AutoblogGreen

Where do you get that wack opinion? Rush the Baboon?
The man is respected for leading the CO2 reduction/global warming cause for more then 15 years. Geeze, the guy even buys carbon offsets.

So, he's been Right for 15 years. Because of that we're to hold him in "low regard"?

Maybe it's time to start listening to the people who actually know what they're talking about, for the sake of YOUR kids, and Get Things Done. Or, you could still hold on to your dying oil stock and fight Reality.

Tony Belding is well-known in certain circles on the internet for trying to carve out a conservative pro-electric car position..

In this case, his cattiness about Gore does not serve him well. It's the same old Republican smears of Gore which are the equivalent of high school name-calling.

Al Whore lives in a 10,000 square foot house that uses as much energy in August as a two average homes use in an ENTIRE YEAR!

He travels in limousines and private jets. And this guy is a paragon of being green?

Carbon offsets? You really believe in those? The whole idea of carbon offsets is that you don't have to conserve -- you can still live like pig. Conservation is for the little people. Instead, you still consume like a pig, you just pay somebody else to conserve (maybe).

Do a google search on papal indulgences. The concept is the same. Carbon offsets are just as morally bankrupt.

Mik_Cal: I am NOT a conservative, and I am not the one who engaged in name-calling. Also I don't see how it's "catty" to point out that Al Gore has very little credibility with a lot of people. He's a polarizing figure, a controversial figure, and electric car advocacy doesn't benefit from being polarized.

Electric cars need to go mainstream, and they need to shed the image of being an automotive hairshirt for die-hard environmentalists, because most ordinary people aren't that.

I wish T. Boone Pickens had named electric cars as an answer in those ads he's been running. He makes a really compelling, urgent case for changing our cars. The unfortunate thing is: he wants us to change them to natural gas, not electricity!

I'm sorry Tony to mischaracterize your politics. However I am still puzzled by your support for the notion that Al Gore somehow has in net a bad reputation or his endorsement of electric cars is a negative.

You see, the anti-Gore sentiments expressed in your original post and what one finds on the Internet have all the intellectual content and maturity of schoolyard taunts, especially those directed at the kids who earnestly try to do the right thing and use their minds. If you submit to this type of herd mentality or think that, like anxious schoolchildren, we should disassociate ourselves from Gore or other "nerdy" kids", then you are giving up on having intelligent leaders and intelligent debates.

Furthermore, Gore has a formidable resume. So formidable that you would be lucky to have half of his (real) accomplishments on yours.

So, no, it is not a liability that he supports electric cars. In fact, the more concrete and substantial climate and energy solutions he supports the better off we are.

Well, in the end it comes down to the science. Gore claims to have the scientific facts on his side, and yet he is no scientist and shows little understanding of how the scientific method works. (It certainly doesn't work by loudly and publicly claiming "consensus" is on your side, and then branding everyone who disagrees as either a troglodyte or a shill for Big Oil.)

Global warming alarmists share many of the same characteristics of "creation science" or "intelligent design" advocates, right down to bearded prophets of the End Times. Both claim to be about science but are fundamentally faith-based and agenda-driven.

Eventually the facts will win out, and when that happens I'm afraid the whole environmental movement will be tainted in the mind of the public. Every environmental issue, no matter how urgent, will provoke a skeptical response: "Yeah, but remember how they used to go on about global warming?"

Oh, that's right, I forgot...you're a self-taught climate scientist, a.k.a a global warming denier. I wonder how you got all that training and, found all that time to do analyses of climate data that refute, yes, the overwhelming majority of professional geophysicists who study temperature trends.

What have you published in the area of climate science?

(And saying that Al Gore is himself not a scientist is an extremely weak counterargument. He's simply wise enough to allow scientists to do their work and not set himself up as an independent climate analyst. You apparently do not have that wisdom.)

Well, there's the pot calling the kettle black. Let's turn that around. . . .

Oh, that's right, I forgot...you're a self-taught climate scientist, a.k.a a global warming alarmist. I wonder how you got all that training and, found all that time to do analyses of climate data that allow you to dismiss, yes, a great many professional geophysicists who study temperature trends.

What have you published in the area of climate science?

(And saying that Al Gore is "wise enough" to let scientists do their work is a very weak argument -- because he's apparently not wise enough to acknowledge the concerns and inputs of the many dissenters.)

Re: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403

The inanity and weakness of your position on warming is becoming clear. I am not making an original theory about the climate, you or your pals are. So it is YOU that needs the credentials.

I am not disagreeing with the VAST majority of the DATA that for instance the NOAA collects about temperature and its interpretation by a VAST majority of people who spend years of their lives studying this. We are currently, again, in one of the warmest years on record. The dominant theory of why the earth warms or cools is the presence of GHGs in our atmosphere in combination with other "forcings". We have been pumping more of them into the atmosphere. The onus is on those who "disagree" with AGW to come up with why this is so. I am simply relating this as a educated person not as a scientist.

There are a few who try to poke holes in the interpretation of that data or deny that the data is even important. You are aligning yourself with that group whose credentials are often in question.

I don't need the credentials, and neither does Gore, as we are
agreeing with that vast majority of people with PhDs in this area who spend their professional lives on this. You and your denier pals do, I'm afraid.

I'm leaving it to the professionals, you are setting yourself up as an amateur climate pundit, a ridiculous position, I must say.

A market works best when inputs are priced correctly.
A carbon tax would correct for externalities.
Coal plants pollute OUR air and poison OUR fish, they should at least pay us for it.

Coal also pollutes a lot of Water. A couple more years of southern state ( US ) droughts is going to kill coal. These southern politicians are going to be caught between Real Voters demanding Clean, drinkable Water and the Coal Prostitutes.

At some point Coal will be shut down.

The EV1 Hybrid Variant did 550 mile range.
Maybe it's time to buy up the EV1 CAD files and let the "government" hire some laid-off engineering talent and build an EV2. Because, we had a working Electric car, we Have a working Electric car, but, GM won't build it.

Source Wikipedia:
EV1 parallel hybrid
The parallel hybrid variant featured a de-stroked 1.3 L turbocharged DTI diesel engine (Isuzu Circle L), delivering 75 hp, installed in the trunk along with an additional 6.5 hp DC motor/generator; the two motors drove the rear wheels through an electronically controlled transaxle. When combined with the AC induction motor which powered the front wheels, all three power units delivered a total output of 219 hp, accelerating the car to 0-60 mph (96.6 km/h) in 7 seconds. A single tank of diesel fuel could keep the car running for 550 miles with a fuel economy of 80 mpg.[citation needed]

Pure electrics are not needed.
Over 80% of trip mileage happens in the first 40 miles.
Renewables and domestic oil supplies can cover the rest.

EVs are not for everybody, at least initially. There are other options for you.

The Model-T got 20 MPG nearly 70 YEARS ago
With a top speed of 45 mph and no safety equipment I can see why

If you took a Hummer, dropped the weight to 1200 lbs., reduced the engine to a modern 20 HP unit and drove no faster than 45 MPH, you'd get far more than 20 MPG.

"The Model T was introduced on Oct. 1, 1908. It had a 20-horsepower, four-cylinder engine, reached a top speed of about 45 miles per hour, got about 13 to 21 miles per gallon of gasoline and weighed 1,200 pounds."

From Model T Facts:

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=858