They couldn’t let the guy who got more votes than their beloved Bush have a moment in the sun. The right wing noise machine is on the attack against Al Gore, led online by their chief goons Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge. Dave Johnson has details on the Exxon money behind this latest attack (this isn’t the first time Exxon has attacked Al Gore), while ThinkProgress has Gore’s response and the actual facts.
The global warming deniers look more and more like their similarly deluded holocaust deniers every day, but they’ve got money on their side.
In the meantime, several times today, I have heard that we shouldn’t be going after academics that are abusing their platform, if they happen to be good teachers otherwise.
Huh? I don’t get that at all. Professors given tenure by an institution are some how immune from public criticism and claims they are abusing their platform?
Since when is it okay for a lawyer to act unethically in the public realm?
Is Exxon paying Reynolds, is Reynolds representing Exxon? Is Exxon Reynolds client?
Because if not, doesn’t Reynolds have some explicit professional ethical duty as either lawyer or professor to the truth?
Isn’t he violating that ethical duty by knowingly engaging in dishonest propaganda?
If Exxon isn’t his client, isn’t he breaching his professional ethics, and shouldn’t that be a consideration of whether he can teach the Law?
Now, I think a school would be pretty fucked up to listen to the rants and raves of the Intarwebs that say shit can Reynolds.
But I think if someone sent in a well argued complaint that he was acting unethically and bringing dishonor to the school and his profession, I say go for it.
And yet, none of the Gore lovers can counter the truth of his hypocrisy. From Dave Johnson:
See CQ. Gore doesn’t deny his electricity usage. Preaches we should live our lives one way and lives his another.
did you have to practice to be as stupid as “people” like tuco ramirez the rat, or does it come naturally?
Well, at least you’re relating “Swift Boating” with telling the truth again.
You just don’t like the fact that people point out how much carbon the Goracle is pumping into the environment.
Doesn’t Gore realize there’s a “crisis”?
I don’t understand what Gore could be doing in that huge mansion to burn so many kilowatts. The problem with his lame explanation, is that he is still burning a sh*tpot of kilowatts – regardless of his ‘carbon footprint’ crap.
It does point out the utter hypocrisy of a big Hollywood scold like Gore saying “you guys use less power” and then he goes home and burns enough for ten or twenty families.
Maybe he’s got a bunch of water pumps going to protect from that rising sea level thing he prophesized about in Earth in the Balance – that is going to kill us all if we don’t elect a Democrat (and is almost, nearly, somewhat, partially true).
By the same token Rat & JWG, doctors who have healthy patients should quit practicing medicine and take up smoking.
I’d say you have shit for brains but that would be an insult to shit.
You wouldn’t find it hypocritical for a famous doctor to go around warning people about smoking and then find out he smokes as much in one month as other people smoke in a year?
So far we have OW, jerry, merlallen, and PD100 being fine with Gore being a hypocrite and being rewarded for it.
Anyone else?
A) Gore’s carbon footprint is zero. No conservative has even tried to address what other steps Gore has taken to offset his electicity and fuel usage. Very telling. Is it so hard for you cons to argue in good faith? I mean, other than Dugger.
B) What would Gore’s hypothetical hypocrisy have to do with anything? What do you believe it proves?
Answer: it’s just an excuse to cry about the fact that your grandkids will think you were idiots for voting Bush over Gore. Get it out of your systems now, dinosaurs. You Bush supporters punchlines today, and you’ll be punchlines till the grave.
This is a load of horseshit! Just because he can afford to spend money to invest in green projects after he spends thousands of dollars pumping carbon into the environment doesn’t mean the carbon disappears.
Evidently, you support the rich being able to burn as much carbon as they want since they can afford to pay for their sins with extra investments.
“Just because he can afford to spend money to invest in green projects after he spends thousands of dollars pumping carbon into the environment doesn’t mean the carbon disappears.”
I’m glad to see you’ve conceded the threat of global warming, JWG. It’s not a partisan issue, nor a personal one that revolves around right-wing hatred of Gore. Their pathologies have nothing to do with the issue, so let’s keep that separate.
Anyone — whether Gore, you, me, or an organization — that makes an investment in carbon offsets does indeed reduce the net amount of carbon they have released. Why are you so afraid of dealing with that simple fact? What is your problem with planting trees to compensate for the plane trips you’ve made?
Anyone who wants to learn about how, by planting trees, you can sequester carbon released in other sources, visit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink
If anyone wants to find out what the Gores have done, and sign up so that their power comes from green sources instead of carbon-producing ones, visit
http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/green_resid.htm
Also, you could do what Gore does, and get solar panels installed on your roof to reduce your carbon footprint.
And you must be incredibly ignorant if you think carbon offsets are making Gore’s enormous footprint anywhere close to zero.
But, hey…if you want to support rich people’s ability to pay for their huge carbon usage while everyone else struggles to pay their heating, cooling, and fuel bills, then be my guest!
“And you must be incredibly ignorant if you think carbon offsets are making Gore’s enormous footprint anywhere close to zero.”
Do you have evidence to support your claims about Gore’s carbon footprint? I assume you’re just squealing from your playpen, but if you have an actual fact, I’d like to see it.
Second, will you ever address what the implications of Gore’s yet-unproved hypocrisy are supposed to be? Or is that more of a big-boy kind of thing to do, JWG?
You made the claim that his footprint was zero — bring it on!
Why should I believe the Goracle’s pronouncements that there is a global crisis when he is pumping so much carbon into the environment?
Do as I say, not as I do? Great leadership!
Let’s contrast Eco-God Al Gore’s energy guzzling home with that of another prominent public figure:
“The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.”
Can you guess who it belongs to?
This is President George W. Bush’s “Texas White House” outside the small town of Crawford.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Gore.
Good for Bush. Clearly he needs to do more, but it’s a start. Good to see the vast right-wing conspirator admitting he/she/it was wrong about global warming, and that Gore was right.
On JWG:
“Why should I believe the Goracle’s pronouncements”
You don’t have to. The global warming crisis is not about Gore, no matter how much you’d like to project your weird personal obsessions onto it.
“You made the claim that his footprint was zero”
We’ve both made claims. In the article Oliver linked to, Gore’s statement was that he reduces his carbon usage by green power, solar, and by purchasing offsets such that his carbon footprint is zero. What evidence are you relying upon for your opinion?
And you have yet to establish a connection between Gore’s green electricity usage and your allegations of carbon release. Unsurprising. The fact that you guys are so desperate for a meaningless ad hominem is an encouraging sign of your weakness. You’ve lost on the issues; time to go after the man!
“Good to see the vast right-wing conspirator admitting he/she/it was wrong about global warming, and that Gore was right.”
Since I have never ONCE commented on or given my opinion on ‘global warming’ on this or any other site, I’m not sure where this statement comes from. ‘Out of your ass’ is my guess. How many of your other comments come from the same place?
But regardless of my opinion is about GW, I think that Al Gore is a hypocrite who is trying to use this issue to further his own popularity (which may or may not result in another bid for the presidency).
You know, I see a lot of guilt by association attacks. I see a lot of positives about what Gore has done. I see a lot of distraction.
But you know what I don’t see?
Any denials of the charge at hand. Is it true or not?
OW dances around and tries to make it about everything but the simple fact that Al Gore is a hypocrite for calling on Americans to reduce energy consumption while his own house uses 20 times the national average.
Apparently, Swiftboating = Having ‘inconvenient’ facts thrown back in your face
You know, the same way Amanda Marcotte was “swiftboated” with her own comments.
Who really cares about Al Gore’s electricity usage or if he takes steps to reduce his “footprint” to zero? His work in the area, spanning 25 – 30 years has had great influence in the public’s awareness of the issue (regardless of what side you take). For that he should be thanked. As an example of the changing attitude on GW take a look -
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117253508123319917-MRjHCN1CEFP8f8DxKj9a4R6Qx70_20080226.html?mod=blogs
(Sorry, I don’t know how to link appropriately).
Isn’t he claiming there’s a crisis? Isn’t he one of the leaders in trying to reduce carbon emmisions?
Read it again carefully. He doesn’t specifically claim his footprint is zero. It’s impossible at this time to determine how much carbon offsets effect your footprint.
Again, Gore doesn’t claim his electricity is 100% green, because he can’t. He only says he has signed up for the program. Is he the only one using it? What do you think happens when all the kWh from that small supply is being used? And based upon his grotesque usage rates, he’s not going to leave much for anyone else if he is getting 100% green power.
In other words, as Gore uses more and more electricity from that program, there is less “green” electricity left for anyone else forcing more carbon into the environment from smaller users.
Either Gore is going to lead by example or he’s not serious. Based on his outlandish carbon usage, he’s not serious.
Are you serious?
“Who cares if a man murders someone as long as his work in the area of reducing crime has a great influence on the public’s awareness?”
Jay, it’s because the “charge” is vague and hysterical. But if you’re genuinely interested in honest debate, it is incumbent upon your fellow conservatives to be more forthcoming with evidence to support their claims. As yet, you, JWG, VRWC, Dugger, and Tuco have provided none beyond Gore’s kilowatts per hour at his home. Literally nothing but personal invective. Although VRWC did approve of Bush’s own personal global warming efficiency measures — good to see he’s admitted the old right wing narrative about global warming was wrong. It’s more than Dugger is capable of.
Gore doesn’t deny using lots of energy; he just a) pays to make sure that it’s generated by green sources, and b) that it’s generated by his solar panels. If you disagree, please address this point.
Gore doesn’t deny sending carbon into the atmosphere, but he pays to have it offset by planting forests and other measures. Gore says his carbon footprint is zero because of such actions, and I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
If the only charge is hypocrisy, it’s a) unproven, and b) ad hominem and irrelevant. And it’s ironic given your own contorted flip-flopping positions on conservation (are you pro or con? Impossible to tell from this thread.) So what charges are you talking about, Jay?
Can you guess who it belongs to?
This is President George W. Bush’s “Texas White House” outside the small town of Crawford.
A fine example of “Do what I say, not as I do.”
He feels the need to embrace green technology while insisting there is still room for debate.
Quote it.
The more he uses the less remains for smaller users. So he’s forcing others out of the green electricity zone.
Offsets are a feel-good measure. No one knows a way to measure the actual offset.
JWG,
Please. Get a grip. The GW issue is larger than Al Gore’s electricity usage. Comparing Gore to one who commits a murder is a little extreme. The fact of the matter is, neither you nor I really know what Gore’s usage is or whether he reduces his footprint to zero. You have personally attacked him without full knowledge of the facts or context. At this point his electricity usage is irrelevant to the greater issue. Your vehemence to attack him (is your point that GW doesn’t exist because Al Gore MIGHT be a hypocrit?) only evidences an irrational state of mind. Once again, get a grip.
I didn’t. I demonstrated what a poor excuse you used. Unless you believe good deeds from the past make it OK to do the very thing you criticize others for in the present?
“So he’s forcing others out of the green electricity zone.”
False. The surcharge is actually going to new green investments on the part of TVA. And I still don’t understand what unproven charges of hypocrisy have to do with global warming.
Desperation, thy name is JWG. When you have data on Gore, come back.
A fine example of “Do what I say, not as I do.”
Actually, Gore’s enormous electricity usage is a better example of that.
In this instance, Bush is more an example of “Do as I do, not as I say”.
I’m not trying to excuse anything. My point was and is that the issue goes well beyond whether Al Gore is a hypocrit (for all I know, maybe he is). I only hope that the greater global warming issue isn’t subsumed in a personality war. Without knowing you better, on the basis of your posts here it would seem that you are more interested in derailing the conversation and making the issue Al Gore. THAT’S wrong in my opinion.
Are you insane? There is a limited amount of “green” electricity available. When that is being used, where does the rest of the electricity come from? Magical unicorns and pixie dust?
He tells us that millions are at risk from this global crisis, yet he still puts that much carbon into the environment?
He doesn’t believe his own hype, or he doesn’t care about the rest of humanity.
The facts about his usage are there and you accept them. When you have facts that show his offsets magically remove his carbon footprint to that of the rest of us non-wealthy polluters, come back.
Dude…are you aware of the title and point of this post?
It’s about Al Gore’s electricity usage.
So when I talk about Al Gore and his electricity usage, I’m not derailing anything. I’m on topic.
So what charges are you talking about, Jay?
Doc, Gore is not disputing the numbers at all. He’s attempting misdirection in his response.
In addition, Gore can easily afford to make these purchases instead of actually making the sacrifices he is asking others to make. Unless I am mistaken, the cost and installation of solar panels on a house can cost anywhere from $10000-$25000. Good compact fluorescent light bulbs are like $4 apiece.
Actually, (dude) it’s about a personal attack on Al Gore and for what reason? Apparently, the attack was and is being done to derail the GW conversation and turn it into a personality war (witness your own comments). Again, who cares about Al Gore unless one wants to attack him and by extension those who believe in GW?
Gore is a leader asking us to make sacrifices. Yet, he is unwilling to make the same sacrifices. He wants to keep his lifestyle and just pay extra because he can afford it. It’s very clear.
Either he doesn’t really care about the planet, or he doesn’t believe his own hype about how serious the problem is.
Hilarious. The personal obsession of the rightwing can be summed up in this little exchange between me and JWG.
My question: “I still don’t understand what unproven charges of hypocrisy have to do with global warming.”
JWG’s answer: Al Gore “doesn’t believe his own hype, or he doesn’t care about the rest of humanity.”
Way to prove my point about your bizarre obsession with Gore. Please try to keep this debate about the significance of your allegations rather than your oh-so-very intense personal thoughts about Al.
“There is a limited amount of “green” electricity available. When that is being used, where does the rest of the electricity come from?”
The surcharge encourages TVA to expand its investments in green generation. This is unambiguously positive for the environment.
“The facts about his usage are there and you accept them.”
I accept that he uses a lot of energy. As I said above, he a) pays to make sure that it’s generated by green sources, and b) that it’s generated by his solar panels. Good for him.
“When you have facts that show his offsets magically remove his carbon footprint”
A) It’s not magic, except, perhaps, to a primitive mind. I don’t know specifically what his offsets are or specicially how much they offset, but if you have a case to make in general about why offsets don’t work, you are free to introduce it in place of the assertions you’ve made. Though I can’t find Gore’s actual statement, the thinkprogress page says Gore “advocates that [families] purchase offsets, as the Gores do, to bring their footprint down to zero.” I’ve seen no evidence introduced today that the Gores have a positive carbon footprint. Do you have evidence, JWG?
B) Even if Gore’s carbon footprint is above zero, I don’t see the significance, either to Gore or to Global Warming in general. If you are in favor of reducing carbon emissions and curbing energy usage, then vote for liberals. Where’s the debate?
“Either he doesn’t really care about the planet, or he doesn’t believe his own hype about how serious the problem is.”
A false choice. When are you going to start arguing honestly, JWG? Really, it’s not that hard.
In case anyone wants to follow Gore’s lead and neutralize their own carbon output, here’s a useful list of links at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carbon_offset_providers
Just don’t follow the JWG’s example of trying to help the environment by hating Al Gore. There’s just no science behind it
So liberals can use the government to force everyone to do what they won’t do on their own, as Gore proves.
BTW, the solar panels had nothing to do with Gore’s electricity from 2006 and before (according to the ABC account of the Gore statement).
It’s the point of this blog post by OW. I didn’t bring it up or hijack a post about global warming.
I just can’t believe how easily you forgive Gore’s measureable carbon release based on unproven carbon offsets (no one knows how to accurately measure them). Why is Gore heating his pool when millions of lives are at stake? Doesn’t he know there’s a crisis? Maybe he hasn’t watched his own movie? Oh, wait… Gore is a liberal! He CARES, so it’s OK!
Assuming for the sake of argument that Gore “wants to keep his lifestyle and just pay extra because he can afford it”, how does that show he doesn’t believe in what he says about global warming? To me (if in fact your statement about him is true), it shows that he is willing to put his money where his mouth is. More importantly, what does his paying “extra” to reduce his “footprint” have to do with the GW issue as a whole? Should the work of the scientists whose research shows human impact on GW be discounted because Al Gore spends his money to maintain his lifestyle AND reduce his GW footprint? As I said above, that is the issue here – turning the GW issue into an Al Gore is a hypocrit issue. That’s wrong.
Yes, let’s follow Gore’s lead! A heated pool and 221,000 kWh per year!
You can’t even see the joke in your own statements.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY YOU USE. WHAT MATTERS IS YOUR CARBON EMISSIONS. CARBON. GOD DAMN YOU ALL.
Gosh, JWG sure likes referring to Al Gore’s “measureable carbon release,” but he sure hates when people ask him for evidence about what that is. Will he ever provide evidence to back up his wild-eyed obsessive claims?
On carbon offsets, I’ll ask you a second time: if you have a problem with them, introduce evidence, please. You can’t keep dishonestly harping on Gore when your true goal is to attack GW.
You’re right…I give up.
Gore uses as much electricity as 20 households, but doesn’t release any carbon.
How could I have been so stupid as to doubt the Goracle?
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0117-23.htm
I’m glad you admit that your claim to know Al Gore’s “measurable carbon release” was false. Good for you, JWG; you may have a spine after all.
Let’s also agree that Gore’s use of green energy and carbon offsets is also praiseworthy, and further; that the rightwing’s shrieking of this personal, non-issue is a way to distract from the real concerns of global warming. That was the topic of the original post, not Al Gore’s personal virtues, JWG. Don’t rewrite history, not after you’ve shown a touch of integrity.
JWG’s cite refers to the market in offset trading, not investments in actual reforestation, which is what I understand Gore is doing. Anyway, you’re all over the map, JWG; are you on the side of the conservationists or on the side of the GOP?
I got this link from Indymedia:
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf
I take it back. The cite does refer to reforestation. Perhaps Al Gore’s carbon offsets should focus more on other methods. That doesn’t support your original claim, though, which was “OMG AL GORE SECRETLY HATES THA PLANET!!1″ Have you backed off this claim as well?
I thought the sarcasm in my previous comment would be obvious… oh, well.
I’ll agree that Gore’s use of green energy is praiseworthy, except when he uses much more than the average person which I’ve already explained twice (there’s a limited amount of green energy available from the power company — when Gore uses 20x more than anyone else there’s 20x less green energy available for other people — assuming Gore gets all the green stuff to begin with).
I disagree with the carbon offsets. It’s a scam and a way for the rich to keep living the high life.
Of course Gore doesn’t hate the planet. Do you think the Exxon executives hate the planet?
But he can’t really think there’s a planetwide emergency if he’s still living a millionaire’s lifestyle and burning through whatever resources he wants.
I think Gore should use less energy. This, however, is quite subordinate to the fact that the right wing is using personalization of the issue to distract from honest discussion, something which your own behavior has confirmed.
“when Gore uses 20x more than anyone else there’s 20x less green energy available for other people ”
This has been addressed. Gore pays a higher price for that energy, and that surcharge goes to investments in expanding the green sources. You have failed to show that is in any way anti-environment.
Okay, you think carbon offsets are a scam and a “way for the rich to keep living the high life” (serously, are you parodying yourself?) Fine. But that’s a) far from the consensus view; b) hardly proven; c) in no way an indicator that Gore is “doesn’t care” about the environmental cause, as you have embarrasingly claimed. Are any of your opinions based on facts, JWG, or just pre-existing hatred of liberals?
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY YOU USE. WHAT MATTERS IS YOUR CARBON EMISSIONS. CARBON. GOD DAMN YOU ALL.
And just where do you think electricity comes from? Pixies? Magic? Thinking happy thoughts? It comes from generating plants, the majority of which emit CO2 as part of the process. You know, CARBON? So consuming more electricity means that more carbon is created. Is this too complex for you to understand? Buying “carbon offsets” doesn’t make the carbon magically go away, it just means that somewhere someone is claiming that they’ll generate less.
MAYBE IF I SHOUT SOME OF IT WILL SINK IN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Honestly, JWG, are you an environmentalist? It seems like you are genuinely interested in environmental issues, you cite extremist environmentalists who want a governments to regulate industries worldwide — or are you just picking whatever you can find from the left and the right in order to argue in bad faith? I can’t tell.
You are a FUCKING idiot. You can generate electricity without leaving an enormous carbon footprint. That’s been Al Gore’s point all along, you fucking moron.
“It comes from generating plants, the majority of which emit CO2″
Gore has stipulated that his tax bill be HIGHER so in order to support greater investment in green sources. This doesn’t even take into account the solar panels. Have you not been paying attention?
“Buying “carbon offsets” doesn’t make the carbon magically go away”
Well, they claim that the replanted trees absorb it from the atmosphere, so yeah, it does. There are other methods, but that’s the least “magical” sounding, VRWC. Shout all you like, though! Rage against that liberal machine!
Maybe if JWG and VWRC sat down and watched an Inconvenient Truth, they could fill some of the gaps in their knowledge and feel a little less frustrated and agitated than they currently seem.
Of course he cares about the environment. We ALL do. That’s the point. Since it’s ridiculous to claim that Gore is out to cover the planet in his eeeeevil blanket of carbon emissions, then there must be some other reason he continues to use so much more carbon releasing technology than the rest of us losers who try to keep our costs down (by wearing a sweater in the winter, sweating a little in the summer, and embracing that icy shock when jumping into a swimming pool).
Perhaps he knows that an exaggerated threat sells better than reality?
If OW wants to start a threat about Gore’s movie, I would be happy to point out the massive exaggerations in comparison to the IPCC reports.
What do you think happens to the carbon when the tree decays? Do you realize that the decaying process produces MORE carbon than the tree absorbed?
Maybe we can make Everlasting Trees?
Remember, Gore hasn’t yet switched to solar panels.
Gore has stipulated that his tax bill be HIGHER so in order to support greater investment in green sources.
Excuse me as I had to catch my eyes as they rolled out of the back of my head. There’s nothing I cannot stand more than the multi-millionaires who are so full of their own virtue that they advocate higher taxation to allow for more ‘investment’ in green sources. The collective net worth of the audience that sat at the Oscar ceremonies is probably in the billions. Why don’t they live in modest 2500 square foot homes and write checks to the US Treasury in lieu of tax increases buying 20,000 square foot mansions?
I’m a conservationist. I recycle, turn off lights as best as I can. I signed up with my electric company to have a device put in that allows them to, if necessary, turn certain areas of power off in my home to conserve (especially during the hot summers). Hell, I even http://renu.citizenre.com/“ rel=”nofollow”>signed up at this site where they are offering people free installation and maintenance of solar panels.
What I cannot stand, is the finger wagging by people that talk the talk. How many freaking limousines pulled up outside that theater? How many of them fly private jets? How many of them live in homes 10-15 times the size of mine without any movement towards conservation?
In short, stop the lecturing. Lead by example. Do what Ed Begley Jr. did and show off how you’re conserving energy. Until then it’s a bunch of BS.
“Perhaps he knows that an exaggerated threat sells better than reality?”
Perhaps, but you’ve provided no evidence in support of that hypothesis.
“What do you think happens to the carbon when the tree decays?”
It’s a stop-gap measure. There are other methods. If you have a point, then make it. If you’re just here to attack liberals, then you’re wasting everyone’s time.
Jay, I misspoke. I meant his power bill, not his tax bill. Otherwise, your response has got to be a parody. It’s just too perfect.
“Until [you're Ed Begley, Jr.] it’s a bunch of BS.” Please. If you “practiced what you preached” or “led by example” a) you wouldn’t vote for the anti-environment GOP, b) you wouldn’t be lecturing us, especially for c) being insufficiently environmentally committed! You conservatives are truly a magnificently confused bunch of folks to contradict yourself so thoroughly in your own anti-lecturing, anti-environentalist, pro-GOP post.
Sadly, your confusion is quite easily explained: you don’t have a principled position on global warming or the environment. Your whole movement is defined by being against liberals. Not even liberalism, or liberal ideas. Just your fellow citizens who call themselves liberal. Conservatism has truly fallen on hard times.
My point is — Stop using 20x more electricity than the rest of us!!! How’s that for “other methods” than using a “stop-gap” measure available to the wealthy while they tell us to cut back? Millions of lives are at stake, after all.
You are a FUCKING idiot. You can generate electricity without leaving an enormous carbon footprint. That’s been Al Gore’s point all along, you fucking moron.
Yes you can, but that’s not where Gore’s electricity is currently coming from you imbecile.
According to the website (www.tva.com) for the Tennessee Valley Authority, the power company that currently provides service to Al Gore’s home, the vast majority (60%) of the power they generate comes from fossil fuel (i.e. carbon spewing) plants. The rest comes from nuclear energy (30%) and hydroelectric (percentage not given, but less than 10%). So the majority of Gore’s enormous (20x the average household) electricity usage came from plants emitting carbon. So St. Gore is personally responsible for generating 12 times the amount of carbon than the average person (who he is also simultaneously lecturing to “use less”). That’s called hypocrisy.
And remember that ‘Green Power Switch’ that Gore proudly claims to participate in? It’s comprised of wind turbines , solar power and methane gas plants. Per the web site, it also provides only 7% of their power generation capability. And when the green power resources aren’t operating — for instance, when wind speeds are too low to generate energy (which per the web site are the major contributors) — TVA’s other resources (i.e. including those fossil fuel plants) kick in to supply electricity. So even ‘Green Power” isn’t 100% green.
Stop fellating Gore for 5 minutes and think for yourself.
Oh brother. I was wondering how long this would take. You managed to enter about a dozen comments Doc, before you launched into one of your mini panty twisted tirades about our supposed lack of principles and blah blah blah blah blah. Spare me.
Nobody’s lecturing you. I said I don’t care to be lectured to by a bunch of people who:
A. Think they’re pro-environment because they vote for the right party (one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said Doc but goes for all the limousine riding, Gulfstream jet flying, mansion owning bigwigs as well)
B. Think merely talking about being good little environmentalists actually makes them good little environmentalists. They’re also the people who thinking wearing a ribbon cures AIDS.
But VRWC, let’s give Al a break here! He’s planting little trees and saying that makes up for it all!
Forget it Jay and JWG, you’re wasting your time with this. When it comes to the church of Man-Made Global Warming, no one speaks ill of Father Gore regardless of how hypocritical he may be. And if you don’t grab a hymnal and start singing at the top of your lungs like everyone else, you’re a heretic and must be cast out into the darkness.
“My point is — Stop using 20x more electricity than the rest of us… Millions of lives are at stake, after all.”
I agree. Unfortunately, you have no credibility on the issue due to the politicians you support. Your claims to care about the environment are crippled by your support of Bush and the (until recently) GOP congress.
“even ‘Green Power” isn’t 100% green”
That’s besides the point. The point of the Green Power program is that Gore’s power bill is going to make TVA’s power sources greener. Gore is an incrementalist, not a revolutionary. He is leading the way, and out of one side of your mouth you’re griping that he’s not leading fast enough. Out of the other, you’re praising the most anti-environmental politicians in the country.
It’s a hard lesson, but I’m afraid you’ll have to make up your own minds before you can credibly attack Gore. You can’t always take the easy way out, VRWC and JWG.
For as Jay says (but does not himself do) practice what you preach.
Jay, you explicitly lectured me about a) lecturing, b) being insufficiently committed to the environment, and c) supporting environmentalist politicians and policies!
Your words are right there.
Don’t blame me that you’ve made yourself out to be a looney tune.
And now VWRC abandons all pretense and reverts to type: HATE! THE! LIBERALS!
That’ll save the environment, eh VRWC? Well, that and a vote for the GOP
I agree. Unfortunately, you have no credibility on the issue due to the politicians you support.
Sorry, but that is totally illogical viewpoint.
It’s in a sense the reverse of an appeal to authority in a debate. “Global warming is real because Al Gore says it is real” is not a valid debating point.
Neither is, “Your point is not valid because you voted for so and so.”
It has no merit, so stop doing it.
Jay, what I’m saying is this: because you support anti-environmental politicians, then you have no credibility when criticizing other politicians for being insufficiently pro-environment. Very simply, your priority in the Gore case is one of convenience. You even admit that you don’t practice it in the voting booth.
So tell me why I’m wrong, please.
The point of the Green Power program is that Gore’s power bill is going to make TVA’s power sources greener. Gore is an incrementalist, not a revolutionary.
Really? If he feels so strongly then then why doesn’t he do something NOW to reduce his contribution to the generation of 12 times the amount of carbon as the average person?
He is leading the way, and out of one side of your mouth you’re griping that he’s not leading fast enough.
No I’m not. I’m saying that he’s a hypocrite for telling Americans to use less energy when he himself uses 20 times what the average American is using.
Out of the other, you’re praising the most anti-environmental politicians in the country.
Where exactly am I doing that? Once again, you’re pulling quotes out of your ass to pin on people that you disagree with. Making up statements by other people may make you feel better about yourself, but it does ZERO to support your argument.
And now VWRC abandons all pretense and reverts to type: HATE! THE! LIBERALS!
Please see my 2:55PM post regarding you pulling quotes out of your ass. You’ve done it yet again.
And please tell me that you’re a PhD rather than an MD. Based on the critical thinking skills you’ve demonstrated here, I shudder to think of innocent patients depending on you to correctly diagnose them.
If ony Issac Newton were alive today and was outspokenly liberal, Wingnuts would probably try to prove his findings wrong.
-Preferably from nice, tall buildings….
Jay, what I’m saying is this: because you support anti-environmental politicians, then you have no credibility when criticizing other politicians for being insufficiently pro-environment.
What does one have to do with the other? Is the criticism of Gore valid or not? That’s all that matters. It doesn’t make a difference in any way shape or form what other politicians I’ve supported before. None.
The criticism of Gore is either valid or it is not. It’s intellectually lazy for you to take the route you did. It comes off as being smart, but you know what Doc? It’s akin to putting your hands over your ears and saying, “Lalalalalalalalalala!!”
And my criticism of Gore boils down to what I talked about previously. People shouldn’t go around lecturing others, pleading for them to do things and make sacrifices they are not willing to make.
“Really? If he feels so strongly then then why doesn’t he do something NOW to reduce his contribution”
He may well. As I understand it, his house was substantially more inefficient when he bought it. Meanwhile, he’s doing a great deal to reduce all of our contributions by raising our awareness. If you actually cared about this issue, you wouldn’t discount his actual efforts to lead. Since you don’t care about GW, it’s hard to take your complaints seriously.
“I’m saying that he’s a hypocrite”
Yes, but there are two responses you’ve consistenly avoided, VRWC: 1) you’ve failed to demonstrate the depth of his alleged hypocrasy, and 2) again, the question no conservative seems willing to answer: why does hypocrisy matter? I know you hate him, but what does that have to do with GW? It’s just a piece of your larger hatred and contempt for liberals; in terms of significance to GW, you’ve yet to demonstrate that it has any.
“Where exactly am I ‘praising the most anti-environmental politicians in the country’”
By voting for and carrying water for the GOP, of course. Also in your dependence on hateful anti-liberal rhetoric. Or did you vote straight-ticket Dem last November? I’m willing to be corrected on this.
If ony Issac Newton were alive today and was outspokenly liberal, Wingnuts would probably try to prove his findings wrong.
Not necessarily. But if Isaac was asking others to jump off that tall building so that he could prove his theory about gravity, I’d probably call him a hypocrite too.
“Is the criticism of Gore valid or not?”
Jay, you’re blind if you havne’t noticed that the topic of “Gore being insufficiently pro-environment” has been addressed throughout this discussion. I have been taking the side that it is invalid. Re-read it if you need to.
But Oliver’s initial post was largely about saying that people like you, Jay, are not honest in your criticisms because you don’t actually value the environment in the voting booth; and that you PERSONALIZE the issue as a way of distracting from the fact that you’ve lost the actual policy debate. This discussion thread has well confirmed that contention.
“People shouldn’t go around lecturing others, pleading for them to do things… they are not willing to do.”
You mean like you’ve been lecturing Al Gore to be a greater environmentalist while you yourself vote anti-environment? Gotcha, genius.
wow, this is a “feel-good” thread for me!
My power is all “nucular”, and even WITH my SUV, I am more “carbon-friendly” than the Goracle! I plant trees too!
Unfortunately, there is no profit in my lifestyle…no hollywood stars coming by etc. Wonder why?
Yes, but there are two responses you’ve consistenly avoided, VRWC: 1) you’ve failed to demonstrate the depth of his alleged hypocrasy, and 2) again, the question no conservative seems willing to answer: why does hypocrisy matter?
1. Why would anyone need to demonstrate the “depth” of another person’s hypocrisy? Do you split hairs over the “depth” of someone’s racism or the “depth” of someone’s cruelty? What kind of fuzzy-headed thinking is that?
2. Why does hypocrisy matter? Are you really that obtuse? That amoral? It must be important to the people posting on this site because “Hypocrisy” or some form of the word has been used at least 122 times, many of those in postings about those evil conservatives. Apparently that word doesn’t apply when used against someone you fervently agree with.
But Oliver’s initial post was largely about saying that people like you, Jay, are not honest in your criticisms because you don’t actually value the environment in the voting booth; and that you PERSONALIZE the issue as a way of distracting from the fact that you’ve lost the actual policy debate.
Maybe you should try actually reading his post. He claimed that the news about Gore’s electric bill was an example of the “right wing noise machine” being “on the attack against Al Gore” and tried to blame it on deluded “global warming deniers”, as if people pointing out a Gore’s hypocrisy is really all just another attempt to invalidate the cause that Gore claims to support. Not sure where you got your interpretation. Maybe my 2:55PM post can give you guidance there.
“Why would anyone need to demonstrate the “depth” of another person’s hypocrisy?”
You’re the ones trying to demonstrate that his energy usage shows us something about the depth of his honestly, or his commitment to environmentalism. The burden is on you here.
VRWC, I’m interested in stopping global warming. I’m believe Al Gore is honestly pro-environment. I think he has, in good faith, tried to offset his carbon emissions. So when I ask why you’re trying so hard to argue that he’s a hypocrite, what I’m getting at is: what are you trying to say about him? JWG is trying to use it to say that Gore is hyping GW for personal gain. He has not offered any convincing evidence, naturally, and I expect you won’t either, preferring to fall back on your hateful caricatures of liberals worshipping at the church of Al Gore or whatever. Yawn.
“Maybe you should try actually reading his post.”
You’re right; I was thinking of the Thinkprogress page he linked to. Otherwise, you have yet to prove Al Gore has acted in bad faith. I await your evidence.
I have been taking the side that it is invalid.
Good for you. From what I have read however, the criticism is valid, your side notwithstanding.
But Oliver’s initial post was largely about saying that people like you, Jay, are not honest in your criticisms because you don’t actually value the environment in the voting booth
That’s just flat out stupid. So the guy who doesn’t recycle and who doesn’t conserve energy, but voted for John Kerry has a valid viewpoint on the environment, but the conservationist, like yours truly, doesn’t have a valid viewpoint because he voted for GWB.
Yeah. That makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
You mean like you’ve been lecturing Al Gore to be a greater environmentalist while you yourself vote anti-environment?
Stupid again. That’s a stupid and intellectually lazy viewpoint. Your outlook on life and on how you view a person is based on who they vote for. Do you have any idea of how pathetic that is?
You’re the ones trying to demonstrate that his energy usage shows us something about the depth of his honestly, or his commitment to environmentalism
Who’s trying to demonstrate that? We’re demonstrating that he has a house that is an energy hog. That’s a FACT. Stop moving the goal posts.
Otherwise, you have yet to prove Al Gore has acted in bad faith.
Who said anything about bad faith? Again, you’re moving the goalposts. It doesn’t matter what Gore’s intent was. It is what it is. Deal with it.
“Who said anything about bad faith?”
Well, that’s why it’s being pushed as a big story. The idea is that it the story will be used to promote a view of Gore, as JWG has said, as uncaring about the environment, motivated by a desire for self promotion.
“It is what it is.”
You’re lying or stupid. A thousand dollar heating bill is meaningless apart from the character message conservatives are using it to say.
“So the guy who doesn’t recycle and who doesn’t conserve energy, but voted for John Kerry has a valid viewpoint on the environment, but the conservationist, like yours truly, doesn’t have a valid viewpoint because he voted for GWB.”
No, but it means you don’t “practice what you preach” — the standard you set up for yourself in this discussion, and the standard under which you’re attacking Gore.
Jay’s quote: “the conservationist… doesn’t have a valid viewpoint because he hypocritically voted for GWB.”
He disagrees with this statement. However, I believe he agrees with this statement:
If may construct what Jay might also say about Gore: “Al Gore… doesn’t have a valid viewpoint because he hypocritically uses too much electricity.”
Just trying to get to the bottom of Jay’s arguement. Is it about credibility, honesty, what?
Here’s a quote from Gore’s spokeswoman: “They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.”
Just so you know, that’s Gore’s direct claim. The energy use is not taking place in a vacuum. Jay, are you interested in following Gore’s lead and reducing your own carbon footprint? Or do you admit that this all just a big gotcha game for one of the conservative movement’s favorite punching bags?
as JWG has said, as uncaring about the environment, motivated by a desire for self promotion.
I recall JWG saying that Al Gore said his cause is due to the ‘crisis’ we face. It’s fair to say that if the issue is such a ‘crisis’, one should be doing all they can to help. What does Gore need with a 20K square foot home anyway?
A thousand dollar heating bill is meaningless apart from the character message conservatives are using it to say.
That electric bill is comes to over $16,000 per year. My electric bill for an entire year is about 10% of that. It’s not a small matter in the larger scheme of things.
No, but it means you don’t “practice what you preach” — the standard you set up for yourself in this discussion, and the standard under which you’re attacking Gore.
Actually, I do practice what I preach. You’re the one that has come to the totally inane and pathetic conclusion that a person’s life is judged by who they vote for.
“A person’s life”? Spare me your dramatics.
I’m judging the honesty and credibility of your critique of Gore for being an insufficient environmentalist. It would be like me criticizing you for not being suffiently enthusiastic about the bombing of abortion clinics or torturing Muslims. I wouldn’t be an honest or credible critic in that regard, since I opppose those things as political goals, just as you vote for politicians who view GW with contempt.
Jay is sure busy telling everyone how to live and think, just like his government. But while Al Gore has a zero carbon footprint, someone who “practices his preaching” like Jay and whose skin isn’t in Iraq with his big pro-war mouth, carries far more than a whiff of hypocrisy.
My house is full of fluorescent bulbs. I have the thermostat set low in the winter and high in the summer. I have a cycling device on my AC which allows Southern California Edison to turn it off during peak demand times in the summer (which they do). I have a 100 mile roundtrip commute but I am in a vanpool with 9 other people to greatly reduce my gas consumption and emissions. When I do drive, I have a ‘07 Elantra with a SULEV (Super Low Emission Vehicle) engine, which is currently about as close as you can come to a hybrid without actually buying one. I occasionally fly internationally on business but try to do it via email, phone and WebEx sessions whenever possible.
Despite my belief in conservative values and voting for the occasional Republican who manages to meet those values (rare these days), I still manage to try to do my part in conserving resources. So I think that my “walking the walk” gives me the ability to accuse Gore of being a fucking hypocrite on the issue of conservation.
What are you personally doing to advance the environmentalism cause, Doc? Other than voting for John Kerry I mean? What is the basis of your “absolute moral authority” on this issue?
Al Gore has a zero carbon footprint
No, he claims to have a zero carbon footprint. Can you provide a link or quote where he explains exactly how he calculated his carbon footprint so that he would know just how much “offset” to purchase in order to become carbon neutral? Keeping in mind the fact that formal standards for quantification of offsets have yet to be even be determined.
“What is the basis of your “absolute moral authority” on this issue?”
I haven’t claimed it and don’t need it to defend Al Gore from silly charges. I was simply applying Jay’s standard to Jay. I am waiting for proof that Gore’s actually a hypocrite, though, or at least some eveidence that he doesn’t have a neutral carbon footprint.
Further, I am curious as to hear why VWRC, a self described environmentalist, would take so much interest in trying to discredit the country’s most prominent environmentalist. I’m curious why this alleged environmentalist wouldn’t focus his attacks on all anti-environment politicians, rather than just the foibles of prominent liberal ones. Presumably, it’s because the environment is less of a priority to him than being against the liberals is.
Any American can criticize anyone anytime for anything, but to be credible, your critiques have to be accurate, and yours are not. Gore has a zero carbon footprint. Any one taking an Exxon financed swift boat ad hoc group seriously proves himself to be a fool.
“Al Gore has also mentioned in numerous interviews that he has made his life carbon-neutral, and now he’s announcing that “100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie [will go] to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming.”"
Lord, what a steaming pile of the same old same old…
The same old “conservative” bleating and oinking, that is: “don’t tell me not to live like a pig when you’re not living like Gandhi”
Did it ever occur to you people that Gore, who is self employed and holds no public office, probably does a lot of things at his home that others do at their workplace? And that this might increase his kilowatt consumption just a little bit?
Wilbur: providing simple answers for simple people since Jeremiah was a bullfrog.
“No, he *claims* to have a zero carbon footprint.”
Yes, that’s what he claims. Obviously, you dispute it, apparently for reasons outside of evidence, or at least evidence you are insufficiently confident to share.
I don’t see how the matter can be advanced from there to “Al Gore is hyping global warming for corrupt personal reasons,” but don’t let your lack of evidence stop you. It didn’t stop JWG or the conservative blogosphere or talk radio from making that leap. And that leap is to DISCREDIT the anti-global warming movement. I guess that’s the mark of a true conservationist these days — hating environmentalists, environmentally minded politicians, and environmental policies.
You dodged the question, Doc. What are you personally doing to advance the environmentalism cause?
I never claimed to be an environmentalist. I merely said I was trying to do my part to conserve resources.
And I’m not trying to discredit “the country’s most prominent environmentalist”, I’m just pointing out that he’s a hypocrite for telling all of us to reduce energy consumption while he himself consumes 20x his share.
Gore has a zero carbon footprint.
Gore has also mentioned in numerous interviews that he has made his life carbon-neutral
He “claims” to be carbon neutral. Unless you know something that Gore hasn’t bothered to share with the rest of us.
See my 5:13PM post.
Did it ever occur to you people that Gore, who is self employed and holds no public office, probably does a lot of things at his home that others do at their workplace? And that this might increase his kilowatt consumption just a little bit?
20x the normal household usage is “a little bit”? What workplace activity consumes that much electricity? Does he have a factory or a blast furnace on the premises? Is he running a server farm? Do you think the “exclusive Belle Meade” residental area he lives in is zoned for that kind of commercial activity?
It’s amazing how critical thinking skills go flying out the window when it’s one of the left’s sacred cows being doubted.
Yes, that’s what he claims. Obviously, you dispute it, apparently for reasons outside of evidence, or at least evidence you are insufficiently confident to share.
Gore is the one claiming to be carbon neutral. I’m asking how he was able to calculate it and determine the necessary offset. The onus is on him to back up his claim with data.
I’m judging the honesty and credibility of your critique of Gore for being an insufficient environmentalist.
I didn’t make any such claim. Now you’re just making shit up.
But while Al Gore has a zero carbon footprint, someone who “practices his preaching” like Jay and whose skin isn’t in Iraq with his big pro-war mouth, carries far more than a whiff of hypocrisy.
Hey Mike, if your house ever catches fire, get out your garden hose and your kids play fireman hat and get to work. Sell that lame-ass “You support the war so go enlist!” to the other mental midgets you congregate with.
Did it ever occur to you people that Gore, who is self employed and holds no public office, probably does a lot of things at his home that others do at their workplace? And that this might increase his kilowatt consumption just a little bit?
Yeah, I know when I took off work for a week, my electric bill shot up 250%. Cmon dude. The stay at home Al reasoning doesn’t work.
And Doc, stop with the phony arguments already! Nobody here is claiming Gore is hyping global warming for corrupt personal reasons. How in the hell do you arrive at these stupid conclusions? Put the LSD away and read what people are writing, not what you think they’re writing.
Al Gore has championed himself as a moralist on environmental issues. If you’re going to be preaching from up on high about an issue, then you’d better cover all your bases. It’s as simple as that.
And if Gore’s carbon footprint were already zero, why would he bother installing solar panels?
And if Gore’s carbon footprint were already zero, why would he bother installing solar panels?
Looks to me like you answered that one yourself:
Al Gore has championed himself as a moralist on environmental issues. If you’re going to be preaching from up on high about an issue, then you’d better cover all your bases. It’s as simple as that.
Jay: ” Nobody here is claiming Gore is hyping global warming for corrupt personal reasons.”
JWG: “He doesn’t believe his own hype, or he doesn’t care about the rest of humanity.”
FIGHT!
Also, Rush had a big thing today about Gore, beginning with his energy usage, and culminating in how Global Warming is an utter lie. That’s why that rightwing think tank released this story. To discredit Global Warming, Jay. Apparently, you want to sing along to their music. Fine, but don’t act like you’re motivated by Gore’s electric bill and his electric bill alone. It’s about hatred of liberals, once again, and as always with you, Jay — and with conservatives in general, as it has been since Goldwater’s day.
VRWC: fine, you think Gore’s lying, but have no evidence to back it up. Thanks for coming clean about it, at least.
By the way, Cheney’s electric bill: $186,000 in one year alone.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/32695_vp26.shtml
VRWC: fine, you think Gore’s lying, but have no evidence to back it up. Thanks for coming clean about it, at least
Nice try at twisting my words. What I said was:
“Gore is the one claiming to be carbon neutral. I’m asking how he was able to calculate it and determine the necessary offset. The onus is on him to back up his claim with data.”
He’s making a claim. I’m asking where the data is to support that claim. If no one can provide the supporting data, then we can safely consider his claims suspect if not outright false.
You seem to have difficulties grasping this simple concept.
By the way, Cheney’s electric bill: $186,000 in one year alone.
Yes, and that will be relevant to this discussion just as soon as you provide examples showing how Cheney has been travelling the country telling Americans to use less energy. Otherwise, no.
Yes, and that will be relevant to this discussion just as soon as you provide examples showing how Cheney has been travelling the country telling Americans to use less energy.
Except Cheney is using that much energy and then demanding the taxpayers cover it. Gore pays his own bills, and manages to environmentally offset it to boot.
“There appears to be a discrepancy between calling on people to make personal reductions and using a private jet that exacerbates the problem,” Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell said.
Flying on a Gulfstream rather than an airliner is like driving a sport utility vehicle instead of riding a bus, O’Donnell and others say.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jets28feb28,0,2448915.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Does anyone even read the relevant links anymore? From the 2001 link about Cheney:
Nice commentary by Will Bunch on the manufactured Gore controversy -
http://www.attytood.com/2007/02/breaking_news_al_gore_uses_ele_1.html
As Mr. Bunch says, “So at the end of the day, what does it all mean? When you peel away all the layers, it means that when it comes to greenhouse gases and climate change — one of the three great interlocking issues of our time, along with Peak Oil and war and peace in the oil-producing regions — that the conservative movement has absolutely zero to say.”
“Because, think about it — if global warming isn’t really a problem, then they shouldn’t care how much electricity he uses, and if it is a problem, then there’s bigger fish to fry out there than one man in Tennessee and his mansion and SUV, right? Why can’t conservatives argue THE ISSUE of global warming, rather than this crap.”
Amen.
Countdown broke it all down for you guys last night.
The video is here.
So Gore’s not an important leader who won an Oscar for telling us to reduce our carbon usage due to the impending disaster?
My bad.
I’m sure we’ll never see Leftists like OW post anymore about obscure right-wing religious figures being hypocritical, right?
Nice commentary by Will Bunch on the manufactured Gore controversy
Yes, yet another Gore apologist trying to deflect attention away from his hypocrisy.
I like how Gore is just “one man in Tennessee and his mansion and SUV”. And all this time I thought he was the primary spokesman and the defacto face of the “Global Warming” issue. You know, the issue that we’re constantly told is a serious threat?
I guess what this tells us is that Al Gore is just a guy who uses a lot of electricity and we can safely ignore anything he has to say about energy conservation in the future. I mean, if Al Gore doesn’t take the issue seriously, why should anyone else?
Why can’t conservatives argue THE ISSUE of global warming, rather than this crap.”
Now this is hilarious. Does he mean THE ISSUE that ‘liberals’ tell us has already been decided? The issue they tell us is no longer subject to any credible doubt, debate or disagreement? That issue?
So it does matter, then?
Well, if Olbermann has it figured out, then it’s settled.
Not that it matters, though.
If you took the time to actually read the Bunch commentary VRWC, I think you would see that Bunch isn’t apologizing for Gore or anyone for that matter. But I guess actually reading and thinking (as opposed to regurgitating talking points) is a bit much for you.
Um, who just made a comment consisting of nothing but several quotes?
VRWC gave us his own thoughts.
Seriously, do none of you recognize the irony in your own comments?
Even though VRWC has embarrassed himself by latching on to an inane “guilty until proven innocent” standard, I still have some questions. Also, VRWC: if you admit that you can’t prove Gore’s a hypocrite, and all you have is a “suspicion” that he’s lying, then what exactly are you getting out of this discussion? You and JWG admit you don’t know one way or the other about Gore’s carbon emissions. What’s left to discuss, given that your case has falled so short on evidence? I remind you, spit is not evidence.
So what we’ve learned from this debate is that Gore participates in a program that sells blocks of “green electrity” for an extra monthly charge. Gore purchases 108 of those blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources. I have yet to see anyone make a credible argument for why this is not a clear, good-faith effort with regard to carbon emissions here. If your case is to show Gore is a hypocrite, it will require evidence, cons. Evidence.
For you rightwingers who claim Gore’s a hypocrite and worse, you can shoulder a portion of the burden of proof by answering the following questions. I fear you will continue to substitute outrage for discussion, though.
1) Does Al Gore operate offices out of his house, thus reducing his energy costs by rendering it unneccesary to rent offices elsewhere?
2) Does Al Gore have an on-site staff who live in the same home, thus minimizing staff housing and transportation costs?
3) Does he use the house for large meetings of the sort that would normally require the rental of a large hall that would use energy throughout the year?
As a former English major, I have to say that quoting an individual in the context of an argument and simply regurgitating “talking points” (i.e., Al Gore bad, bad man) are quite different. Perhaps you should take the time to learn the difference. But in the interest of educating myself, please tell me, what “talking point” was I regurgitating?
“fallen so short”, not “falled so short.”
Tennessee’s never been big on paying taxes for schools…
as opposed to regurgitating talking points
But in the interest of educating myself, please tell me, what “talking point” was I regurgitating?
Why don’t you tell me what “talking point” I was regurgitating, since you accused me first? I was giving my thoughts and opinion about the quotes you posted. Which was more than you did with your “Nice commentary by Will Bunch on the manufactured Gore controversy” comment.
I’ve explained it several times. You fail to understand the economics of supply and demand with limited resources (like green energy). Maybe you should take some economics classes.
I’ve also supplied several links that explain why carbon offsets are opposed by many environmental groups because they don’t end up reducing the amount of carbon being put into the environment.
Oh, well.
As long as you feel good about yourself, actual results don’t matter.
VRWC – take a look at the Dave Johnson link in OW’s post and scroll down to the “Update”. In fact, much of what you argue was argued by Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter yesterday. My point, made yesterday (scroll above for my earlier posts), was that Gore was irrelevant to the ISSUE of GW. Bunch made the same point as I attempted to do yesterday, but more articulately than I could.
“You fail to understand the economics of supply and demand with limited resources (like green energy)”
We have evidence that Gore is paying to have his electricity generated by green sources. This is undisputed.
He has bought sufficient blocks of green energy to cover his kilowatt hours. This is undisputed.
We have evidence that that money is also going to increase investment in those sources so that the overall generation scheme is greener. This is undisputed.
“I’ve also supplied several links that explain why carbon offsets are opposed by many environmental groups”
Yes, but all that indicates is that certain of those methods are subject to some amount of debate. That’s not what you’re purporting to demonstrate. You’re trying to demonstrate hypocrisy, that Gore is FAILING to do what he encourages others to do, and that his encouragement of such behavior is in some sense FALSE. This you have most certainly failed to show.
“hypocrisy: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.”
Also, please answer my questions 1-3 from my 2:01 post. If the answer to them is yes, then the burden is on you is even heavier with regard to your claims about Gore’s carbon footprint.
VRWC has embarrassed himself by latching on to an inane “guilty until proven innocent” standard
You mean the “inane” standard that the burden of proof is on people making claims rather than those raising doubts? The standard that the rest of the world seems to use? You know, like when a pharm company claims their drug cures cancer, and the FDA applies that same “inane” standard and asks the company to provide clinical data that supports their claims? Or do you think we should just take the company’s word that the drug does what they say it does?
I’m not the one embarrassing myself here, Doc.
VRWC: if you admit that you can’t prove Gore’s a hypocrite, and all you have is a “suspicion” that he’s lying
The undisputed facts are that (1) Gore spends a lot of time telling the world that we need to conserve energy, and (2) the electric bill for just one of his 4 (as reported) homes is 20 times the national average household.
Definition of ‘hypocrite’: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Based on the above facts, Gore is clearly a hypocrite.
Are there mitigating factors that would explain why his bill is so much higher? Possibly. So far, his attempted defense (i.e. buying carbon offsets and paying extra for ‘green power’) fails to account for the higher energy usage.
However (and this is the point you either cannot or refuse to see), the burden is on Gore to provide this information. Not me. I don’t have to prove he’s a hypocrite. Based on the available data, it’s up to Gore to prove that he’s not one.
You and JWG admit you don’t know one way or the other about Gore’s carbon emissions.
Yes, because as I’ve noted several times in this thread, Gore refuses to say how he managed to calculate his carbon emissions so that he knows how much “offset” he needs to purchase to remain carbon neutral.
And it prevents others who are using a normal amount of electricity to purchase the green energy.
There is a limited amount of green energy. As Gore uses more of it (20x more than the average peon) there is less available to everyone else. Therefore, more carbon is put into the environment by other people even if they use less energy. But at least Gore looks good in your eyes hogging up all that green energy.
I have shown repeatedly that Gore’s actions do not reduce the amount of carbon being put into the environment. They are only cosmetic measures that fool the environmentally ignorant.
VRWC – take a look at the Dave Johnson link in OW’s post and scroll down to the “Update”. In fact, much of what you argue was argued by Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter yesterday
So what? What makes you think I read (or care about) what Johnson, Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter said about this or any other issue? Did I quote them?
From the ThinkProgress post on Gore’s response:
From the Gore camp:
From mingus:
Quit regurgitating talking points.
We have evidence that Gore is paying to have his electricity generated by green sources. This is undisputed.
This is FALSE. As I noted above, the ‘Green Power Switch’ that Gore supports with his $4 per 150 kWh blocks provides only 7% of TVA’s overall power generation capability. And that’s only when everything is running at full capacity. As noted on the TVA site, when the green power resources aren’t operating — for instance, when wind speeds are too low to generate energy (which the web site notes are the major contributors) — TVA’s other resources (i.e. including those fossil fuel plants) kick in to supply electricity. So even TVA’s ‘Green Power” isn’t 100% green.
So the FACT is that the vast majority (60%) of the power that TVA generates and supplies to Gore’s home comes from fossil fuel (i.e. carbon emitting) plants.
He has bought sufficient blocks of green energy to cover his kilowatt hours. This is undisputed.
This is FALSE. As noted above, only 7% of the TVA power is ‘green’. He is essentially paying a green ’surcharge’ of $4 per 150 kWh block that supports more eco-friendly power generation. Good for him, but it comes nowhere near to cancelling out all the carbon generated by his higher electricity usage.
We have evidence that that money is also going to increase investment in those sources so that the overall generation scheme is greener. This is undisputed.
It’s currently only 7% greener. Hopefully, that number will go up in the future, not just at TVA but across the country. But today, it’s still a very small part of the power generation.
VRWC – LOL! No one (me included) accused you of quoting anyone (if you had in a context that bolstered your arguments I would have a greater regard for your opinion as it would show that you are actually thinking and researching.) But you’ve convinced me that you don’t read anything or listen to anyone. That would explain why you’re more interested in engaging in personal attacks than actually engaging on a real issue.
You asked a question and I answered it. If I was wrong and your mimicking of right wing talking points re Al Gore was simply a coincidence, I apologize. But it’s your turn now, what talking points was I regurgitating?
But it’s your turn now, what talking points was I regurgitating?
Where did I accuse you of that?
Asked and answered.
VRWC – My apologies once again. It wasn’t you. It was the ever witty and evasive JWG.
I should also tell you that I’m a retired lawyer and JWG’s “asked and answered” quip is pretty hilarious considering he hasn’t yet answered the question. But then again, perhaps in addition to the phrase “talking points” he doesn’t know what that phrase (”asked and answered”) means either.
That would explain why you’re more interested in engaging in personal attacks than actually engaging on a real issue.
Are you accusing me of joining the “personal attack on Al Gore” bandwagon or of me personally attacking someone on this thread?
2) the electric bill for just one of his 4 (as reported) homes is 20 times the national average household.
In addition to the questions posed by Doc AGH above, one might also ask:
How much energy is required for security? Former vice-presidents don’t get to just blend back into a suburban neighborhood, y’know.
Does this property support any livestock operations?
In short, raw numbers mean diddly.
VRWC – the attacks on Al Gore. Once again, my point is that such attacks are irrelevant to the issue of GW. (And again, as I said earlier maybe he is a hypocrit – who cares? If he is a hypocrit does that mean we should ignore what a majority of scientists’ research shows? If he isn’t, what does that prove except that he truly and passionately believes in what he says?) It’s a “gotcha” moment at best, without any real significance to the real issue. And we are getting far afield from any pertinent discussion ourselves. So this will be my last post on this topic so you (and JWG) have a free shot, if you want to take it.
Just to sum up: no one has shown that Gore’s actions violate his beliefs. To do that would require knowledge of a) his carbon usage, and b) his carbon offsets, which everyone is ignorant of. In the absence of such evidence, the honorable interpretation is to be agnostic. But the hounds are baying for blood, so the need for evidence goes out the window. He uses a lot of power? Well, that’s all VRWC needs to know Gore’s “lying”. Thanks for showing your true colors by indulging in personal hatred for yet another one of your fellow citizens. Remember the primary Republican rule of debate: if there’s no evidence either way, THEN WE MUST HANG THE LIBERAL FROM THE NEAREST TREE!!! (cue Toby Keith song).
“You mean the “inane” standard that the burden of proof is on people making claims rather than those raising doubts?”
Yes. You’ve made the claim. The anti-Gore attack group began this entire discussion by making the claim. Prove it. If you don’t have the information to prove it, then admit it. The simple fact is that you don’t have the information you would need to show Gore’s a hypocrite. He doesn’t have to prove he’s not a hypocrite. You continue to embarrass yourself with your suspicions dressed up as arguments.
“(1) Gore spends a lot of time telling the world that we need to conserve energy, and (2) the electric bill for just one of his 4 (as reported) homes is 20 times the national average household.”
1) is false. Inconvenient truth is about carbon, not energy usage. Have you actually seen the movie?
2) is therefore irrelevant. It’s further disposed of by his green energy purchases and carbon offsets. But because you hate Gore for buying green energy and paying for carbon offsets, and think that he’s somehow “dishonest” or buying them with environmental malice in his heart, I will address your faith-based analysis below.
“buying carbon offsets and paying extra for ‘green power’ fails to account for the higher energy usage.”
Wrong. If he purchases 108 of those blocks every month (UNDISPUTED) covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and uses less energy than that, then he has succeeded in accounting for his higher energy usage. Carbon offsets, solar panels, and his investments in renewable, non-carbon releasing energy sources are some of the many points in his favor that you are evidently unequipped to address.
Even if, as you claim, baselessly, that not all of his energy bill is going to support green power, you still are in no position to assess the size of his carbon footprint or the sincerity of his attempts to reduce his carbon footprint. How is buying green power hypocritical? It’s not. You’re barking up the wrong tree here, VRWC.
Second, you have no response to the fact that his electricity bill is going toward the expansion of green sources in TVA’s mix, and to the success of the green energy program. You claim that you hope the program succeeds, but from the way you’re tearing down a prominent public and personal supporter of the program, your actions belie your professed belief. By your own standard, you are a liar. It’s not my standard, but yours…
“I don’t have to prove he’s a hypocrite.”
I agree, with the added note that you have indeed failed to do so.
As you admit, you “don’t know one way or the other about Gore’s carbon emissions.” Therefore, you can’t prove he’s a hypocrite. We agree.
“[buying green energy] prevents others who are using a normal amount of electricity to purchase the green energy.”
No, because as said multiple times in this thread, it directly subsidizes the expansion of green sources in the electric company’s generation mix. And even if electricity generation were a zero-sum game, it still wouldn’t be an act of hypocrisy to use green energy.
“I have shown repeatedly that Gore’s actions do not reduce the amount of carbon being put into the environment.”
You have shown that certain parties have called certain methods for carbon sequestration into question. That’s it. As far as Gore’s particular actions go, you are ignorant. Rather than being agnostic, though, you have decided that he is lying or acting out of malice in buying these offsets. Because when in doubt, hate the liberal. Facts are secondary. Thanks for demonstrating that again.
Finally, please address my points 1-3 from 2:01, which further offset your unproven, evidence-free claims about Gore’s carbon usage and imagined character flaws. If 1-3 are true, then Gore may have done even more on a personal level to help his cause than we already knew. But instead of praise for his environmentalism, no doubt you will spit on it, because for JWG, VRWC, and Jay, their environmentalist pose is to be shed like a snake’s skin as soon as it doesn’t help them lynch a liberal.
Countdown broke it all down for you guys last night.
So it does matter, then?
Well, if Olbermann has it figured out, then it’s settled.
Not that it matters, though.
Posted by: JWG |
Oh, lighten up, Francis.
Again, it was answered very clearly with examples if you’d care to open your eyes, genius.
Doc, you’ve clearly gone off your meds. The level of cognitive dissonance in your comments is impressive. But you have managed to demonstrate that trying to get you to understand even a simple concept outside of your worldview is a hopeless task. No matter how many times someone tries to address your points or statements all they get from you are misreadings and twistings of their comments as well as outright lies. You ignore any and all facts that don’t support whatever constantly shifting point you may be trying to make at any given time.
Even when someone is in agreement with you, you still accuse them of lying. Case in point:
Your initial statement: We have evidence that that money is also going to increase investment in those sources so that the overall generation scheme is greener. This is undisputed.
My response: “It’s currently only 7% greener. Hopefully, that number will go up in the future, not just at TVA but across the country. But today, it’s still a very small part of the power generation.
Your next statement: you have no response to the fact that his electricity bill is going toward the expansion of green sources in TVA’s mix, and to the success of the green energy program.
You’re right, I had no response. Except where I did.
You’ve made it very clear that any further debate with you would be a waste of everyone’s time.
Like Mingus, I’m done here as well.
Now if you’ll excuse me, Doc, apparently I have to go shed my skin and lynch a liberal or something like that.
Ciao!
What about the people emitting carbon right now? Just as his offsets aren’t removing carbon permanently (as you admitted), future expansion of green technology does not account for the actual carbon right now.
It certainly is if you are using so much that there’s none left for other carbon emitters. Gore’s excessive energy use is directly forcing more total carbon into the environment.
You are buying the sizzle rather than the steak. Enjoy.
“You’re right, I had no response. Except where I did.”
Gore’s power bill is explicitly intended to EXPAND TVA’s investment in green sources, a non-hypocritical thing to do wrt carbon emission. Your “response” was to avoid the point.
Got any answer to my questions yet? You mean, you’re going to ignore them? Fine by me — it proves my point that you are uninterested in this issue except as a cudgel to attack liberals. Thanks for confirming it.
“his offsets aren’t removing carbon permanently (as you admitted)”
False. You don’t know what his offsets are removing. If you do, show it.
Gore is “using so much [green power] that there’s none left for other carbon emitters.”
A false dilemma. Again, his money is specifically encouraging the EXPANSION and further greening of TVA’s generation mix — a positive act you’ve utterly failed to take into account (big surprise — Gore secretly hates the environment, according to you!) Legitimate environmentalists would praise Gore for supporting that program. You environmentalists of convenience spit on him for it. Also, this fails as an indication that Gore has “violated his stated beliefs.” You violate your stated beliefs every time you vote GOP against your “environmental principles,” and every time you preach your Gore-hate against your “environmental principles”, so you’re not a believable source of criticism, regardless. I know you think that’s unfair, and yet it’s the case. The right simply has no credibility to lecture the left about the environment.
Once again, you have claimed that Gore behaves in violation of his anti-carbon emission beliefs, without even attempting to demonstrate a) what Gore’s carbon use actually is; or b) what positive reductions he has made. You have, again and again, failed to answer my questions I posted earlier about the energy usage he has foregone by having offices, workers, and functions at his house instead of separate facitlities. Finally, at every point you have failed to introduce the necessary evidence, preferring instead to leap to a conclusion of malice on Gore’s part.
This is because you are, as the title of this post says, Swiftboating him out of pure hatred and rage that you’ve lost the Global Warming debate on the substance. Hatred of liberals is all that keeps conservatism going these days. Thanks for proving it once again, tired, hateful old men of the right.
This is one of the lies VRWC was alluding to. I addressed this point twice already — I do not think Gore hates the environment anymore than I think an Exxon executive hates the environment.
Should I praise a man who supports the expansion of a water project who then proceeds to increase his water usage and takes the water for himself?
*sigh* I did. More than once. I even got the sources from Leftists so you wouldn’t accuse me of picking anti-Gore propoganda. Offsets are a feel-good scam whether it’s money from Gore or anyone else.
You’ve bought the hype. There’s no bringing you out of your hero worship until you start doing your own research on offsets as well as some studying about the basic economics of limited resources.
Maybe you should pay attention to what I’ve actually written about global climate change in past (and future) threads. Then you won’t embarrass yourself by falling back on your stereotypes rather than debating the actual issues.
JWC -
Now look what you’ve made me do. I don’t pretend to be a genius. I’ll leave the pretending to you. But, I do know “regurgitating” talking points when I see it. And I can also see now that you’re really not very bright.
Let’s see. Apparently Gore’s people made a statement defending Gore with the premise that those who attack him are in denial re GW. I made no such claim. In fact, I allowed for the possibility that Gore is a hypocrit on this issue. What part of whose talking points was that?
I also said that whatever Gore did or didn’t do re his electricity usage was irrelevant (I think I said “who cares”). Whose talking point is that?
I also said that neither you nor I had the evidence to either positively prove that Gore was a hypocrit or not. Whose talking point is that?
I did say that the personal attack on Gore seemed to be part of an action done to derail the GW conversation (I don’t think that I ever said which side of the issue I’m on although I’m sure you can guess. I just said repeatedly, that making the issue personal was wrong). If you really think that particular observation (that making the attack personal was done to derail the GW conversation), under the circumstances I’ve outlined above is regurgitating a talking point, you are indeed someone with a pathetic grasp on reading for comprehension.
But, I do admit one thing, you are a much better “gotcha” player than I. Unfortunately, that seems to be all the depth of analysis that you can muster. Too bad. I won’t hold it against you though.
That’s the reason I keep asking (or at least was asking for you to tell me what talking point I’m “regurgitating”. You still haven’t shown one.
Good grief, mingus…
Let’s compare again:
ThinkProgress says the Right can’t argue about global warming, so they must attack Gore’s electricity.
Mingus says the attack is because the Right wants to avoid arguing about global warming and instead attack Gore.
Compare and contrast.
Gore’s camp says the Right doesn’t like the message so they are attacking the messenger.
Mingus says the Right is attacking Gore in order to attack those who believe in the global warming message.
Seriously, do you think those comparisons are farther apart than the statements made by VRWC and radio talk show hosts?
Do I really think you are just spouting “talking points”? No. But your claim (without providing evidence) that VRWC is doing just that is a dismissive tactic that can just as easily be turned against you or anyone else that has a point of view (unless they have a completely original idea).
That explains why you’re a “retired” lawyer.
Well, that and the economic analysis concerning Gore’s over use of a very limited resource (green energy vs dirty energy) and the information and links from environmentalists on the Left about the carbon offset scam.
All you’ve done is say Gore is just some guy who uses electricity and should be ignored.
“Should I praise a man who supports the expansion of a water project who then proceeds to increase his water usage and takes the water for himself? “
Failed analogy. Gore pays for his energy fair and square. But at least you’ve conceded that not only does he pay for the energy he gets, but that a portion of his payment supports the further greening of TVA generation. You just hate that he’s behaving in accordance with his beliefs, don’t you! But at least you’re now consistent with your own anti-environmental behaviors – by tearing down a guy who’s personally paying to make TVA greener. Amazing that earlier you claimed to support such programs, and now you’re tripping over yourself to discredit them!
My point: You don’t know what Gore’s offsets are removing. If you do, show it.
Your “response”: “I did…offsets are a feel-good scam.”
On the extent of Gore’s offsets: by citing some webpage, you claim to have “proved” offsets don’t work. Wrong. As I’ve said, you’ve indicated that some people think so about certain offset measures. You FALSELY presented the offset debate as a settled matter, which it clearly is not. You FALSELY claimed that there was a connection between Gore’s actions and your cites regarding narrow, specific methods, never bothering to make that connection to what Gore has actually done. Finally, you NEVER showed a connection between these purportedly ineffectual offset measures and your alleged violation of Gore’s own beliefs – which is the heart of your charge of hypocrisy. So excuse me while I laugh.
Your case is simply wild charge after wild charge, and when I ask for evidence about the crucial details needed to show hypocrisy, namely: a) Gore’s carbon usage, b) Gore’s carbon reductions, and c) the extent to which Gore has prevented carbon emissions by having a home office, your answer is always the same: I DON’T KNOW. Ignorance is not going to help you this time, JWG. You can’t hide behind it forever.
You admit that you don’t know Gore’s carbon usage.
You admit that you don’t know Gore’s carbon reductions.
You admit that you can’t assess the preventive impact Gore’s home office has had on his carbon emissions.
You admit you don’t know the size of Gore’s carbon footprint AT ALL.
And yet, when it comes to your reckless, unsubstantiated charge of hypocrisy – that Gore is acting contrary to his stated beliefs against carbon emissions — all of a sudden you possess absolute certainty. You’ve not only measured his carbon, but you’ve seen into his heart.
Well, we know why, JWG. It’s not because you have evidence. It’s not because you’ve used logic. It’s because you hate Al Gore. Thanks for proving it once again.
I think the heart of JWG’s blind anti-Gore hatred is neatly encapsulated in the way he’s presented the offset debate. First, JWG has presented the ineffectiveness of offsets as a settled matter, which is simple misrepresentation. Second, his assumption is that Al Gore KNOWS his offsets do nothing, yet is somehow DISHONESTLY doing it anyway. Even if JWG were a scientist, and were able to prove that offsets utterly fail to work, there’s still no evidence that Gore knows this and is therefore violating his beliefs. Remember, JWG’s charge is that Gore is KNOWINGLY violating his own beliefs.
JWG is assuming Gore’s a hypocrite, then torturing the analysis of the offset debate to ensure that Gore comes off as one. It’s a perfectly stupid circular argument: he assumes Gore is a hypocrite about offsets in order to argue that Gore is a hypocrite about carbon emissions. But how do we know Gore’s a hypocrite about offsets? Because he’s a hypocrite about carbon emissions. LOL!
Conveniently, that’s the heart of my countercharge: that Gore’s critics are driven by hate rather than knowledge of Gore’s actions. Thanks for proving it over and over, and round and round, JWG!
I just want to point out that VRWC did the same thing JWG did. They both assume the worst about Gore, and use those assumptions to prove… the worst about Al Gore!
For example: in the thread above, VRWC assumed Gore is lying about making good faith efforts to be carbon neutral. Then VRWC used that lie as “evidence” showing Gore to be a hypocrite on carbon emissions.
Way to prove you’re not motivated by pure hate, you angry, irrelevant dinosaurs of the right!
“All you’ve done is say Gore is just some guy who uses electricity and should be ignored.”
No, what I’ve said is that the issue is of far greater importance than Al Gore’s electricity usage and to focus on that and attack him as a hypocrit is irrelevant, except in a “gotcha” kind of way.
Again, since you have a hard time grasping what I’m saying – if you don’t believe that GW is a crisis, how does showing that Al Gore is a hypocrit advance your argument? Do we ignore what the scientists say on the subject because Gore is a hypocrit?
If one does believe that GW is a crisis, how does showing that Al Gore is not hypocrit advance that argument? Does it make the science any more conclusive on the subject?
To be sure if it turns out that he is a hypocrit, it will be an embarrassment to the those who believe that GW is a crisis, but it won’t change anything reletive to our climate or to the science on either side.
This (Al Gore is a hypocrit) is really a tempest in a teapot and arguing your basic premise – i.e, that GW is not a crisis and lining up your evidence behind that thesis, would better serve your side and wouldn’t make you look so petty and desperate.
You seem to be very tenacious. Unfortunately, it seems to me, you focus on the irrelevancies of personality (in this case anyway), rather than focusing on what’s really going to drive policy and action (or inaction if that’s what you want).
Personal attacks can be more fun to be sure, but in the end they are irrelevant and meaningless and only serve to distract from in this case, an important national issue, whichever side you take.
So does the man in my example. He pays to expand the project and proceeds to increase his usage which prevent others from also taking advantage. If you want to praise this behavior, go ahead. I won’t.
So now you’re claiming that Gore “increased his usage”? Back it up.
And if that’s all you’ve got, I’ll assume you’ve granted my other points, the majority of which were in the service of demonstrating that at no point have you backed up any of the points you’d need to show Gore has violated his stated beliefs on carbon emisions.
And if that’s all you’ve got, I’ll assume you’ve granted my other points, the majority of which were in the service of demonstrating that at no point have you backed up any of the points you’d need to show Gore has violated his stated beliefs on carbon emisions.
The circular logic in this statement is spinning so rapidly that I believe it has an event horizon.
Shorter Doc:
Since I’ve repeatedly ignored all of your comments where you actually addressed and refuted my points I’ll just conclude that you have conceded all my points. Oh, and you’re an evil Republican dinosaur who likes to lynch liberals and hates Al Gore simply because he exists.
You know, as an evil card-carrying conservative (which I know is just as bad as ‘Republican’), if I really was as hate filled as you repeatedly claim, I should probably drive something like this instead of my fuel efficient Elantra.
No, VRWC, I’ve addressed your points. If you feel one of your points deserves more attention, I’m more than willing. Naturally, you’ve failed to respond to any of mine, presumably because they are so devastating to your unsupportable claims. But if you respond to any, please respond to this:
1) We have established that you cannot establish Gore’s carbon usage.
2) We have established that you are incapable of assessing the impact of Gore’s carbon offsets. Bizarrely, you make the further claim that Gore secretly KNOWS that his offsets don’t work, and purchases them anyway – also a claim you fail to substantiate.
3) We have established that you are incapable or unwilling to assess the preventive impact Gore’s home office has had on his carbon emissions.
4) We have established that you are incapable of assessing overall Gore’s carbon footprint.
How can all these multiple cases of ignorance on your part be reconciled with your goal of establishing that A) Gore is knowingly emitting carbon B) in contradiction to his stated beliefs? You can’t even establish the basic facts about his carbon usage, much less his “secret beliefs” about how his offsets don’t really work. And then you further embarrass yourself by failing to respond.
You have set for yourself a task that is logically impossible given your lack of knowledge. As I said above, an honorable person would say “I don’t know if Al’s a hypocrite or not.”
Of course, that’s why none of you have attempted to answer it. Because to answer it would reveal yourselves to be arguing in bad faith, as is to be expected among the your kind. I don’t think you’re evil, VRWC, I just think you’re par for the course for the conservative movement — arrogant, irrelevant, and hateful, clenching your fists and howling at a world that’s leaving you behind. The conservative movement’s being sent back to the basement it occupied before 1964. You had your chance to govern, and you used it to piss on the country, and now you find your time has passed. Adieu, my sweet neanderthal! Maybe you’ll have another ascendancy in 40 years or so!
That was part of the description of Gore’s usage. It has been much much higher than the average person, and it increased significantly since his movie came out.
But in any case, my main point is that you want to praise him for paying for large amounts of limited green energy (and assume that he’s not really spewing carbon from traditional sources) but ignore the fact that his large green usage forces normal users to access carbon-based sources rather than severely limited green energy since he’s using up so much.
Not at all. I’ve made the arguments and provided the links. I haven’t been under any illusions that your hero worship would waver. But anyone reading through the thread will have access to the information I provided. And perhaps as you read more about the economics of carbon offsets and limited resources you’ll begin to understand the truth.
“[Gore's energy usage] increased significantly since his movie came out”
Is that because his office got much more busy after the movie came out? Oh, right, you’re not in the business of actually providing evidence about Gore; you’re just in the business of waving your magic wand and making the necessary assumptions you would need to convict him of hypocrisy. Still not answering my questions, I see. That speaks volumes about the weakness in your –not just unproved, but unprovable — case. And sadly, about your commitment to discussing the issue in good faith as well.
“But in any case, my main point is that you want to praise him for paying for large amounts of limited green energy… [which] forces normal users to access carbon-based sources”
As I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly failed to address: my point is that it’s not a zero-sum game. His payments go to making more green energy available. And even were that not true, using green energy is unambiguously positive and in no way contradictory of his stated beliefs, which is the case it is incumbent upon you to make.
On the other hand, MY main point, the one you refuse to respond to, is that it is impossible to prove that Gore is a hypocrite given your lack of basic information on the matter. You simply cannot assess his carbon footprint because you lack the basic information on the subject of his energy usage — questions you have repeatedly declined to answer.
Further, your claim that he “knows” his offsets don’t work is frankly bizarre. The man gets his offsets in good faith; there are plenty of scientists who believe they work. That you would introduce them a a sign of him “violating his stated beliefs” is not a conclusion based on logic, but most likely on Gore-hatred instead.
OK, I was prepared to let this go since I’m not going to endlessly repeat myself…
But you have GOT to be kidding me! He burned through an extra household’s worth of electricity more than before because he was more busy AFTER the movie?
Are you imagining that he needed to bring in two dozen giant 10,000 watt spotlights to light up his office just a little bit brighter 24 hours a day?
Seriously, Gore could kill 3 or 4 puppies with a dull knife on live TV and you would find a way to accept it.
JWG, since you’re griping that I’m not answering your posts, I once again ask which specific point you’d like me to address, and clarify its relevance to your general charge that Gore is knowingly violating his stated beliefs. In return, I expect you to answer my questions below. I thank you in advance, JWG.
“Are you imagining that he needed to bring in two dozen giant 10,000 watt spotlights”
I am imagining that it is unfair to compare his house and home offices to an average American house, but I am willing to change my views if you can offer evidence to the contrary. However, until you can provide evidence that Gore’s energy needs are excessive, I am unmoved by your claims. I present my questions, which you’ve failed yet again to answer.
Is the energy usage unusual for a house that provides energy for:
1) the former Vice President of the U.S.?
2) his activist wife?
3) separate home offices for each out of which they also run charity foundations?
4) full staffs for these offices?
5) a contingent of security officers who live with them?
6) an extensive security system?
The fact is that you have NO IDEA what Gore’s energy requirements are, nor have you offered ANY REASON AT ALL why his residence and home offices should be compared to some national average for residences, a standard which includes apartments and trailers. Nor have you offered any evidence on this point.
Further, you have NO IDEA of what Gore’s carbon reduction/carbon offsetting measures are, nor have you offered any evidence on this point.
When you have evidence that Gore is behaving in a way that violates his beliefs, please contribute it. Until then, the honorable answer to whether Gore is a hypocrite remains “I don’t know.” But sadly, your argument is motivated by its conclusion, not evidence.
“I’m not going to endlessly repeat myself”
You’ve never even attempted a good faith response to my questions, which unfortunately, I’ve had to endlessly repeat. I’m not expecting you to start behaving in good faith any time soon. Frankly, you seem so ill equipped to even begin the discussion, I’m starting to feel less amusement and more pity for you sad, irrelevant conservatives. For attack dogs, your teeth all seem to be made of rubber.
“Gore could kill 3 or 4 puppies with a dull knife on live TV and you would find a way to accept it.”
In that case, presumably there’d be evidence you could provide to make your point. In this case, you seem uninterested in finding any.
With all the accolades about Gore’s use of carbon offsets to eliminate his carbon footprint (that only he is able to calculate), I think it’s interesting to see where he actually purchases those fabulous offsets:
So Gore buys his offsets from a company that he himself co-founded and serves as a chairman. His (and other people’s) money is then invested in the stocks of ‘green’ companies. And the more Gore travels the world warning us of the peril of GW, the higher the stock climbs. Now THAT is a pretty sweet deal he’s got going. Me, jealous? You bet!
And what do you know, even that notorious right-wing propaganda machine know as the New York Times is skeptical of the use of carbon offsets.
In that case, presumably there’d be evidence you could provide to make your point.
Yes, JWG, at the very least you’d need to produce an actual puppy corpse with a knife (covered with Gore’s fingerprints) still sticking out of it. Without that, you’ve just got no evidence at all. And even if you do produce it, then that just proves you killed the puppy yourself and that you’re part of the right-wing attack machine trying to bring down a great man like Al Gore while contributing nothing to the discussion of GW that is already closed because there is no longer any doubt.
Man, do I pity you.
VRWC, I don’t have time to fully respond to this, and I won’t be back at a computer until tomorrow, but I do want to say that while I appreciate you introducing more speculation, proof has not been established. Evidence is what I’ve asked for, and evidence is what you’ve again failed to provide with regard to Gore knowingly violating his stated principles.
I point again to my questions above; you’re welcome to dodge them as before.
I reiterate this: “The fact is that you have NO IDEA what Gore’s energy requirements are, nor have you offered ANY REASON AT ALL why his residence and home offices should be compared to some national average for residences, a standard which includes apartments and trailers. Nor have you offered any evidence on this point.”
I do welcome the speculation with regard to Gore’s carbon trading practices, but I invite you to look again at my reponse that, even were I to uncritically accept that speculation as true, it has no bearing on whether GOre is KNOWINGLY violating his stated beliefs, which is the standard you’ve introduced.
I did get a kick out of this, though:
“at the very least you’d need to produce an actual puppy corpse”
Given that Republicans took away habeus corpus from American citizens, I’m surprised to see you apply it to dogs. But that’s conservatism for you!
The cons are right for once. Gore’s a hypocrite.
Then again, if Gore ate tofu, rode the bus and lived in a commune, like I do, he’d be attacked for that. The cons are angry at people who live a sustainable lifestyle, too.
As usial wealthy liberal demacrat AL GORE urges us all to save energy while he gose all over the world and uses it for his own hypotcrtical pourpous what a blabbering idiot and still the news media lap dogs lick his butt