« New Episode of 24 Tonight at 9 p.m. EST | Main | "Patton" opposes "surge" in Iraq »

Al Gore's Own Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore's mansion uses more than twice the electricity in one month than the average household does in an entire year. From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.


Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Yikes! Gore is an energy glutton. Now compare this to President Bush's comparatively modest home in Crawford, Texas, which is a model of environmental friendliness:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude


Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore.

And take a look at this piece from TreeHugger:

Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive." Hmm, back to that vote about the Greenest President?

George Bush lives environmentalism whereas Al Gore only gives it lip service, yet he's is hailed as God's greatest gift to the environment. Meanwhile, he greedily consumes far more energy than the average American who, by the way, would be footing the bill for Kyoto if we hadn't pull out of it.

Every single one of those actors at the Oscars last night who was applauding Al Gore and nodding his or her head in agreement when Gore said global warming is a moral issue not a political one, needs to take lessons on how to be eco-friendly from President Bush. Next time liberals smugly announce that they drive Priuses, laugh in their faces.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Gore.

By the way, read all of Sullivan's piece on President Bush's Crawford ranch. In spite of the president's efforts to build a home that is as environmentally friendly as possible, he nonetheless, reaches to ridiculous lengths to find ways to slam the president as being inconsistent:

I suppose in George W.'s architectural world only the rich and powerful have views; vistas that the public owns as part of its shared heritage are up for lease and sale.


Heymann also termed the house "stunningly small." Really? Would it be stunningly small for a single mother in South Central Los Angeles? How stunningly small would it be for an immigrant Latino family in San Antonio Maybe in the rarified heights where second homes are the norm, 4,000 square feet is small and on a stunning scale as well, but in Main Street America that much elbow room is pretty big for the first and only home.

But then most of us can't reconcile what might at first glance appear to be inherently irreconcilable. Maybe some day, like our noble president, we will be able to make that kind of staggering mental feat. That is, if we ever stop misunderestimating ourselves.

Update: John Hinderaker at News Bloggers asks about Gore's other homes and modes of transportation:

How much energy do his other mansions and estates consume? And how about those private airplanes, the ultimate CO2 machines? The fun that could be had at Gore's expense is just about infinite.

The Anchoress writes about the pro-environment and pro-economy initiatives that President Bush advocated but were completely ignored by the environmentalists and the complicit media:

I think it's an amusing double-standard. Gore gasses away about the environment while he and his friends use private jets to go from huge, air-conditioned home to home, and he is heaped with accolades and good press, while Bush says little about the environment but lives the green-creed at home and gets no press...unless it can be negative press.


So, while you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.

Update II: Al Gore has responded:

1) Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.


2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint -- a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore's office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

How are the other households in Gore's region going to reduce their carbon footprint to zero when he consumes huge amounts of green energy? There's only a finite amount of alternative energy to go around. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority installed fifteen new wind machines in the Buffalo Mountain site, bringing that site's production to 29 megawatts of electricity, enough energy for 3,780 homes. However, I would bet that when the TVA did their statistical analysis, they weren't using homes as large as Gore's in their calculations. The average home in the US is 2,300 square feet, significantly smaller than Al Gore's home, which means Gore's mansion has got to skew that statistic quite a bit.

This is a zero-sum game, folks. The more of the 29 megawatts he uses the less there is for others to use, so he still looks really gluttonous. Additionally, based upon the law of supply and demand, he drives up the price of this green energy, preventing others from using it because it becomes too cost prohibitive.

Update III: My comments above are in response to those who retort that Gore signed up for the TVA Green Power Switch and, therefore, get all of his energy from alternative energy sources, not from traditional sources. However, Wizbang commenter SCSIwuzzy makes a great point (emphasis mine):

I work for a utility company, a rather large one at that. We have nukes (more than any other in the US), windfarms, geo, gas, hydro, coal and oil.


And I'll side with Leo and Jess. Electrons are electrons. No matter who you pay your generation charges to, you are getting your juice from the nearest one or two stations, dirty or clean.

Paying TVA or Green Mountain or whomever only subsidizes the green gen stations. If you want to help reduce emissions, push for more nuclear plants, invest in research and most of all, use less energy and take load off the damned grid.

Brutally Honest is following this as well.

Others blogging:

The Political Pit Bull
NewsBusters
Jules Crittenden
Don Surber
Blue Crab Boulevard
Ace of Spades
Stop the ACLU
Sister Toldjah


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Al Gore's Own Inconvenient Truth:

» The Anchoress linked with Inconvenient Truth: Bush greener than Gore

» Miller's Time linked with Boys And Girls, Your Word For The Day...

» A Second Hand Conjecture linked with It Is Now Time To Praise Famous Men

» Sister Toldjah linked with Gore ‘responds’ to Drudge headline (UPDATED)

» Webloggin linked with The Gorey Details

» Cynical Nation linked with Sacrifice for thee, not for me

» BizzyBlog linked with You’d Like to Think ….

» ElephantBiz linked with Al Gore's Other Inconvenient Truth

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 02/26/2007

» The Autopsy linked with Goracle gets busted

» Sensible Mom linked with Energy Gobbler Gore Responds

» Three Sources linked with Who's he think he is -- Edwards?

» Technicalities linked with The World Is Ending!

» The Boring Made Dull linked with Conservation for Thee..

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Cheney makes surprise visit

» Global Warming linked with If You Can't Take the Heat....

» Searchlight Crusade linked with Links and Minifeatures 03 01 Thursday

» Soccer Dad linked with Green thinking from the red planet

» Smoking Politics linked with A Far Too Convenient $mear: Part One

» jjncj.com linked with An Inconvenient Home for Mr. Gore

Comments (249)

How stunningly small?? Well... (Below threshold)

How stunningly small?? Well let's see..it's 8% of the size of John Edwards house in North Carolina. Did Sully point that out? Didn't think so. Jeez what an airhead.

So what does Algor have going in that house that he burns so many kilowatts? Tipper's hairdryer? A 100' HDTV in every room to replay his acceptance speech 24/7? Maybe continuous loops of March of the Penguins?

Is this Gore, or John Edwar... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Is this Gore, or John Edwards, we're talking about?

I am getting so confused with the stories of fat-cat Democrats with their sprawling mansions and large carbon footprints.

All the Lefties here tell us that the Dem Party is "for the little people."

I guess they mean little people with large houses and huge energy needs.

Let's start the countdown t... (Below threshold)
jaymaster:

Let's start the countdown to "attack the source".

3-2-1.....

Killer post Kim... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Killer post Kim

Thanks, Paul. ... (Below threshold)

Thanks, Paul.

Gore buys 100% of his elect... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Gore buys 100% of his electricity from renewal power sources (Tenn. Val. Green Power Switch):
What is Green Power Switch?
Like any revolutionary idea, the idea behind Green Power Switch is simple: harness the natural power of the wind, the sun, and the earth to create an energy source that's usable in our everyday lives. TVA and local public power companies, working in cooperation with the environmental community, developed Green Power Switch as a way to bring green power -- electricity that's generated by renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas -- to Valley consumers.

Another right wing smear put to rest.

I am shocked! I am shocked... (Below threshold)
DoubleU:

I am shocked! I am shocked!
Oh wait, liberals want to control us, because it is for our own good.

BarneyG2000, it still cause... (Below threshold)
DoubleU:

BarneyG2000, it still causes global warming, don't think he can get out of using all that energy and not DESTROY the earth.

Just one thing, we're not "... (Below threshold)

Just one thing, we're not "in" the Kyoto Protocol. There was a 95 to 0 vote against it in the Senate in 1999 and that's about as close as we've come to being "in" Kyoto so far.

Barney, It's not 1... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Barney,

It's not 100% green....(From TVA website)When the green power resources aren't operating -- for instance, when wind speeds are too low to generate energy -- TVA's other resources will continue to supply reliable electricity.

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm

And don't forget Gulfstream... (Below threshold)
Jo:

And don't forget Gulfstream Gore and his private jet way of life.

When the dems say they are for the little people, they mean the little people who will work for them. In their yards, in their fields, in their kitchens. You know the deal.

Do as I say, not as I do. That's the liberal motto.

UU, that's it, change argum... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

UU, that's it, change argument. I just proved that the Drudge report was complete nonsense, but do you address the lie?

OK, how does using renewable electrical energy (non carbon based) create more greenhouse gasses than coal or oil based electricity?

This should be good.

Ann Coulter said it best to... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Ann Coulter said it best tonight when confronted on Hannity & Colmes about the latest Gore hypocrisy. She said she actually had more respect for him, because it clearly shows he's not dumb enough to believe his own man made global warming BS.

Bwahahahahah.... love it.

Barney, Drudge was just rep... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Barney, Drudge was just reporting from another source in Tennessee who was pointing out Gore's hypocrisy. Nice try.

Oh and BTW, you didn't put to rest anything. Again, nice try.

Barney,When you de... (Below threshold)
Mike in Oregon:

Barney,

When you defend the indefensible you lose what very small, extraordinarily small, shred of credibility you would otherwise have. Give up on this one.

BarneyG,As one who h... (Below threshold)
Jess:

BarneyG,
As one who has worked on a TVA project, I'm calling you out.
The GPS/TVA is simply a distribution plan - nowhere in either the business nor residential contracts is it confirmed that the actual electricity delivered to a given location is generated by the wind/solar/methane providers.
In other words, just b/c one signs up, there's no assurance that a given watt was generated by a given program under the TVA umbrella.
J
PS - I'd love to see Al's "energy right" form...

Ugh... I'm going to be sick... (Below threshold)
yo:

Ugh... I'm going to be sick, but I think I may have to agree with Barney. Whereas DoubleU's got a point about that energy being expended, isn't one of the driving factors of "global warming" not so much that energy's being expended, but how it's created?

Also, I've heard that Gore runs a few different offices out of that house; so, whereas he may be using X times as much as the average household, he may not be running an average household, in this case. Therefore, he may actually be using LESS engery, cummulatively.


Now, really .. I think I just puked in my own mouth defending Gore; but, honestly, and with all due respect for Kim, I smell a red herring.


The point about Sullivan being a jerk is dead on, of course.

The amazement of "stunningly small" is wholly taken out of context and Sully is definitely eyeing an insignificant nit to pick.

If Sullivan were to replace Bush as his target with Edwards, well .. he'd be on to something.

Conservatives walk the walk... (Below threshold)
Scraprion:

Conservatives walk the walk, Liberals talk the talk (aka lie about everything) while wimps like Barney Google come out to defend the indefendable.

It was funny tonight watching a dhimmi talking head defend (on O'Reilly) an ACLU sexual pervert who preys on children. That is about as low as a person can get but it's right up the dhimmi's alley. Brings up the big question, Are all dhimmi's perverts or are all perverts dhimmi's? Something stinks in the land of the left wing. Maybe because there's right guard but no left guard. It's right down on the level of supporting a military tratitor that no one would ever trust again. Try them, convict them and shoot them. Problem solved.

In case you dhimmi's haven't figured it out, the majority of the American people are now laughing at you, not with you.

This has been the most comical 4 months in history and will continue for another two years. That is if the Peeeloshi/Murtha crowd doesn't succeed in getting several million Americans killed.

Read a question tonight, 'are the actions of Peeeloshi and Murtha getting American Soldiers killed'? That was a stupid question since everyone with a functioning brain knows they are doing just that and doing it on purpose for what they think is political advantage. The big problem is that the American people are figuring it out and turning against them, along with lefties now eating lefties it's a great comedy, keep it up.

"Posted by: Scraprion at... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Posted by: Scraprion at February 26, 2007 09:34 PM "

I've always suspected that there were conservatives so stupid they'd misspell their own name.

Nice work Barney. You got good old Scraprion foaming at the mouth.

Gore drives a hybrid car. ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Gore drives a hybrid car. He flies commercial as much as possible. He is installing solar panels on his home. He buys carbon offsets to make-up the difference. He buys his power from a green source.

To say that Gore is a hypocrite is a total lie.

The right is just pissed that Gore won last night, and like the little babies you are, the best you can do pout and smear.

"The right is just pissed t... (Below threshold)
Mike in Oregon:

"The right is just pissed that Gore won last night, and like the little babies you are, the best you can do pout and smear."

Right, Barney. Close your eyes, relax, and try to imagine how little the right cares about Algore winning an Oscar last night. What a laugh! Thanks.

By the looks of Gore's weig... (Below threshold)
Michael Evilcorn:

By the looks of Gore's weight, it would take a special power source to power all the refrigerators for his food.

Also, imagine all the methane that dude emits.

"The right is just pissed t... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"The right is just pissed that Gore won last night."

No, Barney. The Right doesn't mind if Gore won the next 20 Oscars. More power to him. You see he LOST the one race that really counted in 2000!

Gore's mansion, located ... (Below threshold)

Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

Isn't it sort of obvious that it takes more energy to heat and cool larger homes than it does smaller homes? The "average American household" isn't anywhere near the size of Gore's.

So, as I understand this thread, you guys are mad because Gore has a large home. That's awfully progressive of you guys. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

I've noticed that all the l... (Below threshold)

I've noticed that all the liberal trolls have come calling to defend Gore, but not one has offered any positive words about President Bush, whose Crawford ranch has been ecology friendly since it was built in 2000, I believe.

>Gore buys 100% of his elec... (Below threshold)
Leo:

>Gore buys 100% of his electricity from renewal
>power sources (Tenn. Val. Green Power Switch):
>What is Green Power Switch?

Electricity, like money, is fungible. If he is burning that much, it's that much less that TVGPS can sell to dirtier energy companies and cut down on their coal use.

Larkin,And isn't it ... (Below threshold)
Mike in Oregon:

Larkin,
And isn't it sort of obvious that Algore is so important he SHOULD fly around in private jets that use more fuel in a couple hours than the average American uses in an automobile in a year? He's such a rich guy that he can afford to ignore the dire warnings he's making to the little people. He's my hero, and apparently yours too.

Bush's 25,000 gallon cister... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Bush's 25,000 gallon cistern is there to ctach all the bullshit coming from his "ranch." Only problem is it's not animal bullshit and it's been known to overflow on a regular basis.

The Bush and Gore homes are... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The Bush and Gore homes are not much different. Both are doing what they can to reduce carbon emissions, and that is all any one can ask for.

"W" is doing what he can educe his carbon foot-print. Bush has on several occasion stated that global warming is caused by human activities.

"The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world."

"Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity. " GWB 6/11/01

Now Kim, will you be so bold to admit the Drudge report is seriously misleading?

I wonder how much carbon is... (Below threshold)
jaymaster:

I wonder how much carbon is released when reality based stories like this make Democrat's heads explode?

At least the Church stopped... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

At least the Church stopped selling Papal Indulgences. I guess the new Global Warming religion has taken over the business.

Actually, we conservatives ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Actually, we conservatives couldn't care less what kind of car Gore drives, how much he flies, or how much electricity he uses. Whatever.

However, if he's going to use that much, he is cordially invited to STFU about my SUV.

Just so all you "Allen Comb... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Just so all you "Allen Combs" types here understand, anyone in Tenn. can sign up for "green power". I live in Tenn. and to sign up will not make one penny differance in your power bill. So what if everyone signed up. Where would all the "greenpower" come from.Could they close all the coalpowered, gaspowered or nuclearpowered plants? Just a bunch of hype to make fat ass hypocrite such as algore money. We laugh at the idiot.

Actually, if one signs up f... (Below threshold)
Jess:

Actually, if one signs up for GPS/TVA service, one's bill will go up - TVA charges a premium for access, but simply uses the extra income to offset higer "green" electric production costs...
J

Nice statement there "pucke... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Nice statement there "pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) (RM) from someone who has a name as long as yours. You never spell your name right as you always just put "lee".

Hughie--at least it comes out his ass unlike where yours comes from which would be your mouth.

barneygoole--as I have said before , you are dumber then dirt. Do you really think anyone believes any of the crap you post?

You are right Jess . Forgot... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

You are right Jess . Forgot about that. Instead of signing up, I just hug a tree everyday.

"In 2006, Gore devoured nea... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average."

"Gore buys 100% of his electricity from renewal power sources (Tenn. Val. Green Power Switch):"

Barney, it doesn't matter if his electricity comes from "green" methods, if you're using more than 20 times the average, your still EXTRODINARILY wasteful. Where's the electricity for the 19 other families he bumped from the program supposed to come from?

And how what "green" source is supplying his 1k worth of natural gas a month?

But at least that you offer a lot of links to prove your assertions.... well, you at least offer ONE... No? Huh.

Well, my grammar blew on th... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, my grammar blew on the last comment. Practice must have brained my damage.

That is a lot of juice, Mr.... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That is a lot of juice, Mr. Gore.

Surprising about Bush's ranch. The part of our energy problem that is most easily remedied now, as many companies have discovered, is waste. The Bush ranch as described is built to significantly reduce waste, or divert it to useful purposes. I for one think it's great. It should get more press.

Hey that's great yo, you'v... (Below threshold)

Hey that's great yo, you've heard that " Gore runs a few different offices out of that house."

Unless the exclusive Belle Meade section of Nashville happens coincidentally to be in a commercial zone, he's maintaining business offices in a residential zone in violation of the city's zoning code.

Just another politician to whom the laws don't apply. How Kennedyesque!

liberal here. i have alway... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

liberal here. i have always given, and will continue to give, props to Bush for his environmetally sound personal practices, at least as far as I have read about his home in crawford. in addition, if the reports about gore's home are true, and his home is just a home, it is incredibly hypocritical on a personal level, and should be denounced roundly.

however, given that bush seems incredibly disinclined to use his national bully pulpit to preach what he practices, and promote reall environmentally sound policies for the entire country, bush must be also roundly, and loudly, denounced.

gore may be personally hypocritical, which is quite bad for such a spokesman, but in promoting environmental awareness and bringing global warming awareness (i happen to believe that this is a real phenomenon, and anthropogenic) to a mass audience, he is doing a huge service to the country and the planet. he should practice what he preaches, but so should we all.

now why don't you all practice the same honesty as i just have, and denounce your holy roller leaders for exhibiting no outward signs of actual christianity, but giving it utter lip service. or, hell, forget about that, ask them to read some history and recognize some facts. awww, just forget it...

p.s. if enough people choose green power from the tva, especially at a premium price, it will incent power producers to build more green generation, such as wind farms, as this will show that there is a market for this product. it will also make it easier for them to obtain the financing needed to build such projects, as a demonstrable market, and thus return on investment, can be demonstrated to the lenders. no one is saying we could shut down all the coal powered, etc, generators overnight, but this is a large scale, long term problem that will require a large scale, long term solution. there are also other factors involved, but this is a basic.

Gore has a mansion. Edward... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Gore has a mansion. Edwards does too. Ah-nold have several. So does Bush. McCain too. Dole. Kerry (several). Kennedy. Yup. All of them.

Big homes, equal bigger heating and colling bills. Duh. Successful people get to buy big homes. I take it not a single poster here has a mansion.

Oh, but Gore is out there talking all about global warming blah blah so he is a hypocrite, right?

Like any of you would ever consider voting for Gore in the first place, who gives two farts in the wind what you all think? This sounds just like people crying over John Edwards big ass home. He is self made, Edwards, he didnt grow up rich, he can build as big a damn house as he pleases. Why did that bother the right wing so much? Dont they believe in the American way anymore, work succeed, be happy? Oh, only when it makes their boy look good. Check.

Then this Gore shit made me laugh so hard. I laugh at the bitterness and desperation of failed men trying to bring down a man they could never live up to be. It;s all attack the messenger, not his film. His film won the award, so address it, if you can. By attacking him, you look so cheap and ill-equipped and desperate. Pathetic is more like it.

On cue, some phantom 'organization' appears out of nowhere with all his heating and cooling bills. That's kind of paparazzi like, don;t you think? Where did they get those bills anyhow? You can't get my bills, so how did they manage to find Gore's? Again like a single one of you here would give a shit, you're happy to have any 'gotcha' ammo these days.


Let's just pretend that Gore will run in 08. He gets to draw all the fire from the usual smear goons of the rightwing currently, so when they try their hit jobs in Aug 08 it won't have that same ring to it. As they say in pop culture, it's all played out and they blew their chances too early.

But again it's all you guys have these days, so you can play with it like something that washed on the shore, but just as fast it will start to smell and you'll want to throw it back.

OMG.Are the LIBERA... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

OMG.

Are the LIBERALS here defending the rich? Telling US to let them spend their money however they want?

Can't. Stop. Laughing.

Sides Hurt.

Whew. Hypocricy comes so easily to the left side of the isle, no? I've got nothing against people getting the biggest car, house or energy bill. But if you're telling me to cut my power when you personally use 20x as much, to get rid of my sports car when you jet around in Gulfstreams or try and guilt me about "2 Americas" after building huge mansions.....screw you very much.

Jaku of course misses the e... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Jaku of course misses the entire point. If you are going to lecture the people on being more "green" then you should clean up your own act. Got it?

And in the case of Edwards, if you are going to go around and deride the rich, and the Two America's, then maybe you shouldn't flaunt your own riches so openly. Plus, if you are going to deride Walmart at every union townhall speech, maybe you shouln't be caught calling top dogs at Walmart to cut in line for a Playstation during Christmas.

Liberals. What can you do but laugh??

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Who'd have thought we'd see... (Below threshold)

Who'd have thought we'd see the day when liberals vigorously defended the wealthy and dissed the poor? What a weird world we live in.

I work for a utility compan... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I work for a utility company, a rather large one at that. We have nukes (more than any other in the US), windfarms, geo, gas, hydro, coal and oil.

And I'll side with Leo and Jess. Electrons are electrons. No matter who you pay your generation charges to, you are getting your juice from the nearest one or two stations, dirty or clean.

Paying TVA or Green Mountain or whomever only subsidizes the green gen stations. If you want to help reduce emissions, push for more nuclear plants, invest is research and most of all, use less energy and take load off the damned grid.

[Full disclosure: this has ... (Below threshold)

[Full disclosure: this has been posted by me elsewhere.]

This "carbon offset" baloney is just the left's version of their false accusation against fundamentalist Christians: that we can just ask for forgiveness and can continue to go on sinning as much as we want. The leftists can just claim to be using some method that allegedly makes them "carbon neutral" and they can go on polluting as much as they want. They can even increase the amount of pollution they produce. No need for actual, meaningful behavior modification.

Gore's press release says h... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

Gore's press release says he offsets his carbon footprint by buying credits.

If there is such a thing as a special place in hell (for hypocrites), maybe he thinks that he can buy his way out of that too.

Moral of this story (post).... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Moral of this story (post)....

Al Gore? BUSTED!!!

"Gore drives a hybrid car.<... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Gore drives a hybrid car.(Where? Inside his apartment complex sized house from room to room?) He flies commercial as much as possible.(What, about 5% of the time?) He is installing solar panels on his home. (And what is that going to provide, about 5-10% of his gargantuan energy use?)He buys carbon offsets to make-up the difference. (And how many people have to do without to make up for that?)He buys his power from a green source. (And how many others are therefor unable to and have to buy their power from a non-green source?)

To say that Gore is a hypocrite is a total lie (You are either mentally blind or completely delusional.).

The right is just pissed that Gore won last night, and like the little babies you are, the best you can do pout and smear.(The "right' is 'pissed because King Al is such a HYPER-HYPOCRITE!!!)
Posted by: BarneyG2000

"Offsets?"So, the ... (Below threshold)

"Offsets?"

So, the rich may use whatever resources they choose, so long as they "purchase" "offsets" by giving money to groups they choose, under a formula they alone may devise . . .

Sounds like a typical elitist leftist scheme to "purify" their own sins.

The only interesting aspect is how willing their dupes are to go along with it.

Makes me wonder about this ... (Below threshold)

Makes me wonder about this global warming...is it turning Earth into Hell, and by buying these "carbon offsets"...sort of like buying indulgences for sins in the dark ages of Christianity...allowing you to get out of this man-made hell that is "global warming"?

It seems to me that these "carbon offsets" are EXACTLY like the indulgences were..you can do anything you want, just give enough money to the right groups, and you're saved!

SCSIwuzzy is right, to do your own part, just use less energy (I do applaud for the solar panels installed though, the more of those you have the better....or even better invest in Stirling Engines and have those intalled, more efficient solar energy production), and not only will you be doing your part, you'll save money on your monthly bill, too!

I'd be interested enough to... (Below threshold)

I'd be interested enough to learn just what Gore's carbon offsets are. With his profuse consumption, he'd have to plant a heckuva lot of trees.

So, as I understa... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
So, as I understand this thread, you guys are mad because Gore has a large home. That's awfully progressive of you guys. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

I forget the specifics, but I recall Martin Luther King was once questioned regarding a comment he made praising an Air Force General. The reporter wondered ,that being a pacifist, how could King praise a military man. King replied that he judged men by how he adhered to his own standards not necessarily King's.

What you see here is people judging Gore (and Edwards) by Gore's own standards.

If a man cannot even adhere to his own standards, it matters not what his standards are.

"Purchasing offsets only me... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

"Purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn't want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he's asking other families to make. He's using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It's a regressive plan that Gore's supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance."

Also--isn't he an empty nes... (Below threshold)
pretzel_logic:

Also--isn't he an empty nester? Just him and his dingbat wife? Nice Al!!

Since "Climate Change" is a... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Since "Climate Change" is all a liberal hoax, it matters not how much energy the Gore mansion uses.

What is burning so much jui... (Below threshold)
Brett:

What is burning so much juice at the House of Gore? Halogen lights for Nashville Indoor?

What is burning s... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
What is burning so much juice at the House of Gore? Halogen lights for Nashville Indoor?

It could be that Al has a massive pot farm in his basement. Those full spectrum lights can burn a lot of juice... and it would explain his weight gain and behavior... ;)

On cue, some phant... (Below threshold)
Pablo:
On cue, some phantom 'organization' appears out of nowhere with all his heating and cooling bills.

That's rich, Jaku. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research doesn't really exist, it's just a shell put together years ago to one day out Manbearpig's electric bills and expose his hypocrisy.

Riiiiight. And Walt Disney killed Kennedy right?

Speaking of Kennedys, wind power is a great idea, as long as Teddy doesn't have to see it, huh?

al gore...heh heh heh...he ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

al gore...heh heh heh...he is so comical. In his honor, I think I'll go burn a tire in my back yard this afternoon...

Biggest problem is that awh... (Below threshold)
Bo:

Biggest problem is that awhile back, the left re-defined "hypocracy" to the point that they can't recognize the genuine article.

I have no problem with Gore, Edwards, or anyone else living "high on the hog." I have a big problem with anyone, particularly from a lofty public pedestal, saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Oh, and by the way, "self-made" describing Edwards is just a bit skewed. Most of his fortune was made by wringing cash from insurance companies over the myth that cerebral palsy is caused by fetal injury during labor, a correlation that has been thoroughly debunked both scientifically and statistically. Edwards's efforts, however, have served to insure that more women in the "bottom half" of his "two Americas" go without proper prenatal care as ob/gyn malpractice insurance skyrocketed.

So TVA has 29 megawatts of ... (Below threshold)
Whitehall:

So TVA has 29 megawatts of wind power but Gore's annual consumption was 221 megawatt-hours.

Windmills in the US, on average according to the EIA, have a 25% capacity factor so those 29 MW make 63,000 MW-hrs a year.

Nuclear plants have a 90% capacity factor so that same 29 MW of nuclear capacity would produce about 223,000 MW-hr per year.

Yet they cost about the same to build but have the same carbon "footprint."

If Gore had our best interests at heart, he would be demanding we build more nukes.

AL GORE has three homes and... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

AL GORE has three homes and none of them have solar power he dont have any hybrids in his garage and none of his private planes are rubberband powered and he has ownership of OXIDENTAL PATROLIUM

After his appearance on the... (Below threshold)

After his appearance on the Oscars the other night, it seems that Al Gore's carbon footprint is almost as big as his ass...

This notion of carbon netur... (Below threshold)
Prospector:

This notion of carbon neturality has got to be the most laughably naive concept since "The Earth in Balance" or fill in your favorite stoner mantra. What are windmills, PVC panels, hybrid cars, and bicycles made from? How much carbon dioxide and other nasties were produced during manufacturing? How much greenhouse gasses were produced from mining the huge pits for the raw materials required to manufacture said "green" items? How much CO2 was produced in the manufacturing of the dozers, loaders, trucks, mills, refineries, machinery, roads, train, and other buildings that are necessary to bring you the final product?

The disconnet and inability of the modern environmentalist to connect reality to a bumper sticker is staggering. Consider the label itself --- "environ - mentalist" heavy on the mentalist part. IOW, it's all in your head.

Maybe Gore can pay for his ... (Below threshold)
conservative:

Maybe Gore can pay for his solar panels with his tax savings from hiding investments offshore. Then, he can propose a giant government program to supply subsidized energy from solar panels and windmils for the rest of us who will pay with taxes onshore.

I'd be interested to know <... (Below threshold)

I'd be interested to know when Al Gore signed up for TVG power. Was it after he started his green advocacy? Because he started this a long time ago. If so, how long after? And what about that zinc mine? While he's carping about how people should curb their use or switch to green, how much water is he using? And I'll bet however much it is, it doesn't come from the nearby river supposedly polluted by the zinc mining company.

Most people here never even knew how green Bush is. *I* sure didn't and I'm very pleased to hear it. But still most ignore it, chomping at the bit to defend Gore.

I think the big difference here is that Bush's ranch is green AND far closer to self-sufficient. Gore is simply using a larger share of public services.

Say what you will about "Ma... (Below threshold)
VRWC drone:

Say what you will about "Manbearpig", when it comes to the impending, dire, earth-shattering disaster that is 'Global Warming', he is "super serial".

Did anyone else do the math... (Below threshold)
Johnny Sweeper:

Did anyone else do the math for the August monster bill. NES charges $0.0738 per KwHr, plus if he truly is using "green power", according to the NES website that is $4.00 per 150 KwHr block. The local newspaper reported that he buys 108 blocks for $432 per month. Subtract that from the bill and he paid $927 for 22619 KwHr. That equals $0.041 per KwH. What gives? Someone lying or sloppy journo?

What makes you say that Bus... (Below threshold)
tc:

What makes you say that Bush's vacation house uses less electricity than Gore's house? I don't see any comparison of watts used.

If Gore had our best int... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

If Gore had our best interests at heart, he would be demanding we build more nukes.

EXACTLY! ... and for those 'nukes=chrenobyl/3-mile' naysayers I propose to use Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors. Safe, efficient nuclear power.

And to cut down on vehicle CO2? Fuel Cell vehicles like the GM Hy-Wire.

For hydrogen fuel we can use the hot gas exiting the PBNC to crack steam before it hits the turbines to produce electricity.

I'd like to see a politican (current or former) get behind a solution like this. You want to reduce US dependancy on oil? You want the US to become green? Walk the walk.

Where did all the tree hugg... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Where did all the tree huggers go?

What makes you say that ... (Below threshold)
VRWC drone:

What makes you say that Bush's vacation house uses less electricity than Gore's house? I don't see any comparison of watts used.

No, but let's do a simple comparison.

Bush's house:

"Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize."

The house of Gore:

"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average."

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the HUGE difference between "25% (1/4) of the national average" and "20 times the national average". Even if the 25% in the bush house is only heating and cooling while the 20 times in the Gore house is the entire energy usage.

Forgive me for not taking t... (Below threshold)
Anne:

Forgive me for not taking the time to peruse the comments to see if someone else made this observation already -- it seems to that Al Gore's purchase of carbon offsets to reduce his carbon footprint is about as effective as purchasing indulgences to guarantee entrance into Heaven.

At the end of the day you h... (Below threshold)
Rinno:

At the end of the day you have 2 rich kids who grew up wealthy. One built a fake 11-acre lake with a sort of green friendly playground massive home in Texas (4,000 square feet is huge). As someone who worked in construction, you have any idea the amount of heavy machinery and fossil fuel burning it took to build something like that. It'll take 200 years for that ranch to pay back the energy it saved. You think as President he'd do everything in his power to make it possible for us to have what he has? Nope. You think as president he'd be eager to show the world how his house works and do everything in his power to see that this is the new direction for the USA? Nope. He's a rich brat who does things for himself.

The other is living large as a bit of a hypocrite by living keeping the family's 10,000 square foot southern style mansion (and remember the scene in the movie - great movie by the way if you haven't seen it - where he pulls up to his home in a GIANT SUV while the whole movie's point is about CO2 ouput!!) but offsetting his carbon footprint by means many of you apparently aren't smart enough to understand and also fully embracing green into his home.

But one guy is the President and with a stroke of a pen can change civilization forever. Think he's going to do that? Nope. The other guy with a stroke of a pen (if the election wasn't stolen) would at the very least be implementing all sorts of stuff that would create a giant new industry America could be the leaders at while at the same time reducing American's carbon footprint and likely inspiring other nations to do the same (China/India/Russia?).

While you engage in juvenile bashing of "my guy is better than your guy" remember there's a bigger picture. It literally is meaningless that GW has an awesome green home while AG may or may not be hypocritical. One thing is startingly clear if you saw the movie is that AG presents FACTS...as in data resulting from 100% scientific knowledge...in a very compelling way. If we listened to him on just this one issue our nation would become a super power in green ecomony and we once again would be leaders as we historically once were but no longer are.

"But one guy is the Preside... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"But one guy is the President and with a stroke of a pen can change civilization forever."

Care to share with us what that one stroke of the pen would say? Kyoto? Get a large grip. It is a treaty that has already had a 95-0 smack down in the Senate and you need Senate concurrence to enact the treaty. And besides Kyoto, what other "strokes of the pen" would you suggest?

But wait, there's more to the story. Clinton and GORE were the ones in power when Kyoto was first making the news and where was THEIR "stroke of the pen"?

On one point you are right - and I agree it is startlingly clear - no one around may be better than AG at propagandizing an issue "in a very compelling way".

But then you miss the very essence of the blog entry to begin with - the hypocracy of the "Jolly Green Gore" when it comes to energy. Stroke that pen for a while, bubba.

Gore has puchased 100% gree... (Below threshold)
G Suescum:

Gore has puchased 100% green energy. In other words, it doesn't matter how much electricity he's using it's all clean, sustainable and has a ZERO net carbon effect. How is that bad?

Who's the idiot that said, he's a glutton and using all the green power? Green power is limitless, the more we use, the more will be generated by the utility companies. What IS limited are the petro fuels.

Please don't drink the Kool Aid that the oil companies are giving you. Please don't post this crap.

G-


"Who's the idiot that said,... (Below threshold)
tom:

"Who's the idiot that said, he's a glutton and using all the green power? Green power is limitless, the more we use, the more will be generated by the utility companies. What IS limited are the petro fuels."

And he rides a unicorn to work--both ways!


Come on. At least look at the reality behind what you're saying. We need to make green energy more efficient before it makes a dent---but that does not forgive Gore's excessive energy use while he skewers the average person for driving an SUV.

Electricity is fungible and he uses $1000 worth of Natural Gas a month.

The realiy is we DO NOT have limitless green energy available to us. Gore is sucking 20 times what the average user does of the grid and caused around 5 times the carbon pollution with the building of his home that Bush did.

The point is that he is a hypocrite.

Those of you defending him and saying what Bush is doing isn't good enough are proving that you don't believe what you preach any more than he does. You just want your team to win.

4000 square feet in Texas i... (Below threshold)
DocSavage:

4000 square feet in Texas is NOT huge. Most middle-class families in Dallas own houses that are 4000 square feet. 4000 square feet is huge in New England or in California where it would be a multi-million dollar home. In Texas 4000 square feet in Dallas is only about $250 - 350K.

The whole point to this argument is that Al is telling the rest if us to take it in the shorts on our energy usage and he's one of the largest violators of his own preaching.

Global warming is happening but it's a natural heating and cooling cycle of the planet that occured for million of years. We've been in a "cool" period for quite a long time now and it's time for the heating to begin again. Are humans helping the heating along? Maybe, but I'd like all the "Chicken Little" global warming types to explain how the planet heated up all those millions of years ago with out humans helping it along.

And Al's movie winning an oscar, please it's as if Hollywood needs to give another blow-job to the left! What drivel, and who actually saw that film and what did it gross?

offsetting his carbon fo... (Below threshold)
VRWC drone:

offsetting his carbon footprint by means many of you apparently aren't smart enough to understand

Okay, genius, maybe you can explain to us in simple terms exactly how Gore calculated his "carbon footprint" so that he knows how much to offset and therefore remain "carbon neutral" as he claims? Who is he purchasing these "carbon offsets" through? Are they 'certified' offsets that are accurately measured? And since formal standards for quantification of offsets are not yet in place, how does Gore know that he has offset enough to truly make himself "carbon neutral" and is therefore able to lecture the rest of us on how to live our lives?

VRWC drone,Your ma... (Below threshold)
tc:

VRWC drone,

Your math doesn't work. The fact that Bush uses a system that uses 25% less electricity doesn't mean that he uses less total electricity. You may have noticed that Gore uses solar panels and green technology that reduce energy consumption as well. You, in fact, have no idea how their total energy use compares.

I'd say Rinno, who clearly is able to think for himself, nailed it.

Offsetting your carbon foot... (Below threshold)
tom:

Offsetting your carbon footprint is a lot like when rich guys paid someone else to fight in their place in the civil war or when southerners had their slaves fight instead of them---and if they continued to crow about how they were doing their duty with this behavior.

Buying carbon offsets is bunk. If we need to plant more trees, we should plant more trees without worrying about which rich energy waster gets to have their bad behavior forgiven.

Unless or course you say the right things. The funny part is that it isn't the right that should be mad---it's his supporters that he's duped into believing something that he doesn't believe enough in himself to alter his behavior. Two people in a 10,000 square foot house? He's moved into Barbara Striesand territory here.

Algore: "The great unwashed need to reduce their energy use....Jeeves, buy me another energy indulgence courtesy of the taxpayers."

Algore: "Jeeves --- drive ... (Below threshold)
tom:

Algore: "Jeeves --- drive the crane over here and load me in to the SUV, I'm going to drive over to the South Wing and take a 3 hour shower."

Al Gore's green logic stret... (Below threshold)
Speaking truth to power wasters:

Al Gore's green logic stretched to its limits and busted open faster than a cheap naugahyde belt trying to contain his overflowing girth.

We support the "Surge" in A... (Below threshold)
TN Caterer's Association:

We support the "Surge" in Al Gore's waistline.

The claims made on this sit... (Below threshold)
Mike:

The claims made on this site are appalling. Not only is the tone vicious, the claims are false too, and in many cases intentionally backwards.

Here's a ferinstance: green power is claimed to be a zero-sum game. No, in fact the "carbon offset" strategy employed and promoted by Gore will result in more kilowatthours of green energy being produced through the construction of additional wind turbines and the like.

Another ferinstance: it's claimed that the law of supply and demand will drive up green power cost if people use it. No, in fact it works the other way around (as you well know): the more people use alternative power, the cheaper it gets to create that power. A good example: wind power used to be expensive. Now it's actually cheaper (per watt) to build a wind generation facility than a gas-fired one, providing the wind and transmission lines exist.

Mr. Gore has recognized a problem and is trying to solve it. When are you going to do the same?

What's appaling is that som... (Below threshold)
DocSavage:

What's appaling is that someone actually buys into the whole carbon-offset BS. Whats even more appalling is that you actually believe an energy company is going to start charging us less for energy. Al isn't trying to solve a problem, he is part of the problem.

And just who is going to pay me back for the oxygen-offset for left-wingers still living? Just reading this I can feel oxygen being wasted around the country.

Um, his solar panels, etc. ... (Below threshold)
Gekkobear:

Um, his solar panels, etc. wouldn't figure into his electric bill.

So he uses 20 * more than I do + his Solar output.

And his green and low energy methods have increased his bill 12% in 2006 from 2005.

Dear Lord don't let him in control of my consumption. I couldn't afford to pay for all that green crap and then pay an extra 10-15% on my utility bills.

But at least we know Gore's plan really works. It sucks money out of your pocket for Solar Panels, then costs more in electric bills from on-the-grid power, then costs even more for carbon offsets. Wow, that's savings you can take to the bank, while they repossess your house.

And still produces more CO2 than not doing any of it. If he'd just bought the carbon offsets without the rest he might be ahead, presuming you believe they are meaningful.

Rinno, I expect you never t... (Below threshold)

Rinno, I expect you never to build a new home - ever. You just got through smashing everyone who has ever built a home to score some stupid point against Bush. That was really lame.That was the first point at which you began to lose credibility.

The second point was following that with painting Gore with soft colors. While you were labasting us about bias, you did a piss poor job of concealing your own.

The third point, and at which I lost any interest I had left and you lost all credibility, was when you referred to the "stolen election".

Yawn.

"Gore has puchased 100% gre... (Below threshold)
Gekkobear:

"Gore has puchased 100% green energy."

SWEET, where do I go to get my Green Natural Gas? This renewable resource that works just like the nasty fossil fuel that we're in the process of running out of?

I didn't realize AL Gore had found a replacement for Natural Gas, and was using that... where's the link to that info?

Either that, or he isn't using 100% green energy... over $1000 of Natural Gas per month... that can't be good.

Try again.

Another moderate liberal tr... (Below threshold)

Another moderate liberal troll here. I do think it's awesome that Bush uses eco-friendly systems in his ranch. Honestly. But just to echo the statements of a few others - this post purposely avoids a watt-to-watt comparison. For Gore's house, they compared his total energy usage to the average home. For Bush's house, they only generalized that "systems such as this" use 25% less energy. Does anyone think Bush's ranch uses less total energy than the average American home?

Even so, what is the point of the post? Should people not try to use less fossil fuels? Should they conserve but not brag about it?

I think the real point of the post is, "When liberals idolize someone, they make me sick." That's fair. But I do not idolize Al Gore. I just agree with one particular message of his.

Okay,Since the Jol... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Okay,

Since the Jolly Green Gore is so Eco-Freindly, why doesn't he use public transportation to get around when he travels? Mass Airlines, busses, light rail, walking, biking, jogging, razor scooters etc. Since he likes SUVs he could even drive around in the Hybrid Escape by Ford.

Does he provide green transportation for his employees? Did he petition Nashville for a bus stop close to his mansion so it would be easier for his employees to us public transportation to get to work to take care if that 10,000 square foot house?

Would someone specifically define a "carbon offset," how it cuts down on emissions (or consumption?), and how an average middle class working guy could avail himself of some. Are "carbon offsets" tax deductible?

Jolly Green Gore talks a good game, but he isn't obviously walking the talk. He really, really needs to walk more.

President Bush also suppose... (Below threshold)
P.S.:

President Bush also supposedly has a biodiesel powered lawnmower.

"Gore buys 100% of his elec... (Below threshold)
Dave:

"Gore buys 100% of his electricity from renewal power sources (Tenn. Val. Green Power Switch):
What is Green Power Switch?
Like any revolutionary idea, the idea behind Green Power Switch is simple: harness the natural power of the wind, the sun, and the earth to create an energy source that's usable in our everyday lives. TVA and local public power companies, working in cooperation with the environmental community, developed Green Power Switch as a way to bring green power -- electricity that's generated by renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas -- to Valley consumers.

Another right wing smear put to rest."

So part of this "green energy" is from methane gas...I hate to tell you, but burning methane produces....CO2 and Water Vapour, both greenhouse gases.

And the energy is put into the total power generation. Last time I checked North America runs on a power grid, power could come from anywhere. Isn't not like their hooking a windmill up to his house.

It's just one more example of using money to feel better without actually conserving anything.

I'd like to take a big ole ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I'd like to take a big ole crap in the 8 House of Bore bathrooms. That might make it so I have to buy carbon credits, due to the large gaseous blow off, so to speak.

His true interest in ecology is reflected in his personal conduct, not what he says. Talk is cheap, as we've seen with the Clinton-Gore years.

Maybe he bought the carbon credits from the Chinese since he owes 'em. His Chinese buddies are actually on track to supplant us as the most polluting country in the world. But I haven't seen Al calling in his chits at the Buddhist Temples he fundraised in in the '90's.

Even so, what is the poi... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Even so, what is the point of the post?

But I do not idolize Al Gore. I just agree with one particular message of his.

You see, Al Gore apparently does not agree with his own message, hence the post. Now do you see the point? I'm hoping you do, but I doubt it.

Carbon offsets are a joke. Who do you buy these offsets from? Do their values change? Who runs the market? Does the market even exist, or is it manufactured by Al Gore himself? Do I posess them if I use less than the average household? Can Al Gore buy some from me? You see how ridiculous "carbon offsets" are?

Gore is a classic "do as I say, not as I do" guy. What a spokesperson. This is akin to catching Michael Jordan playing basketball in Reeboks.

itsandy (and others)<... (Below threshold)
Bo:

itsandy (and others)

Nevermind that Gore's excesses go in direct opposition to his "message" about responsibility pertaining to energy consumption, let's look at the comparison again.

What would you suppose the "average home" is in square feet? Could you abide an absurdly low estimate of 1000? As such, Bush's ranch house is about 4x the size of an "average" house.

Let's further assume that the various gadgets, machines, and toys that Bush has within the walls of his home consitute a much higher amount of energy usage per-square-foot than average. We'll say twice the average.

Now we're up to a (likely very liberal) estimate that Bush's ranch, without any energy-saving measures, uses about 8x that of an "average" dwellng. We'll completely ignore the aforementioned environmentally friendly fixtures and just use that figure.

The comparison now is maybe 8x an "average" home vs 20x an "average" home for Gore's spread.

We could, I suppose, continue on this assumptive method of comparison and say that a direct comparison of energy used per-square-foot would be the "bottom line," but that would seem to go against the anti-SUV crowd that insists that they're so wasteful because the extra space isn't needed.

So we're back to point one: Gore's asking the American public to stop using so much energy, while he himself uses more in a month than most of us use in a year. Period.

Just to add to DocSavage's ... (Below threshold)
john:

Just to add to DocSavage's comments. When William became ruler of England in 1066, a book was put together detailing all the possessions. England had around 50 vineyards at the time. There are none today. The globe is in warming and cooling cycles, and has been that way for all it's existence. For all the experts saying man is causing the recent warming, there are other's who point out increased solar activity. For all the concern about warmer temps and glaciers melting, in some parts of Antarctica the temp is getting colder and the ice sheets are increasing in size. Investigate what CO2 levels and temps were during the time of the dinosaurs. Both higher than today? Plant life and animal flourished back then. Perhaps global cooling should be our main concern?

There goes the whole "chick... (Below threshold)
pd:

There goes the whole "chickenhawk" argument. Nope, I don't fight myself, I buy "defense credits" from the IRS. It increases my "military footprint".

Gore doesn't believe the gl... (Below threshold)
GW:

Gore doesn't believe the global warming situation is as dire as he says publicly. That's the only reasonable conclusion one can draw.

Say one truely believes that within eight or ten years we will have a catastrophic and irreversible climate system. It will make Katrina and the tsunami look like walks in the park by comparison. You make it your quest to do something about it, so you travel the earth (via jet airplane) telling everyone to conserve energy and burn less C02.

I don't fault him for being a frequent flyer. I don't expect him to stay holed up at home every day; he really isn't that much of a hypocrite for traveling (although commercial flights would be a lot more efficient than private jets).

However--would someone who truely thinks the world is going to end in ten years use 20 times more electricity than the average person? He's a busy and connected guy--I wouldn't be surprised if he used maybe 2-4 times the normal person. But twenty! How could you sleep at night in a house that's dooming the survival of our planet? What are all these kilowatts powering?

"Get off Gore's back--he's installed solar panels and fluorescent lights," argue some global warming proponents. This basically says, "Don't complain, think of how much MORE energy Gore could be burning." I guess that's an optimistic way of viewing it, but not really the essence of conservation (to me).

"Oh, but he signed up for green power, so he's in the clear." Hey, the global warming problem is solved then! We just encourage everyone to sign up for "green power," and we can even increase our consumption twenty-fold! Win-win situation, right?

Ok this could go forever, so I'll stop.

pd:Brilliant! And ... (Below threshold)
Fatmouse:

pd:

Brilliant! And the libs can buy "dissent credits" to have someone protest for them.

Of course, we did try the whole "pay someone to take your place in the draft" during the Civil War and it didn't exactly end well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_riots

It's funny..the climate cha... (Below threshold)
redeatsmerde:

It's funny..the climate change deniers (descendants of those who believed the world was flat) trapped in a greedy and self-absorbed reality fueled by a feeling that they have a divine right to "use" up the earth would rather knit-pick at Al Gore than actually contribute. It is blatantly apparent that conservatives do not love their country, they love their ideology and have little or no interest in America. Just control, gluttony, homophobia, excess, waste and judgment. Al Gore might not be perfect but he is trying which is more than I can say for 75% of Republicans who still say the jury is out on global warming, screw you!! Get a real point and stop harassing real Americans who really care and really try.

By redeatsmerde, at Tue Feb 27, 05:10:00 PM

For all of you who are easi... (Below threshold)
Michael:

For all of you who are easily persuaded by the Al Gore allegation, take a long walk! The story is speculation and rumor. Unless evidence is shown, stop gossiping and get a life! You are acting like a bunch of ignorant whores who can't get a date. Bitter, bitter.

The main point about Gore's... (Below threshold)
GrouchoMarxistf:

The main point about Gore's three homes and power usage is that he is clearly, nakedly a phoney. I could hardly stop laughing when I read this!

His defenders clutch at straws to blame conservatives for the inconvenient truth that Gore does not seem to believe his own hype. If we are in an environmental apocalypse then for God's sake (er sorry...Gaia's sake...) then how can anyone of good conscience own three separate homes as does Gore? Or build one of 28 thousand sq. feet as did John Edwards? The Kennedy compounds? The Kerry mansions around the nation? The limos to the Oscars instead of public transport or even just sharing rides to show how damned "green" they are?

If you are a skeptic on the urgency of Global Warming (remember to capitalize for Gaia's sake!) then you are a "denier". Not a skeptic, a denier. Like Holocaust denier, see? Thus if you are skeptical you are similar to a Nazi. Indeed Algore has referred to an environmental "krystallnacht" and to his critics as "digital brown shirts." (How dare they type words in defiance of my inconvenient majesty!)

When you phoney, poseur white liberals who have multiple homes, multiple cars and fabulous cash flow all actually start to ride the bus I absolutely will begin to take you a bit more seriously. When the Kennedys abandon Hyannisport compound to the rising sea, I will worry. (Drove past it last year. Standing strong and right on Atlantic.) When Babs downsizes to say a four thousand sq ft home like Bush's in Crawford, I will pay attention. WHen the Kerry's downsize to say three mansions, I'll sit up and notice.

In fact, making movies is one of the most polluting events possible. The entire industry is killing us if we are to believe Gore. Shoudln't film making itself be shut down. I mean it is not a necessity it is a luxury. If we are going to return to the days of the Sioux on the Plains with their tiny carbon foot prints then surely movies are among the first things that should be done away with to save energy and help Gaia.

Poseurs, liars, fakes and phoneys. Pompous blow hard hypocrites. "Chickengreens" is a good term for the rich white liberals who want the rest of us to eat cake while they fly private jets to Cannes where they can lecture the World Media on how horrible American consumption habits are.

I heard a poll showed that global warming comes up about 20th on the average American's list of concerns. I guess Joe Sixpack aint buyin' huh chickengreens? While foo-foo white rich people who spend more on their pedicures than the rest of us spend on rent lecture us, they are off to their air conditioned palaces to tell each other that they are brave, wonderful and compassionate. And concerned about the little guy.

Laughing my friggin' ass off.

Sure, but how would you mea... (Below threshold)
James:

Sure, but how would you measure the positive impact of Mr. Gore's 30-year quest to inform the world of this issue?

Surely his contribution at this level vastly outweighs his family's carbon footprint?

On the flip side how would you measure Mr. Bush's contribution to global warming above and beyond the energy consumption rate of one of his ranches?

These men are not clergy after all - they're politicians. Their influence on the world is a much more accurate measure of their hypocracy than their families' homes.

John says: "There were abou... (Below threshold)
tc:

John says: "There were about 50 vineywards in England at the time [1066]. There are none today."

Two seconds of googling turned up the Vineyards of England website, which says, "There are nearly 400 commercial vineyards in England and Wales covering approximately 2000 acres of land in total." Oops.

To correct both sides here:... (Below threshold)
sarnac:

To correct both sides here:
Gore's mansion = (apparently) multipurpose home office(s) and gathering/meeting/fundraising place. It should not be judged as directly comparable to a typical home.

Conversely, it is 10,000SF and average = 2300SF ... so ~ 4x bigger but uses 20x the power. I assume (given the size and childlessness) that it is a meeting/gather/hosting/entertaining layout (high ceilings, even multi-story-rooms) ... so lets double the air-conditioned-volume to be 8x the normal volume of an avg home ... he's still disproportionate. (Something is a massive energy hog in that home ... I would suspect large computer systems, but that's possibly my occupational bias.)

GWB's ranch (according to the article) uses 25% of normal to heat/cool (NOT 25% less) and is 4,000SF, so uses energy to heat/cool like a 1,000SF home ... gore's uses energy like a 2300x20=46,000SF home. Note that we do not know GWB's ranch's non-heat/cooling usage, which might well include lots of communication and computer equipment.

AFAICT, both Gore and Bush care about the environment ... but Gore's home total usage looks rather drastically odd ... and Bush's AC efficiency is rather drastically under-reported.

The biggest difference is that Gore believes the problem is so dire that it is worth structurally disrupting and overhauling the entire western worldwide economy (but not India/China's dirty and upcoming economies) to achieve however miniscule of an effect 0.07-degrees-C-by-2100 if Kyoto were implemented.

Bush believes apparently the problem is not so dire and technology changes that are arriving shortly already will address the problems that are occurring.

Incidentally, because of at least two _major_ not-yet-public technological breakthroughs that I am aware of (and for military reasons, Bush would be also be aware of), the technological approach is vastly preferable to the economic-disruption approach.

While I am not about to explain "non-public technologies" any further, consider the following: Earth's thermal level is 100% controlled by the amount of solar energy that arrives from the sun and is not reflected back out into space, mostly by clouds or snow with a small earth-shine contribution by land and water (the planet's Albedo (reflectivity)). Recent research by the Danish National Space Center has shown that cosmic radiation (from outside our solar system) drives much of the atmospheric ionization process that generates cloudcover. We are in a temporary peak of the Sun's magnetic field, repelling a higher-than-normal level of extra-solar cosmic radiation, therefore getting less of the cloud-forming ionization. Having less cloudcover means we reflect less sunlight and so get hotter.
http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

Note that the sun's magnetic field (evidenced by sunspot count) is stronger than it has been in human-recorded history (since about the 1400s or 1500s when sunspots were first noted and recorded)
... so we have two simple solutions:

1: wait ... the sun is due to reverse the much longer cycle peaks we are at now (we peaked a solar-warming-cycle in 2002(208-year cycle with a minimum in 1898) but we are due to double-peak in the 2030s (warming peaks in 2030(88-year cycle, minimum in 1986) and 2038(232-year-ccycle, minimum in 1922)))
"Extrapolation suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near Little Ice Age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum."
2: directly trigger more cloud formation by any of several technological means, ranging from the electromagnetic/radiational (costlier but can be turned off in an instant) to the dust or particulate methods (cheap but impossible to switch off trivially)
# As the solar coronal-source magnetic flux doubled during the past century, the cosmic-ray flux has decreased by about 15%.

# The Sun's total magnetic flux rose by a factor of 1.41 from 1964-1996 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.

# 1983-1994 data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) showed that global low cloud formation was highly correlated with cosmic ray flux.

# The Earth's albedo decreased by about 2.5% over 5 years during the recent solar cycle, as measured by lunar "Earthshine". Similar reduction was measured by satellites during the previous cycle.

# The Earth's geomagnetic field, the solar wind, and solar magnetic field deflects galactic cosmic rays (GCR). A decrease in solar activity increases the GCR penetration of the troposphere and stratosphere. GCR particles are the primary source of ionization in the troposphere above 1 km

# Changes in ionization affect the abundance of aerosols that serve as the nuclei of condensation for cloud formation. As a result, ionization levels potentially affect levels of condensation, low clouds, relative humidity, and albedo due to clouds. Clouds formed from greater amounts of condensation nuclei are brighter, longer lived, and likely to produce less precipitation. Changes of 3-4% in cloudiness and concurrent changes in cloud top temperatures have been correlated to the 11 and 22 year solar (sunspot) cycles, with increased GCR levels during "antiparallel" cycles.

# In 2003, Stott et al found that "current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models."

# Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard Observatory correlated historical sunspot counts with temperature proxies. They report that when there are fewer sunspots, the earth cooled (see Maunder Minimum, Little Ice Age) and that when there are more sunspots the earth warmed (see Medieval Warm Period)

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation


Wow, ALL of those condemnin... (Below threshold)
Adam H.:

Wow, ALL of those condemning Gore on this page have just accepted those electricity use figures with not ONE question like 'Prove it?'

Yeah, real incisive, there. An organization with proven links to other organizations that have been attacking Gore personally for years trots out a figure and suddenly it's gospel. Great research, guys!

"Wow, ALL of those condemni... (Below threshold)
Dave:

"Wow, ALL of those condemning Gore on this page have just accepted those electricity use figures with not ONE question like 'Prove it?'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records

Don't confuse the libs with... (Below threshold)
TheManTheMyth:

Don't confuse the libs with facts, sarnac. Their heads might explode.

For all of you who are e... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

For all of you who are easily persuaded by the Al Gore allegation, take a long walk! The story is speculation and rumor. Unless evidence is shown, stop gossiping and get a life! You are acting like a bunch of ignorant whores who can't get a date. Bitter, bitter.

The public records prove the criticism.

"Are you saying Bush is great?" Nope, but Bush isn't condemning everyone for being wasteful as Mr. Gore is. You have to practice what you preach.

Gore LOVES carbon offsets because it allows the wealthy (who can afford them) to not change anything while eventually making the poor (who CANNOT afford them) make drastic changes to their lifestyle.

As all critics of these groups have said, they do not want to change everybody's behavior. They just want to change YOURS. They don't think or believe they need to change their own.
-=Mike

LOL! So, Bush lives enviro... (Below threshold)
TK:

LOL! So, Bush lives environmentalism?

First off, he's lived in government housing for how long now, including time as Governor? Here's a question for you: how many energy efficient lightbulbs are there in the White House? How many were in stalled in the TX Governor's mansion? Go ahead and find that statistic for us all.

No one in the environmental lobby is telling people they need to stop living. Transportation is transportation. Electricity is electricity. People will fly planes, they will consume energy. That is called "modernity." However, if Al Gore takes a private jet to arrive at a conference to speak on global warming, and that gives him the freedom to fly back for meetings that evening, or the next day, how do you quantify that value, huh? Now he's personally attended two conferences and gotten all this exposure. What is the value of that? Probably to you all, it has no value. Of course it doesn't matter to any of you. Just like it doesn't matter that the White House hasn't shown any interest in trying to deploy re-useable energy methods in the White House, or Camp David, or Airforce One, or the President's Motorcade (now at 20+ vehicles and suburbans). How many solar panels are on the roof of the White House, or government buildings, and how much energy do they create? "Oh, but Al Gore needs to be the one to do it, because he's the one out the preaching!" He's a private fucking citizen who has been preaching environmental issues for years and has done a helluva lot more than President Bush EVER has ... mind you, that is 2 President Bushes to boot! Christ, GWB is the leader of this country, he should be setting an example. Instead, they are paying environmentalists to claim global warming isn't even happening! Wait until another 100+ average summer rolls through. Even the righ-wing Bible thumpers have gone green, yet GWB has done nothing ... oh, wait a minute, that is right, he pulled the US out of Kyoto because it might hurt business. That is real leadership.

You want better private jets? Then invest more money in better fuel efficiency for them. You want Al Gore to have a smaller house, then give bigger property tax breaks for people who deploy re-useable energy sources on their homes (c'mon, the GOP loves tax reduction, right). You want fewer emissions? Invest in alternative sources of fuel like ethanol, etc, and more importantly, invest in an infrastructure of gas stations to provide re-fueling.

God, so much of my Republican party is filled with ignorant asses.

MikeSC: wow, some good poin... (Below threshold)
TK:

MikeSC: wow, some good points. But, I don't think anyone - Al Gore included - is telling people to stop living their lives, driving their cars, flying in planes, etc.

I think what they're trying to promote is investment in better, more efficient technologies. How do you know offering carbon offsets allow the wealthy to not change their behavior? If I'm not mistaken, California - one of the wealthiest states in the US be per capita GNP measures - is also the highest concentration of hybrid car users in the US. It is also a state at the forefront under Governor Schwarzeneggar (sp) of promoting gas stations for hydrogen based and ethanol based fuel. It would seem that would be the state least likely to change since, according to you, the wealthy never want to change anything.

Too bad history doesn't really bare that out. If that is true, why is Gates worried about AIDS in Africa (doesn't impact him), was why Carnegie worried about making books available (he was already wealthy), why did Rockefeller decide to give money away at all? Wealthy people don't care - even though the US gives the most money to charities in the world, per capita.

Have Mercedes produce a car with an ethanol based engine that has comparable performance to current models and see how quickly it would vanish. The real question is why the US government isn't offering steep tax breaks to Mercedes to develop it now instead of in 10, 15, 20 years.

Now I imagine I can expect to get labeled a left-wing, hippie moonbat and really make a convincing argument. Gotta love modern Republican discourse ...

"For all of you who are eas... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

"For all of you who are easily persuaded by the Al Gore . . ."

Isn't this the real problem? Your finding Mr. Gore persuasive is the laugh out loud funny here.

This liberal crowd will eat out of the hand of any carnival barker who gives them half-truths about their favorite issue du jour.

I've got a global cooling theory I'll sell you at the same price you bought that bridge in Brookly, chumps.

Mike: "Mr. Gore has recogni... (Below threshold)
Mike in Oregon:

Mike: "Mr. Gore has recognized a problem and is trying to solve it. When are you going to do the same?"

Good point. I think I'll use more than 20x the energy of the average household and leave it to others to cut their use. Great solution. And pretty painless.

MikeSC: wow, some good p... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

MikeSC: wow, some good points. But, I don't think anyone - Al Gore included - is telling people to stop living their lives, driving their cars, flying in planes, etc.

Al Gore is pushing conservation --- for everybody BUT Al Gore. That isn't leadership. It's blatant hypocrisy.

The guy who buys the SUV is the "bad guy" --- but the guy who sucks up many times more resources than the guy who bought the SUV is somehow MORAL?

I think what they're trying to promote is investment in better, more efficient technologies.

What they are promoting is a world where the elites --- THEM --- don't have to change anything they do while the lower-classes --- US --- have to make massive changes. It's no different than how people like Gore champion public schools --- while sending their kids to private schools.

It's hypocrisy.

How do you know offering carbon offsets allow the wealthy to not change their behavior?

If Gore BELIEVES that this is a problem as much as he claims --- he'd have, well, a home like Bush's ranch.

He doesn't. He CLEARLY doesn't because you LIVE what you believe.

If I'm not mistaken, California - one of the wealthiest states in the US be per capita GNP measures - is also the highest concentration of hybrid car users in the US.

Care to guess the per capita ownership of private aircraft in CA as compared to the rest of the country? Just because you have the pretty little trinkets hardly means you live the lifestyle.

Hell, Hollywood burns through numerous cars FOR MOVIES. They waste like no other industry on the planet can waste.

It is also a state at the forefront under Governor Schwarzeneggar (sp) of promoting gas stations for hydrogen based and ethanol based fuel. It would seem that would be the state least likely to change since, according to you, the wealthy never want to change anything.

How many of the wealthy in Hollywood live lifestyles with an environmental impact that is only THREE times my impact? ANY? How many use electricity only three times as much as I do? Use gas only three times as much as I do?

I'd wager none.

Too bad history doesn't really bare that out. If that is true, why is Gates worried about AIDS in Africa (doesn't impact him), was why Carnegie worried about making books available (he was already wealthy), why did Rockefeller decide to give money away at all? Wealthy people don't care - even though the US gives the most money to charities in the world, per capita.

Gates isn't sacrificing. Nor did Carnegie. They never had to struggle to make ends meet when they made their donations. It's no different than me giving a dollar to a bum.

Now I imagine I can expect to get labeled a left-wing, hippie moonbat and really make a convincing argument. Gotta love modern Republican discourse ...

You can expect it all you want. You are flat out wrong.

Gore says we need to conserve while using more in a month than most of us do in a year. We need to stop polluting while jetting all over the place (number of times I've been in a plane? Twice in over 30 years). We need to live a carbon neutral lifestyle, while if people lived like Gore, the planet would be bled dry in virtually no time. We need to become less dependent on oil while I can GUARANTEE he uses many times more oil than I do. Heck, he uses far more oil than Bush does.

Modern liberalism has become a group of rich degenerates who TRULY believe that their words far outweigh their paltry actions. They want ME to sacrifice while they do not. They just toss $160 at the problem.

Heck, what happens when the tree Gore's "carbon offset" paid for gets cut down? Is he back in debt again in a carbon sense? I'll wager they don't keep tabs of that kind of thing, which only shows how utterly artificial it all is.

I expect you to now try and dance around blatant hypocrisy while patting yourself on the back for how above pettiness you are. Gotta love modern liberal discourse.
-=Mike

Hey, why doesn't Gore chann... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hey, why doesn't Gore channel all his large charitable gifts to environmental research?

OOPS! Sorry, forgot that in his disclosures for the 2000 Presidential run he gave virtually nothing to charity. And the least of any major candidate in recent history.

Ok, so he's a hypocrite and a cheap bastard. Gore in '08!!!

All: I live in the N... (Below threshold)

All:
I live in the Nashville metro area, and am on the same power supplier as Mr. Gore. I have a 2800 sq ft house built in the early '80s. In 2006 I used a total of 19035 kWh. I have 3 dependants, and someone is always home. I am a computer technician and operate several computer systems and servers in my home. Mr Gore's facility used 11.6x the amount of electricity and a comparable difference of natural gas. (dollar for dollar it is 10.9x, but at that consumption level i believe that there are volume pricing breaks) I do not buy green power, as I am in the process of renovations that will make me a producer of green power for the TVA. (personal solar output can be sold directly to the TVA, even though it is not currently cost efficient)

I give these figures for the following reasons: Mr. Gore's property is only 3.57x larger than mine, yet he consumes 11.6x the amount of electical power. this is where the issue lies for me... Mr. Gore is hypocritical when he hypes regressive solutions to a problem and he is an energy wastrel. and no, green power is not unlimited, whatever anyone feels. there is a limited generating capacity, and regardless of how much green power gore buys, that is simply less green power currently available for others to use. therefore he is still wasteful.

I would understand an elevated consumption for Mr. Gores house, as he does have to have security, and that uses additional resources. but come on, 11.6x for a house 3.57x larger? i would understand 4.5x, maybe even 5x, due to the increased load of security equipment and personnel.

Wow.

You know what I find most d... (Below threshold)
Sick of it:

You know what I find most disturbing? (Besides the ridiculously ignorant and uninformed comments posted.) That ANY of you are paying ANY attention to Matt Drudge or the supposed non-partisan Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Its president, Drew Johnson, is from the American Enterprise Institute. And Matt Drudge? Give me a break! Johnny Sweeper is right. The math is waaaayyy off. As for anyone who thinks Bush is green either in Texas or DC...you're very confused.

MikeSC: While I appreciate ... (Below threshold)
TK:

MikeSC: While I appreciate your "working class hero" schtick, its really boring. Whether you like it or not, people with money are entitled to consume what they want, plain and simple. That is called life, so perhaps you should learn to deal with it. You envy them? Then roll your sleeves up, work hard, and join them.

Oh, but What they are promoting is a world where the elites --- THEM --- don't have to change anything they do while the lower-classes --- US --- have to make massive changes.

Sounds like you have issues with capitalism. Perhaps you'd prefer communism? Or, better yet, how about raising taxes on the wealthy so that it would offset their exorbitant lifestyle, so-called sin taxes? At least it won't affect you since - although you can afford things like internet access - you claim to be from the "lower classes."

It's no different than how people like Gore champion public schools --- while sending their kids to private schools.

Actually I think they sent their children to a private school because it wass religiously affiliated (most are). There is nothing comparable publicly because we have a separation of church and state; but they, as a matter of their own family's choices, wanted to have their children taught a curriculum which includes a grounding in the family's religion. They don't have a right to do that? You think that is wrong? You don't have a leg to stand on, my friend, because the alternative is the government persecuting parents for their religious choices. Nice try.

I did think this was a cute comment: "If Gore BELIEVES that this is a problem as much as he claims --- he'd have, well, a home like Bush's ranch."

Well, let's see. You really think all of the additional equipment added to Bush's ranch to make it the "Western White House" is reflected in those numbers? Residences for Secret Service details? Advisors? How about accommodations for visiting heads of state? Catering and banqueting facilities. Oh, let me guess, they all roll sleeping bags out under the stars at night, right? Anyone who believes those published numbers reflect the costs of running a major command center for the leader of the free world - available 24/7, because you never know when Bush is going to arrive - is an idiot. Plus, if Bush was so concerned about the environment, perhaps he shouldn't have had a "Western White House" in the first place. I guess Camp David wasn't good enough for him - although it was for others, including his father. Oh, but lest we inconvenience him ...

I guess it also doesn't matter that Gore lives in Tennessee where, last I checked, they have to worry about things like winter, and snowfall, and climate changes with the seasons. Typically, that means you need a home. Maybe you are the type of person who can afford to have one style of home in the summer, one in the winter, and you can spend certain seasons in different places? Most common people like me don't have that luxury. So, when you have one home, it needs to be able to handle whatever the season has. Did those numbers identify when he paid the most, since typically energy use is not uniform month to month? How about the Bush ranch numbers? Are those numbers skewed because for 8 months of year, little energy is used because no one is there. However, for the 4 months Bush is there, they use 80x the normal consumption of an average home? Any seasonal spikes, or did you just not care enough to investigate? Did you just decide to get on your high-horse and indict? Ah, socialism at its finest: "That guy has more than me! Fat Cat!"

Of course Bush doesn't need much in a TX ranch because they are not needing to worry about heating and cooling a house they live in year round. Oh, yeah, forgot that one, didn't you?!? Bush isn't even there most of the year! So stupid. However, it seems that Gore's residence is his main residence. Well, if that is the case, perhaps we should match main residence to main residence, right? Gore Mansion vs. White House. You know, the big white building paid for by taxpayers in DC? Wouldn't that be fair? Man, you are a lemming to believe those stats.

How many of the wealthy in Hollywood live lifestyles with an environmental impact that is only THREE times my impact? ANY? How many use electricity only three times as much as I do? Use gas only three times as much as I do?

You seem to be the expert, you tell me how many? Leonardo DiCaprio drives a hybrid full-time, travels all over promoting the environment. Ever heard of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie ... countless others. All of the cars used during the Oscars this year ran on alternative fuel. You can hate the shit out of people like Jolie, and Pitt, and DiCaprio - Lord knows, I can't stand some of them too. But I guess that doesn't matter, Mr. Boss, because THEY are wealthy, and WE are poor. Or, maybe you're poor at least. Perhaps saving the money you spend on the internet would allow you to rise into a higher tax bracket?

... number of times I've been in a plane? Twice in over 30 years

Wow ... twice. Fascinating. No wonder the world fears Americans; 300m people, 3m have passports. So much for getting a sense about what exists beyond the two shores. So, in that time, family vacations, trips, etc. You took road trips to go places? Environmentally friendly cars, right, ones that didn't increase dependence on Middle East oil? Thanks for doing your part. Or, the alternative is perhaps you are a shut-in and haven't travelled anywhere in 30 years?

Heck, he uses far more oil than Bush does.

How do you know that? LOL! Bush authorized the military into Iraq, Afghanistan, authorized release of funds for FEMA during hurricane seasons, the release of monies for disasters. It's not a matter of whether you agree with his actions or not. However, he is ultimately responsible for those actions as head of the government. How much fuel do you think those things have consummed? If anything, all of that fule is DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTEABLE to the Office of the President of the United States. Great logic there, really.

Of course, you'll reject that notion. But, considering the President doesn't drive his own car, doesn't pay for his own gas, doesn't even carry credit cards, doesn't pay for anything, doesn't live in his own house, doesn't even have to buy his own groceries, do you really think it wise to draw a comparision between Bush and Gore, a private citizen. I mean, last I checked, everything Gore has an does he has to pay for one way or the other. Seems like a pretty foolish comparison, don't you think, in hindsight? Following your logic, of course you can say Gore has more oil use attributed to him. For Bush, it all gets taxed to the American people! LOL.

Also, I can appreciate your comments about modern liberalism. I guess everyone needs to look to Ted Haggard for guidance from the right. But, then again, the heads of most corporations tend to be Republican, so perhaps they'll offer more leadership in this regard.

Oh, and FYI, I'm actually GOP. I'm just much smarter than most people it seems.

Ummmm, Mitchell, Al Gore ga... (Below threshold)
TK:

Ummmm, Mitchell, Al Gore gave $15,000 on a salary of around $175,000. That is about, what, 8%, 9% of his total salary.

$15,000 on a salary of $175,000 is virtually nothing? Plus, he was also the relative "poorest" of the candidates in 2000. He was worth, maybe, $1m, all of which was tied up in investments and trusts?

Nice try. I just can't tell if you are ill informed, or just a partisan liar. Which was it? Seems to me that $15,000 is hardly nothing. Anyone else disagree with that? I'll bet those chartities wouldn't call it virtually nothing.

You know what I find mos... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You know what I find most disturbing? (Besides the ridiculously ignorant and uninformed comments posted.) That ANY of you are paying ANY attention to Matt Drudge or the supposed non-partisan Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Its president, Drew Johnson, is from the American Enterprise Institute. And Matt Drudge? Give me a break! Johnny Sweeper is right. The math is waaaayyy off. As for anyone who thinks Bush is green either in Texas or DC...you're very confused

Gore believed it too.

MikeSC: While I appreciate your "working class hero" schtick, its really boring.

Replacing facts with snark? Not a shocker.

Whether you like it or not, people with money are entitled to consume what they want, plain and simple. That is called life, so perhaps you should learn to deal with it. You envy them? Then roll your sleeves up, work hard, and join them.

If you are going to condemn people for being wasteful, you should not be wasteful.

I am stunned that you will ignore hypocrisy when you agree with the guy.

Sounds like you have issues with capitalism. Perhaps you'd prefer communism? Or, better yet, how about raising taxes on the wealthy so that it would offset their exorbitant lifestyle, so-called sin taxes? At least it won't affect you since - although you can afford things like internet access - you claim to be from the "lower classes."

Nope. Just want the elites to live as they expect us to live. YOU are the one who is peachy with different rights based on wealth. Al Gore is a hypocrite and --- yeah, stunning --- you applaud him.

Of course, the left used to be opposed to sexual harrassment until they applauded Clinton for doing just that.

If this kills environmentalism --- which your advocacy will lead to --- then it's all a bonus.

Actually I think they sent their children to a private school because it wass religiously affiliated (most are).

Why not replace your thoughts with ACTUAL facts to back it up, 'K?

There is nothing comparable publicly because we have a separation of church and state; but they, as a matter of their own family's choices, wanted to have their children taught a curriculum which includes a grounding in the family's religion. They don't have a right to do that? You think that is wrong? You don't have a leg to stand on, my friend, because the alternative is the government persecuting parents for their religious choices. Nice try.

Actually, I FULLY applaud allowing any parent to take the money the government steals from them send their kid to ANY school they want. You, as per usual, applaud a guy who wants to force parents to send their kids to woefully inadequate public schools while their offspring get the superior education.

See, if Gore SUPPORTED school choice, it would not be an issue.

Well, let's see. You really think all of the additional equipment added to Bush's ranch to make it the "Western White House" is reflected in those numbers? Residences for Secret Service details? Advisors? How about accommodations for visiting heads of state? Catering and banqueting facilities. Oh, let me guess, they all roll sleeping bags out under the stars at night, right? Anyone who believes those published numbers reflect the costs of running a major command center for the leader of the free world - available 24/7, because you never know when Bush is going to arrive - is an idiot.

Bush is living the life. Gore is not. C'est la vie. You have no problem with hypocrisy and have no actual argument to make in defense. Got it.

I guess it also doesn't matter that Gore lives in Tennessee where, last I checked, they have to worry about things like winter, and snowfall, and climate changes with the seasons. Typically, that means you need a home. Maybe you are the type of person who can afford to have one style of home in the summer, one in the winter, and you can spend certain seasons in different places? Most common people like me don't have that luxury. So, when you have one home, it needs to be able to handle whatever the season has. Did those numbers identify when he paid the most, since typically energy use is not uniform month to month?

Yes, because the seasons impact Gore ALONE and his neighbors, somehow, are in the mystical part of TN where it's not an issue. Got it.

You REALLY are just pulling stuff out of your butt at this point. It'd be funny if it weren't quite so tragic.

? How about the Bush ranch numbers? Are those numbers skewed because for 8 months of year, little energy is used because no one is there. However, for the 4 months Bush is there, they use 80x the normal consumption of an average home?

Notice I'm dealing with FACTS while you work with ASSUMPTIONS?

Of course Bush doesn't need much in a TX ranch because they are not needing to worry about heating and cooling a house they live in year round. Oh, yeah, forgot that one, didn't you?!? Bush isn't even there most of the year! So stupid. However, it seems that Gore's residence is his main residence. Well, if that is the case, perhaps we should match main residence to main residence, right? Gore Mansion vs. White House. You know, the big white building paid for by taxpayers in DC? Wouldn't that be fair? Man, you are a lemming to believe those stats.

You have my blessing to do so. Run the comparison. Feel free to compare the WH, which Bush has limited capacity to change, to Gore's house, where he has considerable ability to make changes.

Bring the figures, since your assumptions are worth precious little.

You seem to be the expert, you tell me how many? Leonardo DiCaprio drives a hybrid full-time, travels all over promoting the environment. Ever heard of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie ... countless others. All of the cars used during the Oscars this year ran on alternative fuel. You can hate the shit out of people like Jolie, and Pitt, and DiCaprio - Lord knows, I can't stand some of them too. But I guess that doesn't matter, Mr. Boss, because THEY are wealthy, and WE are poor. Or, maybe you're poor at least. Perhaps saving the money you spend on the internet would allow you to rise into a higher tax bracket?

THe answer, of course, is NONE. Not one.

And are you capable of making a point without pathetic attempts to get personal? I have yet to get personal towards you.

Wow ... twice. Fascinating. No wonder the world fears Americans; 300m people, 3m have passports. So much for getting a sense about what exists beyond the two shores. So, in that time, family vacations, trips, etc. You took road trips to go places? Environmentally friendly cars, right, ones that didn't increase dependence on Middle East oil? Thanks for doing your part. Or, the alternative is perhaps you are a shut-in and haven't travelled anywhere in 30 years?

More personal insults when an argument would actually be a benefit.

Weren't you the one bitching about the personal insults you'd face?

Oh, and FYI, I'm actually GOP. I'm just much smarter than most people it seems.

No. What you are is incapable of discourse.

I made the mistake of assuming you were capable of discourse, but I'll just let you sit and wallow in your feces.
-=Mike

And, TK, feel free to provi... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And, TK, feel free to provide any evidence of your claims of Gore's giving. Your word, again, is of no value.
-=Mike

Gore's spokesperson says th... (Below threshold)
djk:

Gore's spokesperson says that gore has installed solar devices. Well, if those devices are at the Nashville home, then Gore's house probably uses even more electricity than his utility bills show. that's because solar panels usually feed their power right to the house they're on, reducing the amount taken from the grid.

In other words, the amount Gore's mansion takes from the utility is what it needs after using power generated on-site by solar panels (or wind or whatever else he could install).

Another little problem with... (Below threshold)
j.pickens:

Another little problem with the Goracle's plans.
His spokesman says he is putting in Solar Photovoltaic panels at his home. One little factoid, Tennessee is NOT an area of the country in which PV arrays make any environmental sense. Too far North, and too many cloudy days. You expend far more energy producing the PV cells and support infrastructure than they will EVER produce in their 10 to 15 year average lifetime.
Now, Crawford, TX, on the other hand,check out the facts:
Tennesse PV rating: 4.93kWh/m2/day
Texas PV rating: 6.04kWh/m2/day

I know, One kilowatt hour per day of power doesn't seem like much, but these PV things almost don't break even anywhere except the desert southwest of AZ, NM, and CA. Crawford, TX is borderline, Nashville, TN is absolutely ludicrous.
And we are subsidizing this nonsense with tax breaks, to boot.

Source:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/

Gore salary 1997: $198,000.... (Below threshold)

Gore salary 1997: $198,000.
Charitable giving: $353 (1.7%)

Gore's 1999 personal financial disclosure:
Amount of Occidental Petroleum stock (in family trust in which HE is a trustee): $500,000 to $1,000,000 category.

MikeSC -Well every... (Below threshold)
TK:

MikeSC -

Well everyone, it is official. MikeSC is both evasive and comfortable, too lazy to look up facts and would rather make everyone else do the work. At least everyone can see the freeloader mentality. Of course, he decides to blame me, claiming I have no facts to back anything up. Well, here are some ...

Gore and Private School: Why not replace your thoughts with ACTUAL facts to back it up, 'K?

That lazy to do it for yourself? Have such little care for the truth? Gore's children went to an Episcopal school.

How about the Bush ranch numbers? Are those numbers skewed because for 8 months of year, little energy is used because no one is there. However, for the 4 months Bush is there, they use 80x the normal consumption of an average home?

Notice I'm dealing with FACTS while you work with ASSUMPTIONS?

Actually, MikeSC, I was challenging you to get off your own ass and actually contribute something substantial. Those were questions to you. How about you put some initiative into finding out the truth, instead of relying on everyone else to spoon feed you?

You'll notice from the silence on this board that more people, I ASSUME again, agree with my points. In fact, I don't think there is an even moderately intellectual person in this world who would disagree with the idea that the Bush ranch consumes less electricity because it is used less. If it were used as much as the White House, you don't think there would already have been a little furor over that?

You seem to be the expert, you tell me how many? Leonardo DiCaprio drives a hybrid full-time, travels all over promoting the environment. Ever heard of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie ... countless others. All of the cars used during the Oscars this year ran on alternative fuel. You can hate the shit out of people like Jolie, and Pitt, and DiCaprio - Lord knows, I can't stand some of them too. But I guess that doesn't matter, Mr. Boss, because THEY are wealthy, and WE are poor. Or, maybe you're poor at least. Perhaps saving the money you spend on the internet would allow you to rise into a higher tax bracket?

THe answer, of course, is NONE. Not one.

And are you capable of making a point without pathetic attempts to get personal? I have yet to get personal towards you.

That is one of the dumbest responses yet! I answered your question and, YOU ATTACK me for being right! You didn't even have the hubris to acknowledge that there are people in Hollywood who are tying to make a difference! LOL! What a joke. When confronted by the facts, you cannot even acknowledge them. That is sad, and pathetic, and the funny thing is, based again on other comments on this board. Here is a little more, MikeSC, since I know you won't spend ANY time looking up facts.

Leonardo Dicaprio (look it up on Wikipedia; citations included there): "A committed environmentalist, DiCaprio has received praise from environmental groups for opting to fly on commercial flights instead of chartering private jets, which use more fuel. He has also mentioned that his house has solar panels, that he owns three Toyota Prius cars, and has bought hybrids for family members. In an article in Ukula about his new film "11th Hour" (which he co-wrote, co-produced and narrated), DiCaprio cites global warming as "the number one environmental challenge""

But, see MikeSC, this is where you need a little schooling on the matter. In the end of the day, it is all about RELATIVE contribution. See, you sit there and say, "name one celebrity that uses less electricity than me!!!!" Well, I think that really comes down to a % of their income, you know? I mean, clearly celebrities make more money than you, probably (oops, assumption; if you reveal your salary so we can know the truth). So it really comes down to how much electricity, fuel, etc they use as a percentage of what they have, you know? Not everyone lives at the same salary, so you cannot expect people to compete on that level. That would be communism which might be, based on your earlier remarks, something you support perhaps?

But WAIT! MikeSC claimed no one in Hollywood is doing anything!!! But, it seems Dicaprio is doing, relative to his wealth, more than most of us! Then again, I'm sure that won't be good enough for MikeSC. Because, if it were, that would mean MikeSC is *WRONG* to say no one in Hollywood is doing anything. And admitting a legitimate mistake is something MikeSC apparently cannot do.

More personal insults when an argument would actually be a benefit. Weren't you the one bitching about the personal insults you'd face?

BWAH, HA, HA. So, you sit there and play defense, instead of answering one - ONE - question in that section. Not one. That strikes me as rather evasive, doesn't it? At least I had the balls to stand up and say something more to you than "all you do is make assumptions!!!" I asked you 4 questions which would have helped everyone understand your own contibution to either helping or hurting the environment, and you couldn't even answer 1 of them. Wow. You couldn't even answer 1 question.

You have my blessing to do so. Run the comparison. Feel free to compare the WH, which Bush has limited capacity to change, to Gore's house, where he has considerable ability to make changes. Bring the figures, since your assumptions are worth precious little.

Really? Little "capacity to change," huh? Leader of the free world. Hell, the First Lady always comes in every election - ALWAYS - and re-decorates (which Laura has done). The President has the authority to take valuable antiques out of the Smithsonian to use for his leisure (go look up which President's desk GWB uses).

Oh, but let me guess, I need to provide facts, instead of assumptions? How about this one: http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/FEATURES03/702180310/0/FEATURES01 . Let me excerpt a key section since I know you won't actually look at the article. "The total bill for the two rooms was $530,000, paid by the nonprofit White House Historical Association. The White House has been home to 41 families. Every first lady since Abigail Adams has left her stamp in a continuum that churns up desks, settees and portraits from storage then often banishes them again as a new occupant moves in."

So, MikeSC, the First Lady is more powerful than the President because she DOES have the "capacity to change" the White House.

So, perhaps YOU should STOP spreading ASSUMPTIONS AND LIES that GWB has little "capacity to change" anything. Oh, and maybe you should consult a history book. TR Roosevenlt and Harry Truman both had the building practically gutted and renovated. GWB is having a state of the art command and communication center installed as well. Do you need me hold your hand and get that information too?

Oh, a final remark ...

Actually, I FULLY applaud allowing any parent to take the money the government steals from them send their kid to ANY school they want. You, as per usual, applaud a guy who wants to force parents to send their kids to woefully inadequate public schools while their offspring get the superior education.

See, if Gore SUPPORTED school choice, it would not be an issue.

Oh, so you support vouchers. Really, and the school system is so "woefully inadequate." How about you do us all a favor, MikeSC. Since you have to rely on everyone else for facts, how about you go out there and find out how many CEOs and Presidents of companies went to public school. I mean, you impose on everyone else to get your facts for you, perhaps you'll have enough charity and generosity to help the conversation along by providing a simple request.

Personally, I went to a public high school and worked my ass off. Things have gone well in my own life, so I would hardly call my experience woefully inadequate. Then again, I also have gotten on a plane more than twice in 30 years, so I guess that will just show you how ignorant I am. I really got a big mouthful of feces there, right? LOL!

After your last post I think I've realized - as most others clearly have - that talking with you really isn't worth the time to type. You want everyone else to do the work for you. You lie right and left. All you do is retort by claiming they only make assumptions. And, even when someone does bring facts to the table, you ignore them as though you are infallible.

There is a blueprint for life: unwilling to search for your own facts, but unable to admit you are wrong when confronted validates ones.

MikeSC: And, TK, feel fr... (Below threshold)
TK:

MikeSC: And, TK, feel free to provide any evidence of your claims of Gore's giving. Your word, again, is of no value.

MikeSC, seriously, do you lift a finger to do anything? Do people cut your food for you too? And, NO, that isn't being "snarky," it is a legitimate question to which I'd like an answer It seems all you want is for everyone else to get up and get the answers for you, which is really rude, and selfish, especially when you are content to sit there and criticize everyone else. God, you talk about using "facts," but your facts are not even independently verifiable! How is that a fact then!?!?

Gore's personal financial statements are public record. They are online too. But, you want me to go out and get them for you? Will you acknowledge that I am right if I do at least? See, I'm not going to bother putting in the effort without a reward. And what I expect from you is when you post them, for you to step in and (1) acknowledge that I am right, and (2) tell Mitchell that he was wrong to say Al Gore gave "virtually nothing" to charity. I've laid down the minor expectations, let's see if you have it in you to accept them.

Oh, and Wavemaker, nice try. We were talking about Al Gore's contributions in 2000, when he was a presidential candidate, not 3 years earlier. He also gave approx. $15,000 in 1999 and, I believe, a similar amount in 1998. So, a yearly average of over $11,300. That doesn't strike me as too shabby, does it? What do you think?

Oh, and I really love the w... (Below threshold)
TK:

Oh, and I really love the way you use the term "precious little."

From my responses above, I'm expecting at least 3 acknowledgements that I'm was right and you were wrong: Gore's religious school choice; DiCaprio's environmental efforts; GWB having a "capacity to change" the WH. Once I have those, we can then roll up to the questions which you evaded from an earlier posting.

Oh, final thought. When I made this statement: How about the Bush ranch numbers? Are those numbers skewed because for 8 months of year, little energy is used because no one is there. However, for the 4 months Bush is there, they use 80x the normal consumption of an average home?

to which you replied

Notice I'm dealing with FACTS while you work with ASSUMPTIONS?

Actually, those aren't real numbers. It is called a rhetorical question designed to inspire discussion. Clearly, however, you cannot be inspired. If anything, I guess you could have gotten off your butt, did a little investigative work and gotten the truth for the benefit of everyone, right? Why didn't you? If you thought I was wrong, why wouldn't you get the real facts and try to convince me otherwise? Don't you want to help a fellow American out by helping them realize the folly of their opinion? Seems the best way to do that is using real facts, especially when all they do is make assumptions, right?

Don't you care about helping other people out?

Oh, and MikeSC, perhaps you... (Below threshold)
TK:

Oh, and MikeSC, perhaps you need to read the news as well. The numbers being quoted about how much the Gore's use are likely not even true anyway.

"The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."

Wow. So, the electric company does not even confirm those numbers. Are you going to contact the Tennessee Center for Policy Research - the think tank which publicized those numbers - and demand they reveal the facts now? Seems only fair since that is what you do with everyone who presents possibly dodgy numbers, right?

Go ahead, stike a blow for the pursuit of truth! CC the email to this message board, if you would, as well as any responses from them, thanks.

Again, TK, feel free to con... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Again, TK, feel free to continue throwing feces on the wall when you don't have a point to make. You make inane claims, are asked to back them up, and --- as usual --- refuse to do so.

You mistake bad snark for a cogent argument. You are wrong --- on most everything you've posted THUS far --- and bitch and moan about the lack of civility.

I am not going to engage useless trolls, such as yourself, in pointless flaming. Heck, I'll say it --- when it comes to sad flaming and non-intellectual gibberish, I can't begin to compete with you.
-=Mike

Oh, and FYI, I'm actuall... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Oh, and FYI, I'm actually GOP. I'm just much smarter than most people it seems.

Yeah right. Give us a break TK. And don't assume that the silence of the board means most people here agree with you. I can assure that is not the case. You have made assumptions (in the form of what you call rhetorical questions) in an attempt to change the debate. That's not debate. That just shows that you have nothing to back up your arguments. And your use of personal insults and more assumptions just adds to your lack of argument.

Seems only fair since that is what you do with everyone who presents possibly dodgy numbers, right?

A spokesman for the Gore campaign did not dispute the numbers. You would think if it was a gross mischaracterization something would have been said.

I don't have the time to go through point by point, but reread your posts, you haven't done as well as you think you have.

MikeSC, you've proven to ev... (Below threshold)
TK:

MikeSC, you've proven to everyone here who reads this that you have no courage in you. I called you out numerous times, gave you ample chance to lift a finger, actually contribute to the discussion with independently verifiable numbers, figures, anything to prove me wrong. But, have you done so, even once? Nope.

You are wrong --- on most everything you've posted THUS far

Well, at least I've been right on some things, so have the spine to tell us all what I have been right on, please (otherwise why use the words "on most")? LOL!

Good God, you couldn't even admit you were wrong in saying the President of the United States cannot change anything in the White House when I demonstrated that even his WIFE - his WIFE - can makes massive changes. But, do you even acknowledge you're wrong in that statement? No, because you are too self-righteous and egotistical. But, it doesn't matter, because no one is defending you because everyone knows you're wrong about that matter and so many others.

Thanks for backing down from the challenges. It explains alot to everyone about the things you have to say. At least I have courage, not cowardice in my arsenal. And now everyone knows what you are about. And, no, those are not ASSUMPTIONS.

And, no dude, this is not a matter of snarkiness. It is a matter of standing up for truth (which is what I do) and call out people who shoot off out the mouth without any attempt to sort out the truth (which is what you have been doing this entire time). Thanks for validating my purpose.

J.R. -Actually, I ... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R. -

Actually, I was not "changing the debate." MikeSC claimed that Gore was using far more oil than President Bush. I used a rhetorical device to ask whether something was possible. I never said those numbers were true, those percentages, did I? Unfortunately, none of you are smart enough to actually step up to the challenge. So perhaps you'll keep quiet next time, unless you have something substantive to add other than more falsehoods and evasion?

How about this, no need to go over the many, MANY points I've raised which have gone unchallenged. How about you just address 3 points you disagree with, and bring some cold, hard numbers. Go ahead; you've waded into the game, so put your money where your mouth is and prove just 3 points wrong. How about the number of energy efficient lightbulbs in the WH? How about my claim that the president does have the authority to approve those changes? Maybe a question about the so-called "average monthly" energy consumption of the Gore house and whether it is tied to seasonal changes? Someone else said that the Gore house might also be a conference center and home office; is that true, which would mean that, technically speaking, much of that energy is consumed by a company, then, right? There are a handful, but there are plenty more. Go ahead and take on a few.

And for the numbers about Gore, if I were you - as a good GOPer - perhaps I'd be less concerned about what his spokesperson says and more concerned about someone stealing the energy bills of a private citizen, a non-public official and giving them to some partisan "think tank." Besides, I think the Energy Company would be in a better position to reveal the truth or falsehood of those numbers anyway, instead of a spokesperson, don't you think?

If you were a real patriot, you'd realize the bigger issue isn't Al-fucking-Gore and his house. You'd realize the bigger issue is a blatant violation of a citizen's rights. You don't find that reprehensible? How about I call your energy company and get your bills and publish them without your permission? Is that okay? Maybe I should be tracking you down, finding out about your medical history too? Perhaps your internet habits? Should I go on and on?

Yet you think I'm trying to confuse the debate? LOL! Maybe you need to check your own priorities.

This is absurd. Bush's ene... (Below threshold)

This is absurd. Bush's energy policies are wretched compared to those advocated by Gore. Having invested more wisely in an efficient home does not make Bush more of an environmentalist. Just because Gore is not practicing what he preaches does not mean that Bush is any different in terms of the ineffectiveness of his energy policies to deal with future consumption in the U.S.

Go ahead; you've waded i... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Go ahead; you've waded into the game, so put your money where your mouth is and prove just 3 points wrong. How about the number of energy efficient lightbulbs in the WH? How about my claim that the president does have the authority to approve those changes?

How do you know that every light bulb in the WH is not already an energy efficient one? I challenge you to prove that every one is not? You see, I can play this game too that I waded into.

Whose to say the Pres. hasn't already changed it? Of course GWB has the power to set up the WH as he sees fit, but he is limited as to what he can turn on and off. BTW, comparing the WH to a private residence is just absurd. We don't build a new White House for every President, let's be realistic about this.

Maybe a question about the so-called "average monthly" energy consumption of the Gore house and whether it is tied to seasonal changes?

so what? What's your point here? There are seasonal changes everywhere one lives, they don't exist just around Nashville.

Someone else said that the Gore house might also be a conference center and home office; is that true, which would mean that, technically speaking, much of that energy is consumed by a company, then, right?

I thought you were only going to present facts? Or can I just make a statement and then challenge you to prove me wrong.

and more concerned about someone stealing the energy bills of a private citizen, a non-public official and giving them to some partisan "think tank."

If that's the case and the "think tank" has willingly violated the law, I would expect there to be full prosecution of the perpetrators.

Besides, I think the Energy Company would be in a better position to reveal the truth or falsehood of those numbers anyway, instead of a spokesperson, don't you think?

According to what you just said, it would be illegal for the power company to confirm or deny those numbers! The spokesperson, however, would be able to reveal and/or confirm/deny the allegation.

If you were a real patriot, you'd realize the bigger issue isn't Al-fucking-Gore and his house. You'd realize the bigger issue is a blatant violation of a citizen's rights. You don't find that reprehensible? How about I call your energy company and get your bills and publish them without your permission? Is that okay? Maybe I should be tracking you down, finding out about your medical history too? Perhaps your internet habits? Should I go on and on?

Is there a point to this inane rant. You have gone back to your old reliable tactic, making assumptions. You assume that I don't care if somone broke the law and then chastize me as if it were true. Pathetic.

Yet you think I'm trying to confuse the debate?

I know you are. You can't defend Gore's exorbitant utility bills and are going about attacking everyone else. Asking them to prove things about other's habits. Others who are not demanding that we change the way we live or most of us will die, as Gore is. And habits that are virtually impossible to prove one way or the other. And you're willing to excuse the ridiculous amount of excess from Gore, unbelievable.

J.R., really, it would have... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R., really, it would have been better if you hadn't responded at all, seriously.

Let's see. I suggest 3 or 4 points among many others but left it open for you to decide. First off, you just decide to let me lead you around by not picking any others.

LOL! And you couldn't even refute them, you couldn't even offer evidence to prove my assumptions wrong. What a damned joke! All you did the same shit MikeSC did. "Well, you assume the lightbulbs in the WH are not efficient already. How do you know they aren't?" LOL! Didn't you go to grade school and learn how you don't answer a question with a question? God Almighty, it's like herding cats talking to you guys.

Well, J.R., how about this? Get off you butt and show me the stats on energy usage in the WH. Show us the article. You've looked to me for facts, now I'm looking to you. Give us all the truth, give us a factual answer and I'll be happy to revise my opinion. Surely you believe in pursuing the truth, no?

Plus, what was the point you were making comparing the WH to Gore's home. Maybe you should make the same remark to MikeSC, since he claimed that Bush uses much less oil than Gore, right? I guess it is kind of futile to compare the amount of oil expended by the President of the United States of America with a private citizen, no? You are willing to chastise me. Can you get over your own partisan leanings to do the same of him for making such an inane comparison?

I think the issue with the WH is more that President Bush isn't being a leader. He hasn't been a leader in environmental issues. And in the absence of Bush being a leader, I'd rather have Al Gore any day. At least he is making this an issue, making people think about practical ways they can be more environmentally friendly in their own lives. No one is going to get rids of cars. No one is going to stop using planes - unless we're like MikeSC who doesn't use them anyway - those are the modern methods of economies. However, you don't think it is important for people to be taking a stand to bring these issues to the forefront? Gee, the GOP used to care about these things; ever heard of TR Roosevelt?

So, what is Bush doing? Go ahead and point to something? And how about for a change, bring some research or numbers to the table. Don't be like MikeSC, waiting for everyone else to do the hard work for them because of laziness. I've brought enough numbers and facts to the table on the Gore family, on his charitable contributions. How about you actually lift a finger for a change?

I challenge you to.

Arguing facts with a lib is... (Below threshold)
Ilovegore:

Arguing facts with a lib is impossible.

Basic fact:

Gore is a hipocrit. If you talk the talk, you should walk the walk. 'nuff said.

Y'all can't squirm out of this one.
Discussion over.

LOL! Didn't you go to gr... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

LOL! Didn't you go to grade school and learn how you don't answer a question with a question?

TK, that's all you have done here. You have focused on the comparison to GWB's ranch and have not addressed Gore's extreme power usage. The only reconciliation attempt you give about Gore's lifestyle is this utterly ridiculous comment:

However, if Al Gore takes a private jet to arrive at a conference to speak on global warming, and that gives him the freedom to fly back for meetings that evening, or the next day, how do you quantify that value, huh?

You haven't made any cogent points. You have made assumptions, assumed them to be factual, and then asked others to do research to prove you wrong. Great tactic.

I guess it is kind of futile to compare the amount of oil expended by the President of the United States of America with a private citizen, no?

Agreed. But this post didn't compare that. They were pointing out the difference in homes. Tell me something, if you just read descriptions of each home, which would you assume (I know you're good at assumptions) is that of the man leading the charge against gloable warming?

Can you get over your own partisan leanings to do the same of him for making such an inane comparison?

Of course I can, Mike shouldn't have made the comparison. Yet again, you assume something about me, not knowing what I would do, and then ridicule me for doing what you think I would. Again, pathetic.

I think the issue with the WH is more that President Bush isn't being a leader.

Why, because he won't change light bulbs that you assume need changing?

He hasn't been a leader in environmental issues.

He doesn't need to be, there are more pressing issues.

At least he is making this an issue, making people think about practical ways they can be more environmentally friendly in their own lives.

Just don't ask him to live by them. Do as I say, not as I do. That's what a leader is to you?

However, you don't think it is important for people to be taking a stand to bring these issues to the forefront?

Not as the issue is being presented to us now I don't: carbon trading schemes, not addressing the economies of China and India, government mandates. The idea that if we don't do something the world will end. No, I think we don't understand nearly as much of the climate as Gore and his ilk think they do.

So, what is Bush doing? Go ahead and point to something? And how about for a change, bring some research or numbers to the table.

Again, this is you changing the debate. But I will point to one thing, he has built a greener house than Gore! The topic is Gore's excess and his hypocrisy. Something you can't seem to defend or decry.

I've brought enough numbers and facts to the table on the Gore family, on his charitable contributions. How about you actually lift a finger for a change?

You have done nothing of the sort. You have made excuses and assumptions.

I challenge you to

Whoa, OK then internet tough guy!

See Al Gore's investment co... (Below threshold)
Cynic:

See Al Gore's investment company.

http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/

"Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense"
-Al Gore, Chairman

Wow, and Ilovegore b... (Below threshold)
TK:

Wow, and Ilovegore brings the real intellectual approach. I really hope you feel embarassed by your comments, because you really should.

Actually, as God as my witness, I am presently and always have been a registered member of the Republican Party. And I can say that with a spotless conscience on the matter, not one lying word in that statement.

Just goes to show what a God damned lemming you are, just like everyone else. Gore talks a talk alright, and he walks the walk more closely than anyone - ANYONE - else in the GOP does. Yeah, President Bush has done so much since 9/11 to break our dependence on those damned, decrepit Middle Eastern kingdoms, so much that he uses Energy Saver light bulbs in the WH. You know, MikeSC once lamented the ELITES who talk the talk and expect the common man to shoulder the burden. Well, here is head of the EPA telling Americans to use more environmentally conscious technologies, including better light bulbs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20070208.html .

I'm sure you'll notice right away he says nothing - NOTHING - about using energy efficient lightbulbs in the WH and Federal Office Buildings, even though he tells average people (including a 4th Grader) they should be be doing it. Seems the admin would be trumpeting the achievement, especially with the number of government offices and lights in DC and across the country, no?

I don't have to squirm away from ignoramuses like you. There is no reason to. Your comments embarass you far more than I ever could. Tool.

That thar was a lot of squi... (Below threshold)
Ilovegore:

That thar was a lot of squirmin'!

name calling to boot!

More facts on Gore the hypocrite http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N27/gore.27c.html and don't even google "gore and trash burner"

So you don't have to google... (Below threshold)
Ilovegore:

So you don't have to google:

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/wti.html

and btw all federal facilities must comply and be LEED certified silver by a certain date. I let you look that stuff up. Ignoramus, ha thanks for the laughs. I take "tool" as a compliment, as it is an implement for getting work done.

Actually, as God as my w... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Actually, as God as my witness, I am presently and always have been a registered member of the Republican Party. And I can say that with a spotless conscience on the matter, not one lying word in that statement.

So who did you vote for in 2000? in 2004? And I don't care if you're Libertarian, Green, or Commie, your defense of Gore by pointing to Bush is foolish.

I'm sure you'll notice right away he says nothing - NOTHING - about using energy efficient lightbulbs in the WH and Federal Office Buildings, even though he tells average people (including a 4th Grader) they should be be doing it.

Again, you are claiming that they need to be changed and that they are not already in place! Do you not see that. You are making an assumption and using it as the basis of your argument! I'm challenging you to prove that all the light bulbs in the WH are not already energy efficient ones.

While I feel I can connect ... (Below threshold)
Laura:

While I feel I can connect to your other blog and its topics...I think you aren't using your head in this one.

Oh, and actually, I don't r... (Below threshold)
TK:

Oh, and actually, I don't reconcile anything about Al Gore's energy usage. But, I'll go ahead and ask you: "how do you quantify that value, huh?"

I mean, Dick Cheney just flew to Afghanistan. Condolezza Rice is globe-hopping for meetings that could so easily be conducted using video-conferening or conference calls. What is the point of being face-to-face? How do you quantify that value?

He has built a greener house than Gore

What is based on, Mr. Facts? Go ahead and show me how his ranch in Texas is greener. Where are the numbers? I also want to make sure that those numbers reflect living in the home FT, which is what Gore has to do since it is his primary residence. We also want to make sure that the estimates include all energy consumed by it being, while he is there, the nerve center for the United States government. Because, if you think that ranch, when being used full-time by President Bush, his advisers, security detail, and press for 6-8 weeks at a time consumes daily or even monthly less electricity than Al Gore's "mansion," you really are dumb. And that is not an assumption. That is called common sense.

Then, of course, if you want to get real amusing, just try to factor in more regularly used residences in DC. Yeah, we don't build a new home for every president. But, why doesn't President Bush make changes to the existing WH - since we've established he has the authority to do so - to promote more environmental living? Why don't you contact our President and push for it, in the least to blunt Al Gore and his liberal friends and their constant bitching and moaning? Yeah, thought so.

Where are the numbers? Let's see them and let them stand up to scrutiny.

I've brought enough numbers and facts to the table on the Gore family, on his charitable contributions.

You have done nothing of the sort. You have made excuses and assumptions.

LOL! Let's see. I found out he sent his family to a religious school, to blunt the criticism that he was an elite who didn't support public school. I found out he donated $15,000 per year in 98, 99, and 2000, to blunt the "Cheap Al" remark. I raised the fact that the energy company had not confirmed any of the numbers which, it would seem, would cast a little doubt (especially since I don't think a Gore spokesperson has intimate knowledge of the monthly electric bills of Al Gore for the past year; typically not part of their job function). Brought up the fact that someone should find out how many energy efficient light bulbs are in use in the WH, something which even you on your high horse are too lazy to do. Trotted out the comment on whether the President has the authority to mandate changes in the WH or not. Those are all FACTS idiot. God, you are like some bad Monty Python sketch or something. LOL! Point to even 1 - JUST 1 - fact you have brought to this conversation.

I guess it is kind of futile to compare the amount of oil expended by the President of the United States of America with a private citizen, no?

Agreed. But this post didn't compare that. They were pointing out the difference in homes. Tell me something, if you just read descriptions of each home, which would you assume (I know you're good at assumptions) is that of the man leading the charge against gloable warming?

Of course I would think it is Bush. But, you mean, you would actually respond the same way and not have any other questions? I mean, you don't think implicit in using the word "home" is the assertion that these are full time residences? You wouldn't want to know that before making a decision? Kinda sets you up to look like a real idiot, right? Its like saying, "Wendy's is worse for you than McDonalds" without looking at the menu options. You're probably also the type of person who buys a car and says, "Does this run on gas? It does? Good, I'll take it."

But, if you think that is enough to go on to make an educated decision, it shows why the GOP is full of idiots. If you don't think needing to ask things like, is this a full time residence, is it located in a place in the country with moderate or extreme temperature differentials, is the home used as a part home office, etc, etc.

If you simply make a decision based on one line of evidence, without exploring the options, then I feel sad for you. Take heed man, you will always be taken advantage of by others for the rest of your life doing that. And that is not a rude comment. Being human is asking questions, not following others blindly man.

And, no, I'm not the internet tough guy. At least I'm willing to dig out the numbers. I'm just, as I said before, both smarter and more committed to the truth than you. You're just another lazy lemming too frightened to think for yourself. You let some criminals in Tennessee do it for you. Excellent job. Maybe you better put your money on a better horse next time.

ilovegoreYo... (Below threshold)
ilovegore:

ilovegore

You actually posted a 10 year old article. You want to claim that article - written by a guest author - as proof against Al Gore's environmental records over the past decade.

That is the dumbest thing ever. LOL! How about you take GDP numbers from 10 years ago and use them to prove that we'll never have another recession. LOL! How about I take stories from Bush's drinking in his 40's to speak of his character today. LOL! God, that is the bigges laugh I've had all day.

Man, I would have accepted things that were 1, 2, even 3 years old. But 10 years?!? LOL! What a joke.

ilovegoreYo... (Below threshold)
TK:

ilovegore

You actually posted a 10 year old article. You want to claim that article - written by a guest author - as proof against Al Gore's environmental records over the past decade.

That is the dumbest thing ever. LOL! How about you take GDP numbers from 10 years ago and use them to prove that we'll never have another recession. LOL! How about I take stories from Bush's drinking in his 40's to speak of his character today. LOL! God, that is the bigges laugh I've had all day.

Man, I would have accepted things that were 1, 2, even 3 years old. But 10 years?!? LOL! What a joke.

TK, so things become false ... (Below threshold)
Ilovegore:

TK, so things become false after a certain amount of time? The link was to point out that this is not the first example of Gore's hypocritical nature. Can I be a screwdriver (type of tool)? Or maybe a power drill? I like power drill, call me that!

"how do you quantify tha... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

"how do you quantify that value, huh?"

It has no quality. I'm saying that his boarding a private jet to go talk is in direct conflict of the point he is trying to make. He is a hypocrit. He could easily attend that meeting via videoconference and lead by example through energy conservation. But hey, why do that. There are perks up the ying-yang when you fly and talk at those events, don't want to miss out on those. And private jets are fun, I was lucky to ride in one just last week and I wish I could do it all the time (of course, I wouldn't be telling others not to). Cheney and Rice are not bemoaning the fact that the world is going to end based on man's output of CO2, Gore is.

I'll continue with the rest of your nonsense later.

ilovegoreWh... (Below threshold)
TK:

ilovegore

What is the date for compliance? Go ahead and tell us? How many have been certified since Bush has been president, and what % does that represent of all government buildings? I see that 8 buildings have been certified, do you have different numbers? Go on, I'd like to hear it from you since your Mr. LEED.

Oh, yeah, take it as a compliment. A tool is something that gets used to achieve a result, good, or bad. LOL! I'd prefer not to get used by anyone, thanks.

Ummmm, J.R. ...I s... (Below threshold)
TK:

Ummmm, J.R. ...

I said, "how do you quantify that value, huh?"

To which you replied, It has no quality.

BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Can you even speak English? I asked how you QUANTIFY (as in, to give quantity or value to), not QUALIFY (to determine the characteristics of). So, I was asking, how do you determine the value of Gore meeting with people face to face to discuss issues, even if that means he needs to use a private jet to do so. Or, better still, what is the value of the Secretary of State meeting face to face with foreign leaders when I'm sure she could just as easily (and more safely) talk to them over the phone. How do you put a value on his being able to meet in person? That is what I was asking. Clearly, since you don't speak English, you didn't get that. So, go re-read my original post and try again, huh? Thanks.

LOL! Yet, you have the nerve to accuse me of making bad comparisons between Bush and Gore? Wow. Nice one. Very ... convincing.

Oh, and JR, glad you got to... (Below threshold)
TK:

Oh, and JR, glad you got to ride on a private jet last week. Why not fly commercial? Probably cheaper, less punishing to the environment (since the emissions are distributed over many people), and chances are you could have found something that would meet your schedule (there are 1,000s of flights per day)? Hope you had fun at least.

Oh, let me guess, you don't give a damn. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to your opinion, and I can't fault you for not giving a damn about the environment or anything like that. But at least be honest about it. Don't sit there and point the finger at Gore's supposed hipocrisy as a reason to shoot him down. Why not just come out and say, "Gore should shut up because no one cares. I fly private jets when I want, I don't care, but I'm not going to flaunt it in people's faces." Then you wonder why we have to kiss ass to the Saudis and Venezuelans. Thanks JR for mortgaging our national security, really.

I mean, are you really going to sit there and claim that being there in person does not reap better rewards? I think the entire business world would disagree with you, something you might know a bit about. I mean, if Al Gore shows up in person at a conference, chances are it'll get more media coverage, more buzz and interest from the public. So, at the end of the day, that winds up being a net positive. What if he inspires more people to go out and change their own patterns of living? Gore has been traveling the country talking about carbon-neutrality, and then this year, all of the cars used at the Oscars were "green," something the organizers attribute to him this year. So, in the end, you don't think that was worth it. Wow, you really are foolish.

So, Ilovegore, then ... (Below threshold)
TK:

So, Ilovegore, then Bush is still an alcoholic? Ted Haggard is still a homosexual? That is what you are saying, that people don't change over time? Plus, this article cites the presence of a dump on property owned by his father. So, here's a question: did you want him spending time being VP, or being a surveyor on land his father owned? Big on holding sons guilty for the sins of the father, huh?

So, people can't change? I mean, Al Gore is now a private citizen advocating more environmentally friendly technologies. You don't think that 10 years could make that kind of change more apparent?

You can be whatever tool you want to be. As long as you are useful to someone else's purposes, I'm sure they'll be happy with your performance.

TK: yes.yes.no.yes.no.no.</... (Below threshold)
Ilovegore:

TK: yes.yes.no.yes.no.no.

-power drill

thanks for the lesson in futility! Signing off.

I said, "how do yo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:
I said, "how do you quantify that value, huh?"

To which you replied, It has no quality.

BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Can you even speak English?

Are you kidding me, how old are you TK? So I said quality instead of quantity, is that really all you got. Are you that immature? Did you not understand my point? I guess I should go through all your posts and point out your grammatical errors. You truly are showing your true colors. Grow up.

You all can sit on the inte... (Below threshold)
Jasmine:

You all can sit on the internet arguing over who is the biggest villain - gore, bush or each other. However, that doesn't address the bigger issue...


We have an energy issue looming in our future and instead of indicting one another, perhaps you could use your "intelligence" and research abilities to try to help solve the problem or at least do your part to help the movement.


Arguing on this blog doesn't solve anything.

ilovegore, hey thank... (Below threshold)
TK:

ilovegore, hey thanks, but you missed two things.

"Yes" is not a response to "Did you want him spending time being VP, or being a surveyor on land his father owned?" Also, you didn't answer the following: You don't think that 10 years could make that kind of change more apparent?

For everyone else keeping count, here are the questions and responses:

Q: Bush is still an alcoholic? yes.
Q: Ted Haggard is still a homosexual? yes.
Q: That is what you are saying, that people don't change over time? no.
Q: So, here's a question: did you want him spending time being VP, or being a surveyor on land his father owned? yes.
Q: Big on holding sons guilty for the sins of the father, huh? no.
Q: So, people can't change? no.
Q: You don't think that 10 years could make that kind of change more apparent? Awaiting answer.

ilovegore, really, thank you for responding to my questions, and I mean that. You have more mettle than most everyone else here; at least you took a chance to answer them. I take back the tool comment and apologize sincerely.

I do have to say I personally find your responses a bit contradictory, but I think it's valuable that you believe in contrition and change. If someone makes an error, they should be allowed to seek absolution and change their ways. I think that is really important, a valuable lesson for everyone. I'm glad we were able to find a point of agreement in the least.

AA rules - once an alcoholi... (Below threshold)
Ilovegore:

AA rules - once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic
As for people's gayness, I could care less, except for being gay does not make you more special then non-gays.

As for your last query:
People can change over time, but it is apparent that gore has not. He was and is a hypocrite, that is all I am saying.

-power drill

Oh, let me guess, ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:
Oh, let me guess, you don't give a damn. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to your opinion, and I can't fault you for not giving a damn about the environment or anything like that. But at least be honest about it. Don't sit there and point the finger at Gore's supposed hipocrisy as a reason to shoot him down. Why not just come out and say, "Gore should shut up because no one cares. I fly private jets when I want, I don't care, but I'm not going to flaunt it in people's faces." Then you wonder why we have to kiss ass to the Saudis and Venezuelans. Thanks JR for mortgaging our national security, really.

OK wow, I don't know what this paragraph is actually supposed to mean. You go from me not giving a damn about the environment (of course I've never said that, just that I think the alarmists, e.g. Gore, are exaggerating) to the Saudis and our national security. Unreal.

So the phrase practice what you preach means nothing to you? Leading by example? Al Gore screeches conserve energy wherever he goes, yet one of his houses uses 20x the normal amount of household electricity and you call that "supposed hipocrisy." (you spelled that wrong by the way)

I mean, are you really going to sit there and claim that being there in person does not reap better rewards?

No I'm not, I'm a big proponent of face to face meetings. However, like I've said before and you have chosen to ignore, I am not climbing onto any soapbox and telling anyone to change their ways!

What if he inspires more people to go out and change their own patterns of living?

Wouldn't there be a greater inspiration to you know, lead by example and actually give a speech to a crowded auditorium via videoconference? You don't think that would garner press coverage? Come on, be serious.

Gore has been traveling the country talking about carbon-neutrality, and then this year, all of the cars used at the Oscars were "green," something the organizers attribute to him this year. So, in the end, you don't think that was worth it.

You've got to be kidding. One night using green limos traveling to an arena where celebrities can bestow congratulations upon themselves and you think that is worth it? Are you serious and you're calling me foolish?

And carbon-neutrality is a joke. There is no such thing.

J.R. did you even bo... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R. did you even bother with the rest of my post?

Am I immature? Let's see. Ummmmm, you referred to my comments as nonsense. Hence my getting a good laugh from someone who clearly doesn't really read the opinions of others before they start responding.

And, actually, it clearly wasn't a grammatical error. You actually read it as "qualify" because your entire retort was about the value of private jets and how much "fun" they are. That all deals with qualities, and talks nothing of the real points I made which were, again, what value does being able to be in person to promote a movement have, and does that outweigh the minimal costs? Any plans to address those, or are you just going to skulk away because I pointed out the fact that you don't read closely before you spout off?

I guess if you really wanted to defend your points, you could have simply said, "You know, you're right. I mis-read your remark - my bad, you said quantify, not qualify. As to your other points ...." But, this is just easier, right? Thinking must hurt.

And, Jasmine, yes, you raise a valid point. The problem is for people like J.R. is they don't think there is a problem, and no Al Gore will convince them otherwise. They let their 1-issue partisanship and unwillingness pursue the facts get in the way of real thinking. He says something, and right away, he's a "cheap bastard," an "ELITE," a "hypocrite," he uses more oil than Bush, and his "home" consumes alot more electricity than the average American, even though no one can even confirm if his home is exclusively used as a home or not. Meanwhile, we won't even get into everyone's aversion to finding out what practical steps President Bush has taken, in his own full-time home (e.g. the White House) or in the sprawling bureaucracy he commands, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet his head of the EPA says that Americans should do the same things that Gore is preaching. The difference is the GOP doesn't get bent out of shape over that.

But, of course, this entire pissing contest over homes is still based on stolen information being published by some organization in TN committing a crime. But, instead of asking the tough question of how it was acquired, and whether it should be believed, it is good enough for the right. That is the problem in America today, people who'd rather shoot off at the mouth when they have no grasp of the real issues and no interest in finding out facts on their own.

Eek, J.R., I didn't ... (Below threshold)
TK:

Eek, J.R., I didn't know you were responding to the rest, I just thought you were not going to. So, my sincere apologies for the last post, let me check your more complete response.

TK, back to another post of... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

TK, back to another post of yours. You were talking about your ability to bring up facts:

Brought up the fact that someone should find out how many energy efficient light bulbs are in use in the WH, something which even you on your high horse are too lazy to do.

What is fact about that? How could someone prove this who is not currently in the White House? This is idiotic. And then you type this:

Those are all FACTS idiot. God, you are like some bad Monty Python sketch or something. LOL! Point to even 1 - JUST 1 - fact you have brought to this conversation.

The fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And, no, I'm not the internet tough guy. At least I'm willing to dig out the numbers.

What numbers?? What are you talking about? You havn't dug out anything?

I'm just, as I said before, both smarter and more committed to the truth than you. You're just another lazy lemming too frightened to think for yourself.

You're right, I should just believe Al Gore's version of science and fall in line. Wouldn't want to speak out against that, I'm just a lemming.

I'm just, as I said before, both smarter and more committed to the truth than you.

Well, I don't know you, so you may be smarter than me, but somehow I doubt it.

J.R., thanks for the... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R., thanks for the responses.

No I'm not, I'm a big proponent of face to face meetings. However, like I've said before and you have chosen to ignore, I am not climbing onto any soapbox and telling anyone to change their ways!

Oh, okay, so if a person doesn't care about the environment then, it doesn't really matter? I mean, if I sit here and say, "You know what, I don't really care about the environment, so I don't really care," that is fine? Yeah, I mean, Al Gore is out there trying to educate people on the effect of their actions and trying to demonstrate alternative ways to do what you want to do in a more environmentally friendly manner. Where has Al Gore said, "Stop flying," or "Stop driving cars," or "Stop using electricity." I haven't seen one story saying any of that because it would be ludicrous.

Wouldn't there be a greater inspiration to you know, lead by example and actually give a speech to a crowded auditorium via videoconference? You don't think that would garner press coverage? Come on, be serious.

Yeah, but he has been doing that already. But, I mean, which option will be acceptable to you. Run an ISDN based videoconferencing unit to his home which will consume electricity, or hope on a commercial flight - or private jet - to show up in person. Also, what about after a speech, handling questions from the press, from attendees, from maybe autograph seekers outside the forum? How could he interact with all of those people via videoconferencing? Also, does that mean if he installs that unit in his home, then he could actually attribute portions of the home's electricity usage to a business expense and therefore viewed differently from what he uses as a private citizen? Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways, so I'd like to know what is more acceptable to you, and how best he could preach a green lifestyle while also not appearing to people who think he is hypocritical (thanks for the spelling cite, actually, I was typing fast).

You've got to be kidding. One night using green limos traveling to an arena where celebrities can bestow congratulations upon themselves and you think that is worth it? Are you serious and you're calling me foolish?

Ah, now we see more of the "working class hero" opinion. So, wait. These celebrities, who are role models to millions of people - children, adults, fans, friends, family, etc - both in the US and abroad, take part in the Oscars, talk about "green" initiatives and the environment, and you don't think that has any value? Wow. Yes, J.R., having made that remark, I do think you are foolish. Very, very, foolish for not seeing the value of that.

It's the same reason celebrities, and actors, and atheletes, and any of them are hired to pitch items and causes, because they have clout. And for you to not see that? Wow.

And, Jasmine, yes, you r... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

And, Jasmine, yes, you raise a valid point. The problem is for people like J.R. is they don't think there is a problem, and no Al Gore will convince them otherwise.

That's absolutely correct, I do not think that man is solely responsible for global warming. At least I have not been convinced and there is no concrete evidence out there to prove me wrong.

They let their 1-issue partisanship and unwillingness pursue the facts get in the way of real thinking. He says something, and right away, he's a "cheap bastard," an "ELITE," a "hypocrite,"

This has nothing to do with partisanship. Al Gore is a hypocrit. If the problem is as bad as he is saying it is then he should be showing us the light instead of using 20x the norm.

But, of course, this entire pissing contest over homes is still based on stolen information

You don't know that and the stolen info has already been commented on by a Gore spokesperson and no dimissal of its validity was made.

Unreal. This is like trying to get my 2 year old to listen.

J.R., thanks for your post.... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R., thanks for your post. Let's see ...

Brought up the fact that someone should find out how many energy efficient light bulbs are in use in the WH, something which even you on your high horse are too lazy to do.

Dude, ugh, I cannot believe I need to spell this all out again, but let me do this quickly. MikeSC earlier made a comment about Bush using less oil than Gore. I asked for evidence, and threw out the most basic one, asking how many energy efficient light bulbs had been installed in the White House, which would be a way to substantiate the claim. No one bothered to try to find out that information. So, I have raised it again and again.

Is that how you go through life, just expecting everyone else to do your work? What a sense of entitlement. You guys claim Gore is a hypocrite, and I reply with, "Yeah, well what has Bush done? Here's something simple, just the number of Energy Saver bulbs in use in the WH, or even proof that they are in use," and none of your lot can even step up to that challenge. LOL! Talk about intellectual laziness.

But, wait, you reply with: How could someone prove this who is not currently in the White House?

You don't think the WH would trumpet that achievement as a demonstration that it is committed to the environment? I mean, their have their head of the EPA going online to tell people to use energy efficient light bulbs. Why would he not mention their use in federal buildings and the WH? Plus, you know, all expenditures by the WH are public record, so I guess you could look, or do you need someone to do that for you too?

I ask you for one fact you've brought to this discussion, and you reply with: The fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

But then this comes along: What numbers?? What are you talking about? You havn't dug out anything?

LOL! I have posted links, numbers related to charitable giving, stories, posed questions about stats others were using. LOL! I mean, what the hell do you consider a fact?!? Jesus, don't be dense man. Really. Go through the posts, give them a re-read.

Oh, but this gem: You're right, I should just believe Al Gore's version of science and fall in line. Wouldn't want to speak out against that, I'm just a lemming.

Am I asking that? When did I ask you to believe his science. LOL! Christ, he doesn't even have a PhD in the sciences, he just sides with the overwhelming number of them in the world is all. I'm not sure even I believe it. But you don't think it is important to be open to the debate, instead of just listening to some criminals in TN and then starting to label Gore a hypocrite? Who knows, maybe private jets do nothing to the environment; it only gets harmed by electricity consumption.

That's absolutely correc... (Below threshold)
TK:

That's absolutely correct, I do not think that man is solely responsible for global warming. At least I have not been convinced and there is no concrete evidence out there to prove me wrong.

What science is your skepticism based on? I'd like to read it, really.

This has nothing to do with partisanship. Al Gore is a hypocrit. If the problem is as bad as he is saying it is then he should be showing us the light instead of using 20x the norm.

Yeah, he is using his celebrity to show everyone the light. LOL! Unfortunately, I guess you cannot make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, right? But, at the end of the day, if his using his celebrity to promote conservation works, that doesn't wind up being a zero-sum game, right?

But, back to that house. How much is used by the Gore family, J.R., and how much might be used by a home office? Is there a home office? Answer just one of those questions. Go ahead, show us all some facts. Or, better yet, if it was proven that part of his home is used as a home office for his philanthropic and business activities, does that absolve the electricity use since it is used for a business? And, if so, how much of a percentage? Probably linked to federal tax rules related to home offices (so, like 1/3)?

See, the right way to debate is to lay down the ground rules of winning and losing. So, instead of running off at the mouth, how about you agree to some terms.

You don't know that and the stolen info has already been commented on by a Gore spokesperson and no dimissal of its validity was made.

So, wait, you're implying that this group has information about Al Gore, information that to people like you is damaging to Al Gore. The energy company claims they didn't release anything. So, you think what, the Gore's did? Break out the tin-foil hats everybody, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Uh-oh, guys:"Kalee... (Below threshold)
TK:

Uh-oh, guys:

"Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that 'the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint ad take steps to reduce and offset it.'"

Wow, so both Al AND Tipper work from home as independent business people. Gee, that means that electricity used in the compound is not all for personal consumption. So, you cannot really say that Al and Tipper Gore use all of that electricity for personal use. So, I guess that means we need to start comparing their household consumption to other home offices in the TN area, right?

Surely you all will agree with that one, no?

Al Gore is out there tr... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Al Gore is out there trying to educate people on the effect of their actions and trying to demonstrate alternative ways to do what you want to do in a more environmentally friendly manner. Where has Al Gore said, "Stop flying," or "Stop driving cars," or "Stop using electricity." I haven't seen one story saying any of that because it would be ludicrous.

Again, leading by example means nothing to you. Having the conviction enough to change your own ways in accordance to what you are preaching has no inherit value? And I have never said that Gore is telling people to stop driving and you won't see that claim in any of my posts. But he has told everyone that they need to conserve, while he uses 20x the norm.

Yeah, but he has been doing that already.

Doing what, major videoconferences?

But, I mean, which option will be acceptable to you. Run an ISDN based videoconferencing unit to his home which will consume electricity, or hope on a commercial flight - or private jet - to show up in person.

It doesn't matter to me, but then I'm not advocating that people conserve more and use less energy and that the world is dying unless we change. And then as far as the press questions, those can still be done via video.

And the glad-handing autograph crap is not necessary and does nothing but stroke his ego. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't have relevance to this topic.

The videoconference would be the way to go if I was preaching the way Gore is. All that conferencing equipment and the power it uses pales in CO2 usage compared to flying in a jet.

These celebrities, who are role models to millions of people - children, adults, fans, friends, family, etc - both in the US and abroad,

Bullsh*t. They are not role models and should not be considered as such. They are trendies and the "green" is the current Hollywood trend.

talk about "green" initiatives and the environment, and you don't think that has any value? Wow. Yes, J.R., having made that remark, I do think you are foolish. Very, very, foolish for not seeing the value of that.

You see value in a bunch of actors talking about the environment? They're actors!! They're not scientists, they memorize lines and fake emotions for a living. Sorry, an educated person would see right through their missives on the environment. Come on.

It's the same reason celebrities, and actors, and atheletes, and any of them are hired to pitch items and causes, because they have clout. And for you to not see that? Wow.

Yes, I admit, I am not swayed by the opinions of such scholars as actors and athletes. You got me. They have clout? They have pretty faces and unfortunately, some people listen to them because fo that.

TK, and you ARE TK and not ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

TK, and you ARE TK and not Albore, aren't you, you're basically backing and filling for Mr. Bore. You're so ashamed of your "leader" that you have to spend countless hours here, monitoring, then backing and filling.

From Time Magazine, dated June 24, 1974:

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

TK, you're a stupid chump, who's for Albore!!

I asked for evidence, a... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I asked for evidence, and threw out the most basic one, asking how many energy efficient light bulbs had been installed in the White House, which would be a way to substantiate the claim.

You are now being deliberately ignornant of my posts and reasoning. You can not substantiate that claim. In fact, it is not a claim because you have no reference or knowledge of the correct answer, nor would Mike, and it is not something that you could google. It is not even germane to the conversation because the White House belongs to the taxpayers, GWB didn't bulid it. Yeah he can change some things around, but his ability is limited, and that was Mike's original point, you just expanded it to suit your argument.

Give it up already.

Doing what, major videoc... (Below threshold)
TK:

Doing what, major videoconferences?

Actually, leading by example does matter. So, yes J.R., Al Gore has been using video conference technology to communicate with people around the world for a long time. But you want me to do the investigative work? Well, I don't have time to be your teacher any longer. But, here is one, from 1998:

http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow6/nov98/archive/globe.vp.html

So, in 1998, at the dawn of the internet, Al Gore was pioneering the use of the technology. You need more, then run a search for "Al Gore" and "video conference" on Google. You'll get plenty of clips on YouTube and elsewhere of him giving teleconferences and video-conferences ... at least 9 years of them.

And the glad-handing autograph crap is not necessary and does nothing but stroke his ego. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't have relevance to this topic.

BWAHAHAHAHA. Okay, yeah. Tell that to the fans who want to meet their heros, and what things like that mean to them. Yeah, right, okay. Not like there isn't a billion dollar autograph industry or anything, and that doesn't even QUANTIFY the value it means to a kid to get a chance to interact one-on-one with their hero. Think about that next time when President Bush has a $2,500 a plate fundraiser. LOL!!!! So naive.

The videoconference would be the way to go if I was preaching the way Gore is. All that conferencing equipment and the power it uses pales in CO2 usage compared to flying in a jet.

Hey, maybe the President of the United States, the elected representative of both Republicans and Democrats should lead by example too, right? Maybe Bush should start doing more video-conferences too? What do you think? I'd like to hear your opinion?

The good thing is that Gore's spokespeople have done what you were too cowardly to do. We now know that their home is used as a home office for both Tipper and Al Gore. That means that alot of their electricity bill can probably be attributed to business expenses, and probably will.

So, you cannot compare the residence to a normal, full-time home because it is part company. That means whatever the metric, your 20x number is WRONG. So, hopefully, you'll realize that perhaps you should have been the one investigating the bullshit you eat before you eat it.

As for your comments on celebrities, well, good for you and your no-hero-needing but; I too don't need celebrities to tell me what to do. Alas, the real world is our little world. The opinions of athletes, celebrities, NASCAR drivers, Toby Keith's, Dixie Chicks, Eminem's, and people like them do matter to millions of people around the world. That is why they pitch for charities, for consumer goods, for issues, for politicians, for a wide variety of things. So, yes, when Al Gore convinces an army of some of the greatest actors and directors to talk about environmental issues, it does have clout.

So sit there and damn them for being idiots, or whatever, and Lord knows you are entitled to do so. Go ahead and believe that their opinions don't mean squat. But let me be the one to clue you in on a secret: you are wrong, because those celebrities are still out there, raking in millions from companies that think you're wrong, and being asked to push issues by charities and politicians who know you're wrong. But, believe what you want.

You don't think the WH w... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

You don't think the WH would trumpet that achievement as a demonstration that it is committed to the environment?

No I don't think they would.

LOL! I have posted links, numbers related to charitable giving, stories, posed questions about stats others were using. LOL! I mean, what the hell do you consider a fact?!? Jesus, don't be dense man. Really. Go through the posts, give them a re-read.

You have posted 2 links. One about Laura Bush changing the Lincoln bedroom and the other an EPA presser. Nothing else to back up your claims except assertions by you. You're are being completely dishonest right now.

But you don't think it is important to be open to the debate, instead of just listening to some criminals in TN and then starting to label Gore a hypocrite? Who knows, maybe private jets do nothing to the environment; it only gets harmed by electricity consumption.

Gore is not interested in debating the topic, he has made his decision. And then you devolve into utter nonsense.

The worst part of all this is that you think you are making sense.

Ummmm, Mitchell, what does ... (Below threshold)
TK:

Ummmm, Mitchell, what does your comment have to do with the present discussion?

You sit around reading 30 year old issues of Time magazine? Sorry, I don't think you are an expert. How about something even 10 years ago maybe?

Also, do you realize what that article is even saying? LOL! You think I'M a chump? Wow.

Wow, so both Al AND Tipp... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Wow, so both Al AND Tipper work from home as independent business people.

What does that mean exactly TK? Can you tell us? Are they running a factory in their home? Do they have offices for other people there? This seems to be a classic CYA statement. What businesses are they running TK that use so much extra energy?

From the spokesperson:
And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint ad take steps to reduce and offset it.'"

Again with the offsetting. This fabricated offsetting that is supposed to nullify your carbon footprint. Of course there is no regulation of this, just something to make hypocrits like Gore feel OK about the amount of energy he is not willing to cut back.

So, wait, you're implyin... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

So, wait, you're implying that this group has information about Al Gore, information that to people like you is damaging to Al Gore. The energy company claims they didn't release anything.

I'm saying that you have no idea that they stole it. Am I right?

Other than that I'm saying that the usage numbers stated would seem to be accurate.

J.R. -You don't... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R. -

You don't think the WH would trumpet that achievement as a demonstration that it is committed to the environment?

No I don't think they would.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That is funny. Oh, and actually, it wasn't an EPA presser. It was the head of the EPA fielding questions online during an White House sponsored event called "Ask the White House." They do one just about every month. So, the WH puts the head of the EPA online telling people how to conserve energy (including using energy efficient lightbulbs), but the White House would not trumpet their own efforts. Man, way to think. So, no, not an EPA presser ... you should watch out for the selective reading again.

... Because the White House belongs to the taxpayers, GWB didn't bulid it. Yeah he can change some things around, but his ability is limited, and that was Mike's original point, you just expanded it to suit your argument.

"His ability is limited"? How do you know that? What is your facts on that one? I think I've already shown that his wife can spend $500,000 of taxpayer money to put new drapes in two rooms. You don't think the president has the authority to require more efficient light bulbs so that the residence costs less to the taxpayers? Wow.

J.R. -Wow, you're ... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R. -

Wow, you're falling off the deep end ... and fast.

Wow, so both Al AND Tipper work from home as independent business people.

What does that mean exactly TK? Can you tell us? Are they running a factory in their home? Do they have offices for other people there? This seems to be a classic CYA statement. What businesses are they running TK that use so much extra energy?

Need me to hold your hand too? Want me to get all the facts for you? You don't think a home office of any sort would consume ANY electricity?

So, let's see. If they run 2 computers at home, that means part of their 20x too much electricity is actually going for a business use. Throw in printers, A/C, lights, everything else you'd expect in a business, and that means even more. So, my point is this: regardless of the exact amount, every bit of electricity used for business (and within the tax-allowable amounts) chips into your high fallutin' "they user 20x more than the average home" argument, because where he lives isn't just an average home. It is part home, part business. So perhaps you want to go out and find out the facts before spewing your 20x BS around like you know the facts. You don't.

TK,did you even bo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

TK,

did you even bother to read your link? You've got to be kidding me. First of all, the year Gore did that was 1995 and second it was to a bunch of elementary students! Yeah, I'm sure they donated a lot to the cause. Just the audience Gore is looking for. Too bad you couldn't link to something more current, you know like within the last 10 years or so. You should have just linked your google search now go read all the links. Hardly leading by example. Keep trying though.

BWAHAHAHAHA. Okay, yeah. Tell that to the fans who want to meet their heros, and what things like that mean to them. Yeah, right, okay. Not like there isn't a billion dollar autograph industry or anything, and that doesn't even QUANTIFY the value it means to a kid to get a chance to interact one-on-one with their hero. Think about that next time when President Bush has a $2,500 a plate fundraiser. LOL!!!! So naive.

I can't believe you wrote that. And then you call me naive. You're an embarassment. There are no lengths to which you will not go to excuse Gore's behavior instead of just calling a spade a spade.

I do believe that you are in love with Al Gore for in your eyes, he can do no wrong.

I'm saying that you have... (Below threshold)
TK:

I'm saying that you have no idea that they stole it. Am I right?

But, maybe you need to be a little more skeptical. I mean, since the energy company - that is, the company whose business it is to track and record these things - claims they did not divulge these numbers, then perhaps you might question their veracity instead of just believing them, you know? Instead of just believing them and trumpeting "Al Gore is a hypocrite, he uses 20x the normal person!"

Other than that I'm saying that the usage numbers stated would seem to be accurate.

Really? What is that based on? You work in the utility industry? Well, if the energy consumption is about right for the sized home, geography, use as a home office, etc, then it sounds like the real problem you have is that Al Gore should be living in a smaller home, right? Well, that is a tall statement coming from a guy who can afford to buzz around in private jets.

There's no way I can get involved in a Daddy Warbucks pissing contest, I don't have that kind of financial security.

You don't think the pres... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

You don't think the president has the authority to require more efficient light bulbs so that the residence costs less to the taxpayers? Wow.

OK, for the last time you ignorant fool. How do you know they are not already in there. Because they haven't champoined that fact? That's it? And you then claim it as fact that Bush hasn't or won't do it. Your logic is amazing.

So, let's see. If they run 2 computers at home, that means part of their 20x too much electricity is actually going for a business use. Throw in printers, A/C, lights, everything else you'd expect in a business, and that means even more.

Wow you just described every house in my middle class subdivision. Only each of those houses also has peole in it all day long and children. And I guarantee that all the houses combined don't use 20X times the norm. You need to come up with more excuses.

But, maybe you need to b... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

But, maybe you need to be a little more skeptical. I mean, since the energy company - that is, the company whose business it is to track and record these things - claims they did not divulge these numbers, then perhaps you might question their veracity instead of just believing them, you know? Instead of just believing them and trumpeting "Al Gore is a hypocrite, he uses 20x the normal person!"

Yes, don't answer my question and then try to move the goalposts. That's a much better tactic then having to admit you're making stuff up.

Quite the political struggl... (Below threshold)
marc:

Quite the political struggle going on here. I have to admit, my knee jerk reaction is to wade in with verbal fists flying... but that tactic hasn't served J.R. or TK very well yet... so i'll just pose an idea or two without being partisan.

Facts:
- We need energy to survive.
- *Not* being dependant on foreign sources of energy is a superior position to *being* dependant on them.
- With China emerging as another economic superpower with energy needs that are growing at an alarming rate, prices for oil will continue to rise long term making alternatives more attractive
- Burning fossil fuels for energy creates CO2, which may or may not be abnormally warming the earth which may or may not result in changes to the environment that we'd find less than ideal.

So really, the "green" movement kinda positions us to handle a lot of these issues, doesnt it? Say for argument that Al Gore got his way and "made" us all go "green" to save the environment... and then we found out that it was all a sham. Wouldn't we still be better off? Developing more efficient ways to generate and consume energy means we're more independant, self-sufficient.

So, forget the climate! Forget politics! Go with logic. We need to find other fuel sources to serve our energy needs in the long run, anyway. We should do it, REGARDLESS of the climate!

Thats my take anyway.

-Marc

Other than that... (Below threshold)
J.R.:
Other than that I'm saying that the usage numbers stated would seem to be accurate.

Really? What is that based on? You work in the utility industry? Well, if the energy consumption is about right for the sized home, geography, use as a home office, etc, then it sounds like the real problem you have is that Al Gore should be living in a smaller home, right? Well, that is a tall statement coming from a guy who can afford to buzz around in private jets.

OK, now you're just being an ass. I said the numbers were accurate because the spokesperson didn't condemn and from what you posted actually confirmed them.

I couldn't give 2 shits about how big Gore's home is. He can buy the whole state of Tennessee for all I care. Not sure where you deducted that from in my posts.

And I can't afford to fly in private jets, I said I got to ride in one. It was for business, I didn't pay for it. You really have a problem with assumptions, you may want to work on that.

J.R. -Actually, I'... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R. -

Actually, I'm not moving goalposts

Also, on the light bulbs in the WH, my point, hours ago, was to challenge someone who claims Bush uses less oil and energy in his full-time, primary residence than Gore to show me proof of that fact. One way might have been to point out the Bush Family has adopted energy efficient lighting. No one can show how he does. I have not found anything online. So, until I hear otherwise, J.R., no, they don't use it. And that is a fact as I say it. You think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong.

Wow you just described every house in my middle class subdivision. Only each of those houses also has peole in it all day long and children. And I guarantee that all the houses combined don't use 20X times the norm. You need to come up with more excuses.

Once again, you show the fact you cannot read. Yes, I did describe every house in your middle class subdivision. How many have home offices? See, when you have a home office, what you use as part of that office - sq footage, utilities - is taxed under a different rule. So, you cannot really consider that to be part of the "primary residence." Certainly, the IRS doesn't.

So, if even part of the Gore's monthly electricity is used for their business, that means part of their bill is not being used for residential purposes. So, you cannot rightfully say they are using 20x more than the average home; the average home doesn't have a home office, because most people don't work at home. And if you needs facts for that, jeez, I'll let someone else have to answer that for you, because you'd be hopeless in my eyes.

So, forget the climate! ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

So, forget the climate! Forget politics! Go with logic. We need to find other fuel sources to serve our energy needs in the long run, anyway. We should do it, REGARDLESS of the climate!

Thats my take anyway.

Agreed, so does that mean you would be open to opening up the oil fields for drilling in the ANWR region of Alaska? Or areas in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico?

While I agree with you the energy independence is something we whould be striving for and would most assuredly place us in a better global position. The other "green technologies" out there are still young and can not sustain our energy needs in the near future.

Hey J.R. -You're t... (Below threshold)
TK:

Hey J.R. -

You're the one who said, Other than that I'm saying that the usage numbers stated would seem to be accurate.

And what is your wisdom based on? The Gore spokesperson doesn't come out and refute the numbers right away, so you take them for true? Wow. Interested in buying a bridge I own, in Brooklyn. I guess now that that same spokesperson has come out saying they both have home offices now, you're willing to concede that they don't use 20x the electricity of an average home for personal use, right?

LOL! And how did anything I posted confirm what their electric bill is? Man, again, you need to brush up on reading comprehension, seriously.

Oh, but Marc, accord... (Below threshold)
TK:

Oh, but Marc, according to J.R. and others, you are just making an assumption that we'd be better off. You better put some facts together, especially for J.R. who doesn't believe humans contribute that much to global warming, at least not as much as Al Gore thinks.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not partisan; I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 anyway. What I cannot stand - and what I fight against - are people who shoot off at the mouth without pursuing actual facts and asking "why" when someone spoon feeds them garbage.

If proof comes out tomorrow that humans actually aren't the cause, all the better. I'm willin to wager now, however, that that isn't the case. J.R. clearly wagers the other way. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they should be able to defend themselves to close scrutiny. That is where he and I differ. I believe I can withstand rigorous questions much better because I am always asking the questions, not just sitting there accepting what others tell me as fact.

LOL!Agreed, so ... (Below threshold)
TK:

LOL!

Agreed, so does that mean you would be open to opening up the oil fields for drilling in the ANWR region of Alaska? Or areas in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico?

But, does that solve the problem of finding better, cheaper, cleaner fuels? Doesn't it just give us more of the same old shit?

I'd support it if it would lead to a cleaner environment, if it could be done without causing more pollution. But, how does that put us in a better global position? So we wind up with ... more oil, to make more fuel. LOL! What, do you think we're going to find cold fusion in Alaska? LOL!

Agreed, so does that mea... (Below threshold)
marc:

Agreed, so does that mean you would be open to opening up the oil fields for drilling in the ANWR region of Alaska? Or areas in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico?

While I agree with you the energy independence is something we whould be striving for and would most assuredly place us in a better global position. The other "green technologies" out there are still young and can not sustain our energy needs in the near future.

Well, i did say "long run"... so i'm not sure what the relevance of whether or not green tech will serve us in the "near future" is.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on these statistics, but i'm fairly certain that the estimates for amounts of oil that might be found in all of those locations wouldnt last us long "near term" anyway. At some point, we're going to have to focus our monetary/intellectual resources on improving these new alternative solutions so they *can* serve us long term.

The fossil fuel based model is starting to turn upside down. Demand is increasing faster than the ability to supply. As this finite resource is depleted, and demand continues to rise, this is going to accelerate. Right now, we're in a pretty good position to really push new tech (and old tech made better, like nuclear) and start to wean ourselves off of oil. Do it now... re-position ourselves while there's still a lot of oil around and we're coming at it from a position of relative power.

TK stop being such a child.... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

TK stop being such a child. I was referring to energy independence until better technologies can be developed. Jesus christ grow up already, not everything needs to be some sort of "gotcha" comment.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not partisan; I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 anyway. What I cannot stand - and what I fight against - are people who shoot off at the mouth without pursuing actual facts and asking "why" when someone spoon feeds them garbage.

Yeah, you're the one speaking truth to power. Arrogant and stupid, a bad combination.

I believe I can withstand rigorous questions much better because I am always asking the questions, not just sitting there accepting what others tell me as fact.

What a crock, well, you'd be wrong. Your actions and comments here today betray what you conceive yourself to be.

I really don't want to get ... (Below threshold)
marc:

I really don't want to get into the ongoing pissing match here. Just want to post some ideas and hear some opposing views... hopefully sans rhetoric.

I certainly don't claim ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on these statistics, but i'm fairly certain that the estimates for amounts of oil that might be found in all of those locations wouldnt last us long "near term" anyway. At some point, we're going to have to focus our monetary/intellectual resources on improving these new alternative solutions so they *can* serve us long term.

You did day long run, I was thinking more along the lines of the quicker the better as far as energy independence goes. And wouldn't it be better to actually explore and determine the actual amount of oil in those locations instead of using estimates? You're right, it is not a long term solution, but it would provide for us while those technologies are further developed.

I would hope that the market would help dictate the need for the "greener" technologies. Once those technologies are developed in such a way that they are more cost-effective than the current types of energy we use today then I believe you will see them in use everywhere. Thus bringing the cost down even further.

Right now, we're in a pretty good position to really push new tech (and old tech made better, like nuclear) and start to wean ourselves off of oil.

Good luck trying to get more nuclear power. That presents quite a dilema for the environmental types.

Do it now... re-position ourselves while there's still a lot of oil around and we're coming at it from a position of relative power.

That would destroy our economy.

MarcI agree... (Below threshold)
TK:

Marc

I agree with you 100%. We need energy independence. We should all be pursuing policies - everyone - aimed at consuming less if it isn't needed. Use less gasoline if you don't need it. Use less electricity if you don't need it. Use less plastics bags if you don't need them. And why? Hedge your bets. It's Pascal's Wager. We should be investing in new technologies, pursuing big dreams like cleaner nuclear energy, ethanol based fuels, even the bigger dreams like Cold Fusion and the like.

I also think the government should be taking the lead on doing this. However - and this is what I have been getting at today - no one, NO ONE on this board can show what the government has done. No one can even show if the government uses energy efficient light bulbs. Yet, they all want to criticize Al Gore, they want to criticize celebrities, they want to criticize this person, and that, and that. Meanwhile, they are doing nothing to address the larger problem.

You want proof? You asked, shouldn't we pursue new technologies? Wouldn't we still be better off? Developing more efficient ways to generate and consume energy means we're more independant, self-sufficient. What response do you get to that legitimate question? You get the, "well, open up ANWAR" argument (my paraphrasing, not J.R.s). So, still the same old gas guzzling technology, still the same thinking we've had for 100 years or more, but now, hopefully, we can buy less fuel from overseas, not reduce the fuel we need, or move to other fuel options.

There is no reason to stop flying, or driving cars, using trains, etc. The question is whether we can finds better ways to use those technologies.

That is what Al Gore and people like him are saying. But, people on this message board don't care, they really don't. They want to look at some shitty TN-based, right-wing "think tank" that has acquired some numbers from somewhere - probably not the Gore's, definitiely not the energy company - and now they sit there, point a finger, and say, "Hypocrite! Hypocrite! How dare he tell me what to do, look at him."

They miss the big picture, and when you call them on it, they get pissy. You can see in this thread a littany of them. But, that is the reality of most of the GOP today, people that don't think, don't want to think, won't listen to anyone but party mouthpieces, and won't ask "why" when someone shoves partisan planks down their throat.

I'm a proud Republican, but it is a sad state of affairs that people don't want to ask questions anymore, and if you do, all of a sudden you're a traitor, or no one believes it.

That would destroy our e... (Below threshold)
marc:

That would destroy our economy.

Saying that is akin to the "greenies" saying: Not doing it will destroy our climate.

I find absolutes like that to be unacceptable on either side... especially where the validity of the statement is far from assured.

This is exactly how this country is going to spin its wheels and watch and wonder why we're no longer the superpower. People are just too comfortable and either unable or unwilling to act.

"Destroy our economy"?? Thats a bit of an alarmist view, dont you think?

"Destroy our economy"?? ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

"Destroy our economy"?? Thats a bit of an alarmist view, dont you think?

Not in the least. I was responding to your assertion that we do it now. I took it quite literally and maybe I misunderstood your point. My point is that we are investigating other technologies (meaning we are doing it now), they just are not cost feasible when compared to those in place or don't show the promise to one day be cost feasible.

I find absolutes like that to be unacceptable on either side... especially where the validity of the statement is far from assured.

Point taken. But maybe you can expand upon how we could just do it now, when the technology is not in place (or could not get approved, i.e. nuclear)? Or do you think greener techs are being suppressed in some way?

People are just too comfortable and either unable or unwilling to act.

Maybe so, but once it is more cost effective watch people jump on board.

Yes Marc exploring n... (Below threshold)
TK:

Yes Marc exploring new types of technology and finding ways to be more efficient in our fuel consumption ... WILL DESTROY THE ECONOMY.

Indeed.

Yeah, here is a better plan: And wouldn't it be better to actually explore and determine the actual amount of oil in those locations instead of using estimates? You're right, it is not a long term solution, but it would provide for us while those technologies are further developed.

So, let's just go poke around in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, etc. You know, spend hundreds of millions researching, digging, building new dykes, wells, oil platforms (you know, because it is all so cheap, deep sea exploration, etc). I mean, you know, we could take that money, give it to car companies and say, "Build a 6 cylinder engine that runs on corn-based ethanol, or hydrogen cells, or ANYTHING and gets comparable speeds and MPG efficiency to current models. This car needs to come in under $25,000 and meet safety and environmental regulations."

That is one way to go, but what is the point, right? Yeah, but why? Let's just go exploring for more of the same old shit. I mean, investing in renewable and new energy sources WILL DESTROY THE ECONOMY. Apparently according to J.R., while we're busy trying to invent new, more cost effective types of engines and fuel sources, apparently we have to stop importing oil and pumping out of Texas and elsewhere.

Wonderful logic, you know?

Ah, J.R., apologies again, ... (Below threshold)
TK:

Ah, J.R., apologies again, thanks for clarifying the "will destroy our economy." Sorry for pointing to a wrong interpretation.

Point taken. But maybe y... (Below threshold)
marc:

Point taken. But maybe you can expand upon how we could just do it now, when the technology is not in place (or could not get approved, i.e. nuclear)? Or do you think greener techs are being suppressed in some way?

Sorry if i was vague. By do it now i meant "stop looking for more oil, and instead focus that effort into accelerating the development and implementation of newer technology". Obviously, this is overly simplistic, but look at the model that Brazil has in place. Ethanol coming out of their ears! Took them a while, but they did it. And yeah, they probably had to bite the bullet for a bit, but now they're better off. It just seems like nobody wants to "bite the bullet" here.

Marc, I'd be curious to see... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Marc, I'd be curious to see more about what you are talking about with Brazil. However, I don't think ethanol is going to be the answer to our energy needs. I've read, but don't have the links handy, about the problems with using ethanol and the main thrust is that there will be no energy independece with it and the costs and lower performance associated with it.

Listen, until someone discovers a cost effective way to replace oil and gas, it's usage is not going to go away. However, we could achieve energy independence by drilling and refining from our own supplies. Greener technologies are on the horizon, but the gov't can't mandate them. They have to be brought about by market forces to suceed.

Well, J.R., why not ... (Below threshold)
TK:

Well, J.R., why not incentivize car makers to make better cars? It seems we're at a tipping point in terms of interest. It seems the biggest problem is the cost and availability. So, why not give car makers the incentive to produce a trial run of cars, see if they will sell? I mean, true ethanol-based vehicles? Why not do that now?

Oh, but we should drill ANWR. Well, what is your plan for the 500 annual spills of oil and toxic chemicals that happen ... I repeat, every year? What is your plan for preventing those if we increase oil drilling and exports from ANWR? Surely, since you want to drill there, you are ready to compromise so the drilling can occur without negatively impacting the environment further.

TK, You know nothing... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

TK,
You know nothing about econ. If there was enough incentive they would be making the cars.

is that how many spills would take place? ewvery year? another one of your facts? Really going to hurt that wildlife up there in that vast expanse of nothing.

To answer a question from a... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

To answer a question from a little earlier, "so if a person doesn't care about the environment then, it doesn't really matter??"

Yeah, that's pretty much the case. I don't believe in Islam and feel precious little need to adhere to Sharia law. If you don't believe in something, expecting you to change your behavior dealing with something you don't believe in is silliness. It'd be like me asking you if you have a place on your roof for Santa Claus to let his reindeer rest while he delivers presents.

TK, you have done nothing but present nonsensical points that you cannot remotely back up and defy people to disprove them. "Well, Al Gore sent his kids to the school because of its religious teachings".

Can you PROVE that? No, you cannot. You have made one of the weaker assumptions I've seen.

And even with that, it's STILL hypocritical for a man to champion public school and not send his kids there. If religion was such a huge part of the reason he sent his kids to the school they went to --- which, mind you, defies any basic semblance of logic --- then opposing allowing OTHER parents to use the money they are forced to pay the gov't to try and send their kids to the same schools is, yup, hypocritical.

As pointed out by others, how can anybody know how many energy-efficient light bulbs are in the WH? I can just as easily claim that there were none before Bush came into office (after all, Clinton would have mentioned it, right?) and they're ALL energy-efficient now.

Now, feel free to disprove the theory.

You are one of the more intellectually dishonest debaters to arrive here. You take advantage of the desire of most people to deal with factual reality and not theories and conjecture that have produced the vast majority of your arguments.

Feel free to prove that the gov't HASN'T changed to energy-efficient lightbulbs. Prove Bush HASN'T changed to energy-efficient bulbs. Prove Gore DOES have a pressing need to use more energy than 20 average people.

You can't. We've watched you try and you failed.

Words are insignificant when compared to actions. Gore talks a good game and does not lead by example. So he is a textbook definition of hypocrite. Deal with it.

Oh, and yes, alcoholics are always alcoholics. You should actually ask ANYBODY who deals with addiction treatment before making a fool of yourself.
-=Mike

J.R.Wow. I... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R.

Wow. I mean, I'm sorry you're ill-informed.

Firstly, no, sadly not one of *my* facts. Surprise, it's from the Federal Government ... of what happens already, today, in Northern Alaska! I see 11,551 reported spills from 1/31/1995 thru 2/8/2007. Wait, is that closer to 1,000+ per year? That can't be, can it J.R.?

I'm surprised you didn't know that, since you're such a big proponent of greater exploration in ANWR. Quite shocked that someone who believes so faithfully in something is so ingorant. Oh, but don't take *MY* facts:

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm

Here's their online database where you can query every spill, date, substance spilled, amount spilled, etc!

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/search/Search.asp

Go ahead, take it for a test drive. I'm sure you'll find it quite enlightening. 1,000+ spills per year, every year since 1995. Can it be? I'm sure you knew all this so I'll leave it to you to confirm the matter.

Second, actually I do know economics, and quite well. I guess you think that if you know the Supply-Demand Curve, then you know economics. Amusing.

Surely, you know that consumption is driven by the general price equilibrium which is influenced from both the supply and demand sides, not just the market demand end? The equilibrium is the intersection of demand and supply, right? So, for a given product, if the prices is too high for a good, producers can adjust that by producing more cars (the corollary is that if demand is already very high, people will pay whatever it takes, so producers will produce more naturally; the demand is the incentive). However, unless the demand is great enough to incentivize them, producers will not boost output because it cuts into their rent-seeking activities. That is where a government can step in to prodvide a non-market incentive in order to break the path dependence of car producers.

There are numerous instances in history of governments promoting the creation of products via subsidization, even when doing so might not be to the nation's comparative advantage, but it is seen as critical to the nation's national interest or security? Maybe you've heard of Holden Automobiles in Australia since the 1930s? There really was no reason for Australia to produce it's own cars other than the government's proclivity towards self-sufficiency. How about Daewoo in South Korea, I think as well? Even Airbus today and the subsidies it receives. We can sit and hee and haw over subsidies, claiming it is unfair. However, it isn't when it comes to national interests; sovereign states are allowed to create whatever markets they want. Granted, they face the repercussions which can include trade barriers, non-trade barriers, retaliation, and of course, failure. But that is their right, and it happens over, and over, and over again.

So, it would seem that if the government subsidized car companies to product a substitute product - another econ term, you need the definition? - of comparable qualities and cheaper-to-comparable price, it would tap into the market, especially since the real value comes from long-term costs. I know that if I could buy a good-looking car with comparable pick-up to my present one, and I could refuel it for $1/gallon and get 75 mpg (and J.R., I'm not saying that car exists right now; just another wacky rhetorical device) and have the satisfaction of knowing it was doing very little to no harm to the environment, and the price was comparable (maybe I even got a break on my insurance for it, since an explosive fuel was no longer at risk during a crash), of course I'd buy one. I reckon most people would, in fact. Again, basic economics: the long terms costs to run the new wind up being cheaper than sticking with the old.

Now, inherent in this is this belief is the assumption that the government and oil industry are also working on the distribution mechanism for the alternative fuel, whatever it may be. For example, unless they start producing cars capable of 100% electric run-and-recharge, there will be a problem with re-fueling. But, that is already feasible; CA is working on that today.

I'd advise you to purchase an Economics 101 textbook, you'll find plenty of examples; perhaps some more education on the topic. But, trust me, I'm the last one you want to go toe-to-toe with over Economics. Throwing out buzzwords might impress others, but it doesn't impress me.

Of course, now that I've thrown out the real numbers - numbers you must not have known - the real issue comes out: Really going to hurt that wildlife up there in that vast expanse of nothing.

Okay, so at least after an entire day, we've unmasked the real issue: you actually just don't care about the environment. And, that is totally fine. As MikeSC pointed out, that's fully, completely, and totally your God-given right. But then perhaps you should shut the f**k up about Al Gore and what he has to say? The issue doesn't matter to you, it doesn't concern you, so don't get involved. Let him speak to the people who want to listen, and you can go listen to the people who clearly keep you so well informed about matters like ANWR, toxic spills, and all that good stuff?

If you don't care about a topic, why care about what others think? LOL! That doesn't even make any sense.

But, if anything, I can say without a doubt that I'm done with you. You don't know the facts, you fashion yourself a quasi-intellectual, and you preach on topics that don't even (by your admission) interest you. It would have been easier if you had just come out and said, "I don't really care about the environment," but at least you could have left Al Gore alone for trying to advocate for preservation to those that do care.

C'est la vie, to each their own.

MikeSCAre y... (Below threshold)
TK:

MikeSC

Are you serious? One of the weaker assumptions? Al Gore went to a private Episcopalian school. Tipper Gore went to a private Episcopalian school. They sent their daughter to National Cathedral School, an Episcopalian private day school ... for girls only ... located ON the grounds of the Washington National Cathedral. LOL! You have got to be joking, no? How about you go get your own facts straight instead of waiting for everyone else to educate you. Here's a task for you: go read the biographies of the rest of the children and report back on your findings, it would be appreciated.

Feel free to prove that the gov't HASN'T changed to energy-efficient lightbulbs. Prove Bush HASN'T changed to energy-efficient bulbs. Prove Gore DOES have a pressing need to use more energy than 20 average people.

Well, MikeSC, since you've asked. First off, I know I haven't proved the former. That is because I laid that challenge down to you all. Why would I challenge you under the expectation of my proving it? LOL! That would be just stupid. I have searched and have not found one shred of evidence - no comment from the Bush Family, nothing from the EOP, head of the EPA, or head of the GSA - that the WH uses energy efficient lightbulbs. Of course, you were the SAME PERSON who claimed that the President does not have the "capacity to change" things like lightbulbs in the WH ... although his wife can spend $500k to remodel two rooms ... just so long as she doesn't touch the lightbulbs though. So, I'm not expecting you to have that information.

But, more precisely, on your point prove Bush HASN'T changed to energy-efficient bulbs. But, you said he doesn't have the "capacity to change" things like that. So, there is my proof, according to you. I guess we know the answer to the joke, "How many presidents does it take to change a lightbulb?" Clearly, none, because they're not allowed. If that is truethat means you're wrong. Bush could not have converted the WH to energy saver bulbs because Bush doesn't have the "capacity" to make those changes.

And, secondly, I know Gore's building - based on Gore's spokesperson whose confirmation of numbers and facts we can take for truth, as J.R. does - is also a place of business for two internationally recognized personalities who serve on a variety of corporate and charitable boards (see their biographies). So there is your reason. Businesses typically use more electricity and power than private homes. You want proof? Go look it up.

Words are insignificant when compared to actions. Gore talks a good game and does not lead by example. So he is a textbook definition of hypocrite. Deal with it.

Just a few comments. First, hypocrite typically wouldn't be defined in a textbook; it's usually found in a dictionary. But that's beside the point. Secondly, we've already established he and his wife - and maybe staff as well - use that building as a home office. Who knows, maybe the part of the building which is used as a home is really, really energy efficient; the bulk of the costs come from the part of the building used as a business for two internationally-recognized celebrities and personalities, right? Maybe we'll just never know, unless more information is possibly stolen and released. I'll let that comment sink in so you can come up with yet another broadside.

Oh, and yes, alcoholics are always alcoholics. You should actually ask ANYBODY who deals with addiction treatment before making a fool of yourself.

Ummmmm, shouldn't that comment be aimed at the user ilovegore? He's the one who said Bush was still an alcoholic, not me. I was more getting at the fact that people can finds errors in their ways and change their behavior. Granted, it wasn't the best comparison to Gore and whether he was really a conservationist in 1996. That is, unless you think having bad environmental habits is an addiction. If so, then yes: Gore was a bad environmentalist in 1996, and although he does much now, he still is a bad environmentalist because addicts are always addicts.

TK, once again you assume t... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

TK, once again you assume things about me that are not true. All you have done here is constantly embarrass yourself. Facts that only exist in your own mind. A spill database that lists spills at private residences, where most spills listed are less than a gallon, as proof that ANWR would be devasted.

of comparable qualities and cheaper-to-comparable price, it would tap into the market, especially since the real value comes from long-term costs. I know that if I could buy a good-looking car with comparable pick-up to my present one, and I could refuel it for $1/gallon and get 75 mpg (and J.R., I'm not saying that car exists right now; just another wacky rhetorical device) and have the satisfaction of knowing it was doing very little to no harm to the environment, and the price was comparable (maybe I even got a break on my insurance for it, since an explosive fuel was no longer at risk during a crash), of course I'd buy one. I reckon most people would, in fact. Again, basic economics: the long terms costs to run the new wind up being cheaper than sticking with the old.

Gee you think? Sounds almost exactly like what I said earlier, except I would to see the Gov't stay out of it. Good work econ master.


Okay, so at least after an entire day, we've unmasked the real issue: you actually just don't care about the environment. And, that is totally fine. As MikeSC pointed out, that's fully, completely, and totally your God-given right. But then perhaps you should shut the f**k up about Al Gore and what he has to say? The issue doesn't matter to you, it doesn't concern you, so don't get involved. Let him speak to the people who want to listen, and you can go listen to the people who clearly keep you so well informed about matters like ANWR, toxic spills, and all that good stuff?

God, get over yourself already. I don't care about the environment, so I should just remain silent while policies and lifestyles are changed to chase an alarmist pipe dream.

I should just shut up because you don't like my stance. You're such a prick.

J.R., I am trying to unders... (Below threshold)
Keith:

J.R., I am trying to understand global warming more and what I can do in my own life and I think we all should, but would you comment one one thing. I think that global warming, like many other issues, has a political component. It's like the politician that gets up and says "It's for the children", a chicken in every pot, free health insurance is the right of every american, or "I promise no tax increase"; they may be desireable things in there own right, but frequently are used as a slogan to gain votes.

For example, just for a moment set aside the factual issues about how much damage "old" refrigerants are/were to the environment. A lot of the money and political clout behind the movement and decision to legislate the change came because Duponts patents were running out on Freon and they had a replacement ready for another 16 years or longer. All they had to do was develop a marketing strategy, line up some congressman and the rest is history.

In my observations, there are similarities with the environmental movement. Many of the players have ways of profiting from the decisions made and that includes a lot more than those selling solar panels. I think there are many sincere people "in the trenches", but "follow the money.
Raven

Keith,what would y... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Keith,

what would you like me to comment on? Of course I feel their is a political component to the Global Warming alarmists theories. In fact, too much so, which is why I don't trust their solutions. Their isn't enough scientific evidence to say man is responsible for the current warming trend and no where near enough to suggest that their solutions would change the climate.

And naturally, following the money leads to the ulterior motives of those making claims. The idea would be to follow the science, the raw data, and there is nothing conclusive out there right now.

I'm still not sure what you were asking about though.

I'd like to make four point... (Below threshold)
sondagsakare:

I'd like to make four points:

1. Gore's personal energy use is unrelated to the fact that anthropogenic warming is occurring.

2. The "free-market think tank" that has connections to Exxon is criticizing Gore for employing free-market offsets. What is up with that? Offsets will be crucial going forward.

3. The energy use numbers presented have been exaggerated, according to the utility that sells to Gore. Interesting, eh?

4. Al Gore, former VP, will always consume more energy than you or me--good thing for us that he offsets his use to be carbon-neutral. Do you live carbon-neutral?

Tempest in a teapot. I think warming deniers are happy to dwell on this instead of confronting the issue. Fine--their children will confront it instead.

sakare,Nice screed... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

sakare,

Nice screed. Too bad it amounts to nothing.

1. Gore's personal energy use is contributing. If AGW is real, everyone's personal use is.

2. Can you determine for me what a carbon offset is? Who regulates it? Who determines the cost? And then who is responsible for carrying out the offsetting? Go ahead tackle that. This is a completely made-up market, it doesn't exist.

3. The energy use numbers have more or less been confirmed by a Gore spokesperson. You're totally wrong on this one.

4. How do you know he is carbon-neutral? What are the values comparitively between his use and his offset(s)? You don't know do you. Who does Gore pay to do the offsetting and how do we know it is being done.

Another, how many offsets are available for purchase to the world? Certainly there is a finite amount, what happens if we buy up all the offsets, what happens then?

Carbon offsets are a fabrication for energy wasters to continue to waste and still condemn everyone else for not conserving.

I'm finally getting around ... (Below threshold)
Don:

I'm finally getting around to independently researching all of the stats and numbers associated with this story. I like to do my own calculations...I'm just weird that way.

I just wanted to point that while "average home in the US is 2,300 square feet" the average household, is 1975 square feet.

This is relevant because the 10,656 kWh average figure is based on households and not homes. The effect of all this is that Gore's over-use of energy is actually a lower multiple of the average home's use than people are using, but his home size is a larger multiple of where the average person lives since we don't all live in houses.

J.R.- I know that Gore is a... (Below threshold)
sondagsakare:

J.R.- I know that Gore is a carbon-neutral in the same way you know the quantity of his energy use: data provided. (Don't address reliable accuracy of data unless you are prepared to defend the incorrect data published by the free-market "think" tank.)

I see you are still an AGW denier. Continued denial reflects a fundamental dishonesty in the face of fact. Discussion is not useful.

I hope we all maintain this focus on Al Gore's energy use--I love it. It puts our focus where it should be--on energy "virtue." For instance, on discretionary use (heated pool*) and necessary use (electric gate).

*Should heated pools using nonrenewable resources and that are not offset be banned? I suspect in the future such use will receive close scrutiny. I am pleased to know you will be part of it.

Good job sakare,Yo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Good job sakare,

You couldn't answer one single question about carbon offsets and carbon neutrality. Unreliable data you say, to what free-market think tank are you referring? How about this, where is Gore buying his offsets? And what are they doing to offset his CO2 output?

Someone so caught up in what Gore preaches should be able to answer that.

The group promulgating this... (Below threshold)
sondagsakare:

The group promulgating this false info calls itself a free-market think tank. It also says it contacted the local utilty to get its info, but the local utility denies that and says the numbers are wrong. Interesting?

I am uninterested in the minutiae of Gore's offsets. Offsets are the darling of American business, you know--a free-market mechanism to lessen the financial burden of reducing emissions. I take it you are not a free-market guy?

I am uninterested in the... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I am uninterested in the minutiae of Gore's offsets.

That's because you can't find any information about them. The market does not exist. Carbon and pollution offsets are not part of any U.S. market. It would be a faux market anyway. So no, I'm not a faux free market guy. And I doubt you are a free-market capitalist type of guy that would go for this sort of scheme if it wasn't championed by Gore.

The group promulgating this false info calls itself a free-market think tank. It also says it contacted the local utilty to get its info, but the local utility denies that and says the numbers are wrong. Interesting?

Yet, Gore spokespeople do not speak to those incorrect numbers. Yes, very interesting.

J.R.HAHAHAH... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

J.R. Good God, how embarassing. First, you ridicule me for not having real facts; so, I bring the real, US Government FACTS about oil spills in Alaska, after you questioned them and implied I was being dishonest.

Your response. UTTER SILENCE!, then being a jerk.

Then, I bring an economic argument - based on actual, historical economics borne out by both theory and history. I gave an argument of how the US government could promote import substitution and help to foster the market. I even cited several examples of how others governments less rich and advanced than the USA have done so.

Your response. UTTER SILENCE., then being a jerk.

Yeah, nice "market" forces argument. You are a real testament to the Republican cause. I hope your skewed, half-assed "just let the market decide" argument will leave us reliant on foreign oil for the next 50+ years. Amusing for someone who preaches oil independence. Oh, but wait, you did say, "Let's drill in ANWR!" But, you don't have ANY response to the fact the US government reports stats showing, what was it, over 1,000+ toxic substance spills ... PER ANNUM!?! You have NOT even ONE comment about the facts? Not even one pithy remark? Yet, you're concerned enough about the environment to ridicule Al Gore? Talk about slinking away from a challenge. So, you're piss poor at debating and defending a position AND a hypocrite as well. Well done, gold star for you.

Hey, fellow GOPers, here's some valuable advice. Don't EVER argue like J.R., you only wind up undermining our party's core values.

Yeah, try to make fun of my economics background., as if you have any credibility. Christ, you couldn't even put together a cogent argument. And what is worse, when your're confronted with FACTS and you get called out on your evasiveness, you run and hide. Well done.

Yeah, I guess I am a prick, thanks. At least I have a brain, and a spine, and can defend what my mouth says. Not a huge accomplishment though, considering the competition.

Perhaps I should debate you on a level you CAN understand: I'm a prick? Well ... YOU SUCK! That better? Is that something you can respond to? Good.

Hey, sondagsakare an... (Below threshold)
TK:

Hey, sondagsakare and Don, an announcement for you and everyone else. Don't worry about J.R. accusing you of not answering questions or questioning your arguments and whatnot.

He's full of hot air anyway; all talk, until you have the facts. After that, he cuts and runs.

Just a public service announcement. Take care.

Thank you for your well-int... (Below threshold)
sondagsakare:

Thank you for your well-intentioned advice, TK, to someone without a history here.

But believe me--this is a civil discussion compared to what I am used to. A good discussion.

I am sure you see the appeal of the topic for someone who is annoyed by the interest and credence attached to AGW. Gore wins an Oscar for his documentary but uses large amounts of energy in at least one of his three homes. He lives large for a true environmentalist. But even Ed Begley uses offsets.

Gore should empty his pool, turn off lights and reduce his AC use. But in my view, his dedication to popularizing an urgent issue, his documentary, are the real offsets in his life.

But let's talk more about offsets. They will be a part of even J.R.'s life if he is a young man. They do exist and are being purchased as we type Begley uses TerraPass.

Thanks again.

TK, cutting and pasting the... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

TK, cutting and pasting the link or two that you see on your google search is hardly what I would call bringing the facts. Here's a tip, maybe read the actual material you link to, it's not as alarming as you wish it would be. Now run along fact master, go tell everyone about your white house light bulb argument, it's a winner, or about your econ superiority, I bet everyone on this site is really interested.

sakare,

I've heard of Terrapass, didn't they give everyone in attendance at the Oscars 100,000 offsets in the goodie bags? Please, I haven't had the time to look into their carbon offsetting routines, could you tell me what they are? I think Gore is a blowhard. He exaggerates heavily to make his point. He speaks in half-truths to make a point and he is a hpocrite. I don't think AGW is that pressing an issue, but I do think we should do our best to reduce pollution and make cleaner fuels. But I don't think offsets is the way to go about it.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentl... (Below threshold)
edgeofacrimony:

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen,

I have been watching this affray from the sidelines for several hours now and it looks like no-one is making much progress. This discussion has confirmed that no amount of logic can ever breach the armor of ignorance and sanctimony that so characterizes what is called debate on the left side of our political spectrum. However if I may be permitted perhaps I can add a couple of comments that might inject a little clarity. (Or maybe not).

First let me say I don't give a hoot in hell what or how much Al Gore owns, buys, wastes, consumes or ingests. He can buy the Pentagon, leave all the lights on 24/7, Leave all the doors and windows open and run the heating and cooling systems full bore all the time and commute to and from Nashville in an SR71 by way of Shanghai 5 times a week if he can afford it. However, if he chooses to indulge in such activities he needs to get the hell out of the pulpit.

The main thing with regard to "Global Climate Change" that no one discusses in any depth is that the drafters of The Kyoto Protocol, a group which I believe includes Mr. Gore, didn't have the balls to address the two largest emerging economies in the world India and China. (How do you say "Go to Hell" in cantonese?)

The greenies claim and it is generally accepted that the evil USA generates 25% of all of the excess CO2 produced in the world and They want us to reduce that impact by some undefinable amount and assure us that will save the world from impending GLOBAL DOOOOM!

What they forget to mention is that China, home of some of the filthiest industries on the earth has essentially told them to go jump. (I don't know if they said it in cantonese or in the excellent english they teach over there.) China currently generates over 16% of the subject greenhouse gas and is planning within the next 50 years to multiply their output by a factor of 10. If that occurs their output will dwarf ours very shortly. The Greens are having orgasms because some tree huggers bought out a major utility in Texas (Oh, doesn't the name just scream "Gaia killer"?) primarily so that they can shut down 8 coal fired power plants. Ironically the Chinese brag that by 2010 they will have commissioned over 2,000 new coal fired power plants and they don't even have an EPA to regulate them. Doesn't sound like progress to me. Maybe we can sell them some carbon credits... Don't hold your breath on that one.

This doesn't even factor in India which has similar numbers and needs and is just as reluctant to damage their emerging, but still fragile economy by buying in to Gore's alarmism.

I would mention Russia, which might have added to the problem even more if they weren't rushing with eyes wide shut back into the dark age they so nearly escaped.

My point is that even if (unlikely as it seems) AG's new alarmist religion proves to be the one true gospel and all of his fond wishes for us "common folk" to modify our conduct and step in line like good little proles come true all of his best intentions, if such they are, and all of our sacrifices, as they surely will be, will be about as relevent as a fart in a hurricane.

We are being asked to sacrifice our economy which is the envy (one of the deadly sins don't you know?) of all the nations in the world (those who love us as well as those who hate us) so that entities who want to replace us at the top can gain ascendency. Can't wait to start cashing all those foriegn aid checks from the oh so compassionate Chinese.

The results from our sacrifice will be insignificant, we will have gained nothing, Our future generations will be placed at risk or at least impoverished and we will even be denied the international warm fuzzy the lefties so aspire to. We are, after all, the only culture in the world that extends mercy to the loser.

Al Gore and some other dweeb once took an oath to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic" But that was just some eurocentric, right wing, religious mumbo-jumbo they had to say to get through to the big pay day. He was a liar then and he has not changed, at least not for the better.

He is pushing us to DO SOMETHING even though the pseudo-science he is using in support of his crusade is so flimsy it would be laughed out of any self respecting kangaroo court in the world. We are being rushed to jump at this idea as quickly as if by a door to door vacuum cleaner salesman ("I won't be able to give you the same deal in a half hour!") but there are a couple of questions I would like to see answered before I commit my grandchildren to this course:

In all the yammering about the rising (falling?...Whatever!) temperature of the globe, can someone please tell me what the ideal baseline value would be? It's kind of difficult to measure the relative effects of your efforts if you don't have a target. The problem is, just reaching agreement on a target could take generations

I guess you could just say the ideal temperature was last Tuesday and then horribilize every day because today isn't like Tuesday was, but that doesn't seem very productive. The truth is that global warming is a fact, as is global cooling and the earth is always doing one or the other. In the worst case, Kyoto predicts a .7 degree centgrade increase by the end of the century with about a 5 centimeter rise in sea level. Sorry, compared to the Triassic period it just doesn't impress me as much of a heatwave. Besides, if the human race is so sensitive to minisule temperature increases why are all the old people moving from Chicago to Phoenix?

What if the science is close, but the effect of our actions actually exacerbates the problem? Control systems as complex as the global climate can be pretty touchy (as the greens constantly remind us) and tweeking them can often lead to counter-intuitive results. Reducing CO2 release into the atmosphere, if it has any affect at all, is just as likely to swing the thermostat up as down... All hail unintended consequences, It's the law.


J.R.I don't... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R.

I don't know how many more opportunities I need to give you to step up and show courage. Once again, you've failed, and everyone sees it.

After you bring out the "Well, if we could drill in ANWR, our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil will be alleviated." I reply, "Well, how will you prevent the over 500+ toxic spills annually?" You reply, "Oh, 500+ spills, another one of YOUR facts?" I sent you the GOVERNMENT facts which actually show over 1,000 spills annually and challenge you to respond. Which you don't either because you don't know, or don't care, or aren't capable enough. So, I ask again, which is it? Your audience on here would love to know.

I mean, I post the link to the US Governmental authority (so, no, not just a Google seach, idiot; you questioned the facts, now face them) which monitors and reports spills of toxic substances in Alaska under FOIA to the American public. Your reaction? Ridicule it. Oh, but this is the same person that accepts the numbers energy consumption published by some private think-tank in TN on the Gore family's supposed energy consumption numbers without even investigating those numbers and what they mean. Perhaps you need to get your priorities straight in the future. It's kinda sad to live an unquestioning life. Now everyone sees that and, as a result, your credibility on ANYTHING is done.

God, you have the nerve to sit there, question everyone else, and when they actually bring the facts, what do you do? Time to pull an ostrich: stick your head in the sand, ignore those numbers, and attack the bearer. What an absolute joke.

edgeofacrimony... (Below threshold)
TK:

edgeofacrimony

Welcome to the debate.

The main thing with regard to "Global Climate Change" that no one discusses in any depth is that the drafters of The Kyoto Protocol, a group which I believe includes Mr. Gore, didn't have the balls to address the two largest emerging economies in the world India and China. (How do you say "Go to Hell" in cantonese?)

Actually, they did. The US signed the protocol as a symbollic gesture intended to show the US's committment to reduce emissions, to show leadership by action. However, both Clinton and Gore indicated to the world that the US would not ratify the treaty (therefore making it binding) until it included developing nations such as China and India? Bush has followed their policy.

Here is Gore's quote from the time: "As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort," Gore declared. "This is a global problem that will require a global solution."

He is pushing us to DO SOMETHING even though the pseudo-science he is using in support of his crusade is so flimsy it would be laughed out of any self respecting kangaroo court in the world.

What science do you believe? As you question his, to what science do you subscribe?

Also, you know, environmental change isn't just about average temperatures, you know.

I don't know how many mo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I don't know how many more opportunities I need to give you to step up and show courage. Once again, you've failed, and everyone sees it.

Hey simpleton, with respect to edge above, no one is paying attention to you or me. No one sees anything, no one cares about your "show courage" BS, in fact I was the only one interating with you.

TK, please come and comment on some of the other posts. Come and enlighten the rest of us with your debate tactics and applicable "facts". As if a one gallon spill at a residence in Alaska has anything to do with drilling in ANWR. I look forward to seeing you on other posts, I'm sure they'll be more about the blowhard Gore. You can come and defend your favorite hypocrite again.

J.R.Well do... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R.

Well done. Well put. Further proof you don't even know how to read. Spills in Alaska, on land, are only reported if they are 55 gallons or more. And those 11,000+ are in Northern Alaska, in and around the parts of ANWR already being explored. That is all detailed on the government site I sent you, champ. So, an idiot AND a lazy intellectual too.

I doesn't matter if no one else is listening to us, I know, at least, they get to watch you crash and burn, and that is enough.

As for the other posts, I've already left a parade of issues, comments, and questions which others haven't answered. I've also left a littany of critics silenced. How about you pick up the slack since you care so much? Dumb.

Doesn't Al Gore have other ... (Below threshold)
K C Fitzgibbons:

Doesn't Al Gore have other homes? Or does he rent his other residences? Are they environmentally neutral?

It is blasphemy for Al Gore... (Below threshold)
LP Jr:

It is blasphemy for Al Gore or Arnold S. (I'm not even going to try to spell it) to think they can buy carbon indulgences to absolve themselves of their sins. A true believer knows that the sacrament of Conservation is the only absolution acceptable in the Book of Global Warming. When the day of reckoning comes in say, 100 years or so, and Gaia's temperature rises by up to ONE WHOLE DEGREE, you (those of you in the warmer climes) will rue the day!! The end is near!! You have been warned!!

GW is green. That's classi... (Below threshold)
Richard:

GW is green. That's classic. Anyone care to look at his environmental track record in the last 12 years? No? I wonder why...

Hey wait - I thought global warming was a big lie. So why do conservatives care about Al Gore's energy consumption? It's all just a joke anyway, right?

And by the way, offsets are the same principle Bush used in Texas to get power plants to stop polluting - although he called them credits. So if it's good enough for that hero of the environment it should be good enough for others.

Even with his "footprint" Gore does more for the environment in 6 hours than the current administration has done in 6 years.

After all the discussions o... (Below threshold)
sondagsakare:

After all the discussions of this issue that I have been part of, I am no closer to understanding the motives of the would-be amateur climatologists who refuse to acknowledge not just the global scientific consensus but also the proof before their very eyes, even if they don't live in polar regions or below melting glaciers. I am always interested in hearing the reasoning of those who struggle so mightily to deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming--the reasoning of the flat earthers. Please enlighten me.

I wonder if you know that the greenhouse effect was first identified by the Swedish scientist Arrhenius--in the 19th century!

Regardless, I am reminded of The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam:

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

I think it clear that the deniers are headed to the ashheap of history, and their peurile flailings will be viewed in the future with the same amusment we now find in the earth-centric Ptolemaic universe.

That's the good news--history is in the hands of historians, who will be unsparing in their criticism of those who stood in the way of truth.

The bad news is that time is getting short. Oh--and don't buy shoreline property to pass on to your children.

Good luck to all. Have a good weekend.


As for the other posts, ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

As for the other posts, I've already left a parade of issues, comments, and questions which others haven't answered. I've also left a littany of critics silenced.

No, people are ignoring you because of your ignorance and stupidity. Me, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. Please bring your skill to some other posts, let's see if silence is what you are greeted with.

We've found the inconvenien... (Below threshold)

We've found the inconvenient truth. The intelligentsia of the left likes to live and play big. They are wasteful. They like to tell the common folk how to live. And they use their wealth to assuage their guilt for their excessive and hypocritical behaviors. Of course, they don't change their behavior, they continue to sin.

J.RBut, I'v... (Below threshold)
TK:

J.R

But, I've already taken most of those posts apart anyway. What challenge is left? Which posts are left? Inform us, evader and coward. What do you want me to discredit next? Lets hear specifics, all star.

theMachiavellian... (Below threshold)
TK:

theMachiavellian

I don't even know how to respond to your drivel, other than to say as someone on the right, perhaps you need to set aside your partisanship and think as both a human, and an American. Soul searching is in order. Good luck.

sondagsakare<p... (Below threshold)
TK:

sondagsakare

Seriously, Ptolemy was discredited centuries ago, and even the Catholic Church - infallible as the pope is - has acknowledged that. Why make the reference to that?

TK,First: Let me t... (Below threshold)
edgeofacrimony:

TK,

First: Let me thank you for making my point. The Kyoto Protocol, of which your hero was a prime proponent, left out the main developing sources of greenhouse gases for the simple reason that they knew they would never go along. Yet in spite of the fact that this failure obviously doomed it to irrelevance and in slavish obedience to their political agenda they resolved to foist this worthless document on the world as if it were the holy grail. The US Senate (a Democrat majority if I'm not mistaken!) in one of their few displays of common sense in recent history held a preemptory vote and rejected it as written by 95-0. Clinton/Gore in their normal display of the courage of their convictions didn't even bother to submit it for ratification. The silver lining for the left is that they now have the opportunity to try to tar the current administration for not pushing for ratification despite the fact that there is no way in hell it will ever actually be ratified.

Second: What kind of science do I subscribe to? I subscribe to science wherein ALL of the evidence brought forward is weighed dispassionately and validated or rejected on its merits. That is clearly NOT what is happening in this debate. When only one side of any issue is given credence above all others and those who do not subscribe are demeaned and called sceptics, deniers, fascists, heretics, infidels, untermensch, apes, monkeys... THAT"S NOT SCIENCE! THAT IS A RELIGION! For every assertion from the AGW acolytes there is a counter assertion from the other side that can not be spoken because it would be politically incorrect. Sorry, guess I'm a heretic, so where do I report to be burned at the stake?

Science and politics are not good bedfellows and Mr. Gore's puerile complaints to the effect that the MSM by actually reporting that there are alternate theories to his could cause some members of the unwashed masses (charter member here) to doubt the truth of his interpretation therefore, they should "LIKE STFU" (my loose precis of his comment) is a pretty clear indication of the weakness of his position and of his understanding of that fact. This stance reminds me more of Torqmada than Einstein.

Sonda...

Science is not "CONSENSUS". science is what is left when all theories have been considered and weighed and the BS has been rejected. All of your faith and hope can't change that. By the way, which day do Gaia worshippers call the sabbath? Just musing at random while sitting here on the ash heap.

Richard,

Was it $1.5 billion or $15 billion that GW asked congress to appropriate for fuel cell research? Either way I have yet to see a matching contribution from Al. Who was it that signed legislation allowing coal fired power plants to modify and conduct maintenance on their equipment including installing stack gas scrubbers, and tuning burners without having to REBUILD THE WHOLE FRIGGIN PLANT? Oh yeah, that was GW. As much as you despise coal fired power plants, if you were objective you would have to admit that a clean reconditioned one is better than an old, run down dirty one. A viewpoint the EPA couldn't seem to wrap its feable mind around.

So tell me what is this great contribution that AG has made that is "MORE IN 6 MINUTES" than GW (or just damned near anyone) has ever done. If your talking about his messiah fantasies, well just find something a little more concrete.

In an earlier post I believe someone asked a rhetorical question to the effect "what is the intangible value of his glorious most high emminence, the revered high priest of Gaia, Albert the Humble, being able to jet all over the country spewing politically correct carbon offset CO2 across whole continents for the purpose of spreading the holy writ to the benighted in more than one high mass in the same day." (Sorry, I can't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist.) The answer to this conundrum is extremely difficult to quantify, and I can't give a really solid answer, but for my money the correct answer would have to be some multiple of negative one.

What Mr. Gore's appeal is to you I cannot imagine. All I have ever seen from the man has been self aggrandizement.
It's interesting that the question has been raised about what a carbon offset is and who it is paid to. The answer in this particular case is that the perp... er... socially responsible overindulger pays a fee to an organization which invests in "GREEN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY". Sounds benign to me. I guess, in this case, we need to give Al a pass because he is doing the responsible thing. And the best part is that he paid his indulgence to a struggling Tennessee owned and operated energy investment firm that is deeply into promoting green technologies for profit. The company in question was established by a very conscientious and sincere crusader for energy responsibility by the name of... um... AL GORE?

In other words Al Gore is doing his penance for his energy irresponsibilty by paying carbon offsets to HIMSELF.

I can think of an apt quote from P. T. Barnum for anyone who has been taken in by the Saint Al image. You know the one.

Gore is not carbon neutral.... (Below threshold)
Scottit:

Gore is not carbon neutral. Not him with his wife & house. How would he consume all of the carbon generated in his enormous energy bills? Did he plant acres & acres of plants on previously barren land?

Think of taking electricity from the grid. The source closest to you or which you prefer makes no dif. Cab you pick out just the clean water from used bath water?

Whatever kind of hocus pocus that is claimed with the bogus credits does not count & is ridiclous. If I go around as a bully & break bones, can I cancel that out by going to the hospital & helping others?

He made very good points in the movie, but he should lead by example & not do as I say & not as I do. He must somehow think that he is above conservation. He's like a crooked cop enforcing the law. He is pretty dispicable to behave like that & has ruined any credibility.

u r an idiot. whether he us... (Below threshold)
Josh:

u r an idiot. whether he uses more electricity or not, that's no reason why not to listen to what he says. also, you obviously dont understand the meaning of "carbon neutral". fyi, it means that he doesnt pollute. at all. got that?

also, the whole point is not about what gore does, its what u do. its our planet, and its up to us to save it. this story is just the kind of thing right-wing skeptics would do to distract us from the big picture, that global warming is real and that it is a problem. a problem that is just not going to go away. the message is real, no matter how many people degrade the messenger.

No Josh,The whole ... (Below threshold)
edgeofacrimony:

No Josh,

The whole point is that Gore is an opportunist who doesn't believe his own hype, but is perfectly willing to use gullible individuals like you to revive his pathetic political career.

It doesn't matter what Gore does, it doesn't matter what you do, it doesn't matter what Scottit does and it doesn't matter what I do. It doesn't even matter if the science (or pseudo-science) is true or false. For all of the CO2 this nation currently produces there is no way we could ever reduce enough to make a small dent in the amount that India and China are gearing up to produce. We could destroy our economy (and our culture and nation as a consequence) as we are being badgered to do, without any appreciable effect. Hell, we could pack up everything we own and levitate our entire country to Mars and still not make a dent. In fact it would probably be worse because whatever replaced us would have to start out burning wood and coal.

I suppose we could confront them about it, threaten them with sanctions (you might have to give up your Wii), send in the 82nd airborne to impose carbon neutrality on them. (Somehow I don't see you supporting this option and for the record neither do I.) or we can accept that we really have no control.

If there really is a great "global thermostat", a proposition for which I am a sceptic, denier, heretic... (take your pick), then it resides in Beijing and our benificent Chi-Com friends are not about to let us near it. For that reason I suggest we turn our efforts to being ready and able to adapt to whatever changes occur (which is the way the human race has always survived before.) and maybe invest in surf boarding, beachwear and sunscreen stocks.

Hey Buckaroo! Look on the bright side. It's just the evil rich who own all that beachfront property anyway!

Mr. Gore's constant preaching for this idea, although he obviously doesn't buy it himself (at least not enough to modify his own lifestyle) reminds me of the ever lenghthening list of busted religious televangelists.

"If you're still giving money to Jimmy Swaggart you deserve to be broke." Bill Maher (I think.)

Forget CO2 people, it's onl... (Below threshold)
LP Jr:

Forget CO2 people, it's only a minor greenhouse gas. Think big!! Think methane!! It's over 20X more potent than CO2. And what pray tell is one of the biggest sources of methane?... anyone??... Bueller?. Cows!! Now I propose that we make a concerted effort to eliminate cow flatulence (farts for el stupido). And the best way to keep cows from producing methane is... EAT them!! That's right, I'm having steak tonight so I can do my part to rid the plant of lethal greenhouse gases. Vegans, are you with me!

Sigh. This was exactly what... (Below threshold)

Sigh. This was exactly what I feared when I first saw Al Gore present that slide-show. A political figure could never have a broad impact, because everything he does would immediately slide into partisan wrangling.

Look, people - FORGET AL GORE. He does not matter. So he's a huge hypocrite. So what? That does not make the message he's bearing any less true. That sort of argument is known as an 'ad hominem' and is one of the most common logical fallacies.

The science is clear. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is coming out this year; the summary for policymakers (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) is unequivocal in stating that humans are responsible for global warming. There is strong scientific agreement on this result; it is not a political issue, it is a scientific one. Pick up a journal some time and read the research for yourself (not some crap editorial on the subject). The message is plain: You have to stop driving that SUV, regardless of what Al Gore does.

Remember, YOU are the one who decides the right course of action. Not some dickhead politician. So the upshot is - do you need to cut your power consumption and your gas usage? Yes. Do we all? Yes. Al Gore doesn't even enter into the picture.

You miss the point. Renewa... (Below threshold)
ElissaF:

You miss the point. Renewable energy is renewable. Gore *is* walking the walk. His claim is there are steps we can take to reduce carbon emissions to reduce global warming, and we don't have to give up our way of life. We only need to make some basic changes. Using renewable energy and using more efficient cars is a very basic and important step.

Furthermore, you're making an incorrect assumption when you claim that Gore's use of green energy limits its availability for others. Green, or renewable, energy is currently only limited by the available infrastructure. It simply requires more investment to make it more available. If Gore is giving the electric company a lot of money, they now have added resources to invest further, thus making more, not less, green energy available.

I think this peice is designed to hurt people in the interest of... I don't know what your interest is, but stop it. Get on board and help clean up the mess. We need all of us.

ElissaF:So, the me... (Below threshold)
afka_bob:

ElissaF:

So, the message is we can all have multiple homes, consume energy in mass quantities--and when I say "we," I mean all of us: US, Europe, China, India, all of us--and as long as we make a fraction of that green and purchase carbon credits and plant trees in Mongolia, it will all be grand?

So when Al Gore said we must cut down--and that it was a moral issue--who was he referring to--a different "we"?

I'm very confused, and you are right, I'm missing the message.

Which "we" am I?

Which "we" are you?

Which "we" is Al Gore?

Which "we" are the folks in China?

Pray, elucidate.

Perhaps you should look int... (Below threshold)
Greg:

Perhaps you should look into why Al Gore uses so much electricity at home... maybe he has twenty assistants on staff who are using computers from his house to promote his message...

I live in a 6000 sq ft hou... (Below threshold)
Crtnt:

I live in a 6000 sq ft house in the SE US. I used 1019kwh last month through disciplined usage, and I intend to lower that amount. I also work from home. It can be done. Ed Begley Jr. for president! At least he walks the walk.

Well, I found this thread l... (Below threshold)
ehaynes99:

Well, I found this thread late, but I'll still comment, if anyone is still following it.

There is something a lot have failed to notice here. The carbon offsets he claims to be purchasing are purchased through Generation Investment Management, a company he co-founded, and of which he is Chairman. The company pays for carbon offsets to cover its own activities, as well as those of its employees. So Gore is not spending one red cent on offsets. Pat him on the back all you want for the goals of the organization, but he incurs no cost for these offsets, and refuses to disclose information about the salary he draws from said company. Even if it is $1.00, he is actually netting a profit in his quest for carbon offsets. So, he draws a salary for it while he is calling for others to buy offsets themselves. This LLC has never stated itself to be a non-profit organization. See for yourself: generationim.com. Encouraging people to buy offsets is simply advertising for his own company.

Why do you god damn bleedin... (Below threshold)
Jimmy Fung:

Why do you god damn bleeding heart liberals always have to contest even the most solid evidence against one of your own. The lengths you will twist an argument to protect people of your ideology amazes and angers me.

Conservatives: I think you'... (Below threshold)
Fleischman:

Conservatives: I think you're right. Gore probably is a total hypocrite about his power usage. Does that decrease my respect for him as a person? Definitely. But I never particularly cared about the guy, he was a so-so VP and a so-so public speaker. What's relevant is whether what he's saying is true, asides from that, he could be grinding babies for his power supply for all I care.

Global warming has got kind of a Pascal's wager thing going for it, I'd rather waste money on a wrong bet than risk the whole parade of horribles.

Mind you, I'm in no way qualified to speak on the issue (nor are any non-climatologists who feel like chiming in) but I'm willing to go with the scientific consensus until it's proven wrong. The great thing about science is its willingness to admit mistakes.

As to the whole "conservatives walk the walk while liberals talk the talk" I might point out that for every hippy who runs his X-Box all day long, there's a fundie ogling the high school volleyball team. There's no fundamental difference in fidelity between the two classes.

And I especially object to the notion that liberals are more "controlling" than conservatives. Both groups seem intent on wiretapping, limiting free speech, controlling guns, reducing freedom of contract and the rest of it. I'd prefer the liberal version of state control if only because the conservatives are so inept at it.

can anyone help me out: wha... (Below threshold)
maggie:

can anyone help me out: what evidence in the film has been presented to show that the recent increase in the earths average temperature is NOT due to the natural cyclical changes

excessive journal you hog</... (Below threshold)

excessive journal you hog




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy