On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the

Ok, so he moved from the top 0.1% of energy users to the top 0.2%(*)
I guess that's progress. So no worries, mon!

(*: yes, I'm guessing, but a big mansion and jetsetting around the
world
ain't exactly being a Bangladeshi)

believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in
conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the
extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation
to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate.

I agree, as long as we throw away any semblence of a first world
lifestyle.
As long as we and the "spokespeople" perpetuate the myth, like Kermit
in the Ford spots, that "it's easy being green" (just gotta buy the
hybrid
SUV), there will be no measurable slowdown in GH emissions.

That anthropocentric global warming is happening is an obvious no
brainer
as far as I'm concerned.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

But I've not yet met a single first-world
person,
even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to
voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to
significantly do
anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from
driving a Prius.

Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do
something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by
definition
acting inconsistent with their beliefs.

Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of
about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses.
How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican,
Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within
walking distance play into the equation?

Wolfgang
who didn't used to think that thinking globally was all that
tough.