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 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 to "attack the source".

3-2-1.....

Killer post Kim

Thanks, Paul.

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

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 "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 released when reality based stories like this make Democrat's heads explode?

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

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 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 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 "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 about that. Instead of signing up, I just hug a tree everyday.

"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 the last comment. Practice must have brained my damage.

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

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 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 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)....

Al Gore? BUSTED!!!

"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 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 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 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 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 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 nester? Just him and his dingbat wife? Nice Al!!

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 "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 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 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 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 huggers go?

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 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 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 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% 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 stretched to its limits and busted open faster than a cheap naugahyde belt trying to contain his overflowing girth.

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

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 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. 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 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% 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 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 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 supposedly has a biodiesel powered lawnmower.

"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 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 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)

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 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 "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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:
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 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 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 facts, sarnac. Their heads might explode.

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

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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.