It's probably my fault.
I own three vehicles.
First one is a '74 Trans Am with a big old V8 that's been modified to put out north of 400 HP. Of course it doesn't accumulate much mileage. I've owned it for...12 years and have put about 12k miles on it. It had 102k when I bought it.
Second is an '02 Silvarado 1500 with a 4.8L V8 (the smallest) that is only used when the room or hauling capability is needed (such as dog shows or horse transport). I've owned it for a bit over two years and have put about 5k miles on it. Bought (practically stole, considering the gas prices) it with 170k on it (it was extremely clean and well maintained by a neighbor).
Third is the daily driver which of course is a little red sporty thing with full power, AC, upgraded stereo, aftermarket alloy rims and ultra high performance tires. It's a '98 4-door Neon with a 2L 4-cyl engine and a 5 spd...and it gets 30+ MPG in the city with the AC running full blast. I've owned it for about eight years and have put about 80k miles on it for a total of 158k on the odometer.
Other than that, I'm extremely frugal, so wasting electricity isn't something I do at all. Lights are always off to the point of annoying people and while I have three computers, one if off 90+% of the time, the laptop is sleeping 90% of the time and my computer is sleeping maybe 50% of the time. Since I use it for work, though, it's not really avoidable. TV hardly gets watched, phone chargers and the like are on power strips that are rarely on... Remodeling the house to be about twice as energy efficient... Can't think of anything else at the moment. Was up coding late last night and since early this morning...
>>In society we expect that if you talk the talk you should walk the walk.<< -Red E3
I think that was the point of the question... That deniers are expecting the realists to give up our evidently opulent lifestyles of academic study and jostling numbers around to make computer models say what we want.
>>Dana or anyone else on this board who would argue “that’s not how I live” is a moot point.<< -Red E3
Um... Actually, I thought that was the whole point of the article and the linked question. Thing is that if the conscientious among us gave up more and lived on even a smaller carbon footprint, the deniers would feel perfectly justified then to consume more...since that's their mentality.
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying... I don't really watch TV and really couldn't care less about celebrities' opinions most of the time, so I guess I can miss that angle.
As for the remodel, short-term return on investment is the major concern. The house will be sold within ten years (that being the farthest possibility). Things that I would do in new construction, or in a remodel for a permanent residence aren't in the budget, unfortunately. Like, I'd love to jack the house up and put in a nice ICF foundation and finish off the basement (which trust me would pay for itself over about 30 years) or install solar (the house gets awesome sun, but the resale value of the installation isn't there)... If money wasn't an object in the short term, I'd just do all the upgrades and then keep the property as a rental until the improvements were paid off, even if I just broke even in the end...
>>I don't think many really deny that the planet warms and cools,<< - Fight Tyranny
They deny that it warms and cools for reasons that are inconvenient to their argument. They deny that it warms due to CO2 and they deny that it cools due to dimming and they will deny that the solar cycle and the Milankovitch cycles expect cooling...
>>so calling people names just because they don't believe the way you do shows severe immaturity on your part.<<
What names? "Denier"? That's not a name, that's a label - and a pretty accurate one at that.
>>Seriously, are you paid to push this AGW nonsense?<<
Some people care and don't need recompense to express their concerns and attempt to educate others.
>>I've never seen someone so incensed that everyone doesn't believe in his religion,<<
That's funny. I guess you don't spend much time analyzing denier responses in this category. Science isn't a religion and listening to what scientists say isn't religious behavior. Discounting science and putting your faith in blogs and Fox News' commentators...now *that* is religious behavior.
>>but seriously, you really don't need to be such a baby about it.<<
Huh. Weren't you just bawling about being called names? Poor little thing... I guess you didn't get your nap today.
I've always said that the second you bring up the maturity of another, you've shown yours.
>>Everyone doesn't have to believe in the same thing, do they?<<
Of course not. But if you don't "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, then the problem doesn't lie with those who try to convince you that it does. You don't have to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 either...but you should be prepared for people to get frustrated when you insist that *they* are the ones that just don't understand arithmetic.
>>But to answer the question, people get the idea that AGW believers live lives of excess by taking one look at Al Gore's lifestyle.<<
So if that's the reason, don't you have a problem with that? Do you think that it's right to judge a group of people based on the actions of one, or even a few?
So then you won't mind it if I insult the entirety of the denier movement every single time that certain persons post supremely idiotic drivel here? It would at least be more justified since deniers tend to completely stand behind what other deniers say, even if it's in direct contradiction with their own claims.
Oh wait, above you said that realists can't insult deniers...right before you hurled an insult.