An Inconvenient Hypocrisy by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

An Inconvenient Hypocrisy

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Thursday, April 19, 2007 09:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4360
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, March 3, 2007 7:00 AM

While the Oscars going green this year made headlines, there was Al Gore grinning ear to ear like some kind of homosexual being named a Boy Scout troop leader. What I find hilarious is that Al Gore lives in a 10,000ft mansion that uses a hell of a lot more energy than Bush's 4,000ft home(that just happens to use an environment-friendly system of rain and recycled water). That is never talked about in the media, because they are to busy kissing Hollywood's and Gore's ass. What a bunch of hypocrites. Must have been a wonderful site when they all took their jets to his banquet. And how many of those lying hypocrites drove Priuses to the Oscars? I'm sure fat Al sure as hell didn't. So, the next time these nutters make some bullshit movie about the fucking environment, how evil we are for raping Mother Earth, or shitting where we eat.....Laugh, because I sure the hell will be. Oh, remember Al Gores is shitting a hell of a lot more than you or I.
Now, if someone like Bush were to make it, at least I could possibly take it serious. When Gore talks the good talk it's equivalent to Clinton talking about the evils of oral sex...What a joke.....That is the INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 7:23 AM

KHYRON

I have to admit I was pretty disappointed in him when I read this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6401489.stm

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 7:30 AM

CHRISISALL

Khyron, is an ex-Vice President really gonna live in a place like you or me?

Ghandi's mom snuck him cookies during fasts.

The message is what matters.

Our climate's changing. Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 7:41 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Kaneman, your phony outrage is typical of what's blowing this story so out of proportion. This has been debunked all over the net all week, in fact, even at the bottom of the link provided by Khyron.

For starters, Gore has been an advocate of using clean energy, not less energy. He has been installing clean energy systems in his own home, to reduce fossil fuel consumption, as cited in the link from the BBC. Not to mention that he spends an astronomical amount of cash to ensure that the energy that goes to his home is from clean sources, (solar, wind, etc.).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010008
From the article:
TCPR's criticism "omits" that Gore's home includes "home offices for himself and his wife, as well as a guest house and special security measures," and that the Gores' use of "renewable sources" from the "Green Power Switch" program "actually costs more for the Gores."

Home offices and security, notice. He was a former VP and still is a prominent leader. I would expect him to use more power than his neighbors.

The phony outrage is just a smear campaign by any number of the following:
-People too stupid to acknowledge GWarming

-Republicans too stupid to realize GWB is an idiot

-GOP members too scared that Gore will run in 2008

-Total idiots, who think manufactured hypocracy over energy is worse than standard GOP daily hypocracy about the war, the economy, treatment of the constitution, treatment of minorities...

...or any combination thereof.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 7:43 AM

KHYRON

What was here is gone now.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 8:42 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Khyron, is an ex-Vice President really gonna live in a place like you or me?

Ghandi's mom snuck him cookies during fasts.

The message is what matters.

And of course when a liberal is caught with an inconsistent message it's okay, because he's a liberal and not a "neocon," right Chris?

The truth is that Al Gore is, in fact, a hypocrite on this issue. He has been for a long time. The media is only just now coming to terms with this. And if you can’t see it, it’s probably because you’re a left-wing apologist, and don't want to.

Al Gore's Global Warming crap is not science; and it never has been. It is nothing more then a paycheck to keep him in his 10,000 sqrft houses (plural). And he's very successful and very insulated from economically disastrous socialist plans like Kyoto. But, the bigger hypocrites (or maybe their just stupid) are those people with absolutely no scientific understanding who feel obliged to dismiss climate science that doesn’t support Al Gore’s utility bill payment, because it is funded by oil companies. There’s just as much money, if not more, on Al Gore’s side.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 8:54 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And of course when a liberal is caught with an inconsistent message it's okay, because he's a liberal and not a "neocon," right Chris?

Pretty much anything is ok as long as one is not a "neocon"

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 9:01 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
While the Oscars going green this year made headlines, there was Al Gore grinning ear to ear like some kind of homosexual being named a Boy Scout troop leader. What I find hilarious is that Al Gore lives in a 10,000ft mansion that uses a hell of a lot more energy than Bush's 4,000ft home(that just happens to use an environment-friendly system of rain and recycled water).

Wow...you've uncovered hipocrasy amongst politicians...this must be the first time!...holy s@!t!...Oh wait! There is that whole thing about the Bush administration being against gay marriage/child rearing...and WHO is it that who has a gay daughter about to adopt a child?...I can't seem to remember the name...but I've got this image of some guy shot in the face...who could it be???

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 9:04 AM

GHOULFISH

The climate is changing but some people open their mouths and forget to use their brains. People think that if all of a sudden we stop using fossil fuel in cars emmisions will decrease. They fail to see that electric cars take run on electrical energy created by the buring of fossil fuels. The steel and other metals used in construction and industry is smelted using fossil fuels and the plastics in our homes are made out of fossil fuels. Everyone is screaming about change and how industry is evil and that the use of fossil fuels should be stopped but they can come up with any good ideas of how - you find an earth friendly solution im all for it. People say that we should use hydro-power but then the complain when forests are submerged underwater destroying ecosystems and killing wildlife. Other people say use solarpower, but its cost compared to its energy output is still very hight. And last of all wind power, wind power is the best alternative energy source we have come up with so far but many people are reluctant to surrend land because it is harder to keep livestock on it and harder to harvest grains when the tractors have to manouver through a grid of turbines.

Rant over - Sometimes i get mad when people start screaming about change but they themselves can not come up with a better solution.

I know people disagree with my points - and they have every right to - just please give me a reason better than, the world is dying so fix it.

And as for Gore - it doesnt matter how green the energy is - its still a waste, reducing the amount of energy and going green is a far better way to get your point across.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 10:16 AM

SIMONWHO

And once again the same old tactic is rolled out - the Republican candidates (all of them) are hellbent on destroying the environment so they dig up whatever it takes to make the other guy look anti-environment.

Can't blame them when they ran a successful campaign that made a thrice decorated war hero look like the the cowardly one when their own candidate dodged out of serving in Vietnam and barely even turned up to what he should have been doing.

This will continue as long as voters are idiots. I'm not expecting it to end anytime soon.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 10:31 AM

KANEMAN

The Incredible Simonwho,
"the Republican candidates (all of them) are hellbent on destroying the environment"

Yep, that's what they live for destroying the environment........Brilliant as always Simonwho. You are so insightful. Do you know the muffin man that lives on dreary lane? Of course.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 6:15 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And of course when a liberal is caught with an inconsistent message it's okay, because he's a liberal and not a "neocon," right Chris?

The truth is that Al Gore is, in fact, a hypocrite on this issue. He has been for a long time. The media is only just now coming to terms with this. And if you can’t see it, it’s probably because you’re a left-wing apologist, and don't want to.

All in this post is a reasonable reaction to what I posted, because I didn't take the time to address Gore's hypocracy. Yeah, I see it. He's a big phoney personally, but that still doesn't negate the good of the message. We have to face up to what's coming. It's too late to stop it, even if we'd all been tree-hugging, bicycling, non-poluting Demolition Man-geeks, I suspect the Earth has it's own agenda, which includes a major climate change ever few hundred years.
The industrial Revolution came and brought big-time polution with it. Can't change that now. Getting rid of what polutants we can is all fine and well, but as Wayne said in Batman and Robin, "People come first." We're not gonna stop shipping food in trucks and throw out our refrigerators just to SEE if we can slow it down. But getting ready for a minor, world-affecting ice age on a global scale might make some sense, doncha think?

The AlGore 5000 has SOME points to make in his self-indulgent semi-documentary, IMO.

Info from whatever source Chrisisall

PS- left-wing apologist? Uhhh, not really (one of my favourite films IS Demolition Man, 'cause the Left is capable of the same nonsense, just in different venues).
"We're Police Officers; we're not trained to deal with this level of violence!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 11:14 PM

KHYRON

There's no doubt about the validity of his message, but if a person is trying to convince a large number of skeptics that global warming is happening, I don't think the message will come across too well if those skeptics think that person is a hypocrite.

I realise that a large proportion of the energy his household uses comes from renewable resources, but so far the availability of energy from renewable resources is very limited, yet his message effectively becomes "as long as it's from a renewable source, you can use as much as you want". And I also realise that he's got an office, guest house, enhanced security, etc, but 20 times more than the average household is still extraordinarily high. It's kind of hypocritical of a person to tell people who use 20 times less that they should be the ones cutting back.

This is from the article I linked:

Quote:
They were also in the process of installing solar panels and low-energy light bulbs to reduce consumption from the grid, she added.

No matter where his energy comes from, those things should have been installed a long time ago.

We (the left) shouldn't be so quick to point to hypocrisy on the right and then make excuses and still point fingers at the right when there's hypocrisy on the left.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 12:29 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
There's no doubt about the validity of his message, but if a person is trying to convince a large number of skeptics that global warming is happening, I don't think the message will come across too well if those skeptics think that person is a hypocrite.

I think there IS plenty of doubt about the validity of the message. But that aside, it's sort of like Ted Haggard (the fundie preacher who admitted to a 3 year affair with a male prostitute) preaching about the evils of homosexuality. Whether you agree with the "message" or not, it really needs to come from a different person.

A spokesperson who lives a simple life in a solar-powered house, bicycling most of the time, would make a stronger impression on me for reducing carbon emissions than a spokesperson whose only contribution to the "message" is that he is a government celebrity. But that's me.

BTW, the average global temperature has risen from 13.88 degrees Celsius in 1880 to 14.60 degrees C in 2004. What I can't find is the range of the temperatures from which this mean is derived. When scientists normally report an average, they usually also include a calculation called the "standard deviation" that allows people to know what the range of the data is. (Most of the data falls within 3 standard deviations above and below the mean.)

For example, the average SAT score is 500. The standard deviation is 100. That lets you know the range of SAT scores is 300 points (3 SD's) below and above the mean, or 200-800. Contrast this to a mean of 500 that has a range from say, 470 - 530. With a tighter range, the mean of 500 is more representative of actual data than a mean of 500 with a larger range. So knowing the SD is very important in evaluating a mean.

Yet most reports on global warming don't even cite the actual mean global temperature, and I haven't found one to date that cites the standard deviation. If anyone knows what the standard deviation is of the actual temperature data from which the average is derived, please let me know. I don't have a lot of time to research, so I may have just missed it.

Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 1:05 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
We (the left) shouldn't be so quick to point to hypocrisy on the right and then make excuses and still point fingers at the right when there's hypocrisy on the left.

Nice save, wouldn't you agree Soup?

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 3:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Khyron, is an ex-Vice President really gonna live in a place like you or me?

Ghandi's mom snuck him cookies during fasts.

The message is what matters.

Our climate's changing. Chrisisall

That message being " Do as I say, not as I do " ?

Gore muddy's the message.

The climate's ALWAYS been changing.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 4:12 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That message being " Do as I say, not as I do " ?

Just like every other politician. You can't help it if some people give their heros a free pass.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:53 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

That message being " Do as I say, not as I do " ?

AU, to you the message will always be that 'NeoCon' is the label the Left gives true heroes and patriots, and only the Liberals are capable of true corruption of heart and soul.

He's a hypocrite, so? Show me a successful politician that isn't.
*Gets ready for the list of torture-approving hawks*

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 7:07 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You can't help it if some people give their heros a free pass.

Yes, I will give James Kirk and Mal Reynolds a free pass- real life folk...please see your nearest travel agent, and book a plane to Hell.

Chrisisall, who LIVES on pizza, but wouldn't recommend it for everyone...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 12:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
AU, to you the message will always be that 'NeoCon' is the label the Left gives true heroes and patriots, and only the Liberals are capable of true corruption of heart and soul.

I'm just curious. Which uses more power, Bush's ranch down in Crawford,TX, or Gore's place in Tennessee.

What are the real differences between the 2? If Bush's place uses a considerable amount LESS than Gore's , as suggested , why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 12:53 PM

KANEMAN

"why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?"

You already know that answer AU........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 12:56 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What are the real differences between the 2? If Bush's place uses a considerable amount LESS than Gore's , as suggested , why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?

Well Bush's is considerably less enviromentally friendly, as noted, but also the vast amount of hot air expended in 'Bush love' does some what make up for any gains there maybe.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 1:25 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm just curious. Which uses more power, Bush's ranch down in Crawford,TX, or Gore's place in Tennessee.

I'm just curious. Which man made decisions that got the most Americans killed, Bush or Gore.

The answer?
Gore.
Why?
Because he (and Clinton) didn't get Bin Laden, and let him set up 911, making it LOOK as if it happened on Bush's watch- but it didn't REALLY, because Bush is such a God-fearing patriot, and he would never let something like that happen- so it was the Dems fault after all.
It's all so clear. Like sea-glass.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 1:28 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?"

You already know that answer AU........

You know, Kaneman, I think...
oh, wait...we're not supposed to feed the trolls.
Nevermind.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 4:00 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
PS- left-wing apologist? Uhhh, not really (one of my favourite films IS Demolition Man, 'cause the Left is capable of the same nonsense, just in different venues).
"We're Police Officers; we're not trained to deal with this level of violence!"

Yeah, the left-wing apologist bit was probably harsh. Sometimes, I sense the bullshit rising and start channeling Nicholas Cage, sorry.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point that the message is important, but Al Gore couldn’t really care less about the message. Remember that IPCC report that the media was fawning over a few weeks ago, the one the said that the IPCC was now 90% certain that the current warming trend had an anthropogenic component (as if somehow that is news)? Guess what Al Gore will never tell you. The same IPCC report decided that the rising sea levels that they once predicted could reach 20+ feet above average, will now only reach 20 cm. Less then a foot of sea level rise. Isn’t that news, Chris? At least as much news as the IPCC being 90% certain of what we’ve suspected for years? Shouldn’t that be part of the global warming “message?” It should be if you’re serious about it. But people like Al Gore are not serious about it. Sure, they talk a big story, while they drive their SUVs and live in their 10,000 sqrft houses.

So instead of rational thought and constructive plans, we run off half-cocked like we did with Kyoto, then what? Do you know what Kyoto did for the environment? It helped bolster the Chinese and Indian Industrial revolution, thereby making them two of the largest producers of CO2 in the world. That, so far, has been the legacy of Kyoto. The global warming doomsdayers are wrong. Their message is no different then the message of a few dispensationalists Christians, that I know: “the Apocalypse is coming so repent or burn in hell.”

It is never a good idea to run blind; and I’m sorry that we aren’t learning fast enough to suit some people’s political agendas, but there is plenty to do in the meantime and if half of the people who bitch about Global warming did what they tell other people to do, we would go far further to making a dent then waiting for world-wide socialism to hand us a solution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 5:24 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the left-wing apologist bit was probably harsh.

No worries, mate. Like I said, in light of my gloss-over of Gore's hypocracy- totally understandable. Besides, I've been known to hurl around labels some, and in somewhat stronger language. I take the way you put it as a kindness

Quote:
The same IPCC report decided that the rising sea levels that they once predicted could reach 20+ feet above average, will now only reach 20 cm. Less then a foot of sea level rise. Isn’t that news, Chris? At least as much news as the IPCC being 90% certain of what we’ve suspected for years? Shouldn’t that be part of the global warming “message?”

Yep.
But 'knowledge' is changing constantly. It should all begin with: "As of this moment, calculations predict..."
We only KNOW something is happening, and the current change from x-time ago status.
Absolutism has absolutely no place in language concerning the predictions of what is to come.

Absolutely Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 8:50 PM

MRIG

A few things, apologies if it makes me a little angry, but this story has done that to me.

1. Al Gore is only 3%, not 20%, above the national average if you calculate it by his climate zone, because energy costs are higher there than they are in the rest of the country.
2. Considering that his house is also his office, and he has concerns that we don't (like security) that's pretty good.
3. A lot of that is green, he's on a program that provides renewable energy.
4. The energy he does use is negated because he purchases carbon offsets. For that matter, the same is true for the movie and the book. You can argue that carbon offsets are ineffective, but you can't pretend that they don't exist, or that he doesn't use them, because they do and he does.
5. The message is more important than the messenger. As a rule, if you can't find a way to fight the message, you shoot the messenger. It's an effective tactic, but not a substantial one. It doesn't tell us anything useful and it doesn't add anything new or interesting to the discourse.

If you don't like Gore, fine. If you don't like his message, fine. But don't attack one and think you've debunked the other.

Whew. That was cathartic. I'm done now.

"I have to understand the world, you see."
~Richard Feynman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:17 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by MRig:
1. Al Gore is only 3%, not 20%, above the national average if you calculate it by his climate zone, because energy costs are higher there than they are in the rest of the country.

Where did you get this from? And the issue is that his household uses 20 times as much energy, not 20%. Heck, I'd be absolutely fine with it if it were to use just three times as much energy. But I haven't seen the regional comparison that you have.

Quote:
A lot of that is green, he's on a program that provides renewable energy.

At this point renewable energy has very limited availability, so by using so much of it he's basically restricting the amount available to others. Plus his message in this regard seems to be "as long as it's green, you can use as much as you like", which is wrong as long as green energy isn't ubiquitous.

Quote:
The message is more important than the messenger. As a rule, if you can't find a way to fight the message, you shoot the messenger. It's an effective tactic, but not a substantial one. It doesn't tell us anything useful and it doesn't add anything new or interesting to the discourse.

If the between-the-lines message is "do as I say, not as I do", then that is not a very effective way of getting the main message across to the skeptics, which is what's at stake here.

Quote:
If you don't like Gore, fine. If you don't like his message, fine. But don't attack one and think you've debunked the other.

I haven't heard anybody say "Gore uses more energy, so global warming isn't happening". The issue is hypocrisy. I personally like Gore a lot (as far as politicians go), but I dislike hypocrisy in people who I like even more than I dislike hypocrisy in people who I don't like.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 5:05 AM

KJW

While I do enjoy the RWD threads, I rarely join, but this thread bothered me enough to participate.

After reading the links for the articles in this thread, including Sevenpercent's rebuttal article and a quick scan of the Internet which revealed that the group that originated the story is anti-Gore I am confused on the hypocrisy claim.

OK Gore has a big house (darn him for his success) which also serves as offices for him and his wife and no doubt has considerable security concerns. Additionally, heating costs do vary from region to region, trust me in Florida my heating bills in the winter were nearly nonexistent, but now that we are in Maryland it is considerably higher. Further, he uses renewable energies that cost him considerably more than it would if he didn't. I don't understand; is he to live in a hut in Hawaii and play charades for entertainment purposes? This would be pretty green, but ridiculous. Let's face it, he is doing more to be green and help the environment than probably anyone participating on this thread or all of us combined.

Also on the limited availability of renewable energy and that Gore is stealing from others who need it more, that argument is absurd. If there is significant enough demand then free market forces will expand the amount of renewable energy. Even ignoring basic economics the argument here is that Gore shouldn't be using renewable energy at all? Does that make any sense? No not really.

As for the issue being hypocrisy versus global warming, that is also ridiculous. Obviously, when you look at the articles and the information out there you come up with the conclusion that he is at least attempting to be green and that people are attacking him to undermine his message. This is politics anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty naive. If you disagree with his views on global warming you can't seriously attack the science (which is a losing argument), but to shoot the messager is effective. This is a standard, and effective, conservative technique; it demolished Kerry in 2004 and is already being used on Clinton, Obama, and Gore. Of course, Gore isn't running for president (or any public office for that point), but he is the symbol of an issue that could hurt republicans.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 6:25 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
... a quick scan of the Internet which revealed that the group that originated the story is anti-Gore I am confused on the hypocrisy claim.

Doesn't matter if it's anti-Gore as long as the basic facts they reported are true (Gore's utility bills), and as I far as I know those bills haven't been disputed.

Quote:
OK Gore has a big house (darn him for his success) which also serves as offices for him and his wife and no doubt has considerable security concerns.

Yes to all of that, but how much more energy usage is reasonable and how much more is too much?

Exactly how big is his office at home? That's not rhetorical, it's a serious question, I'd really like to know. Does he have 20 people working there every day? I find that hard to believe. Does he maybe have just three personal assistants working there?

Here's my take on what would be a reasonable amount, and I feel I'm being quite generous on some of these:

Household: 3 x NA
Offices: 2 x NA
Guest house: 1 x NA
Security precautions: 2 x NA
Security personnel: 2 x NA

Total: 10 x NA

So, 10 times the national average, and seeing as I was pretty generous already, that should be a strict upper limit. But he uses twice that amount.

Quote:
Additionally, heating costs do vary from region to region, trust me in Florida my heating bills in the winter were nearly nonexistent, but now that we are in Maryland it is considerably higher.

I agree with that too. Does somebody have figures for Tennessee specifically? As far as I know the climate there isn't extraordinarily hot or cold, so I'd be surprised if the state average were to lie far from the national average, but it'd be interesting.

Quote:
Further, he uses renewable energies that cost him considerably more than it would if he didn't. I don't understand; is he to live in a hut in Hawaii and play charades for entertainment purposes? This would be pretty green, but ridiculous.

We're not saying he should be using 0 times the national average, just a more reasonable amount.

Quote:
Let's face it, he is doing more to be green and help the environment than probably anyone participating on this thread or all of us combined.

In terms of being an environmental activist, absolutely. That's why he needs to be careful to practice what he's preaching.

Quote:
Also on the limited availability of renewable energy and that Gore is stealing from others who need it more, that argument is absurd.

It is, but nobody made it. I said that the amount of renewable energy is limited and that using an unreasonable amount of it won't give a good impression to the general public of how one should use an as-yet limited resource responsibly.

Quote:
If there is significant enough demand then free market forces will expand the amount of renewable energy.

Let's hope so.

Quote:
Even ignoring basic economics the argument here is that Gore shouldn't be using renewable energy at all? Does that make any sense? No not really.

You like straw men, don't you?

Quote:
As for the issue being hypocrisy versus global warming, that is also ridiculous. Obviously, when you look at the articles and the information out there you come up with the conclusion that he is at least attempting to be green and that people are attacking him to undermine his message. This is politics anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty naive.

Yeah, it's inspired by politics, but what bugs me is that in this case the conservatives actually have a bit of a point. What bugs me the most is that this will in all likelihood make him less credible to people who are on the fence about global warming, and it's these people who are his target audience.

Quote:
If you disagree with his views on global warming you can't seriously attack the science (which is a losing argument), but to shoot the messager is effective. This is a standard, and effective, conservative technique; it demolished Kerry in 2004 and is already being used on Clinton, Obama, and Gore. Of course, Gore isn't running for president (or any public office for that point), but he is the symbol of an issue that could hurt republicans.

Yes to all of that, it's a shame that Gore gave the Republicans the opening.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 6:43 AM

KJW

But here is the question...what would Gore have needed to do to be free from criticism? My guess is that no matter what he did he is going to be criticized for being hypocritical. So if we compare Gore to other people with massive houses, my guess is he is doing pretty darn well environmentally. Other people with massive houses who work from home he is probably doing even better. So where is the hypocrisy?

It was the same with Kerry a decorated war veteran who gets sidelined with these types of attacks. Obama right now is facing the same thing with his middle name and ethnicity being used to make him seem like a terrorist. Gore is strong on the environment and thus to marginalize him you make him seem hypocritical. Its political machinations and most everyone here falls right into it. It is also the same thing with labeling Bush an idiot. I may not like Bush's policies, but I don't think he is an idiot.

There are policy arguments and then character arguments, one is worthwhile the other is always a distraction from the policy issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 7:03 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
But here is the question...what would Gore have needed to do to be free from criticism?

If he were to use half of what he's using, I for one wouldn't be criticising him (based on my calculation above). Probably he'd still get criticised, but that would be purely politically-motivated and therefore outside of many people's interest in the issue.

Quote:
So if we compare Gore to other people with massive houses, my guess is he is doing pretty darn well environmentally. Other people with massive houses who work from home he is probably doing even better.

Would be another interesting statistic to have, but I'm guessing this one would be very difficult to come by. Above I assumed three times the national average and I think that's still a bit high since one isn't living in most of the rooms of a 20-room mansion and most people (I assume) would turn off air-conditioning or heating in the rooms one doesn't use. I'd be surprised if my estimate is off by much.

By the way, welcome back to the boards, KJW. I see you haven't been here in a while; hope you stick around.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 7:38 AM

KJW

I am always here but usually I just amuse myself by reading the threads. :D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 8:15 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Why is anybody *B*O*T*H*E*R*I*N*G* to attack Al Gore?

He's an ex- VICE PRESIDENT, which, " if it ain't a public disgrace, it oughtta be."

He's not a candidate for 2008.

He lost the election in 2000. ( Well, sorta.)

And he's a tree hugger because he's stiffer than Simon Tam, remember?

Isn't he a washed up has been who never made it higher than Number 2?

What are folks afraid of from this person of no real influence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 8:33 AM

KHYRON

I guess the main political goal of saying he's a hypocrite is so that the Republicans can say: "We may not have a great environmental policy, but hey look, the Democrats' main environmental guy is a huge hypocrite who doesn't care about the environment at all, so do you really think the Democrats care about the environment as much as they say they do? No, so you should vote Republican."

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 5, 2007 12:00 PM

FLETCH2

The unfortunate truth is that if the guy lived in an eco-shack in the woods, with solar everything and a zero carbon footprint people would lambast him as a tree hugging hippy weirdo. So he can't win no matter what he does. Typical case of if you dont like the message, shoot the messenger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Al Gore's green home improvements

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore's upscale neighborhood granted the environmental activist approval Tuesday to install 33 solar panels on the roof of his mansion.

The city of Belle Meade, Tennessee, had blocked his application until new rules were approved unanimously late Tuesday, said Gore spokesman Chris Song. The city, located within metropolitan Nashville, said the panels must be placed in areas where they can't be seen by neighbors.

Gore, who starred in the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming, already buys enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs. He is also upgrading the furnace, windows, and light switches, as well as installing new floor radiant heat and solar vents, to improve the home's energy standards, said Kalee Kreider, a Gore spokeswoman. The home, bought by Gore in 2002, is more than 70 years old and illustrates the challenges of renovating an older home to conserve more energy, Kreider said.

"It's obviously easier to build a green home from the get-go," she said. "When you purchase an older home, these retrofits take a lot longer."

---------------------

So, Gore bought a 70-year-old home in 2002, balanced his electricity consumption with green fuels, requested solar panels, and is retrofitting the house. So... what's the problem? Oh, yeah, It's Kaneman.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE