The Tale of Two Houses – An Inconvenient Truth

Here’s a little story that illustrates how politics and agenda’s are everywhere. I myself am still researching the whole “global warming” thing and frankly thus far, I am completely unconvinced. Now, that isn’t to say that I am not “for” the environment and for researching the best possible way to utilize our resources and taking care of our earth but frankly it’s always reeked of politics and hidden agenda’s to me.

The Tale of Two Houses: Which one 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 this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400, per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern ‘snow belt’ area. 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 is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a 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 the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter 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. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the ‘environmentalist ‘ Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Yes, it really is an ‘inconvenient truth.’

You can verify it at :

P.S. Yes, those are the actual pictures of their houses.



  1. Bill Rains · June 22, 2008

    31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’

    Global warming or climate change as they call it now is a total hoax.


    MYTH 1 : Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

    FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

    There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

    MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase .

    FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17 th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

    The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

    MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

    FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO 2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO 2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO 2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO 2 as a result.

    MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
    FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO 2 , CH 4 , Ozone and N 2 O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO 2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.

    Those attributing climate change to CO 2 rarely mention this important fact.

    MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

    FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

    MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

    FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
    1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

    To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

    MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
    FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

    MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

    FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

    MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

    FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

    MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

    FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

    Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

    Covering their losses:

    “Carbon Credits” are a snake oil salesman’s dream!

    Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can’t afford to play on Gore’s terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

    So “carbon credits” and “global warming” go hand in hand. A means to an end. Its that simple: greed and a loss of individual freedom.

    Gore pays for his extra-large “carbon footprint, a hoax” through Generation Investment Management (GIM) – and if you’re looking to go green, and have your wallet handy to go along with Gore, think again – average people are too insignificant to play, but for $11,000 you can invest in the oil futures market and help drive up the price of oil artificially.
    Covering Their Losses

    Al Gore Controls Other Companies Also

    Carbon credits and “global warming” are a scam and a hoax that congress and the mass media are selling to the public. The public is buying it and thinking it is something that exists. If you tell the public a lie enough, they start to believe it despite the real facts. Global warming ie, climate change is natural and caused by the heating of the sun, amazing isn’t it. Man does not heat the earth or control the climate as claimed by al gore. Al Gore Wants You To Take Your Money

  2. Beth · May 20, 2008

    Great post Jessica.

    I will say, though, that many valid things get all mucked up in scare tactics and such. However – this info doesn’t make the true issue any less. When I hear about glaciers melting at a much faster rate – and the likes of those things – it scares me.

    I will agree with Kristina that even though someone doesn’t have the good sense to follow the research he does – doesn’t make him totally incorrect. There are many things I research and know about – and just because I don;t follow them -doesn;t make them wrong.

    I will be researching all the links as well.

  3. Kristina · May 11, 2008

    Hey, I’m excited to do the research on the other side! Thanks for all the links. I promise to enter into it all with an open mind. This should be fun :)

    The other day I was thinking about all this and had a random thought – If you can believe that unnatural substances can do harm to your children/family/self in foods, medicines, vaccines, etc. – why not in particles in the ozone? I don’t see it as that big of a jump. But I agree – it should all be scientifically valid.

    Al Gore? Yep, a scare monger. And although I cringed several times in the film because of his method of *presentation*, I had a hard time in poking holes in his *evidence*.

    Someone is lying out there. Both sides have economics to gain from the lie if it is theirs. It will be interesting to see, when we put our heads together, if we can figure out who the liar is.

    (As a side note, I get your point about slavery and the Civil War – although I would say it’s going too far to say that the Civil War *wasn’t* about slavery – it was about economics *and* slavery. But absolutely they simplify it in the public school system. And I’ll be definitely on top of whatever they are teaching my kids so I can be proactive about setting them – and the teachers – straight.)

  4. journeytocrunchville · May 11, 2008



    I will consent to your challenge (to watch the scare mongering film which lacks scientific evidence and has been debunked on critical points) if you will consent to explore the possibility that the theory of “Global Warming caused by humans” is laced with myth and junk science and is consistently debunked. While I believe we should be concerned with preserving this earth, the species that inhabit it and doing what we can to leave as little mark on this world I don’t believe that we should have to buy into science that is, as of yet, unproved and I don’t believe fear mongering is the answer. Global warming may be occurring (all though even that is debatable) but it may have absolutely nothing to do with us and there may be absolutely nothing we can do about it. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore it. Doesn’t mean science shouldn’t study it but teaching Global Warming to our children without explaining that there is valid counter-evidence and that much of the evidence on the “global warming” side has been scientifically debunked is dangerous. I believe we should teach our children to think critically even if it goes against popular opinion. That doesn’t mean that if we discover that Global Warming isn’t a result of humans we should all just wastefully live our lives and everyone should give up recycling but I think you get my point. And I agree, it would be unwise to to dismiss Gore’s message simply based on his own life’s hypocrisy rather than the science behind his presentation. It’s interesting that you brought up the slavery thing with Thomas Jefferson. Hypocrisy abounds everywhere. The civil war is another topic I take issue with because we are taught in public school that the reason the civil war was fought was to rid the United States of slavery. Utterly, false but it makes a nice story for public school. That war was fought for economical, political and financial reasons just like any other war. But alas, that is an entirely different topic. Again, that is not to say it isn’t good that slavery ended. Thank goodness it did! I think my main point is how frustrated I am with the way public schools indoctrinate children with untruths, glossified histories and political agendas. Not to mention that it makes children walk around their whole lives believing warm fuzzies that we fought a war to “end slavery”. Kind of makes it a rude awakening when they get to High School or College and discover that we consistently turn a blind eye to mass genocide and slavery in other places of the world if it doesn’t suit our political/financial gain. Another reason we’ll homeschool. I will seek to encourage my children to disagree with me. Not to disagree with me to be a pain but to seek intelligent debate and to arrive at their own conclusions. I also hope to teach them to always be willing to change their mind, which is what I will be open to doingith what you are presenting to me. :)

    Here are a few sites to get you started on the challenge I bring to you. :) I will be grabbing the movie an Inconvenient Truth on Netflix soon. I’m also going to buy THIS BOOK: Maybe it could be the subject for your next book group?

    Here are some sites, but again. These should be a starting point. I haven’t thoroughly researched each site but it is a good place to start digging:,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

  5. avill7 · May 10, 2008

    I agree with you Journey…agendas, politics, and marketing. I have seen the documentary and I have read up on the research. I’m not saying that it’s not important to do what we can to preserve what we have, it absolutely is. But to say that we’re destroying our earth and that humans are responsible for global warming is nonsense. One volcano eruption causes more harm to the earth than anything humans can do. Our planet has been going through similar cycles for millions of years – you can find the research that supports that just as easily as you can the research that Gore provides.

    As to hypocracy, Kristina you have a point. I don’t think Gore’s message to unite to improve the way we treat our world is bad – even though his own home is a poor example of his stance. However, I don’t think it’s right for him to use fear to drive people’s actions.

    Let’s not even get into how every company is now jumping at the chance to sell you something that is “green”. Things that probably just add to the waste they advertise you will avoid by purchasing their product. That’s not to say that it’s all bad – but much of it is sketchy.

    Just my humble opinion…

  6. Kristina · May 9, 2008

    I figure you knew I’d be commenting on this one ;)

    First comment: Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn’t make him wrong. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and even fathered a child with one, yet he wrote the immortal words that “all men are created equal”. Imagine if we had all ignored him just because of his hypocracy! I’m not a huge fan of Al Gore as a person, but I really do think the evidence seems to be on his side here.

    Second comment: I’d love for you to rent “An Inconvenient Truth” and give it a watch – then research the evidence he presents…then come back and write about it.

  7. Sarah Yao · May 9, 2008

    definitely an agenda. it’s all about controlling the masses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s