Will be being shown at Gulfplace on Jan. 11 at 6:30. Press release below.
Please join us 6:30 pm, Thursday, January 11th, 2007 on the lawn at Gulf Place for a community gathering to discuss environmental issues in Walton County. Bring your own seating and blankets as the event will be outside. Gulf Place lawn is located on the corner of Scenic Hwy 30-A and S. County Road 393 behind frontage buildings.
Contact: Jenifer Kuntz 303-819-6725
Arix Zalace 850-855-9641
D&A Maintenance has teamed up with event producer Jenifer Kuntz to facilitate a community discussion regarding environmental issues in Walton County. We will be showing An Inconvenient Truth, a slide presentation documenting global warming, followed by a roundtable discussion about Walton Counties? responsibilities as stewards of the environment. The discussion will address two points, our power and our waste.
Following the film, representatives from Alabama Electric Company and Waste Management will each give a 10-15 minute presentation about Walton Counties? current power, and waste/recycling programs. After which the audience will take part in a Q&A discussion with the representatives. We will be investigating/understanding where our power comes from, what constitutes green energy and is it in our future. And, where does our garbage go, what sort of recycling does Walton County have, and can we implement a more comprehensive recycling program.
This will not be a political event, but rather an opportunity for the community to come together to discuss the state of the environment both globally and locally.
Additional sponsors and guests will have informational booths. Guests include Sundog Books offering topic related literature, For the Health of it serving natural snacks and beverages, Tiahrt Lopez Construction sharing green building practices, D&A Maintenance educating guests on home efficiency, as well as several others.
Replies
378
Beach Fanatic
It's the avatar...........you know they burn trees to make that stuff!All the more reason to plant more trees! See... I'm doing my part for reforestation!
Skunky
All the more reason to plant more trees! See... I'm doing my part for reforestation!
SoWal Insider
All the more reason to plant more trees! See... I'm doing my part for reforestation!I would come over to the dark side for Makers Mark
Skunky
Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.
By Patrick J. Michaels
This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland?s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where?s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker?s Summary from the United Nations? much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore?s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn?t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC?s methane emissions scenarios as ?quite unlikely.?
Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.?s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. ?The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,? according to the IPCC, ?but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.?
According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.
?Was? is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland?s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.
Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore?s hypothesis. Instead, there?s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change ? edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose ?the right balance between being effective and honest? about global warming ? and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.
These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to ?do? something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!
It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various ?solutions? for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That?s too small to measure, because the earth?s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto ? i.e., less than nothing ? for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).
Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it?s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.
And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels ? resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.
And there?s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can?t even do Kyoto?
When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it?s not just Gore?s movie that?s fiction. It?s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
Novel science fiction on global warming.
By Patrick J. Michaels
This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland?s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where?s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker?s Summary from the United Nations? much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore?s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn?t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC?s methane emissions scenarios as ?quite unlikely.?
Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.?s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. ?The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,? according to the IPCC, ?but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.?
According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.
?Was? is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland?s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.
Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore?s hypothesis. Instead, there?s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change ? edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose ?the right balance between being effective and honest? about global warming ? and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.
These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to ?do? something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!
It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various ?solutions? for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That?s too small to measure, because the earth?s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto ? i.e., less than nothing ? for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).
Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it?s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.
And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels ? resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.
And there?s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can?t even do Kyoto?
When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it?s not just Gore?s movie that?s fiction. It?s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
Beach Lover
While Al Gore is busy preaching on Global Warming, energy conservation, etc, check out how much Electricity he uses to fuel his mansion:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh?more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh?guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore?s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. "
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh?more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh?guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore?s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. "
Beach Fanatic
Gee, no wonder he has put on so much weight, he cooks all the time. :shock:
Beach Fanatic
While Al Gore is busy preaching on Global Warming, energy conservation, etc, check out how much Electricity he uses to fuel his mansion:The hypocrisy of Gore, does it refute or simply dull his message? It dulls it only in the same way that Saul/St. Paul's message was dulled by his history of murder and devastation amongst the Jews.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh?more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh?guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore?s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. "
Beach Fanatic
The hypocrisy of Gore, does it refute or simply dull his message? It dulls it only in the same way that Saul/St. Paul's message was dulled by his history of murder and devastation amongst the Jews.Gore's "message" is only dulled when he opens his mouth.
Beach Fanatic
I can say the kids at Children's Hospital here in Nashville loved his voice when he and Tipper would come visit the playroom and read to the sick children.
Skunky
The hypocrisy of Gore, does it refute or simply dull his message? It dulls it only in the same way that Saul/St. Paul's message was dulled by his history of murder and devastation amongst the Jews.
Not really sheep. After Paul 'saw the light' (literally), he never again raised a finger against the Jews. Gore is another typical 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrite, pulling up to the Academy Awards in a hybrid when the old homestead in Tennessee is sucking in as much as a big pile of coal can spit out. This doesn't surprise me at all:roll:
Beach Fanatic
Not really sheep. After Paul 'saw the light' (literally), he never again raised a finger against the Jews. Gore is another typical 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrite, pulling up to the Academy Awards in a hybrid when the old homestead in Tennessee is sucking in as much as a big pile of coal can spit out. This doesn't surprise me at all:roll:Saul became Paul, Paul truly did as you say but before paul was Saul, the murderer.
Back to the analogy. Gore is presently expending gobs of energy to keep his butt warm. he writes about global warming. Is his point made well in "An Inconvenient Truth" dulled by his present extravegance? Is Paul to be discarded because of his Saul?
I think not to either Gore or Paul.
Beach Fanatic
Gore's "message" is only dulled when he opens his mouth.This from a liquor bottle?
If this message was from Jack Daniel, would you bow before it?
Methinks that the message is more important than the messenger, had better be since all messages earthy are delivered by sheeple bound by their mortalities and mistakes.
Beach Fanatic
This from a liquor bottle?This from a sheep?
If this message was from Jack Daniel, would you bow before it?
Methinks that the message is more important than the messenger, had better be since all messages earthy are delivered by sheeple bound by their mortalities and mistakes.
Makes sense. Let Gore be your "Shepherd"... I"ll pass.
SoWal Insider
While Al Gore is busy preaching on Global Warming, energy conservation, etc, check out how much Electricity he uses to fuel his mansion:Embarrassing, but the disclosure of his private affairs is a well timed hatchet job. Would you be more willing to accept the idea of global warming because the proponent lived in a cave?.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh?more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh?guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore?s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. "
Beach Fanatic
Embarrassing, but the disclosure of his private affairs is a well timed hatchet job. Would you be more willing to accept the idea of global warming because the proponent lived in a cave?.yes
Beach Fanatic
My initial understanding was that his energy bill was around $24,000 a month. The media made it look like that. I must have been on Fox. Now I see that his bill is around $1200 per month. He is in a rather large home and I understand his "carbon" footprint is less then the average home? I am not sure what any of this means but it looks like he may be in the "spin" cycle. I would not judge this situation until all the facts get out. For all we know "W" is sneaking over at night and plugging in his jacuzzi!!!
picky
This subject has been generating a lot of discussion elsewhere--kind of interesting to read what other people think:
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.jsp?fid=134&tid=34954497
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.jsp?fid=134&tid=34954497
Beach Fanatic
Tennessee Policy.org is a right wing organization that appears to have some ulterior motives and spreading a little miss information on its mind. Not to say that the Gore family does not have high energy bills. I have read a couple of dozen articles from various news sources, most of which seized on the information provided by the Tennessee Policy.org ambush. The attached CBS article seemed a bit balanced. The AP had a similar one yesterday. I have provided the link below. Apparently, he is paying a higher rate in order to buy the energy from green sources. In addition, it appears that Tennessee Policy.org might have collected their information through none legitimate means.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
Now that we have been looking at a war that has provided us well over 3000 dead young American soldiers as well as many thousands more injured and maimed, all due to a prior campaign of misinformation, maybe we should start being more cautious about jumping so quickly onto all of these sound bites provided by less than honest special interest groups of all kinds.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
Now that we have been looking at a war that has provided us well over 3000 dead young American soldiers as well as many thousands more injured and maimed, all due to a prior campaign of misinformation, maybe we should start being more cautious about jumping so quickly onto all of these sound bites provided by less than honest special interest groups of all kinds.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Well said... Or we should being looking at real issues like...Anna Nicole!
Beach Fanatic
Bdarg, touche!!!! :clap_1:
SoWal Insider
My initial understanding was that his energy bill was around $24,000 a month. The media made it look like that. I must have been on Fox. Now I see that his bill is around $1200 per month. He is in a rather large home and I understand his "carbon" footprint is less then the average home? I am not sure what any of this means but it looks like he may be in the "spin" cycle. I would not judge this situation until all the facts get out. For all we know "W" is sneaking over at night and plugging in his jacuzzi!!!The excess electricity is from all the people at his house continuing the recount!
needs to get out moreAuthor
The excess electricity is from all the people at his house continuing the recount!
zing.
not sure if he's over it yet. almost, but he does make quips about it...
Skunky
The excess electricity is from all the people at his house continuing the recount!
Good one Bob
got any pics?
The excess electricity is from all the people at his house continuing the recount!
:rofl: MAO!!! He's trying to win over TN again by supporting TVA and their acid rain producing, coal burning powerplants
.... You're a real environmentalist Al :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:Beach Fanatic
I hope everyone is watching or listening to what is happening in our government right now. If you look at the number of American cities, local governments, and now even politicians who are pushing for "global warming" based change it is hard to imagine it is all a hoax. Some of the biggest "free thinking" places in America are taking a stand because their president will not. Now even congress is taking a stand on the issue. Someone told me today that Scotland made "An Inconvenient Truth" a mandatory part of school curriculum. So I ask anyone who doubts global warming one question, "does a hoax or farce fool this many intelligent people?" I wonder how many of the skeptics writing on this thread have even seen Mr. Gore's film. The thing that I find amusing is that Gore addresses every single point being brought up in this discussion. He then goes on to solidify his points with both scientific and photographic proof. He address the heating-cooling cycles of the earth, the former ice ages, carbon records, and much more. It is hard to ignore the data, which by the way no one argues. Things are beginning to change very quickly. If you don't believe this just research what Chicago, New York, or better yet your Congress (as of today) is doing to bring about change. I say let the skeptics think what they want, but when the change comes they will have the most difficulty adjusting.
Scotland is good for two things. McCallan 18 and golf. Also Al Gore is an idiot. Well maybe not, he did invent the internet.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.