What do you think about this?

Question

The Story of Two Houses
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> HOUSE # 1:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural
>>> >>>> gas.
>>> >>>> Add on
>>> >>>> a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by
>> gas.
>>> >>>> In
>>> >>>> ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average
>>> >>>> American
>>> >>>> household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and
>>> >>>> natural
>>> >>>> gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last
>>> >>>> time we
>>> >>>> checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20
>>> >>>> times
>>> >>>> the national
>>> >>>> average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or
>>> >>>> Midwestern
>>> >>>> "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> HOUSE # 2:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national
>> university,
>>> >>>> this
>>> >>>> house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
>> can
>>> >>>> provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms)
>>> >>>> and
>> is
>>> >>>> nestled on
>>> >>>> arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> house
>>> >>>> holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk
>> 300
>>> >>>> feet
>>> >>>> into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house
>>> >>>> in
>>> >>>> winter
>>> >>>> and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil
>> or
>>> >>>> natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a
>>> >>>> conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is
>>> >>>> collected
>>> >>>> and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater
>> from
>>> >>>> showers,
>>> >>>> sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then
>>> >>>> into
>>> >>>> the cistern.
>>> >>>> The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.
>>> >>>> Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the
>>> >>>> surrounding rural landscape.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of
>>> >>>> Nashville,
>>> >>>> Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and
>>> >>>> filmmaker) Al Gore.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
>>> >>>> Texas.
>>> >>>> Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence
>> of
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> President of the United States, George W. Bush.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you
>>> >>>> WON'T
>>> >>>> hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York
>>> >>>> Times
>>> >>>> or the
>>> >>>> Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient
>>> >>>> truth."
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> NO KIDDING

Answer 1

The whole thing is a fraud and even Gore doesn't believe it

The idea that there is an imminent impending global disaster resulting from human actions is a complete and utter lie, plain and simple. Either Al Gore is an unbelievably stupid man or he’s laughing all the way to the bank at the stupidity of the general public that’s willing to pay money to see his movie. “An Inconvenient Truth” would be more appropriately titled “A Convenient Lie” – convenient for Al Gore anyway who has now produced the third highest grossing documentary of all time – over $24,000,000 to date ($47 million world-wide). That doesn’t include the additional unjust profits earned from book sales and speaking engagements.

His film would lead you to believe that every single scientist even remotely qualified to study global climate change agrees that disaster is imminent and that humankind is the direct cause. The reality of the situation is quite the opposite – most qualified scientists vehemently disagree with this assertion.

It is unbelievable how many people believe and treat this complete and utter fallacy as fact. Read blogs, newspaper articles, Internet forums – a startling number of people have bought this lie hook line and sinker.

I’m sure most would argue that even if the science is flawed, certainly it’s a good idea for us all to take it a little bit easier on the planet and with that I would most certainly agree. However, not only is Al Gore and company all wrong on the cause of global climate change (or perhaps even the very existence of global climate change) but their proposed solution could potentially be harmful to the environment.

The problem is that Al Gore and others have somehow, absent virtually any credible scientific evidence whatsoever, latched onto the idea that man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the single biggest threat to environment. Credible research actually shows quite the opposite, it may in fact be true that additional carbon dioxide in the environment is beneficial to the Earth’s entire ecosystem stimulating the growth of additional plant and animal life. Carbon dioxide is not a noxious chemical but rather a relatively benign compound that is either used or released through virtually any organic process. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, plants ingest carbon dioxide and expel oxygen and yes carbon dioxide is a bi-product of burning fossil fuels.

Regardless of the facts stated above, man-made carbon dioxide is actually not even a significant percentage of the carbon dioxide found within the Earth’s atmosphere.

I don’t want to reinvent the wheel and I will link to all the material that supports what I’m saying, as if it’s not bad enough that Al Gore is propagating a complete and total lie, his proposed solution to a non-existent problem is potentially harmful to the environment.

Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t dispute that there aren’t many things humans do that are very detrimental to the Earth’s environment, however there is NO credible scientific data to suggest that excessive release of CO2 into the environment is one of them.

If you want to help the environment focus on doing something that actually helps the environment rather attempting to solve a problem that may or may not exist by doing something that will not help (and might hurt) the situation.

Don’t take my word for it, here’s 17,200+ scientists (and counting) that agree there is no element of truth to Gore's film:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm...

Here is the letter sent on behalf of the petition signers requesting that our government not sign the Kyoto treaty to reduce C02 emissions because it will not help anything and in fact may be detrimental to the environment and to developing nations:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm...

Here is supporting peer-reviewed­ research:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm...

Here are a few articles from the Canada Free Press shooting down all the Global Warming hype:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...

Don’t be another jackass out there campaigning for a pointless solution to a problem that has little to no hard scientific evidence suggesting it even exists. If you want to be an activist step one is finding a problem that actually exists and step two is finding a solution that is not only realistic but will actually resolve the problem. Al Gore and friends probably failed at step one and certainly failed at step 2.

Even if reducing CO2 emissions is not detrimental to the environment it is unlikely to do anything beneficial either. Mandating reduction of CO2 emissions will most certainly be harmful economically, especially to developing nations that cannot afford or do not otherwise have access to alternative technologies. How Ironic, Al Gore, liberals and all the other Hollywood idiots riding the global warming bandwagon are usually the same bleeding hearts lecturing us on how we need to help developing nations. Not only that but other dishonest frauds are taking advantage of the general public's belief in this carbon dioxide disaster myth to get rich by selling “carbon-credits.” Check it out. http://www.terrapass.com/.

Don’t be a sucker – next time some jerkoff celebrity, former politician or other talking head tries to sell you something demand some hard scientific evidence.

Answer 2

If it's as described then Bush's house is more environmentally friendly.

Answer 3

Nokidding?!?!
Then why isn't Bush more concerned about the nation's environmental policies? -RKO-

Answer 4

no kidding