Posted on 03/19/2007 8:05:55 AM PDT by cody32127
--Debates are not the proper way to conduct a sober assessment of science with regards to the determination of public policy.--
However, such debates are useful tools to expose the inconvenient existence of a LOGICAL argument AGAINST the hyperbolic, oxymoronic, and emotionally-based notion of "global scientific consensus".
My only problem with this is that I don't think I can stay awake through a Gore debate.
Only $10? I'd clear out my bank account of this sure bet!
Yeah! Ah, MPFC is on top of it again!
Well, if that's not what algore's doing, I don't know what he thinks he is doing.
Gore will do fine as long as he can recite his well practiced talking points. When challenged with facts, he will throw a tantrum. Gore will never agree to this debate. It's too much of a risk.
Climate Change Challenge
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question That our effect on climate is not dangerous, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-Presidents choosing.
Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-Presidents prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Given at Carie, Rannoch, in the County of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland, this 14th Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand And Seven.
God Bless America ! God Save The Queen !
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, Scotland
011 44 1882 632341
Better pick some place where it never snows!
hilarious.
ManBearPig is in hiding
Here's a tale of two houses. Read the description of each, and then try to guess who its owner must be. Hint: One of the homes was built by one of most hated men alive today. The other belongs to a respected leader in the environmental movement.
Our first home is a great example of conspicuous consumption and wasted resources. It's a mansion in an upper-class suburb, with just under two dozen rooms and 8 bathrooms. Combined with its guest house, the home consumed 16,000 kWh per month in 2005. Then An Inconvenient Truth came out ... so how did this homeowner respond? In 2006 the energy usage rose above 18,000 kWh per month. This is over 20x the national average!
This home consumes more energy in 30 days than most US households do in a year and a half! In total, the owners paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for this estate in 2006.
The owners of the home claim they offset their usage by purchasing carbon credits. If global warming were a religion, this would be like the indulgences paid to the Catholic church before the Reformation. The overly wealthy can pay a small (for them) fine, and then be allowed to break rules (such as saving energy) the common folk are supposed to obey. It may work, but it sets a bad example, and in the end holds poor people to a different, unfair standard. And it does little to stop pollution, because the person paying the carbon credits is only paying an extra fee -- they're not changing their habits.
By most accounts, this home is an example of how people in this climate-aware era SHOULD NOT be living.
Our second home is the polar opposite. Situated on a 1600 acre plot of hot, dry prairie land, it's a modest home of 4,000 square feet. Below the home is a network of pipes descending 300 feet into the earth, where the dirt and rock keep a constant temperature of 67 degrees. Pumping this water back up into the home helps to cool it during the summer, and to heat it during the winter. It's a closed network, so the water is simply recycled.
"Passively solar," the home is positioned to allow for maximum absorption of the sun's heat in winter. Thanks to the geothermal system, the home operates on a mere 25% of the electricity it might otherwise require. The geothermal system even heats the home's outdoor pool--so efficiently, in fact, that original plans for additional solar paneling were cancelled.
Various gardens and grounds on the property are irrigated by a greywater system that channels shower, sink, toilet water and rainwater into enormous underground purifying tanks. And as icing on the cake, the walls of the home were built from cheap Luders limestone scrap material, quarried locally, that other homebuilders had thrown away.
And while conservation was kept in mind, these were also practical and financially-advantageous choices, for a hot and relatively-isolated region where water is scarce. Construction of the home started in 1999 and completed in 2001. It was financed privately -- no taxpayer dollars were spent in its construction.
You'd be hard-presed to find a more illustrative model for market-driven sustainability. The home is a green utopia, and is so thoroughly off the grid that the green celebrity blog Ecorazzi and the renewable energy website Off-Grid both recently devoted in-depth profiles to it.
The first property is a mansion in an upscale neighborhood. It consumes over twenty times the amount of energy as the average US household. Clearly, this is someone who does not wish to reduce consumption, or to save energy. It must be owned by an oil executive, or an energy-company tycoon. Or a media mogul. Perhaps the CEO of Halliburton - they're all supposed to be evil, right?
The second property, on the other hand, is an example of green building and sustainability. It definitely must be owned by a great environmental leader. A rich scientist, perhaps. Or the chairman of the National Resources Defense Council. Or of the EPA. Greenpeace, maybe.
Who'd you pick? You'd be surprised.
The first mansion, guzzling electricity and paying carbon-credit "indulgences" for it, is in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, Tennessee. It belongs to Mr. Al Gore.
The second home, an example of green building and reduced energy consumption, is the western White House in Crawford, Texas. It belongs to President George W Bush.
The problem is that Democrats are, and always have been, much better than Republicans at manipulating "worker-bees".
"HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!"
Well, if that's not what algore's doing, I don't know what he thinks he is doing."
Agreed.
Maybe not. Maybe Monckton is just really fed up with AlGore's bull.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.