty years*, and investing in green technology for *five*. How does this argument never stick? I repeat it every time this canard comes up - the timeline is off by decades.

He doesn't walk his talk, so I think he is BS. You also conveniently ignore any reality check on the purpose of his advocacy, which perhaps is politically motivated, and perhaps lately has become more financially motivated. Perhaps he deludes himself into believing his own BS, but he certainly has fed high on the hog at the expense of taxpayers for most of his life.

Al Gore did not mastermind a diabolical plot beginning in the seventies to enrich himself thirty years later. Nor has he managed to somehow snooker the scientific community into backing his elaborate, Blofeldesque plan for personal enrichment for all that time. Al Gore has been an environmentalist his whole public life, and now that he's no longer in office, he's devoted himself to doing what he thinks is important. A green future means either poverty or technology - why on earth shouldn't he invest in technology? He's not in office. He's a private citizen, doing what he thinks is right - the same things he thought long before he had any financial interest.

You sound like his apologist. The culmination of his entire political career was Kyoto, which his buddy Bill Clinton refused to sign.

Afterthought: Obtuse is not the same as sarcastic. I'm making fun of you, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding your point.

Deliberate or not, you are seemingly not grasping the nuance of the argument, and attempt to write blanket statements wrongly characterizing what I've said. This might be an effective debate technique that you've learned, but I think it is you who are exaggerating my words (e.g. "Al Gore did not mastermind a diabolical plot beginning..."). How dramatic. No, I think he's exactly like many other politicians who see the government as a way to personally enrich themselves.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You can destroy the earth with a billion people.....true it goes faster with 7 billion, but in both scenarios you can try to do something about it.

Bad logic. True, one person with a large nuclear arsenal can destroy the world. The point, though, is saving the world. You *can* save the world of one billion. You *might be* able to save the world of six billion. Good luck with, say, twenty. It's like treating a person who is sick. They may have symptoms like nausea, headache, etc. You can treat each of the symptoms with some specific medication or other. And treating the symptoms is a worthwhile task, in that it improves the patient's condition. But if the underlying problem is an infection, none of those medications address the real problem. And, as far as the world is concerned, population is the real problem, everything else is a symptom.

Well if you have problems with that find an extra job instead of playing video games 6 hours per day and surfing the web 3 hours per day.

This was really necessary? Because you know so much of his habits and life that you are entitled to insult him?

Excuse me, I need to go wash off the stink of the sewer. :angry:

--Pete