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.