Bush vs. Gore in energy consumption

In another thread, fgarb and I tangled over the following comment by him... The following is my reply...I don't understand how it could be said that he sounded the alarm in a very effective way. He was a rich guy that was already famous, and used his political clout and stature to get a movie made on a subject that many (if not most) scientists already agree, and so does much of the world. The only major nation (besides perhaps China) where climate change is in question is within the US. And while his movie may have sold well... how is that an indication that it did anything? Michael Moore's movie F911 sold very well too and did not change a thing in this nation. His movie Sicko, is not only better but addresses an even more important issue (for people in the US) and it may not do anything.Is there any reliable evidence that Gore's movie or slideshow did anything but sell well to the chorus, some of whom actually know the data better than him and must forgive his misinterpretations and misstatements to pat him on the back for the message?In the end he was given a medal for base propaganda, not good science, or even results. Indeed, the idea that "sounding the alarm in an effective way" should be rewarded for itself, seems a bit odd. McCarthy effectively sounded the alarm about Communism. That is simply propaganda, and is not deserving of an award... to my mind... especially (in Gore's case) when it is pretty widely accepted already.As to your second point, there is absolutely NO reason Gore had to fly anywhere to do any promoting (or anything else) for the movie. Heck, I would have been more impressed overall, if he had made the movie digitally, powered only by noncarbon-based fuel technologies, and then distributed it for free in venues (like the internet) which do not require large energy consumption, promoting it through same techniques to show an example that technology can be our friend and allow us to do things in new ways that minimize environmental impact.I mean to have him say, well that's how you have to get a film (or whatever event) done. How is that any different than someone else saying, well I gotta fill up my gas tank and drive my SUV that's how you have to get X done? Be on the forefront, and then I'll start buying the medal business.....He and I may both be on shaky ground with respect to Gore's personal energy habits, but I have to dispute the necessity of Gore' methods in trying to get the word out.Fgarb suggested this thread or a new one. I think it might as well go here rather than a whole new thread, due to its similar topic and limited scope.I will make a nod to the OP in pointing out that while Bush had no reason to be environmentally friendly, he did so quietly. Gore really should have been doing so given his public outrage on the subject, and didn't do as much as he could have.More to the point, while Bush's detractors point to the White House as being inefficient and the correct comparison to Gore's house... uh, who did Bush inherit that White House from? Maybe Gore didn't live there but it was Clinton-Gore running it. That Reagan tore down the solar panels (which is really shitty), one must ask why Gore didn't have them reinstalled... Bush did.I don't think Gore is a great example for environmental living. He seems to be a phony and a braggart. Too bad. For a millionaire it should be pretty easy, and we could use more good examples.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hey, what's this double-teaming me? And I don't know if I can trust that creepy looking guy! Heheheh.I only have time to make one reply today, so I'm going to make it to you since I missed out yesterday. I'll answer (or try to) both your posts in this one...We can both agree that Gore has good intentions. I don't believe he is malicious. However that does not mean he is doing the best things, or even the right things. And I believe he has two "problems" which hamper his efforts. The first is that he is a natural politician, which makes him more concerned with image than getting something done. Second is that his style of leadership is one of scaring people into action, namely scare them about X so that they view him (and whatever policy he states) as the answer.He does not seem to be concerned with what I am concerned about... good science, both understanding and application. And he does not seem to trust people enough to lead without fear.Your own anecdotes point toward that. They began to be worried about future aspects of global warming. No one should have to be worried, and that's a terrible way to pitch the issue. We'll ALWAYS have climate change regardless of GHG emissions. It should just be a reminder that we do live in a fluctuating environment, and we have to take that into consideration in many different aspects. Reducing GHGs would help with some of those fluctuations. I don't know I guess it reminds me of those driver's ed films where they show dead people to remind you to buckle up, or look both ways before driving forward.There were a couple more misstatements regarding science and evidence, but you hit probably the top two (another important one is his use of Katrina). To my mind he is engaging in propaganda when he does such things. I don't view that as good for anyone, even if it is effective.As far as changing minds goes, one of my problems with that claim is that most of the people that matter (the scientists) understand and agree with CC models. And of politicians and average citizens, isn't it primarily just the US where such knowledge is lagging behind? But this is not really an important issue, just something that makes me disagree with him getting a Nobel. He added nothing to knowledge, and was partly mistaken, he had no solutions... so what's the big deal?If it is that he's a leader, which seems to be what he is pitching himself as, then I think its fair that he be measured... and he is falling short (to my mind).I understand your point about giving slide presentations... if he needed to make money, but I find that hard to believe. The guy is rich. And this is where I think he's failing to be a leader. He could make dramatic gestures which not only indicate his sincerity, and get across the message, but actually demonstrate how new technology can be used to reduce our impact on the environment.Why not give those same things via video conference systems? Or do it all online? If people have to see him in person, then that alone says it is not what he is saying, but who he is that is changing people's minds.In fact, he could easily have set up a server and made the movie available to anyone on demand over the internet. He could have coupled that with actual data, up to date data, on all sorts of science related to CC, as well as methods to reduce emissions. If you go to his movie's website (or at least that's the way it was a year ago) there is absolutely NO information. One is locked into a system of having to rely on re-watching his movie or re-read his book, and trying to glean what one can get. If he wanted to seem hella cool he could have spent time online answering people's questions live with Climatologists sitting right next to him.But assuming for a moment that he had to go to speaking engagements before the movie, there is no reason he had to fly. He could have taken a car (which consumes less). And more importantly could have used electric or hybrid type technologies. Maybe the hybrid stuff wasn't around until more recently but electric has been for some time. It just depends how much you want to put into it.By not doing this, he is practicing convenience over environment. Routine over novelty. By buying carbon credits he is practicing wealth over changing habits. I mean there are only so many carbon credits that can be bought, and none of them involve reducing emissions. That the rich can keep their lifestyle, because they can afford it, is not the message he ought to be sending. Yet it is, even if not intentional. Why should meeting him be more useful than getting the information? And indeed if people are concerned, why not attend lectures by local climatologists? My opinion is that I can blame him for thinking it's less effective, if changing habits is part of what is needed to change our effect on the environment. Show some sacrificing, or perhaps that there is no sacrifice (even though there is difference) by using new technology.That would totally impress me. Heck, he could have sailed to Stockholm on a wind powered ship (sailing ship), with all the luxury in the world, yet no emissions. That would have been a statement.On his home, I think he's being environmental. He's doing okay. But he's not showing anything cutting edge, which is what he could be doing, and what I would be expecting from a leader. It is an irony that a rather non-environmental guy like Bush actually has a cutting edge home.And I might repeat a point that some within this thread claim Bush's real house is the White House. As it stands, he got it from Clinton-Gore who did nothing to put the solar panels back in, and Bush did. I'm not trying to make out like Bush is some environmental leader, but there is an irony when one looks at how the two actually live.On his jet... I don't know. Like you, I don't trust Fox worth anything. And Rrhain had given some appropriate responses Gore might have. Then again, I keep falling back to my question of his leadership. If the environment is what his life is about now, and he wants to be a leader, then he needs to do better than he is. I am not a multimillionaire and I have managed to live without a car and without a private jet, or buying carbon credits for some time. I could have made it to those places without such emissions, or I would have chosen not to go. That is to say if I could not make it without producing unwanted emissions (and so setting a good example for future habits) then I'd say I couldn't make it.He's not a bad man, he just isn't living up to the hype he has created around himself, he is not helping people understand science, and he is creating fear where it's not needed (and I would argue unhelpful).{AbE: By the way, Happy Holidays! I may very well be out in your neighborhood today... though not on your rooftop.}Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You bastard... hope you got coal.On Dr Cranium, hadn't heard of him, but checking the link got me interested. I like puzzle games.Now Gore!As far as his misstatements go, there is a link here, and here at RealClimate which discuss them. Although crash wanted to pretend that they were saying no errors, that was not accurate especially if one looks at the second page (before they got politically semantic about the thing). I don't think Gore was being malicious, just at best mistaken and at worst deceptive.And in any case I still believe you hit the most important inaccuracies, besides Katrina which they gloss over and I am not happy about. He could have picked any OTHER Cat5 hurricane and pointed to their damage, or he could have picked any OTHER large hurricane of that season (or recent seasons). He picked that one for its dramatic effect. But the devastation was from failed engineering, that's it. It may have been triggered by that hurricane, but that's chance. It would have eventually occurred (with subsidence, or lesser normal hurricanes), much like that bridge which collapsed more recently. It was inaccurate to point to that as an example of what might happen in the future, as related to CC.The rest of what you wrote I think comes down to a difference in opinion or taste. Its not something I can argue against, only state why I feel the way I do and hope you might prefer that "taste". I saw his slideshow (online by the way, though he did not distribute it), nearly a year before I saw the movie. I found the movie awful by comparison. Really, I did not find it entertaining at all. Snoozeville, which is surprising because I like the general topic and the director. But that is totally subjective artistic opinion. To me if he could have cut out everything about Gore's life, and politics, and made the science much more exciting. Why not show what goes into that science? How it's done? Hell if you want hurricanes show a NOAA plane flying around one to measure strengths. That's action.I always hate when global problems get made personal. It seemed to revolve all around Gore. Inconvenient Truth: he's boring. I'm not saying I can't see why he did it. I'm saying that to my mind his actions speak of choosing convenience and routine over environment and novel was of doing things. And that to me spells the difference between someone who is just like everyone else, and a real cutting edge leader.If not for his already vast wealth and fame, his activities would not have stood out in the crowd. So what's the hoopla for someone with a lot of hoopla doing something in the public eye. It might be laudable, but not massive credit worthy.It is my prediction that 10-20 years from now InTru will be viewed as an overhyped movie that didn't deserve the credit it got, and Gore a man that was equally so. Not horrible, just not worth the hype. You are in good company with that opinion. I realize that I am in the minority stating that fear is exactly what is NOT needed. It is a serious divide, but one based on opinion alone. Neither of us are objectively right.Here is why I do not like using fear:1) When discussing nature, it is cyclical, and we will have to face the problems we are now anyway. That does not suggest we shouldn't reduce our factors, but it does suggest having fear about the situation is not going to be useful. It will NOT be the end of the world. And it could be seen as an exciting opportunity for use to move forward with technology. I see it as exciting that we can know this much about the world, and try to effect changes for our advantage, or start planning for ways to protect ourselves against the inevitable. Should people really panic in the future when manmade GHGs are gone and the temps shoot up?2) Use of fear in general, legitimizes that as a way to move the public. That creates a dumber class of citizen which reacts wholly to irrational arguments. This is what Bush does now and somehow liberals can see it is bad when he does it, but not when it is their issue. I cannot make that divide. Fear is no way to learn about a subject so as to understand it, and no state to be in to choose the best course of action.3) I feel it is condescending to humans to treat them as if they will only react to fear, or that it is necessary to motivate them. It is clear fear CAN be used, it is effective for shirt term gains, but that does not justify its use, or make it less insulting. When Gore says things like we should be more concerned about the environment than terrorists, I cringe. What kind of moron does he take me for? I'm going to fall for that base propaganda? Maybe many will, but its a turnoff for people that understand what's going on, and is needlessly patronizing to those who don't... even if they do eat it up. There are better routes.Let me know what you think.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

If it is one puzzle after another, with no narrative, it'd get a bit tedious. Throw in a bit of a narrative (such as Myst) and I like it, throw in adventure and that's better still. Dr. Cranium certainly suggests adventure. I pretty much agree with your assessment. Though I might add saying residents of an island had to vacate for the wrong reasons is probably also a falsehood. Not necessarily intentional, but I didn't buy their gloss on that with suggestions that it would happen in the future. I don't think that would cut it if Bush said something similar.Also, the Katrina thing bothers me for the reasons I outlined. The guys at RC kept looking at it from the vantage point of if he was wrong mentioning it (large hurricanes) in the context of CC, stating that he didn't say it caused the hurricane... which would be true. But the devastation what he was using and that is NOT an accurate depiction of the damage of a large hurricane. That was another tragedy altogether and one which (though it is my opinion) much more important for people to be worrying about. Any distractions from the real lesson of Katrina is setting the stage for future disasters.Realistically, he could have pointed to other hurricanes. It was disingenuous to choose that one, even if it is not factually incorrect to say the atmospheric phenomena of a storm like Katrina might happen more often. Okay, and this is where I realize it is my opinion that makes the difference here. I am a major supporter of science, proper reasoning, and accurate public understanding of science. I guess I feel that that is more important than any message one is trying to get out using science.I have a problem with many modern science programs. Man it feels like the world got dumber since I was young, but I think its just expectations. The producers feel they have to compete with MTv, and the violent spectacle of modern entertainment. I think that's the wrong move. Keep it sophisticated. I mean exciting is fine, but keep the facts running solid and coherent. Actually there is no indication that such shifts in temperatures have not occurred. In fact some of the more dramatic dips and climbs tend to suggest that can happen. It is just not likely applicable to other sources than manmade GHGs right now.And more importantly, assuming that this change is a bit faster than normal, the heights are not more extreme, and neither are the effects (even if in a bit faster mode). Many species have gone extinct in the same way the polar bears might now. Even given the slower shifts seen in history, they were not slow enough for creatures to evolve some defense when the changes are on vast areas.This is not to say people should not be concerned, simply that fear is not the right medium to be working in. Understanding, caution, useful action. This one I'd have to call you on. I tend to think you have a greater chance of being killed by a terrorist than CC related devastation, even though I do agree that one is more likely to get killed by a stray deer than terrorists.We don't really have accurate predictions (which I know of anyway, so I ask) which present probabilities and casualty figures. And even if we did, that would have to be within the assumption of no changes in human behavior besides cutting GHGs or not. For example people starve around the world today, but there is no reason for that to be happening accept poor distribution, largely politically/militarily caused. If we changed what we were doing the results would be different.If CC resulted in droughts, they will be regional, and likely would not have to result in more deaths as we are already producing (worldwide) surplus crops. Illness, requires better distribution of medical aid. Flooding requires better forethought in settlements and engineering for coastal defenses. These we should be doing anyway, and I have seen no estimates which include improvements in these capacities.The only way I have seen this addressed is in fearful words of how much such improvements are going to cost. To that I say, what are you more afraid of? It sounds like the same arguments I hear against socialized medicine. I am not afraid of changing my methods and tax structures to ensure my health and those of others. And if we can argue that the costs of switching away from fossil fuels is worth it to reduce GHGs, so we shouldn't be afraid of that... then why not for improvements in the face of CC?Despite Dr. Cranium's glare, I must maintain that fear is not the best mechanism for accurate resolution of the Climate Change issue. It can be used, but it isn't worthwhile for what I find valuable.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Actually its more specific than that.... though this is a complex subject. Louisiana is a delta. Humans already made a huge mistake by trying to straighten and specify the channels of the Mississippi which would normally sweep across the delta adding landmass. Although it would suffer from subsidence anyway, our previous efforts to minimize flooding (by altering the Mississippi) has increased that problem. This effects any coastal engineering.The levees were already designed poorly in that they were designed to hold nothing (and that is at best planning) greater than a Cat3. That is a major design flaw when clearly they'd get hit by that and more naturally. If that were the only issue then it would be accurate to say that CC might deliver more threats to that defense system, but its not like we had to build that system. You really can build them as tough as you want. The dutch have been doing it for centuries.In fact, after a rare massive storm surge in the 50s broke through their defenses and delivered what could be argued as something much more catastrophic than Katrina, they went to work and sealed their connection to the sea with giant flood gates. Man that is really something, forward thinking and beautiful. They are currently suffering from subsidence problems, but they are simply dealing with them.Okay, so we could have built it better and we could have improved it. But because of subsidence and other inherent engineering flaws itself, that thing was going to fail sometime anyway. Hurricane or not. Residents had already been noting flooding from the levee structure. Katrina was coincidence, it could have happened with a lesser more common hurricane, and it could have happened with nothing but river currents (in time).There were some previous Cat5 hurricanes Gore should have pointed to. In fact I would have been extremely impressed if he mentioned Katrina, and what the real problems were... using that to discuss the changes we'll have to make as environmentally conscious people besides GHG reduction, then point to other cases for more likely damage we'd see. This is where I agree and where Jar's repeated points (in other threads) always strike me as the right attitude. To all the people who think that it isn't terribly worrisome because we've had such things in the past... yeah okay, but why inflict that kind of change on yourself if you don't have to? Its almost masochistic to keep going when changing our habits will not change life all that much, and result in having to make more extravagant changes later... that is until Nature makes us do it. While possible, I still don't think that is plausible unless people do nothing at all, and then get "caught by surprise". And you know what? I think maybe that would be evolution at work. Any human with their nice big brain who can't figure out what they need to do to avoid these problems, maybe their loss is a help overall.The information really is out there. You might note something else, he never presented anything as an answer except himself. Fear this, look at me, fear that, look at me. See I am telling you these things, I know. That is base propaganda.If he was more than that, he would have been focused on how the data is collected, what it is telling us, how we can figure out what might happen, what it would take to change the situation, and then who to go to for more answers (or how to find it themselves).To my mind, IncTru was essentially a horror movie with himself as the lead character. Reprising his role in "Election 2000, the Empire Strikes Back". Heheheh.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sorry for the abrupt, and long, silence. Things came up, and now I am back (though likely not for long). I definitely agree that is one of the things Katrina demonstrates. A poster child for over-development of residential areas, ignoring practical realities. It is that as well as not appropriately understanding the engineering required for proper maintenance of infrastructure.But this was my point. There were plenty of other Cat4+ storms to choose from. Using Katrina to hype GW, keeps people in the dark about its real causes and a totally different thing they need to be worried about. I don't know how many times I have heard people link K and GW. Gore did a great disservice in that regard. Agreed. Frankly, I'd lump MM and AG both into the category of propagandists. Although I will say MMs film Sicko is one of his least propagandist efforts. I can forgive MM much, just because he succeeds at being entertaining. I know I'm not supposed to take him completely seriously. Well I'll repeat a point I think we both agreed on already. He lost me on all that personal crap. He could have easily fit some better science into those rather lengthy slots. And it would have been loads more exciting. Oh my god, Gore lost the election of 2000? How could that happen? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or yawn at his reminiscences... the yawn won.Edited by Silent H, : and/as well

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

It was really a lame movie, in and of itself, which surprised me because I liked the director. Terrible. I think its one of those that will fade with time, and later on its enthusiasts will watch it and ask "why the hell did I like that?"Interestingly I got hold of a vid of Gore's actual lecture. I watched that wayyyyyy before I saw the movie. It was better, even if he makes the same mistakes. I think a movie allowed for personal indulgences which a live presentation simply could not.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think we've achieved complete agreement... Agreed. With the exception of Sicko. He really seems to have done a good job sticking with facts this time. Not to say he deviated from being a propagandist and polemicist, just that he did stick better to facts. Info contained in the DvD made it even better.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I actually liked the Cuba thingy, though it was pure provocateur and not so much documenter. To my mind it did not involve lying, or even exaggeration, even if it was designed to cause offense.It is wholly true that you can travel to any other first world country and get better and cheaper medical care than in the US. And it SHOULD be disconcerting that one really can get better and cheaper medical care in Cuba, than the US. I think the major point in that section was not just to showcase Cuba, but to point out that even in Castro's Cuba (a dictatorship) one can get free care, and that in US's Cuba (Guantanamo... at tax payer expense) we provide free care for people considered enemies of the US. In other words, health wise, you are better off being an enemy of the US, or under a dictatorship.Any offense really ought to turn into reflection. It was a mirror.Edited by Silent H, : subbie and out+gh

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard