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.

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!

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.

So, where does Gore buy his ‘carbon offsets’? According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe…

As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks.

And it is not clear at all that Gore’s stock purchases – excuse me, “carbon offsets” purchases – actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions – a/k/a/ “greenhouse gases” – into the atmosphere.

As the news media swarmed around the story of Gore’s gargantuan energy consumption yesterday, Gore’s people touted his purchase of “carbon offsets” as evidence that he lives a “carbon-neutral” lifestyle, but the truth is Gore’s home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources.

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.

“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.

Is that because his office got much more busy after the movie came out?

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.

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.

So now you’re claiming that Gore “increased his usage”? Back it up.

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.

And if that’s all you’ve got, I’ll assume you’ve granted my other point

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.

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!

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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).

you are a much better “gotcha” player than I

That explains why you’re a “retired” lawyer.

that seems to be all the depth of analysis that you can muster

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.

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.

Gore secretly hates the environment, according to you!

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.

Legitimate environmentalists would praise Gore for supporting that program.

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?

You don’t know what his offsets are removing. If you do, show it.

*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.

you’ve lost the Global Warming debate on the substance

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.