Excerpt:

Much has been made of the heat wave in Europe in early August 2003, which killed 35,000 people,
with 2,000 deaths in the UK.9 Yet, each year more than 25,000 people die in the UK from cold.10 It
can be estimated that every year more than 200,000 people die from excess heat in Europe.11 It is
reasonable to estimate that each year about 1.5 million people die from excess cold in Europe.12
This is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths.

Another:

This is also the case for Al Gore’s public commitment to tackle global warming. In his recent
speech to New York University, he explicitly said that he would eliminate payroll taxes and
substitute them with pollution taxes, principally a CO2 tax.51 Yet he never actually say how much
this would cost or how much good it would do.
If one calculates the impact of such a promise, it shows that payroll taxes (social security) in the US
amounted to $841 billion in 2006.52 With the US emitting about 6Gt of CO2 this means a tax of
$140/tCO2, and a tax on gas at about $1.25 per gallon.53 In one respected model, the annual
economic cost amounts to about $160 billion for the US economy in 2015. This would cut
emissions to about half in 2015 and about 25% in 2105.54 Yet, since the US will make up an ever
smaller amount of the total CO2 emitted throughout the century, the total effect in 2100 will be a
reduction of global temperature by 0.1oC (see Figure 8).55

Another:

My proposal for tackling global warming in the long run is that all nations commit themselves to
spending 0.05% of GDP in R&D of non-carbon emitting energy technologies.74 This approach
would cost about $25 billion per year, seven times cheaper than Kyoto and many more times
cheaper than a Kyoto II. It would involve all nations, with richer nations naturally paying the larger
share. It would let each country focus on its own future vision of energy needs, whether that means
concentrating on renewable sources, nuclear energy, fusion, carbon storage, or searching for new
and more exotic opportunities.
Such a massive global research effort would also have potentially huge innovation spin-offs (a bit
like NASA’s going to the moon also gave us computers and velcro). Because the costs are low and
there will be many immediate innovation benefits, countries do not have to be ever more strongly
cajoled into ever more restrictive agreements. They will partake because it involves them in a
strong, science-based endeavor. They will partake, because it is a smart thing to do.
And most importantly, it will likely have a much greater impact on the long-term climate.

Finally:

To put it very bluntly, the Kyoto Protocol would likely cost at least $180 billion a year and do little
good. UNICEF estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants
access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation.84 More important still is the fact
that if we could muster such a massive investment in the present-day developing countries this
would also give them a much better future position in terms of resources and infrastructure from
which to manage a future global warming. What would we rather do first?
I feel deeply – and I think we all feel deeply – that the development of global cooperation and
solidarity is of fundamental importance today and into the future. But the prospect of a better world
is best served when good hearts are joined by cool heads.

Amazing, simply amazing. Democrats really do want to control every aspect of your life
(CNSNews.com) – A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs – which are less energy-efficient, prompt…

Each chamber makes up their own rules for committee hearings. As Gore proved, Senate rules mean nothing.

It’s hard to keep track of the left’s shenanigans….

Gore doesn’t need to take Inhofe’s pledge because he has already reduced his carbon usage as much as possible, and traded what he couldn’t eliminate making his “carbon footprint” next to nothing.

He uses 20 times as much energy as the average home, and you call that reducing carbon usage as much as possible? At what point would you consider him to be wasteful – when he uses the entire output of Nashville Gas and Electric?? Or would you make excuses for him even then?

And please don’t try to give us the ‘carbon credits’ nonsense. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. That’s like saying Gore can travel on wasteful Gulfstream jets because he’s just using up the energy I would be otherwise using on a Gulfstream. Except I wouldn’t be doing that anyway. Not to mention that his whole ‘carbon credit’ scheme is simply a plan to invest in stock in his own company and make a profit.

The question for Gore really is, Is he ready to change his lifestyle. Like most limousine liberals, he expects everyone else to submit to a drastic decline in their standard of living, while he continues the extravagant lifestyle. So Imhofe’s question was exactly pertinent, and Gore’s response underscores his hypocrisy.

uh Astonished… how about not USING the 10x more energy that the normal household uses. On top of that how about not USING the personal jet rides – one coming up to Chile and I’m sure many in between now and the ride to Chile.

It really isn’t hard to understand that concept….

Astonished wrote, “Gore obviously uses carbon, that’s the way of the world”

He uses 10x more just for his residence than everyone else and on top of that uses personal jets which use a lot more PER passenger than commercial airlines.

Astonished wrote, “You have misinterpreted his argument”

Did he say we should cut carbon emmissions by 80% by 2050 or not. He can cut 80% easily and be still using more energy than the average American.

Astonished wrote, “but he is really handing out reasonable advice”

YES… for himself we are saying….

Astonished wrote, “and let reasonability rule the day”

Would love to… It is reasonable that Gore can move to another home, stop using personal jets and the same with BS, Alec Baldwin, and anyone else on their high horse.

I used 10X more energy as I argued above than a 3rd worlder who only consumes what they eat. I will not give up my afluence or prosperity for some crazed people who are much more highly affluent talking down to me when I live a pretty middlin’ life style.

And when climatology authors of books talk about only being able to lower the temperature .007 Celcius if we took all conservation measures that Kyoto calls for yet costing hundreds of billions of dollars… I start questioning people’s perspective when we have risen the temperature .6 degrees Celcius in 100 years and our average life expectancy has gone from 44 for men and 49 for women to 74 for men and 79 for women in that same 100 years.

The point remains, however, that as things stand right now, that is the only means, after trying to find green energy sources (of which there are tragically few), to reduce your personal carbon level.

Gore obviously uses carbon, that’s the way the world, and specifically our nation, operates now. Gore never argued that every individual should be carbon-free, it’s obviously impossible. He is merely highlighting, abscent large-scale governmental and societal changes, how an individual can begin to lessen their footprint.

You have misinterpreted his argument, declaring that he is making a much stronger assertion, then accused him of hypocricy based on that mistake.

And just to be clear, I have no real love for Gore, his personal weaknesses were as responsible for the debackle in 2000 as all of the antics in Florida, but he is really handing out reasonable advice. Try to set aside your personal loathing for the man, and let reasonability rule the day.

Yet another worshiper at the church of Gore on a crusade to demonstrate just how gullible people can be.

I used more energy in this last month than a third worlder who simply consumed what they ate. I also…
a) drove to work
b) remodelded my bathroom causing trips to Home Depot and purchasing things that were manufactured (those companies emitted CO2 to produce what I bought)
c) used hot water and the stove
d) cleaned and therefore used product from companies that emitted CO2 making the cleaning products
e) drove my kids to a st. Paddy’s day parade.

etc.

We aren’t dumb Astonished. We have perspective. And it is my perspective that the Gore residence which used 10x more energy than my residence and the Gore plane usage has a higher carbon footprint on this planet. My energy usage has a 10X higher footprint than a 3rd worlder.

If it makes YOU feel that Gore is not guilty because he purchases carbon credits that is a great opinion but it persuades NOBODY here and it isn’t because we are dumb. It’s because we have a perfectly valid opinion about how worthless of a system buying and trading credits is…. AND it says nothing about the fact that he used 10X more energy than my residence in the first place. It doesn’t excuse it. It doesn’t excuse it. It doesn’t excuse it. It doesn’t excuse it whatsoever. It simply is a fact in the puddle of facts.

BTW, Gore does NOT use energy exclusively from wind, hydro, solar, etc. He purchases energy from a company and pays slightly higher for “green” energy but that slightly higher purchase does not and would not cover the cost of “solar” or “wind” energy sources. Those sources are much more expensive and unreliable as a constant means of providing energy due to night and non-windy days. And the amount of LAND use needed to provide Gore his energy would be larger than an acre.

Astonished is TOTALLY focused on that greater than an acre amount of area needed to provide Gore his “alternative” energy but FAILS to address the constant small jet plane trips, one upcoming on May 11th to Chile. These plane rides use more fuel per person that commercial jets. With video conferencing technology available there is no excuse. No excuse. No excuse.

Thought you needed repeating since you do it…