Al Gore: Power Hungry

Brian Doherty | February 26, 2007

Is this sort of hypocrisy too cheap to meter, um, to take note of? Mmmaybe. Still, Drudge reports that Al Gore's Nashville mansion consumes more than 20 times the average amount of power for an American household.

Since Gore's whole deal is that civilization-saving absolutely and vitally requires an action on everyone's part that he seems to refuse to do himself, it leads one to wonder about how this whole global warming thing is going to play out with the public and with the government. (Unless Gore's house is powered completely or partially off a conventional coal-burning grid, which doesn't seem to be true based on Drudge's piece.)

Does Gore's seeming inability to curb his power consumption--which has apparently grown since the release of his Oscar-winning flick--mean it isn't true that we really do all have to scrupulously use less carbon-burning energy or doom the planet? No. But it does make it a little hard to believe that he really believes it--or that if even the biggest believer in global warming of all can't control himself in this regard, that a serious planetwide reduction in the short or medium term short of draconian outside controls has much hope. I'm curious as to how many anecdotes of serious behavior-change when it comes to greenhouse gas production our commenters can relate, or are living through themselves.

Comments

|2.26.07 @ 9:15PM|#

So, Gore is just your standard lying, hypocritical, politician/celebrity. Who would have thought?

|2.26.07 @ 9:21PM|#

Perhaps Gore balances his consumption by paying for the equivalent CO2 sequestration. Realizing how few the options for such sequestration are, he figures he'll raise his own demand for it in hopes of jump-starting the market single-handedly.

He had to burn the carbon in order to save it...

|2.26.07 @ 9:25PM|#

Just from seeing him briefly last night, I'd like to see an investigation vis-a vis his methane production compared to the average dairy cow.

|2.26.07 @ 9:33PM|#

Huffiana, not so long ago, pounding the table about SUVs from the comfort of her bicoastal, greenhouse gas spewing, private jet springs to mind.

Still, this seems like so much political hackery to me. I mean if someone thinks nothing needs to be done about global warming because Al Gore's a hypocrite, then...um...then I'd rather hear that person's next best argument.

Sometimes, when I see people assassinate the messengers, it makes me wonder if the assassin wouldn't rather see the environment destroyed so long as there was a [Insert Political Party] in office. ...just sometimes.

COOP|2.26.07 @ 9:35PM|#

"Just from seeing him briefly last night, I'd like to see an investigation vis-a vis his methane production compared to the average dairy cow."

Well, he IS full of shit... but then, aren't they all? Maybe shutting down Washington DC is all we need to do to keep the polar bears chill.

|2.26.07 @ 9:36PM|#

well he actually does buy the Carbon offsets.. do you?

I can't believe you consider Drudge anything but a biased source.. serious loss of respect for Reason here... guess I'll let my subscription lapse to save some trees..]

|2.26.07 @ 9:39PM|#

Still, this seems like so much political hackery to me. I mean if someone thinks nothing needs to be done about global warming because Al Gore's a hypocrite, then...um...then I'd rather hear that person's next best argument.

Well, that would be some pretty bad logic. What it means to me is that there's no good reason to believe a word Gore says about anything. It doesn't mean that I won't listen to others. (It's not like I believed anything Gore has said for the last 15 years or so. He proved to me long ago that he's a freakin' nutcase.)

|2.26.07 @ 9:40PM|#

Derffie, if AGW is the crisis Gore makes it out to be, the fact that he has the wealth to purchase carbon offsets is no excuse for him to be using energy at the rate he does.

|2.26.07 @ 9:41PM|#

Maybe Gore can give us another speech about his affinity for tobacco farming.

c&d|2.26.07 @ 9:42PM|#

In this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1786438,00.html
Gore says that "his family and businesses now do all they can to reduce their emissions and to 'offset' the rest by giving money to carbon-reduction schemes in India and eastern Europe."

So, the amount of energy he uses does not make him a hypocrite. Given the source of the news, Mr. Doherty could do a little more research before smearing someone.

I would also suspect that more economic activity is going on at the Gore mansion than the average American home.

|2.26.07 @ 9:47PM|#

Derffie, if AGW is the crisis Gore makes it out to be, the fact that he has the wealth to purchase carbon offsets is no excuse for him to be using energy at the rate he does.

Hmm, I was thinking it was such a fine example of the Democrats "Two Americas" - those who can buy indulgences and those who must do penance.

c&d|2.26.07 @ 9:48PM|#

Will Allen: "the fact that he has the wealth to purchase carbon offsets is no excuse for him to be using energy at the rate he does."

Why not? Gore makes a lot of money, and conducts a great deal of economic activity. He should reduce carbon in the most efficient way possible. If it is more efficient to pay others to reduce carbon, he should.

I'm sure Al Gore supports carbon trading systems, not caps on individual output. Therefore, his activity is entirely consistent.

Does Will Allen believe in economic efficiency? Or that people should be able to spend the money they earn in the manner they wish?

|2.26.07 @ 9:49PM|#

"I can't believe you consider Drudge anything but a biased source.. serious loss of respect for Reason here... guess I'll let my subscription lapse to save some trees..]"

I remember in "Peter Pan" every time a kid said he didn't believe, a fairy died. In It's a Wonderful Life, every time a bell rang, I think it meant that an angel got his wings. Now I find out that every time someone threatens to cancel a subscription to Reason, a magic tree springs to life! ...or something.

Well I guess that's the end of the party, Gillespie. Derffie's canceling the subscription--I guess you'll have to change the whole direction of Hit & Run. Maybe Derffie'll give Doherty a list of all the things he can and can't link to--just so he knows.

|2.26.07 @ 9:55PM|#

From the looks of him at the Oscars, I think we can all tell where he's sequestering the long chain hydrocarbons.

|2.26.07 @ 9:57PM|#

c&d, Gore absolutely should spend money however he wishes. The rest of us should rightly his ignore his advocacy, until that time he sees fit to reduce his energy consumption. Unless their are 20 people living in the ol' Nashville mansion, Albert the Noble is simply spewing more co2 into the atmosphere than he needs to.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 9:58PM|#

Therefore, his activity is entirely consistent.

It's rank hypocrisy of the worst kind. Something like how you would feel about Reason if you found out they took government subsidies to promote a reduction in government interference in the marketplace.

And it stinks from a PR angle. Everybody must reduce consumption. Except me and Drew Barrymore.

|2.26.07 @ 9:58PM|#

"What it means to me is that there's no good reason to believe a word Gore says about anything. It doesn't mean that I won't listen to others."

I'm with Doherty. If the Gores can't control themselves, then it might seem to the average earthling like he doesn't have a chance. ...although I suspect something might be wrong with the average earthling's logic there too.

...but, you're right--just 'cause Chicken Little is a political opportunist, that doesn't mean the sky isn't falling.

|2.26.07 @ 9:59PM|#

Well I actually wouldn't be canceling the subscription to hurt Reason... but rather to help myself by removing another source of nonsense from my life. The dissonance between a magazine named 'Reason' and the level of blather it propogates has become to great for a thinking person to tolerate. The 'saving a tree' was just the icing on the cake...

Gimme Back My Dog|2.26.07 @ 9:59PM|#

Thirty thousand dollars a year for electricity and gas? What the fuck, does AG3 have an indoor grow or something?

|2.26.07 @ 9:59PM|#

I can't believe you consider Drudge anything but a biased source.

Again with the tired "Drudge is a biased source" crap.

Drudge may be biased, but the only way he's an unreliable source in this instance is if he fabricated the original article. Yes, I wish that Brian had linked to that instead of to Drudge so people who thought the messenger spoiled the truth would be quiet. But unless you can prove that Drudge constructed that Tennessee Center for Policy Research page, Drudge is a nonissue.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:07PM|#

Thanks MikeP. It is tiresome.

And bias is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the allegations are accurate.

I can tell you what else, I about shit nickels when I got a $282.00 electric bill last summer during a hot spell.

|2.26.07 @ 10:12PM|#

"The dissonance between a magazine named 'Reason' and the level of blather it propogates has become to great for a thinking person to tolerate. The 'saving a tree' was just the icing on the cake..."

Please understand. People who come here just to cut on the staff, they usually say the same tired things--"A magazine called "Reason"" *snicker* and "I'm canceling my subscription."

...watching different trolls say the same things, year after year, it gets...tedious.

|2.26.07 @ 10:14PM|#

The problem with th Ennesee Center for Policy Research is obvious from the opening line of their report...

"Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. "

See.. they've gone from 'research' to commentary and value judgement. That's the point at which they lose credibility... after all it should be the individual reading the research results who makes the value judgments not the researchers themselves... otherwise the motive for the research becomes way too self-serving..

Drudge is biased simply because of the filter that he (they) use when deciding what 'research' to highlight. Drudge has an ongoing pattern of publicizing random items that allegedly disprove Global Warming ( such as the recent.. winter storm cancels inconvenient truth showing articles...) as if a storm in winter disproves anything.. Apparently this tabloid headline approach to a serious issue is sufficient to convince some shallow thinkers... but I'm sure even they understand that it comes from that same Britney shaves her head school of 'journalism'.

|2.26.07 @ 10:17PM|#

I live 3 miles from my work, in the Northern VA suburbs. My car is a four cylinder japenese model, 30mpg. I bus occasionally, but mostly drive. I would rather own a house further out, and I go camping often, so an SUV makes sense, but so far I have denied myself either.

I eat less meat, 3-4 servings/week, than I used to. My paper towels are 100% recycled.

I was an environmental studies undergrad. I think global warming is real, though less likely catastrophic, and should be considered. I dont have much faith in the gov to do the right thing, much less know what the right thing is. I think the current green living trend is stronger than its been in any of its previous iterations in the last 40 years, it may be here to stay.

I think Al Gore is an oafish hippocrite.

|2.26.07 @ 10:19PM|#

"his family and businesses now do all they can to reduce their emissions and to 'offset' the rest by giving money to carbon reduction schemes in India and eastern Europe."

Is it normal for American gentry to pay Slavs and Hindoos not to produce carbon dioxide? What do they do, hold their breath for a fee? Seems like it would be more efficient for Mr. Gore to simply breath less himself.

Green is the new Red|2.26.07 @ 10:21PM|#

Ahhh... the For a magazine called 'Reason' line never gets old.

I helped save the earth by turing the tv off when Al Gore came on. I expect a thank you card from Derffie.


ps. Whenever I use someone else's computer I make Drudge their homepage.

|2.26.07 @ 10:25PM|#

Derffie,

Of course Drudge is biased, but as others have pointed out, that's not really relevant since he didn't write the article in question. It is also no doubt true that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is biased, and that their article is written in an inflammatory way, but if the substance of the article is true it still does look pretty damning for Gore.

It's all well and good to say he purchases offsets, but the fact is, most people in the world can't afford to do the same. If he feels so strongly about this issue yet he can't manage to reduce his consumption below the level of "appalling," that doesn't send much of a conservationist message.

As an aside--what on Earth could anybody possibly need 8 bathrooms in one house for?

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:26PM|#

So Derffie, bottom line, which you neatly avoided. Is it true? Does Al Gore use 30 grand worth of precious energy a year?

Cuz I didn't give a rat's behind whether the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is run from the north end of a southbound mule and hates every Democrat since Truman. I just wanna know is it true? Did he do his sister or not?

It's something like how nobody cared if Woodward hated Nixon...........

Green is Red wins the Thread. And that fargin' rhymes, too.

|2.26.07 @ 10:28PM|#

And it stinks from a PR angle. Everybody must reduce consumption. Except me and Drew Barrymore.

Why Drew, TWC? I mean, she's not that bad, especially in her red-head incarnation, and I wouldn't kick her out of the fallout shelter, but why not Anne Hathaway? Or Kate Winslet, for that matter? :-)

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:30PM|#

Bri24,

...need 8 bathrooms...

Parrothead concert, beer, parking lot party, 8 bathrooms isn't enough.

Oh, in a house? Beer would be the logical reason. Airplane Beer, worse yet.

One Sixpack, P-51 Regards, TWC

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Captain Holly, I know, I know, and I even liked Fifty First Dates. Shaddup, my credibility is at stake here. Besides, Mrs TWC made me watch it. Besides, anything that involves Hawaii...........

Well, I was inspired by a Reason post and blogged this, which explains it all. Shameless self-promotion, but at least I didn't post using Balko's name like that dork yesterday. I'd have linked to the story from here but everytime I post two links in one comment the server squirrels eat the comment.

|2.26.07 @ 10:42PM|#

The sheer weight of bad conscience on display here is creating a black hole from which not even a single thought can escape. This is just a smear-job.

1) Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint - a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore's office explains:

"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

And I thought "Reason" was in favor of market-based solutions...

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:44PM|#

I guess it was Cameron Diaz that liked squatting in the woods. Shoulda dissed her instead of Drew.

|2.26.07 @ 10:45PM|#

Pointing out Gore's hypocrisy is not the same thing as countering his arguments, unless you think the founding fathers' keeping of slaves proves that their arguments about freedom and personal rights were baloney.

BTW, does anyone know if there is something similar to Godwin's law regarding the founding fathers? It kinda seems like there should be, even if that means I just instantly lost the argument.

|2.26.07 @ 10:45PM|#

...watching different trolls say the same things, year after year, it gets...tedious.

Yeah, but we get to ... DRINK!

|2.26.07 @ 10:52PM|#

What the fuck, does AG3 have an indoor grow or something?

In that case, maybe he's the fabeled libertarian Democrat?

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:52PM|#

Will, that argument sounds an awful lot like some of my best friends are Negroes.

Gore needs a better approach. Bellowing at the kids works pretty well. Do you think we own stock in Edison? Turn that got dam light off.

And Jarod, you make a good point. I still love Jefferson even though he kept slaves. But that doesn't help me none because I still think Gore's a putz. The difference is that Jeff didn't insist that I keep slaves as well.

|2.26.07 @ 10:52PM|#

I can tell you what else, I about shit nickels when I got a $282.00 electric bill last summer during a hot spell.


TWC, too bad about the about part. You would have only needed to do that 1410 times and the bill would be covered.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:53PM|#

Sorry about the run-on italics. Crimethink is right, we get to drink, but it makes me not pay attention.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 10:56PM|#

scandalrag, you funny guy. :-)

|2.26.07 @ 10:57PM|#

I would also suspect that more economic activity is going on at the Gore mansion than the average American home.

While I find using Drudge as a source pretty much demonstrates a completely laughable attempt at credibility on the part of Doherty, I got some problems with Gore on this one.

One should point out that, living in Tennessee, he get his power from either hydro-electric or nuclear power.

Still, buying CO2 offsets doesn't cut it. This guy is a multimillionaire who is in a terrific position to demonstate alternatives - solar water heating, wind energy, hybrid automobiles, resource recovery...all things that could be used at his own domecile.

While I think it's a bit of a stratch to crucify high-level conservation types over air travel, I think it's not too much to ask that they actually demonstrate the conservation they preach to others.

|2.26.07 @ 11:00PM|#

I don't get it. I'd assume Gore's mansion isn't the average American home.

A better indicator would be how it fares against comparable mansions.

|2.26.07 @ 11:04PM|#

No, you got it right the first time. It was Drew. Cameron expressed that she wanted to poo in the woods too, after Drew told everyone how awesome it was.

Great link. Thanks.

|2.26.07 @ 11:05PM|#

Matt,

I am right with you man.

"Matt | February 26, 2007, 10:17pm | #

I live 3 miles from my work, in the Northern VA suburbs. My car is a four cylinder japenese model, 30mpg. I bus occasionally, but mostly drive. I would rather own a house further out, and I go camping often, so an SUV makes sense, but so far I have denied myself either.

I eat less meat, 3-4 servings/week, than I used to. My paper towels are 100% recycled.

I was an environmental studies undergrad. I think global warming is real, though less likely catastrophic, and should be considered. I dont have much faith in the gov to do the right thing, much less know what the right thing is. I think the current green living trend is stronger than its been in any of its previous iterations in the last 40 years, it may be here to stay.

I think Al Gore is an oafish hippocrite."

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 11:09PM|#

I would also suspect that more economic activity is going on at the Gore mansion than the average American home.

Well, I work at home and so does Mrs TWC and our utility bills aren't anywhere close to thirty grand a year.

I also know a lot of rich people. None of them have thirty thousand dollar annual utility bills because of economic activity in the home.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 11:10PM|#

Van, thanks for the kind words.

|2.26.07 @ 11:13PM|#

Does Al Gore purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars in offsets each year? He can certainly afford it.

Economists hope for efficient amounts of pollution. This can really only be achieved by some sort of tax or mandatory pollution credits. So ask yourself this: is $30,000 a year on electricity economically efficient? I don't know for sure, but I really doubt it is when pollution is taken into account. Gore should be trying to set an example of efficiency.

|2.26.07 @ 11:16PM|#

Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

And he still sucks power like Clark Griswold in Christmas Vacation. I'm hardly a Global Warming denier (did I spell that right?), but come on...

Dantee|2.26.07 @ 11:24PM|#

This is perfectly justified because Al Gore is not just selfishly taking care of himself and his family, he is doing the work of the people and saving the planet. Of course that takes extra energy.

|2.26.07 @ 11:24PM|#

Oh come on, this is Hannity-level rhetoric.

Hannity.

I expect more from Hit & Run.

_______|2.26.07 @ 11:26PM|#

I actually did cancel my subscription to Reason- or let it lapse anyways. They put the content online for free, not to mention no more sexy Virgina Postrel centerfolds.

|2.26.07 @ 11:26PM|#

Whatever, he invented the internet. Show some gratitude, bitches!

|2.26.07 @ 11:31PM|#

Gore should be trying to set an example of efficiency.

We don't know that he isn't. As I mentioned, Gore's mansion isn't the average American house, so it would be unrealistic to expect it to behave like one.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.26.07 @ 11:37PM|#

We don't know that he isn't.

Yes, and maybe he is, but what is apparent is that he wants all of his cool stuff while lecturing the rest of us plebes about what we need to do without.

Fledermaus wins the thread

|2.26.07 @ 11:56PM|#

Ugh, tired of reading comments. Tired of listening, just want to talk.

His excessive private usage (not his office, his private home) doesn't invalidate his arguments, but it does call into question his perspective on the issue and that calls into question the value of his policy prescriptions. If he thinks that it's okay for him to buy off his own personal excessive usage, but that others who can't afford to do so need to curb their usage, that suggests that either he's not being realistic or sincere or some other disconnect from reality. The elevated CO2 levels may be causing a dangerous global warming, but his personal habits (again not his office) suggest that we shouldn't trust Al Gore's motives in addressing that concern.

(Sure, he probably has an office in his house, but the facilities and usage described sound more like an opulent residence with hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of residential space that need to be heated and cooled than a spartan office that is shut down for 18 hours of the night.)

|2.27.07 @ 12:02AM|#

Fledermaus,

Are you saying that Al Gore is The Juggernaut?!!!

The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.07 @ 12:18AM|#

A new religion that will bring you to your knees. Global Warming, if you please.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 12:24AM|#

Carbon Credits for Sale HERE! Check the link in my handle!

Best rates on the web, guaranteed!

|2.27.07 @ 12:33AM|#

The sheer weight of bad conscience on display here is creating a black hole from which not even a single thought can escape. This is just a smear-job.

Oh, please! I don't own a car; I work from home; my utility bills average $50 per month. My carbon footprint is far lower than the average American, and I'm a GW skeptic. No bad conscience here.

1) Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

I'm sorry, but if you live the high life, you ain't green, period. You use way too many resources to qualify. Gore's family uses enough energy to provide for dozens if not hundreds of families. Sorry, he ain't green; he's a hypocrite.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint - a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore's office explains:

"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

Offsets are BS. They remind me of how the rich could buy their way out of the draft during the civil war. Either live green or STFU! This goes double for any Democrat; you know, the party that says the rich are evil and the poor are saints. Rich Democrats are hypocrites by definition. Why don't they "just give it all away"? (To quote Michael Stipe, another fairly-rich Dem hypocrite.)

|2.27.07 @ 12:33AM|#

By the way, his brings to mind a Saturday AP article on Gore that noted this:

He and his wife, Tipper, own several homes and travel extensively, much of it to raise awareness of global warming.

That sounded like a pretty big footprint for an enviornmental evangelist. One hopes those several homes are not all as energy-intensive as his Nashville home.

|2.27.07 @ 12:34AM|#

I would also suspect that more economic activity is going on at the Gore mansion than the average American home.

So what? Is this "Gore Industries" or the "Gore Residence"?

Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence

Cry me a freakin river. Poor, poor Gores, and all the things they go with out!

Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint -

He and his family can afford them too. My beef is with the impact that his "policy prescriptions" are going to have on the finances of the common peasants.

Drudge is a shoe shiner next to the hype "the Gore Residence" spews.

|2.27.07 @ 12:40AM|#

C'mon, it's pretty obvious he's an elitist boob. He claims that overpopulation fosters global warming and that people in developing countries need to stop having babies. After he and the Tipster cranked out 4 children.

Is that logarithmic or exponential growth? I can never tell...

|2.27.07 @ 12:42AM|#

This has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the theory of AGW. It merely is notable when a preening bag of gas advises efficiency for everybody else while living in a mansion. Look, if a guy has spent most of his career as a professional politician, odds are he is a Prime, A-Grade, A-hole. Even the largest of gaping orifices, however, might be reluctant to pimp out his sister's painful cancer death for a bunch of miserable effing votes, after being willing to whore for tobacco interests following dear ol' sis hacking her way to an early grave.

Couldn't the global warming advocates come up with a public face superior to this miserable piece of excrement?

|2.27.07 @ 12:52AM|#

I don't read the drudge report but when i checked it out before it seemed like innuendo and garbage. I don't understand "reason" magazine's problem with the fact that we're changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and we need to do something about it. I guess it's because the ayn rand philosophy doesn't work very well when this is understood. It reminds me of how religions have a problem with evolution.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.27.07 @ 12:58AM|#

Bob wins "logician of the day" for 2/27/07

|2.27.07 @ 12:59AM|#

Do inform us, Bob; in what way is it innuendo to note that a guy who preaches energy efficiency for everyone else is living in a mansion?

Adam|2.27.07 @ 1:30AM|#

via dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/26/21750/6965


Tennessee Center's President Drew Johnson comes straight out of the right's network, coming from Exxon-funded American Enterprise Institute and the right-wing-funded National Taxpayers Foundation.

They are part of the right's State Policy Network. According to PFAW,

"SPN is a national network of state-based right-wing organizations in 37 states as well as prominent nationwide right-wing organizations. Through its network SPN advances the public policy ideas of the expansive right-wing political movement on the state and local level."

As of Feb. 16, the Tennessee tax dept. considers them "not a legitimate organization" because of their misrepresenting themselves involving questions about the group's opposition to a state crackdown on drug dealers.

----
Did H&R run with that Obama Madrassa story when it first broke too?...

Lottie|2.27.07 @ 1:35AM|#

The global warming deniers must really be running out of arguments.

|2.27.07 @ 2:24AM|#

You're not wrong Al Gore. You're just an asshole.

|2.27.07 @ 3:21AM|#

You gotta love when somebody counters right-wing bias with left-wing bias. Kos and PFAW are just dispassionate truth-tellers, aren't they?

tros|2.27.07 @ 3:36AM|#

I think all of Hollywood should be deported to North Korea to work in Kim Jong Il's Ministry of Film. Fucking stupid hypocritical rich motherfuckers. If you care about the Earth you should drop out and live in the woods. Either that or you'd better be making the most of your position to advocate for positive change.

People with kids are a different story. I am curious what the options are for running a home on green energy. I would personally suggest homeschooling because public schools will only make your children stupid robots.

|2.27.07 @ 4:29AM|#

People with kids are a different story. I am curious what the options are for running a home on green energy.

Kids have a lot of energy. Put them on treadmills connected to generators. Obesity will not be a problem no matter what you feed them.

|2.27.07 @ 5:07AM|#

Put them on treadmills connected to generators.- The Real Bill

Hey, that would go with homeschooling them. You could put that down as Phys Ed class. It'd beat the hell out of Dance, Dance Revolution.

Kevin

|2.27.07 @ 5:08AM|#

If they would just bow to cost/benefit analysis in terms of what to do about climate change, I'd be all in favor of Gore and his merry band or mirth makers.

But even suggesting that maybe some of the proposed solutions wouldn't solve much of anything and cost an absolute ton is considered apostasy and you're cast out into "holocaust denier" territory. And that's the real issue, they aren't interested in playing fair, they're interested in winning above all else.

Climate change is going to have some crappy effects to be sure, but nobody really believes "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" anytime in the forseeable future from it. At least not anyone who knows anything about it.

At some point it might make more sense to use our resources preparing for the effects of warming, rather than exhausting massive resources and not actually accomplishing much (maybe delaying things 5 years).

Then of course there's the Lomborg theory that money spent combatting global warming would be better spent on water treatment in Africa. The idea being that it would clearly save more lives, slow the spread of infectious diseases and do so far more quickly than money spent fighting warming.

It'll be nice if they can continue to work out some of the problems with solar energy, but to behave as if there aren't any problems with it bugs me.

|2.27.07 @ 5:21AM|#

I see a reasonable claim that Al Gore's home energy use went up.

I don't see evidence that this energy use was used unwisely/inneficiently/unprofitably. (Yeah I know 20 rooms w/8 bathrooms, and more shit, who are we kidding. Yet the lack of evidence is still a lack of evidence; put up or shut up)

I also don't see evidence that this energy wasn't CO2 free. (or to what extent it was; or to what change in such extent)

Until then...

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 5:24AM|#

Sam-hec,

Good thing he and his people took an economical Gulfstream jet to the event rather than one of those wasteful Boeing craft, eh?

I know, it could have been using biojetfuel and I can't prove otherwise.

Ron Hardin|2.27.07 @ 7:16AM|#

Reverse hypocrisy : I go everywhere by bike (8,000 miles a year on the bike, 500 on the car), and don't believe any of the envirocrap. In fact I discourage other bike riders. The fewer of us cars pass in the morning, the more polite the cars are to me. One bike commuter is enough!

So there must be a name for a hobby (started in 1971) that turned into a virtue by accident, which virtuosness you don't give a sh*t about in fact. If anything, it often leads to social misunderstanding.

Maybe I can sell Gore carbon credits.

|2.27.07 @ 7:45AM|#

Let's not be too quick to accuse Mr. Gore of hypocrisy on this count. This morning's Tennessean newspaper (for which Gore worked as a reporter prior to being elected to the House of Representatives in 1976) reports about the conservation measures the former vice-president has taken:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382

The article states:

A day after a film about his efforts to combat global warming won an Oscar, former Vice President Al Gore was called a hypocrite by a Tennessee group that said his Belle Meade home is consuming too much energy.

The home's average monthly electric bill last year was just under $1,200, according to bills that The Tennessean acquired from Nashville Electric Service.
***
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site.
________________________

I wonder whether Drudge will include any of the above?

|2.27.07 @ 7:49AM|#

Are carbon offsets less expensive to purchase than the energy that is being offset?

I guess I am asking, just how much money does it cost to offset the carbon produced by a $30,000 energy bill?

|2.27.07 @ 7:57AM|#

So if you ask people to use less energy...you have to use less energy as well. But if you order people to DIE in a WAR...then you don't have to enlist as well!!! You morons are making the "chickenhawk" argument against global warming. So I expect all you in support of the "surge" to sign up and relieve some of our young people going through hell over there!

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 7:57AM|#

John in Nashville,

And to be even more fair, the aviation kerosene he used to fly across the country to accept his statue is every bit as organic as the fuel I use in my 1972 hybrid Charger.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 8:01AM|#

. . . and the role of joe will be played by aaron on this thread.

|2.27.07 @ 8:23AM|#

Mention "Gore", "Clinton", or "Hilary" in the post and watch the Dem fanbois appear in auto-defense mode. Same old strategies: deflect the criticism, change the subject, "Bush is worse", etc. Predictable and tired.

|2.27.07 @ 8:32AM|#

I guess I don't understand what's going on here. Gore uses a lot of electricity, and he buys carbon off-sets of some kind. This seems like exactly the efficient thing to do. In a sense, it is a great example because it says that we don't have to all live in solar-powered yurts: we can maintain a normal (to us) way of life, but still push in the "right" direction by spending money for carbon offsets. I see no hypocracy here.

The house is probably very big and very old. Big, old houses use more energy than smaller, newer houses. I guess since now that we are interested in the environment, we should tear down all the big old houses and build newer houses. Or, Gore could sell his family's house to someone else (who won't be buying a carbon offset) and live in an efficiency in downtown Nashville.

I mean, come on! Rich people have big houses. Rich people use more energy. This rich person does that, pays for carbon offsets and spends alot of time and effort trying to move policy in a direction he believes is good.

Now, many of the people who read Reason probably think that his policy stances are bad ones. I honestly don't know what his policy stances are, so I can't say. It seems to me that it is not obviously ridiculous that global warming may be a problem, and if it is a problem, it is likely that some form of government intervention could help solve it, unless someone has a great idea on how to assign property rights to the "global climate".

I suspect that if Milton Friedman had been caught in a similar inconsistency (he did work at a non-profit institution that recieved substantial federal dollars), the blog would not be in such a state of shocked awe and delight.

If you don't like Al Gore, that is fine by me. But trying to trump up a story about an old mansion that uses alot of energy into some sort of probing of his inner soul is really just silly. Just say you hate him and leave all this faux evidentiary bologna asaide, please.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 8:41AM|#

Doug,

If you just combine three things that Al Gore has advocated, he should be living in a modest apartment building/condo that is solar powered and he should be giving most of his money to the government.

1. "Urban sprawl" bitching
2. "Carbon footprint"
3. "Tax the rich"

Now, paying some silly concience tythe while you jet around to awards and concerts is NOT what he advocates for anybody but himself. The rest of us are supposed to freeze in the dark while he has his hand on the thermostat.

Timothy|2.27.07 @ 8:46AM|#

For a magazine called "Reason" there sure is a lot of partisan bickering. I'm canceling Mona's subscription.

|2.27.07 @ 8:50AM|#

Bye bye Reason! You take a hit piece by a conservative think tank and actually run with Drudge's link to it. You have lost all creditability. All of you who disagree and don't call out Reason for this are just as guilty. I have made my last stop here.

|2.27.07 @ 9:01AM|#

What it means to me is that there's no good reason to believe a word Gore says about anything.

Well then perhaps you should ignore him and listen to the National Academy of Sciences. Or maybe they just have an agenda and a big house, too.

Not liking Al Gore, no matter how much electricity he may or may not use, doesn't change one fact about climate change. It's just more of the same old attack the messenger.

And before I believed too much of this stuff, I'd also start checking on the source of the criticism of Gore. Check out the Tennessee Center for Policy or whatever name this front group that put out a news release uses. I guess if they're good enough for Drudge they're good enough for you, right?

Timothy|2.27.07 @ 9:14AM|#

Congratulations, guys, y'all are now officially shills for both parties at the same time! I don't know how you pulled it off, but it's a brilliant accomplishment.

I'm canceling Mona's subscription.

Nobody Important|2.27.07 @ 9:14AM|#

shecky | February 26, 2007, 11:00pm
I don't get it. I'd assume Gore's mansion isn't the average American home.
A better indicator would be how it fares against comparable mansions.

See this (via G. Reynolds):

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.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore.

And take a look at this piece from TreeHugger:

Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive." Hmm, back to that vote about the Greenest President?

George Bush lives environmentalism whereas Al Gore only gives it lip service, yet he's is hailed as God's greatest gift to the environment. Meanwhile, he greedily consumes far more energy than the average American who, by the way, would be footing the bill for Kyoto if we hadn't pull out of it.

|2.27.07 @ 9:15AM|#

I for one am going to miss MCA's presence here. Why, remember that one thread where he... uh, wait... oh yeah, when he said that... no... damn.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 9:16AM|#

So, are the Earth First shock troops amassing around Mr. Gore's urban sprawl palace with torches and pitchforks in hand?

Have any of his SUVs gotten so much as a sticker on them, much less the tires flattened or worse?

No, that treatment is reserved for us, the 'non believers'.

VM|2.27.07 @ 9:27AM|#

"Timothy | February 27, 2007, 8:46am | #
For a magazine called "Reason" there sure is a lot of partisan bickering. I'm canceling Mona's subscription."

Awesome. May Milton Freedman be your Obi Wan Kenobi!

|2.27.07 @ 9:41AM|#

No Joe on this one? I'm not a big fan of big Al, but saying that Gore's message is weakened or that he is a hypocrite because he owns a mansion is partisan idiocy. On the one hand, the skeptics argue that reducing personal consumption is largely irrelevant, and that the bulk of this country's energy consumption is primarily in agriculture, industry and commerce. Of course, they still want to argue that he's a hypocrite even though they say residential consumption is a side issue. Which is it? Well, maybe he is a hypocrite. He's got a 20 room mansion that supposedly uses 20x the electricity of the "average" American household (let's assume for the sake of argument that the "average household" has any analytical value whatsoever). He's gone to great lengths to make his consumption more palatable (i.e., green) and there's nothing saying that his house is inefficient.

Rather than call Al a hypocrite, why look to the bigger picture? Big Al has made many of the "sacrifices" that he advocates. Perhaps a 20 room mansion isn't your idea of a sacrifice, but it suggests that giving up everything Americans hold dear isn't on Al's agenda either. Just a thought.

|2.27.07 @ 10:02AM|#

The answer is, yes, Al Gore pays for carbon credits for all of the energy consumption at his house.

Nice stenography from Matt Fucking Drudge, Brian. You lie down with dogs...

|2.27.07 @ 10:09AM|#

Although I suppose I should be grateful for all of the press this hack job is going to bring to the carbon offsets movement.

|2.27.07 @ 10:19AM|#

Is anybody disputing the accuracy of the report?

So, joe, you don't have any problem with the rich buying indulgences for their "extravagant" lifestyles, while advocating policies that will raise energy costs, direct and indirect, for the poor?

And people call libertarians heartless.

poco|2.27.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Al Gore is no Ed Begley, Jr.

|2.27.07 @ 10:27AM|#

R C,

Using God-talk just draws attention to your political bias.

|2.27.07 @ 10:28AM|#

"you don't have any problem with the rich buying indulgences for their "extravagant" lifestyles, while advocating policies that will raise energy costs, direct and indirect, for the poor?"

And this is supposed to be a libertarian argument? Where are the principles?

|2.27.07 @ 10:29AM|#

"...advocating policies that will raise energy costs, direct and indirect, for the poor?:"

Don't you chicken littles ever get tired of your predictions of economic doom falling apart?

I can remember when banning leaded gasoline was going to eliminate the American automobile manufacturing industry. Have a little faith in the innovative capacity of private enterprise when faces with a changing incentive structure.

|2.27.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Awesome, now we're gonna have all the righties try and say Al Gore doesn't care about the poor, presumably with a straight face.

|2.27.07 @ 10:36AM|#

You know, for readers of a magazine called Reason, some of the commenters are morons. When will these idiots figure out that there is a difference between the magazine and the blog? The staff post things that they think the readers will find interesting and will start discussion. Not everything has to be hard hitting news. Much like Balko posting a picture that he found to be moving (cue Dave W.), sometimes a staffer likes something and feels that H&R web community will like it also.

Nick

VM|2.27.07 @ 10:43AM|#

"I can remember when banning leaded gasoline was going to eliminate the American automobile manufacturing industry. Have a little faith in the innovative capacity of private enterprise when faces with a changing incentive structure."

LOL!

The Ford Lumbering Coffin (top safe speed of four) did that :)

The last sentence is money - even though most here don't like/wish for/ desire government-induced changes in the incentive structure, joe does highlight one of the strengths of the US culture:

the ability to adapt and change and work in a dynamic framework where the, for ease of explanation, the make up of Porter's Five Forces changes rapidly. People here can argue about the government's role in this, but he's absolutely right.

This is an issue beyond yelling "demand curve". While we can and will argue over and disagree about the government's role in affecting changes in incentive structure, it's out there right now.

And whether you're on the "despite" or "because of" ends, or somewhere along that continuum, I'd bet that we all do share the faith in the innovative capacity of private enterprise.

Nick M: you do know that the phrase "for a magazine called Reason" is one of the rules in the drinking game. Take a shot of Glock Brand High Fructose Corn Syrup, listen to Prog Rock, and preview the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69 of the leather-bound copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies".

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 10:44AM|#

I can remember when banning leaded gasoline was going to eliminate the American automobile manufacturing industry.

It certainly was the end of Dale Jr. during the race on Sunday. Probably Kasey Kahne too.

mediageek|2.27.07 @ 10:49AM|#

Indulgences or penance seems about the long and short of it.

/This coming from a guy who bought a smaller house in the city in order to save some money.

//Well, kind of. The house cost more, and I doubt my fuel savings will offset that. Even though I drive a V8.

|2.27.07 @ 11:01AM|#

Is anybody disputing the accuracy of the report?

Assume you're asleep at home. You wake up to see a stranger with a knife coming in the bedroom window. To free a hand for climbing, he sets the knife on your floor to climb over the sill. You shoot him as he is doing this, the bullet entering in the back as he is bent over the window sill.

It would be accurate to say you had shot an unarmed man in the back, but by leaving out the details, it would also be misleading.

Likewise, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (and let's face it, with any "Policy Research Center," the only open question is which direction the propaganda will tilt) left out many details, such as the Gores' paying extra for renewable energy and purchasing carbon offsets, that make the story as presented misleading.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 11:03AM|#

So his aircraft to California was really fueled by peanut oil and that is just being suppressed too?

|2.27.07 @ 11:06AM|#

So his aircraft to California was really fueled by peanut oil and that is just being suppressed too?

Hell, I don't know. All I know is it's not fueled by hot air -- you'd be a tycoon by now if it were.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#

Tennessee Center's President Drew Johnson comes straight out of the right's network, coming from Exxon-funded American Enterprise Institute and the right-wing-funded National Taxpayers Foundation.

Adam: I don't care if they're Scientology's Disciples or Moonies. Smearing the messenger doesn't prove Gore's electric meter is on the blink.

The question defenders of the Gore ignore (that rhymes too) still remains. Is Gore's per annum energy consumption $30,000.00?

It's a really, really simple question.

|2.27.07 @ 11:09AM|#

Hell, I don't know. All I know is it's not fueled by hot air -- you'd be a tycoon by now if it were.

LOL awesome.

|2.27.07 @ 11:10AM|#

mmmmm, HFCS. Just like mom used to make back on the zoned for industrial use homestead.

Nick

The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Hey MCA, didn't Skynard work for you once? They didn't like you either. Wrote a song.....

The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Come on guys, this Gore thing is no different than Reason taking all those government subsidies to argue against government subsidies. After all, somebody's going to take them anyway, and payroll's a little tight this week, and it's only a couple of million, besides look at all the good they do, preaching the gospel of reduced government spending, skewering Archer Daniels for taking all those corn subsidies........

What? You mean Reason doesn't take government subsidies?

Acting on Principle? You mean Reason practices what it preaches?

See, Reason and Gore is jest alike.

|2.27.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Guy Montag: Through all the hazy accusations of hypocrisy, Al Gore appears to really care about the issue. He doesn't think we should all move into huts immediately, and genuinely makes efforts to conserve energy.

I swear it must be brown beaver day with all the libertarians roasting a guy because he has an energy efficient mansion.

|2.27.07 @ 11:26AM|#

TWC,

"The question defenders of the Gore ignore (that rhymes too) still remains. Is Gore's per annum energy consumption $30,000.00?"

Uh, no, that's not really the quesiton. Nobody has disputed that.

The question is why the people attacking Gore won't admit that they left out a crucial detail? It's as if they've accused him of stealing, without noting that he gave money to the cahsier for his goods.

Actually, I take it back. There really isn't any question at all about why Druge wrote the misleading piece, or why Doherty linked to it.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.07 @ 11:31AM|#

Joe, I can remember when they took the lead out too. It screwed over every poor person who had an old car because without lead the valves were destroyed in record time. That meant more pollution for a while as people rode around in older cars that were using more gas than they should have because the valves didn't seat right. Then the engines gave out altogether, much sooner than they should have. And there was a considerable lag time before replacement technology came on line so that the valves could operate without leaded fuel in older cars. That cost more as well, meaning that getting an engine rebuild cost more.

I'm not arguing the merits of getting the lead out, just pointing out that getting the lead out had significant costs and those costs were borne by the less affluent who couldn't afford to run out and buy a new hi-tech automobile.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Joe, it's the question de jour.

Nobody has disputed that.

When you smear the messenger you are denying the message. That is exactly the point of many comments here. IE, well, you can't take them seriously, they're right wing idiots. That is denial.

|2.27.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Did I miss the part where Gore says that all energy consumption must cease? Is there a world without energy that Gore advocates? The movie website lists specific things one can do to become more energy efficient. Nobody snarking here has even claimed that Gore doesn't practice what he preaches (at least not with facts).

More importantly, for those whining about "indulgences", Gore flat out says, for example, that if you must fly often, you can offset your air travel with investment in renewable energy products. Feel free to argue that Gore's ideas won't work. Call Gore anything you want, but calling Gore a hypocrite doesn't quite work out.

|2.27.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Theft offset credits:
If I rob $300 from a liquor store then pay someone $50 to not rob a liquor store then we're even.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 11:55AM|#

Guy Montag: Through all the hazy accusations of hypocrisy, Al Gore appears to really care about the issue. He doesn't think we should all move into huts immediately, and genuinely makes efforts to conserve energy.

Oh no, he is not advocating any of that at all, unless his crackpot schemes are adopted for his little pet belief.

The why isn't he living in an urban matchbox like he was advocating for everybody else during his "urban sprawl" kick?

Why isn't he donating all of his money to the government while he advocates mine be taken by the government?

Sorry if you can't follow this either, or just claim not to be able to.

mediageek|2.27.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Guy Montag is just a greedy, mean-spirited grump in 5...4...3..

|2.27.07 @ 12:18PM|#

egore: fine analysis, dear boy, fine analysis. Your math is a little off. There is no efficiency in your larcenous offering because we don't know how much the second robber would have taken. If the store loses $300, and thief #1 pays thief #2 $50, we'd have to assume that #2 would have stolen more than $300 for the transaction to be efficient. Everybody wins: liquor store only gets robbed once for $300, thief #1 gets away with $250, and thief #2 gets $50 for doing nothing. Or, if you prefer, thief #1 does NOT pay thief #2 any money. Thief #2 takes another $300 from the liquor store. In that scenario, we have two thiefs getting $300 a piece, and the liquor store losing $600. If you really give a damn about the liquor store, why is the second scenario better?

|2.27.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Any of you who're looking for someone to not rob a liquor store, look no further. I'll not rob a liquor store for only $40. That's a 20% savings!

|2.27.07 @ 1:11PM|#

...but, you're right--just 'cause Chicken Little is a political opportunist, that doesn't mean the sky isn't falling.

It's not my job to prove that the sky isn't falling. You cannot prove a negative. Rather, the burden of proof falls on they who allege.

I am waiting for the scientific explanantion behind human-made global warming that does not come from:

A) a Marxist who thinks that capitalism and the USA are evil
B) a Gaia-worshipping misanthrope who thinks that humanity is evil
C) a scientist who is NOT studying climate change because he is paid to find support for a pre-drawn conclusion

And I am still waiting. I think that I will wait forever, since A (above) and B (above) are such accomplished and devious liars.

|2.27.07 @ 1:19PM|#

1. Everyone who acknoledges global warming is a Marxist, a misanthrope, or a corrupt scientist.

2. I will only believe in global warming when it is acknowledged by someone who isn't a Marxist, a misanthrope, or a corrupt scientist.

That's just great, Loundry.

|2.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#

I couldn't read the whole thread. Did anyone cite information on the number of people living in the residence? Did anyone cite comparable statistics for residences of that size?

I know facts are no fun when they interfere with politically correct sliming of designated targets. Al Gore "invented the internet" worked for a while although it was profoundly untrue as well as the long list of lies email that was sent across the internet endlessly when he needed to be slimed. Now, global warming is politically incorrect. The conservatives and other anti-science noise machine first declared that there is no global warming. It is a myth. Now, in a complete reversal, the politically correct statement is that of course there is global warming and either it is good or belching massive amounts of poison into the air and water has nothing to do with it.

And as for a search for truth, Drudge is a habitual fabricator and extremely biased. His radio show would make Stalin proud. How can anyone possibly defend him by saying that he linked to a fake front group? It is a laughable website that is "non-partisan."

Stand up and be a proud simpleton if you spend more than a minute or two looking at the site and believe that.

Poisoning your neighbor, your neighborhood and the world is an odd foundation to claim being a libertarian although a rogue's gallery do. Reason is one of the best places to find libertarian thought and discussion, but it isn't pure or even dominant. This regurgitation of an attack without any balance or thought is a great example.

I gave up my subscription long ago, but i appreciate the free information and discussion that they provide.

|2.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Lamar whined,

Rather than call Al a hypocrite, why look to the bigger picture?

Also known as: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

The Gaia zealots are in full damage-control mode, and it's an absolute joy to watch. Delicious, sweet schadenfreude! :)

Answer me this, Lamar: why doesn't Gore sell his mansion, move into a smaller house, and give the money to the poor, or toward an environmental charity?

This is the point when the Gaia-loving "progressives" suddenly turn strangely and staunchly capitalist. Remember the defense of John "Two Americas, one for Ambulance chasers like me and one for the rest of you unsophisticated garbage" Edwards's enormous, ostentatious mansion? Remember how hypocritical it was?

Rad! :)

|2.27.07 @ 1:28PM|#

joe,

1. Everyone who acknoledges global warming is a Marxist, a misanthrope, or a corrupt scientist.

I didn't state that and I don't believe it.

2. I will only believe in global warming when it is acknowledged by someone who isn't a Marxist, a misanthrope, or a corrupt scientist.

Mostly correct. Let me modify it so that it is completely correct.

I will only believe in human-caused global warming when it is argued with sound reason and sufficient evidence by someone who isn't a Marxist, a misanthrope, or a corrupt scientist. Fair enough?

My question for you is this: how can I know that a person advancing human-made global warming is NOT one of those three groups I mentioned, particularly when the Marxists and Gaia zealots will lie without hesitation to further their agenda? This is not a rhetorical question.

(My prediction: joe will fail to answer the question and will instead choose to slander me as "anti-science" or something equally as vapid.)

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 1:33PM|#

After a nice filling lunch I thought all of this over and came back to review.

I apologize to all of the Gore supporters for missing what he really means. Yes, your corrections to my misthoughts have taken.

Now I understand that Albert Gore Jr. does not advocate carbon sequestration and trade-offs through the police power of the state. It is all voluntary. He is just giving us the ideas to lead our lives in a more environmentally sound manner, on a purely voluntary basis.

Same with the corporations and other business classes. Voluntary carbon reduction is the order of the day and we need not worry about some EPA SWAT team shutting down our factories. Through social change the path will be achieved to save the planet. No 'iron fist' bringing happiness to all, just all coming to realize that is what we are really supposed to be doing.

His recent advocacy to end urban sprawl was the same. Voluntarily leaving prime housing land idle, rather than building 20 room single family homes. Save the green space and live in an apartment by choice.

It is all so much clearer now. This is all voluntary, as was demonstrated when the Kyoto Protocols were rejected by the USA when he was in office.

My mind is one with the earth.

|2.27.07 @ 1:41PM|#

Loundry,

You, personally, can never "know," to any degree that will satisfy you, that those who recognize global warming are not Marxists, misanthropes, or corrupt. The fact that they recognize the reality of global warming is all the evidence you need to conclude that they are.

|2.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#

Loundry: Looking at the bigger picture means looking at what's behind the curtain. Are you seriously suggesting that a quick glance at Al Gore's electric bill is enough to label him a hypocrite? And you accuse me of being uninformed?

Why doesn't Al Gore sell his house and move in with the poor?

The short answer and the long answer are the same: Al Gore has money and he spends it how he wants. Honestly Loundry, Al Gore is not a communist hippie. You wish it to be so, you assume it, you revel in it, but it really isn't true. He's a rich, fat man from the South who believes in capitalism, as evidence by his big house. More importantly, who are these Gaia-loving commies who suddenly turn capitalist? Oh, they're in your imagination. I get it. Seriously, I work for the biggest energy companies in the world, and I wouldn't let my son be as naive as you are.

Why didn't you bother to address my previous post? Instead of assuming that Al Gore wants to shut off the world's energy supply, why don't you look at what Al Gore does for cues on how to live efficiently? If you're rich and successful, buy a damn mansion, but keep it efficient. Is there something inherently anti-capitalist about buying a mansion?

Guy Montag: As I said earlier, go ahead and attack his policies. My whole point is that accusing him of hypocrisy after glancing at his electric bill is stupid, stupid, stupid.

|2.27.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Any more like olpete who I've never heard of but are so disappointed with Reason because poor Al Gore is being picked on?

What left-wing loony-bin linked to this thread?

BTW, if you read olpete's post very closely, it looks like he was trying to post than at the site he clicked a link from to get here, but somehow managed to post it here instead.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Lamar,

Dang man! Did you take joe pills today or did you just miss my post about getting on board with you people?

|2.27.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Guy Montag,

Everyone's saying I'm a bit jumpy today. I should lay off the wheatgrass. I just get a little hot under the collar when partisans make lame arguments. Add in the fact that they are making lame arguments in my field, and I have to go ballistic.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 2:22PM|#

Glad this thing is all voluntary, that's all. You guys keep obscuring that with treaty and mandate talk.

|2.27.07 @ 2:29PM|#

I know nothing of treaties and mandates. I know electric bills like the back of my hand, if the back of my hand had electricity information printed on it.

|2.27.07 @ 2:31PM|#

I think its great that we can all use as much energy as we want as long as we are environmentally responsible enough to pay someone else to sequester some CO2. Can we do the same thing for the REAL pollutants that result from needless energy production and usage?

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 2:33PM|#

As long as this carbin reduction does not affect my electric bill, other than my using less of it when I volunteer to, then it is fine with me. Getting the government out of the way of coal and nuclear production would go a long way on that.

Now, for that oil problem. If we just stop all of this artificial government interfearance with manufacturing oil products then it would be a lot cheaper and poor people would have more access to those products.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 2:35PM|#

I think its great that we can all use as much energy as we want as long as we are environmentally responsible enough to pay someone else to sequester some CO2.

Under this volunteer program proposed by Albert Gore Jr. in his award winning movie *you* can pay someone else extra for doing that. Good luck on your new project.

|2.27.07 @ 2:37PM|#

I'm envoking Godwin's Law (except for the Reason crowd its obviously Marx)

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 2:53PM|#

ted,

Stop calling my new Gorite friends Nazis!

Bill Bennett|2.27.07 @ 2:54PM|#

I'm glad that my gambling problem doesn't affect my credibility regarding moral issues.

|2.27.07 @ 2:59PM|#

Bill Bennett: Run with it Bill. Your complete inability to analyze an issue shouldn't affect your credibility either.

|2.27.07 @ 2:59PM|#

Ted,

You new around here? Mike Godwin has freaking written for Reason magazine.

Also, Godwin's Law cannot be invoked, merely observed.

|2.27.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Are you sure that Godwin's Law isn't: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone's bringing up Godwin's Law approaches one"?

Jim Treacher|2.27.07 @ 3:04PM|#

Pay no attention to that man behind the carbon offsets!

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Good thing I have a florescent light in my kitchen. I let it run 24/7 to reduce my carbon footprint even more.

|2.27.07 @ 3:12PM|#

Guy Montag!! What are you doing in the kitchen? Don't you have a wife?

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 3:18PM|#

Guy Montag!! What are you doing in the kitchen? Don't you have a wife?

Yea, you really are out of it today. Did you forget that marriage thread already?

Also, my only wife was legally removed over 14 years ago.

Back to your possible point, I like to cook actually. I just hate cleaning.

|2.27.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Actually, I had no point on that last one, and I didn't even mean it personally. I just couldn't pass up the combination of a conservative argument and a reference to the kitchen.

|2.27.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Lamar,

Are you seriously suggesting that a quick glance at Al Gore's electric bill is enough to label him a hypocrite?

No. I am seriously suggesting that an honest examination of his choices and comparing it to the dogma that he imposes on those he deems lesser than him is enough to label him a hypocrite.

The short answer and the long answer are the same: Al Gore has money and he spends it how he wants.

As predicted! Suddenly, the "progressive" is cast as a ardent supporter of capitalism once HIS property comes into question. (I'm referring to Al Gore, not you.)

Honestly Loundry, Al Gore is not a communist hippie. You wish it to be so, you assume it, you revel in it, but it really isn't true.

Bullshit. Obviously Al Gore not a communist hippie, otherwise he wouldn't be such a blatant hypocrite. He would live on a commune somewhere, growing his own food. Despite the image he tries to project, Al Gore is a creep who exploits the feelings of wealth envy and misanthropy to accumulate wealth and political power. That is what he is about, not "saving the earth" or whatever mystical garbage he vomits.

He's a rich, fat man from the South who believes in capitalism, as evidence by his big house.

Simply being rich doesn't mean one believes in capitalism. The funders of the communist magazines The Nation and Harpers are all filthy rich and they hate capitalism.

I suppose you think being from the South is evil? Very shallow of you.

More importantly, who are these Gaia-loving commies who suddenly turn capitalist?

You are conflating two different groups with two different ends that happen to ally with eachother because they have the same enemies.

Why didn't you bother to address my previous post?

Because I was spending far too much time rolling in the schadenfreude. Al Gore is a fraud, tee hee! Your prophet is a scam artist, tee hee!

Instead of assuming that Al Gore wants to shut off the world's energy supply, why don't you look at what Al Gore does for cues on how to live efficiently?

I don't think Al Gore wants to shut off the world's energy supply. I think he wants to accumulate money and power. I think that if the underclass who didn't grow up rich, privileged, and elite like he did in his pretty hotel room, then they can all go to hell as far as he's concerned. Remember, not everyone in the Soviet Union was poor. The Soviets who ran the Gulags could finance a nice, pretty retirement.

And how can you call Al Gore's mansion "efficient", particularly when he is rarely ever there?

If you're rich and successful, buy a damn mansion, but keep it efficient. Is there something inherently anti-capitalist about buying a mansion?

No, there is something inherently anti-"progressive" about buying a mansion when children are starving. Al Gore's priorities are in order: those children should starve if feeding them would turn Al Gore's 20-room mansion into a 19-room mansion.

I like you, Lamar. :)

|2.27.07 @ 3:44PM|#

joe,

You, personally, can never "know," to any degree that will satisfy you, that those who recognize global warming are not Marxists, misanthropes, or corrupt. The fact that they recognize the reality of global warming is all the evidence you need to conclude that they are.

As predicted, you have chosen a vapid response. You picked the, "No argument will ever convince you!" response. I have seen Christians pull this one out in their fights with atheists numerous times.

My first question to you is this: do you believe that some, not all, of the proponents of human-caused global warming are Marxists who intend to use the prescribed "fixes" to human-caused global warming as a means to an end, and that end is the weakening of capitalism?

My second question to you is this: do you believe that some, not all, of the proponents of human-caused global warming are Gaia-worshipping zealots who think that humanity is a scourge and who intend to use the proposed "fixes" to human-caused global warming to slow down or reverse human progress which they view as evil?

Your "the fact that they recognize the reality of global warming" is rhetoric which assumes the point in dispute. It won't work with me, so you're going to have to try something else. I highly suggest that you employ reason and evidence. Quoting Marxists and Gaia-worshippers (I fight those worthless bastards tooth and nail) will severely damage your cause, so please choose your evidence carefully.

|2.27.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Lamar, Gore's office has said the following....

"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

If the Gore family is to reduce it's carbon footprint as much as pssible, it's time for them to move out of the mansion, move into a condo, sell off his other homes, have them bulldozed, and plant some trees on the vacant lots. Failing this, it really would be nice for Albert to just shut up and go away.

|2.27.07 @ 4:03PM|#

If the Gore family is to reduce it's carbon footprint as much as pssible, it's time for them to move out of the mansion, move into a condo, sell off his other homes, have them bulldozed, and plant some trees on the vacant lots. Failing this, it really would be nice for Albert to just shut up and go away.

No way! Al Gore is doing wonderfully! He is the physical manifestation of egg on the face of the environmental movement. That crappy movement has been in dire need of a charlatan of a prophet, and Al Gore is coming through in a big way! The *last* thing I would want for him to do would be for him to sell everything and live on a hippie commune, because then I can't accuse him of being unprincipled or hypocritical.

Seriously: all it takes is a quick and cursory glance at Al Gore's power bill to see what a fraud he is. Even a stupid, stupid, stupid person can figure *that* out.

Al Gore: Prominent leader of the environmental movement and hypocritical fraud of a buffoon.

|2.27.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Loundry,

"do you believe that some, not all, of the proponents of human-caused global warming are Marxists who intend to use the prescribed "fixes" to human-caused global warming as a means to an end, and that end is the weakening of capitalism?" Sure. Marxists and capitalists both can be found on both sides of the question.

"do you believe that some, not all, of the proponents of human-caused global warming are Gaia-worshipping zealots who think that humanity is a scourge and who intend to use the proposed "fixes" to human-caused global warming to slow down or reverse human progress which they view as evil?" Sure, they make up some insignificantly small fraction of all the people who recognize the need to address the problem of global warming.

Finally, the point that global warming is real, a problem, and caused by human activity is not in dispute. I don't care to convince you. I'm just going to roll over you.

Will,

It would be really nice if you stopped using the roads and sewer plant, too, you big anti-government crusader.

|2.27.07 @ 4:12PM|#

I'm glad my enjoyment of gay sex and methamphetamines hasn't tarnished my message.

|2.27.07 @ 4:18PM|#

Loundry wrote:
"I am waiting for the scientific explanantion behind human-made global warming that does not come from:

A) a Marxist who thinks that capitalism and the USA are evil
B) a Gaia-worshipping misanthrope who thinks that humanity is evil
C) a scientist who is NOT studying climate change because he is paid to find support for a pre-drawn conclusion

And I am still waiting. I think that I will wait forever, since A (above) and B (above) are such accomplished and devious liars."

The climatologist authors of http://www.realclimate.org/ have a stated policy of:
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

this seems to me they at least qualify in your first two categories by at least suppressing such politcs & economics (assuming they exist).

The last category WRT RealClimate is less clear, and is an open question. It is, however, fair to assume that until shown to be corrupt, then they should not be assumed to be corrupt.

This hopefully meets your criteria.

Therein is a straightforward post summarizing the basics of anthropgenic climate change:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/cold-case-vs-csi/

|2.27.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Joe, given I've never advised anyone to reduce their road or sewer use, or suggested that the state shouldn't pay for those things, your point is, well, pointless.

|2.27.07 @ 4:34PM|#

Will Allen:

Don't you see how idiotic your argument is? Your first statement about what Gore advocates directly undercuts your perception of what big Al should do. He lays out his suggestions, then he follows his suggestions, yet you want to call him a hypocrite so you ascribe to him suggestions that he never made. Nice. Reducing the footprint "as much as possible" doesn't mean some crazy hippie crap, and we both know that it means "as much as you can live with". It doesn't mean we stop using electricity or live off the grid. Nowhere does he advocate such extreme measures. Show me where Gore says to live in a hut or bulldoze your house. Is it hard to link to your own crazy machinations?

Loundry:
Quick credibility check: What is a tail block?

In my opinion, Gore has been a somewhat conservative democrat his entire career, save for the environmental angle (and no, one issue doesn't make one a far leftie). I think too many people here are confusing the red wing of the Democratic party with Gore's somewhat centrist position. Sure, if you take only the environmental issues and look at his place on the political spectrum, it would be more left, but I don't see Gore as some far left screecher. I have followed Gore's career, and I won't say that he's a conservative, but he is more conservative than many democrats.

Anyhow, I just realized that there is no end to this conversation. If Al Gore "practices what he preaches" it means that he lives on a commune, eats free-range, homeopathic granola and sings Kumbaya without exhaling CO2. If he is NOT a commie, scumbag jizz-eater, then he's a hypocrite.

|2.27.07 @ 4:37PM|#

joe admits:

Sure, [Marxists] make up some insignificantly small fraction of all the people who recognize the need to address the problem of global warming.

Sure, [Gaia-worshipping zealots] make up some insignificantly small fraction of all the people who recognize the need to address the problem of global warming.

Good, joe, we're making progress.

Next up: do you agree that Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealots are crackpots who should be ignored, since they're just piggybacking on human-caused global warming to further other goals?

Bill Clinton|2.27.07 @ 4:44PM|#

I'm glad that my violation of sexual harassment laws, and my use of power to evade punishment, didn't damage my credibility with feminists.

Oh wait, that really happened. That kind of undercuts the intended satire.

Maybe Rush Limbaugh can post something about his support for the War on Drugs.

|2.27.07 @ 4:45PM|#

Loundary,

I think people with political agendas, on both sides of the issue, should be treated with skepticism.

What do you think of crackpots who piggyback on global warming denialism to further their own poltical goals?

|2.27.07 @ 4:48PM|#

The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

this seems to me they at least qualify in your first two categories by at least suppressing such politcs & economics (assuming they exist).

Are you saying that I should take them at their word? I'm sorry, but that's not good enough, because Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealots lie like rugs. It is in their interest to convince people that they are actually speaking from a "strictly scientific viewpoint" because that will be more convincing than their own ideological viewpoint. In fact, that's why they've latched onto (and exaggerated) the "global warming" dogma in the first place: it sells! So how do I know that these self-professed "pure scientists" are NOT actually Marxists or Gaia-worshipping zealots posing as scientists? The only thing you have to offer me is their word, and they are inherently untrustworthy since I know that some of them are Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealots.

This is about trust. I cannot take any of it seriously until the "global warming" movement purges those assholes. Period.

|2.27.07 @ 4:52PM|#

Bill Clinton: Try making your post again after Gore is arrested or sued. Oh yeah, what was Clinton's approval rating when he left office? I recall you were saying something about feminists who support Clinton.

Getting arrested for drugs while supporting the drug war is hypocrisy. Going on gambling sprees while preaching that gambling is a sin is hypocrisy. Blow jobs are hypocrisy, I guess. But since when is preaching a green message and living in a house that uses all the latest green gagdetry hypocrisy? You may see the parallels bright and clear, but it is a bit of a stretch.

|2.27.07 @ 4:57PM|#

joe,

We're getting closer.

I think people with political agendas, on both sides of the issue, should be treated with skepticism.

Skepticism only? I think they should be ignored outright, since this is a scientific issue. Will you agree with me that, since this is a scientific issue, Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealots are crackpots who should be ignored outright and not merely treated with skepticism?

What do you think of crackpots who piggyback on global warming denialism to further their own poltical goals?

"Denialism" as in "holocaust denialism"? You should re-word your question is a much less inflammatory manner, such as this:

"Do you agree that those who piggyback on discrediting the global warming movement to further their own political goals are crackpots who should be ignored?"

Is that a question that you might ask me? My answer to that question is, it depends on the political goal being furthered. I'm sure there are Christian Reconstructionists who want to gain power and influence by demeaning those in the global warming movement, and I certainly think that they are crackpots and should be ignored on the issue of global warming as well as many other issues.

|2.27.07 @ 5:02PM|#

"The only thing you have to offer me is their word, and they are inherently untrustworthy since I know that some of them are Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealots."

They offer more than their word. They offer numerous reasoned arguments supported by linked evidence without politcal, economic, or religious silliness. If I am reading you rightly then you have information that one or more of the climatologist contributors at RealClimate are in fact lying, Communist, Gaia-worshippers. If so, could you please provide the evidence for such.

I have been watching that site for some time, exploring what they write about. I have seen no such evidence, only well reasoned and supported arguments. I would like to see evidence that these climatologists are lying etc.

|2.27.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Quick credibility check: What is a tail block?

Just say what you mean, Lamar.

In my opinion, Gore has been a somewhat conservative democrat his entire career, save for the environmental angle (and no, one issue doesn't make one a far leftie). I think too many people here are confusing the red wing of the Democratic party with Gore's somewhat centrist position. Sure, if you take only the environmental issues and look at his place on the political spectrum, it would be more left, but I don't see Gore as some far left screecher. I have followed Gore's career, and I won't say that he's a conservative, but he is more conservative than many democrats.

You've made very good points here, and I accept that I may have tarred Gore with more "progressivism" than he deserves. He may very well be more conservative than Dennis Kuchinich, but that doesn't mean he's above appeals to wealth envy for the sake of personal wealth and power. Usually the only times that Democrats have stood up for individuals' private property rights are those times when it is revealed that Democrats live in the lap of opulent luxury in spite of their rhetoric.

Can you think of a time when Al Gore preached individual saving, individual wealth-building, individual property-owning, and individual social mobility?

|2.27.07 @ 5:05PM|#

Lamar, is it possible for Gore to reduce his carbon footprint further? Quite plainly, yes. Thus, Gore has not reduced his carbon footprint to the degree he advises for everyone else, that their carbon footprints be reduced, in the words of his office, "as much as possible", prior to purchasing offsets.

Is the english language normally so difficult for you?

|2.27.07 @ 5:17PM|#

They offer more than their word. They offer numerous reasoned arguments supported by linked evidence without politcal, economic, or religious silliness.

I accept that that is your opinion.

If I am reading you rightly then you have information that one or more of the climatologist contributors at RealClimate are in fact lying, Communist, Gaia-worshippers. If so, could you please provide the evidence for such.

It is well-known that the ranks of the global-warming movement have been filled with Marxists and Gaia-worshippers, and thus the movement has become untrustworthy and corrupt since it is in the interest of Marxists and Gaia-worshippers to lie about who they are and pretend that they are merely "concerned scientists". If the global warming movement wants to be taken seriously, then it must purge all Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealot from its ranks. It is not my job to prove that anyone is a Marxist or a Gaia-worshipping zealot because this is a trust issue before it is a scientific issue.

I do not think that is too much to ask for a decent basis for my trust. I am happy to look at the science, but I refuse to be exploited by someone else's fear-based campaign in order to implement Marxism or misanthropy.

Let me be more direct: I ignore 100% of all sceintific statements, pro or con, in regards to human-caused global warming because I do not trust the motives of those making those statements, pro or con. Furthermore, the pro side of the issue (your side) has attracted and refused to reject the adherents of two ideologies that I think are horribly fucking evil. You have GOT to get me past that issue before you are going to get me to be receptive to your sceintific data!

|2.27.07 @ 5:18PM|#

I can't resist the opportunity to, once again, bring out the link of green celebrity hypocrits (and one who isn't - guess who). Jet A isn't too bad for the planet. What little harm it does do can be offset by driving a Prius.

http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs-who-claim-theyre-green-but-guzzle-gas

|2.27.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Will Allen,

I already addressed the fact that no sane person reads reads the phrase "as much as possible" literally. Want proof? The only way to reduce one's carbon footprint "as much as possible" is suicide. I haven't seen Gore advocate suicide....yet.

Loundry: I don't have an answer for Gore's policy goals over time. He is a Democrat, though, and I suspect that there is a reliance on government in too many areas. A tail block is one of the fundamental units of rate design in the utility industry. My point is that electric bills are so screwy that even the most credible observer couldn't draw a rational conclusion from one.

|2.27.07 @ 5:20PM|#

Quick reply b4 I am L8 2 work.
What specific qualities about the people running RealClimate fail to meet your criteria?

|2.27.07 @ 5:28PM|#

Lamar,

My point is that electric bills are so screwy that even the most credible observer couldn't draw a rational conclusion from one.

I can accept that a power bill is screwier than a layman like myself can fathom. What I don't accept is the notion that you can't draw a rational conclusion from compariong Al Gore's dogma to his behavior. Al Gore has a 20-room mansion that he rarely even visits. This behavior flies in the face of his preaching a "smaller footprint" since he is advocating an action for others that he regards as too demeaning for himself.

|2.27.07 @ 5:32PM|#

What specific qualities about the people running RealClimate fail to meet your criteria?

They are associated with Marxists and Gaia-worshipping zealots who have infiltrated the ranks of the human-caused global warming movement. As far as I am concerned, the people running RealClimate are known by the company they keep. I can't get any more specific than that.

|2.27.07 @ 5:41PM|#

Ah, I see lamar....."as much as possible" lies anywhere between killing oneself and living in several homes across the country, including a mansion. In other words, the phrase "as much as possible" is essentially meaningless.
Yes, it really would be preferable for Albert the Noble to just shut up and go away.

Well, at least he isn't pimping out the hideously painful death of a sibling this time, so thank goodness for small miracles.

|2.27.07 @ 5:57PM|#

Will Allen: which part of your original argument is still intact? Oh yes, that's right, only the part where you hate Al Gore's guts.

The phrase "as much as possible", like all non-literal phrases, is "essentially" meaningless without the context. Clearly you don't think Al Gore has done "as much as possible" but that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Regardless of whether you personally find any "essential meaning" in the phrase, it means "as much as you can handle." You say this phrase has no "essential meaning" which is not true. The phrase means that each person should take a look at their lifestyle and figure out how they can reduce their carbon imprint. You may not agree with this, but how can you possibly claim that you don't understand the sentence?

Listen, man. You hate Al Gore. You think you got him acting like a hypocrite when you really don't. This is why it is better to catch a politico crushing oxycontin, find jizz stains on his lover's dress or look at his emails. This kind of made-up "gotcha" crap is pure spin and no substance.

naked lunch|2.27.07 @ 6:09PM|#

Al Gore: Prominent leader of the environmental movement and hypocritical fraud of a buffoon.

Meanwhile, in actual real world news to people who give a fuck about actual real news - George Bush [not Al Gore] is losing 2 wars horribly, threatening a third, and him and Cheney are apparently trying to play 3-D Chess involving Al Qaeda. And the libertarian brainiacs in here are trumpeting finding out Al Gore's electrical bills.

Paul|2.27.07 @ 6:13PM|#

I would also suspect that more economic activity is going on at the Gore mansion than the average American home.

Not if Al Gore has anything to say about it.

Now, nothin' fer nothin', but this is exactly the kind of argument that gets used by libertarians as to why the richer do pay more taxes without the rate being increased. Noted.

|2.27.07 @ 6:14PM|#

No, lamar, "as much as possible" is not synonymous with "as nuch as you can handle",in this context, unless you are illiterate or dishonest. Al Gore states that the production of co2 threatens human civilization. That is the context he chooses, which means "as much as possible" most decidedly is not synonymous with "as much as you can handle".

If it merely is a matter of "as much as you can handle", it becomes merely a matter of personal preference without any substantial moral consequence; how much one carbon one prefers to consume. Thus, in this pollution of language, somebody who owns several large homes has done every bit as much as possible as someone who chooses not to. The phrase is rendered meaningless. Stop being so dishonest.

|2.27.07 @ 8:55PM|#

Regardless of whether you personally find any "essential meaning" in the phrase, it means "as much as you can handle."

Lamar, your defense of Gore is getting weaker with every post. Frankly, speaking as a libertarian, I say he should be able to do whatever he wants with everything he has. However, even you should be able to admit that his actions don't match his supposed concern re: global warming, but instead you want to play semantics, but in the above quoted sentence you've shown that you have run out of clever semantic arguments, because I doubt you'd argue that Gore could "handle" living in one residence, and consuming less energy.

|2.27.07 @ 8:55PM|#

could = couldn't

|2.27.07 @ 9:19PM|#

Yes, it goes without saying that if Gore "cannot handle" living in fewer than the several homes he now chooses to inhabit, he is too pathetic for words.

|2.27.07 @ 9:26PM|#

Loundry,

20 years ago, it was pretty much the Gaia worshipping, Marxist crackpots who were talking about global warming as a problem. Now, of course, we know they were right. Hippie communists can be right about stuff. We shouldn't take ideologues at their word, but we shouldn't refuse to consider their ideas at all. The people who push culture and knowledge forward usually are radicals. Even if the signal/noise ratio is low, they're still a good place to get signal that no one else is putting out.

jf,

Which part of 'his actions' don't match his supposed concern about global warming? Paying out of his own pocket to run his home on more expensive power? Attempting to influence the political culture to bring about policy reforms that reduce our country's greenhouse gas output? Buying solar panels and high-efficiency bulbs?

Show me the part where Gore denounces the consumption of energy produced by solar and wind projects, thereby subsidizing their operation. Go ahead, show me.

|2.27.07 @ 10:07PM|#

Gee, I dunno, joe, howza' bout having in excess of 16,000 square feet of residences to shelter two people? Especially since as late as six months ago he still hadn't chosen to pay the extra money to the various electric utilities to support renewable energy sources? From USA Today...

"Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths."

I know, I know, Albert the Noble is reducing his carbon footprint as much as possible, or as much as he can handle. Or something.

Let's not even get into the fatuity of somebody flying by private jet, having a movie studio purchase carbon offsets, and then saying he is reducing his carbon footprint as much as possible.

Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 10:13PM|#

He's a rich, fat man from the South who believes in capitalism, as evidence by his big house.

If you call Washington, DC "the South" then I guess you can be right. He grew up in the Farifax Hotel in DC and I spent more time in Tennessee in one year visiting my son on weekends during his pre-college years than Albert Gore, Jr. spent in Tennessee in all of his days before being defeated by GWB.

|2.27.07 @ 11:29PM|#

Derffie:

can't believe you consider Drudge anything but a biased source.. serious loss of respect for Reason here

Read before you write. As has been observed, Drudge was quoting a policy group that obtained the figures.

|2.27.07 @ 11:46PM|#

Passage from a history book of the future:

"In the 21st century human material progress recorded a noticeable decline due to far reaching government edicts which impeded economic activity. The stated pretext for the edicts was the mistaken notion that human activity played a significant role in the warming of the Earth. Various political coalitions promoted this idea over what is now known to be the actual cause; periodic fluctuations in solar activity."

|2.27.07 @ 11:54PM|#

Gosh, jf, I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I use the traditional meaning of "right" and "left." I consider myself an extreme right winger, but apparently you view me as an ultra-leftist or some such nonsense because I'm not politically correct and actually prefer facts and reality.

So do you know how many people resided in the residence? How about comparable energy use by similar residences? Of course not because the facts are irrelevant.

And to Rick Barton - the group that Drudge linked to and probably worked with is a fake front group. LOOK AT THE SITE. Its just neo-con propaganda.

|2.28.07 @ 12:37AM|#

olpete,

The group is a Tenn group for limited government. The only thing neoconish I see about it is a couple of their links. But they also link to CATO-pretty anti-neocon.

|2.28.07 @ 12:40AM|#

the group that Drudge linked to and probably worked with is a fake front group.

What on earth makes you say that?

LOOK AT THE SITE.

I just did. They have articles trivially found dating back to February 2005. That's an elaborate fake.

Its just neo-con propaganda.

And here you prove that you have no clue what these words mean. "Neo-con?" Please.

I found nothing neo-con in my perusal. They look solidly libertarian.

Perhaps you could point us to something, anything, on that site that indicates either their being a front group or their being a neo-con group.

Mike Laursen|2.28.07 @ 3:28AM|#

I'd be disappointed in Reason Magazine if it printed this article without more substantiation, too. But this here web page we're all reading is just a freegin' blog. You can't cancel your subcription to the blog, because you're reading it for free. What fun is a blog if you can't repeat a catty, unsubstantiated rumor once in a while.

|2.28.07 @ 4:53AM|#

The Tennessee Center for Polucy Research is billed by Druudge as being 'nonpartisan'. Whatever else they are, this description is clearly false.

Anyway, Wired magazine reported on the kerfufle, with an interesting observation:
http://tinyurl.com/3ba7qf
"The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."

|2.28.07 @ 7:09AM|#

The Tennessee Center for Polucy Research is billed by Druudge as being 'nonpartisan'. Whatever else they are, this description is clearly false.

Again with the Drudge smear. The words Drudge uses come directly from this group's about page.

Nonetheless, I concur with your point. They are clearly "partisan" in that their advocacy aligns with identifiable political activities. That alignment simply happens to be neither Republican nor Democratic. I notice that Cato does not claim obviously to be nonpartisan, as their advocacy aligns with libertarianism. Nor does the Center for Science in the Public Interest claim obviously to be nonpartisan, as their advocacy aligns with Orwellian socialist fascism.

Anyway, Wired magazine reported on the kerfufle, with an interesting observation:

That's called an Associated Press article, and it was carried by countless media outlets, for example, USA Today, which notes:

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

Note that the AP's accounting of the bills is 30,000 kilowatt-hours lower than the numbers TCPR cites. Also, the AP compares with a number for the "typical" Nashville household that is 5,000 kWh higher than the "average" American household used by the group.

Guy Montag|2.28.07 @ 7:40AM|#

Oh, would you guys calm down. We have been assured that this carbon credit scheme is purly voluntary.

Now, it would be nice if some legal assurances were made to make sure it stays that way. Some sort of guarantee to preserve the choice.

On this and many issues I am definatly pro choice and the choice of others should be preserved rather than trampled the way property rights and choices have been trampled.

|2.28.07 @ 8:04AM|#

joe,

20 years ago, it was pretty much the Gaia worshipping, Marxist crackpots who were talking about global warming as a problem. Now, of course, we know they were right.

You are assuming the point in dispute.

Hippie communists can be right about stuff. We shouldn't take ideologues at their word, but we shouldn't refuse to consider their ideas at all.

I completely disagree. There are some ideologues whose sole purpose is to make me value my rights under the 2nd Amendment. I include Christian Reconstructionists, Marxists, Gaia-worshipping zealots, and racial supremacists in this category. They do not deserve to be heeded or respected. They deserved to be watched so that we can defend ourselves when necessary.

|2.28.07 @ 10:12AM|#

JF, Will Allen:

Fair enough, gents. By following his own suggestions for making one's lifestyle greener, Al Gore is a hypocrite. He is a hypocrite, not because he doesn't follow his specific instructions, but because he doesn't live up to the super green ideal that you have ascribed to him.

Other than the fact that you couldn't counter the "suicide" counterexample, your posts lead me to assume that you believe there is a politician who not only lives up to his lifestyle suggestions, but also lives up to the exaggerated austerity made up by opposition researchers.

Here's the process:

(1) Make it seem like Gore wants nothing more than to shut down all economic activity while using zero energy.
(2) Show the world that Al Gore uses energy.
(3) Declare Gore a hypocrite, go home.
(4) Tell your Citgo-lobbyist wife, "if any Senator supports reducing our energy consumption, we'll just show his mansion and call him a hypocrite. If they don't live in huts, we win.

|2.28.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Gore lights his 20,000 square foot mansion with CFLs. Well, Duh. He'd need to get a 400 amp service upgrade if he didn't. No joke. Incandescent lighting for 20,000 sq/ft amounts to an electrical plan for 40,000 watts of lighting. That's 333 amps (~165A per leg) just for the bulbs. With CFLs, that number is roughly cut in half. The plan for outlets per square foot calls for even more than 2 watts per. Hmmmm, come to think of it, he already has AT LEAST a 400 amp service.

BTW, each CFL has mercury in it. If the power comes from coal, then no big deal as the mercury in the bulb MAY be less than the mercury put into the air by the coal plant powering the equivalent incandescent. But, as in this case, if the energy is from nuclear or hydro, then you are now messin with mercury that was not present in the incandescent lights or in the enrgy production process. Congratulations. And not to mentions, opps too late, the other planet-unfriendly components in CFLs that are not in incandescents, stuff like capacitors, enamel coated inductors, printed circuit boards and their coatings, and various plastics. All these parts must be manufactured in addition to what's already present with incandescents. Ah, the things to think about when you live in the real world - if you live in the real world.

Link for power planning if anyone cares:
http://www.lightingplans.com/lightPlansDesign102.html

Now George W Bush, being your typical planet-loving Republican, is greener than shit after saint patties day. He's actually smart enough to figure out you don't need 20,000 square feet to prove manhood. The guy must have a ph of D or something.

I hope this source is liberal enough fore Gore's flock:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php

Was that liberal enough? (god, I'm a f'ing asshole!)

from da link:

Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive." Hmm, back to that vote about the Greenest President? ::off Grid via ::EcoRazzi

Guy Montag|2.28.07 @ 10:57AM|#

bigbigslacker,

Chill dude! I have carbon credits to sell. Lots of them! You are mucking up the market!

The only time I spew carbon is when I drive, which is not often. The rest of the time I am clean as fresh snow.

The power company used the carbon, not me, so they should pay. Just like the way people with electric cars don't pollute at all.

Now that I am on board with the cause I would also like to mention that I have lots of carbon credits for sale. Step right up!

Pssst . . . Al? Need some credits? First one is free.

|2.28.07 @ 11:08AM|#

I could use a few credits. What little conscience I have is eating me. Please tell me you take paypal.

|2.28.07 @ 11:11AM|#

Sam-hec:

The Tennessee Center for Polucy Research is billed by Druudge as being 'nonpartisan'. Whatever else they are, this description is clearly false.

That's not clear at all. Nonpartisan means that they issue praise or condemnation without regard to the political affiliation of the recipient.

|2.28.07 @ 11:19AM|#

Guy, I think Al already buys credits. That's part of the whole "practice what you preach" story he's taking so much heat for.

bigbigslacker: Bush will have to have 20 "green" summer houses to make up for his policies.

Oops. We're on a hypocrisy rampage here. Lord knows there's no room for a policy discussion when everybody uses amounts of electricity that clearly exceed the limits the right wing claims Gore imposed.

To those who say my argument is just semantics: I guess you're right. Al Gore suggests people do XYZ to conserve. He then does the XYZ. He is still a hypocrite because he didn't move into a hut, which right wingers all know is what Gore really wants for everybody else.

|2.28.07 @ 11:41AM|#

Sam-hec:

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

I just called The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (615-383-6431) and spoke with Kelly who told me that they didn't have to identify themselves to the Nashville Electric Service when they got the energy usage figures for the Gore residence, anyone can do it. So why don't you do it for yourself, Sam-hec.

|2.28.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Lamar,

Guy, I think Al already buys credits. That's part of the whole "practice what you preach" story he's taking so much heat for.

He would practice what he preached if he bought credits and also returned his mansion(s) to greenspace. As is, he's pretending that the buying of indulgences exonerates him from the sins for which he lambastes other, lesser individuals.

|2.28.07 @ 11:59AM|#

Loundry: In order to practice what he preaches, he has to do more than what he preaches? Live in a mud hut? I get it. People on the right will never admit that the Al Gore they've created isn't really Al Gore, and they will skewer him when he doesn't live up to the Al Gore they've created in their minds and in their nightly rantings at the newscast.

If one preaches an environmentalist message, he must live in a hut? If he does have the hubris to live in a house, he can't do other things to reduce his "carbon footprint"? That's the standard of hypocrisy these days?

Wait a minute. Are you calling him a hypocrite because he doesn't live up to his environmentalist message or because he doesn't live up to far left ideals? It's the classic damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only solution is suicide or a mud hut....for the former vice-president of the United States.

|2.28.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Uh, no, lamar. Even if we were to accept your illiterate assertion that "as much as possible" is synonymous with "as much as you can handle" in this context, we are left with the pathetic assertion that Albert cannot handle anything less than three residences comprising more than 16,000 square feet, and travel by private jet. A person who "cannot handle" less than that is too pathetic for words, and should just shut up and go away.

|2.28.07 @ 1:01PM|#

If Albert the Noble were to a actually act as if be believed that what he asserts is true, that would be respectable. If one truly believes that human civilization is threatened by excess carbon consumption, then one would not live as Gore does, and then purchase finite carbon offsets. One would live modestly, and work to create the carbon offsets anyways. After all, this is a matter of life and death for humanity. If Gore really believes this, he should act accordingly. Failing that, it would be preferable if he simply went away.

|2.28.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Will Allen:

Here's the problem with your angle: you dodged the question of whether Gore is a hypocrite because of his family's energy consumption or because he doesn't measure up to the far left demon you've made him out to be. If it were truly the former (which it isn't), Gore's funding of offsets mean that he is clearly not a hypocrite. However, since he is paying for something that others would have to sacrifice to achieve, he is a bad left winger/progressive. Which is it? I know that the politics of personal smear don't discriminate, but it would be nice if the smearing party weren't making stuff up as they go along. Is he a hypocrite for environmental reasons or for left wing idealism reasons?

I don't think you have a clue as to how the former VP and Senator's family lives. Moreover, you are ascribing to Gore some commie-style "every man must live exactly alike" mantra that just isn't there. I don't recall him being anti-success.

Under your theory, "as much as possible" means that any energy consumption makes Gore a hypocrite (or at least one MW more than the poorest family in America). More importantly, you've started talking about how much he "can handle" as if you (1) had any idea how his house is built, (2) whether it goes against any of Gore's suggestions for a lesser carbon footprint, and (3) whether his consumption is similar to other men in his position. But hey, don't sweat it. We don't go to Will Allen for analysis. We go to Will Allen for cutesy little bs arguments that don't hold up once the 20 second soundbite is over.

By the way, one could easily substitute "successful" for "pathetic" in your last sentence. I guess it isn't only left wingers who are jealous of other peoples' wealth. If this thread is any indication, I guess we should get ready for the Swiftboating of an entire party.

Guy Montag|2.28.07 @ 1:32PM|#

Lamar,

Since I am ON BOARD NOW I am no longer thumbing my nose at the credits and am trying to engage in a transaction.

Now, I have a large store of credits but the only one of you guys I know of buying them is Mr. Gore. So, Mr. Gore, if you are reading this, please contact me and I can supply you with all of the credits you need at whatever price makes you feel better about living so well.

V/R,
Montag

|2.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#

In order to practice what he preaches, he has to do more than what he preaches? Live in a mud hut? I get it.

No, you're far too pissy right now to "get it". You're just being defensive because this prolonged and irritating diversion from your pet issue has put heaps of sand in your vagina. I happen to be greatly enjoying your discomfort, so if you want to talk about the issue without inspiring so much glee in me, then cut down on the snark.

In order to practice what he preaches, then Al Gore needs to cut down on his ecological footprint as much as possible.

People on the right will never admit that the Al Gore th---

I support full drug legalization, support the elminiation of all special marriage rights, and think that Christianity is inherently harmful. And yet, thanks to great "progressive" "nuance", I am still "on the right".

Hear that grinding sound? That's the sand in Lamar's vagina. It's going to take a ginormous environmentally-friendly douche to return him back to clear thinking.

If one preaches an environmentalist message, he must live in a hut?

I don't know what "an environmentalist message" is. I'm concerned about him exhorting people to decrease their ecological footprint as much as possible and pretending that he can get away with not following his own moral mandates since he's rich enough to buy sufficient indulgences to exonerate him from the sins he rails against. The "sin" I'm speaking of is the failure to reduce one's ecological footprint as much as possible.

|2.28.07 @ 2:26PM|#

"I'm concerned about him exhorting people to decrease their ecological footprint as much as possible and pretending that he can get away with not following his own moral mandates since he's rich enough to buy sufficient indulgences to exonerate him from the sins he rails against."

This means that he is hypocritical as a progressive, not as an environmentalist.

"The 'sin' I'm speaking of is the failure to reduce one's ecological footprint as much as possible."

And one has to agree that a literal interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that the only way to reduce one's footprint as much as possible is to commit suicide. If we're going to concede, as I think we must, that "as much as possible" is not a literal phrase, then we're stuck with our own individual notions of what "as much as possible" means. I think a lot of people have a difficult time deciding how much is "as much as possible" in their own lives. Now I'm supposed to accept it when people who personally hate Al Gore tell me what decisions the Gore family should come to regarding electricity? Ha. I "get" this whole thing. It's a swiftboat job. Not a lot of substance, but a lot of blabbering on about it.

Let's put this to rest:
(1) Is "as much as possible" supposed to be taken literally?
(2) If yes, what would constitute "as much as possible" short of suicide or living in a mud hut? How is your answer to this not subjective?
(3) If no, who decides how much is enough to fly under the hypocrite radar?

BTW: I like how your last paragraph provides two distinct answers to an "either/or" question. He's a bad enviro and a bad progressive, all rolled into one slam-dunk case. If the sin is reducing the carbon footprint, then why can't he buy his way out of it? The answer: because that makes him a bad progressive. Maybe that's where the story should be. It has nothing to do with environmentalism. If one can reduce his footprint with money, and one does so, how can you say that he isn't reducing his footprint?

My whole point is that if you are asserting that Gore doesn't do as much as he tells others to do, then you are stuck with quantifying how much you think he should be doing. Given the personal hate of Gore, there will never be "enough" he can do.

From what I've seen, Gore's residences follow all the tips and suggestions he gives other people. The only argument is whether he does "everything possible" to reduce his carbon footprint, and I submit that you are using too wide a definition of "possible."

|2.28.07 @ 2:54PM|#

No, Lamar, you only say I dodged the issue but because you can't read. Gore himself has advocated that people reduce their carbon footprint "as much as posible" before buying offsets. Now, even in we were to grant YOUR assertion that "as much as possible" is synonymous with "as much as you can handle", we are left with the prospect that Al Gore cannot handle anything less than living in three homes and traveling by private jet. A man who cannot handle anything less than living in three homes and flying by private jet is a deeply, deeply, superficial and silly man, and has nothing to say that is worth listening to.

|2.28.07 @ 3:05PM|#

Will Allen: is "as much as possible" a literal phrase?

|2.28.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Well, when one is saying that excess carbon consumption will doom human civilization, the context one creates makes it reasonable to conclude that "as much as possible" precludes living in manner which consumes carbon, prior to offsets, at a rate which far exceeds that which is typical of a citizen.

Now, even if one grants your assertion that "as much as possible" is synonymous with "as much as you can handle" one can only conclude that Al Gore cannot handle anything less than living in three homes and travel by private jet. He is thus a deeply, deeply, silly and superficial man.

|2.28.07 @ 3:20PM|#

Try again:

Will Allen: is "as much as possible" a literal phrase?

|2.28.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Lamar,

Thank you for the improved tone of your response. I was snarky as hell in my last message to you, and you chose the high road. Well-played!

That said,

This means that he is hypocritical as a progressive, not as an environmentalist.

It means he's a hypocrite as a "progressive" (for not giving away his money to the poor) and also as an environmentalist (for not decreasing his ecological footprint as much as possible).

And one has to agree that a literal interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that the only way to reduce one's footprint as much as possible is to commit suicide.

Precisely. The exact same conclusion follows from animal rights dogma.

If we're going to concede, as I think we must, that "as much as possible" is not a literal phrase, then we're stuck with our own individual notions of what "as much as possible" means.

Which means that "as much as possible" is open to interpretation, which means that it's subjective, which means that it means whatever you want it to mean, which means that it means nothing. It's simply a club to try and force people to guilt people into doing what you want them to do. Go back to what I wrote about Al Gore earlier. All he really wants is to gain money and power. He doesn't really give a shit about the environment.

From what I've seen, Gore's residences follow all the tips and suggestions he gives other people. The only argument is whether he does "everything possible" to reduce his carbon footprint, and I submit that you are using too wide a definition of "possible."

This is, in fact, your only way to escape the logical conclusion that Al Gore is a hypocrite by refusing to decrease his ecological footprint as much as possible: you claim that "as much as possible" is open to interpretation. Unfortunately, you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by choosing that escape route since you have now given me the right to interpret "as much as possible" as I wish.

Hence, I hereby declare that the most I can possibly decrease my ecological footprint is zero, which is still considerably less than the ecological footprint that Al Gore takes up, as he has obviously not shifted from his position that he can't decrease his ecological footprint either and his ecological footprint encompasses multiple 20-room mansions and the power it takes to keep them climate-controlled in the oft chance that he might actually enter them.

|2.28.07 @ 3:37PM|#

is "as much as possible" a literal phrase?

I'll help you out, Will.

In the context of our converation, it is a meaningless phrase. Thus, the charge to "reduce your environmental footprint as much as possible" should be ignored, as it has no meaning on its own.

Otherwise, commit suicide, as you have correctly deduced.

|2.28.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Loundry: Yes, the amount of reductions that constitutes "as much as possible" is open for interpretation, i.e., doesn't mean anything. I don't understand why this is a story.

He's an enviromentalist who uses a lot of energy, but also engages in a lot of conservation, efficiency measures and spreading the green message.

What is a typical citizen and how much do they consume? Is Al Gore a typical citizen? What are the environmental reasons for Al Gore to act like a "typical citizen"? Does he get any credit for flying around the world in his private jet to further his message? Is there any indication that he uses a private jet for pleasure?

How much energy should a typical citizen use? Should Gore be able to use extra because he isn't typical?

|2.28.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Its too late now, the house is built, but Gore could have been content living in a house the size of the one George Bush, the greenest president we've ever had, lives in. There is a lot of room between the concept of a 20,000 square foot mansion and a mud hut. The exact figure is not terribly important, but it is clear that a home with 8 bathrooms is a bit over the top for one who has spent much of his life preaching environmentalism. Its over the top for a Hummer driver as well. Somehow the guy in the Hummer is an "asshole", but Al Gore is not.

There is no credit that I know of that negates the manufacturing impact of a mansion and the pollution resulting from heating, cooling, and facility maintenance. Somehow I don't think Al Gore mows his mansion's lawn, or has his lawn mowed, with a human-powered push mower. CO2 sequestering doesn't even come close to making up for modern life's excesses. That is a guilty person's fantasy. Jet fuel in, CO2 out = bullshit. How do you make up for the benzine in fuel, the PVC insulation in wiring, the PVC plumbing, the acquisition of other materials, pollution generated by the laborers, and the hurt feelings of others who have to look at the big private house Al Gore unfairly built. (I'm trying to tie this in with the "teachers take away kids Legos" thread)

|2.28.07 @ 3:49PM|#

I just don't think that Gore is as austere as everybody is making him out to be. You are right that there is a big difference between a mud hut and a mansion. Where do we draw the line? More importantly, when I'm trying to figure out where Gore draws the line, should I listen to those already on record as hating his guts? Or should I listen to him and make sense of his words? I guess both sides are engaging in a little bit of projection here. I just see a guy who is very successful, has a mansion, yet still tries to keep it green. Kill me for not calling him a hypocrite.

|2.28.07 @ 4:01PM|#

Lamar, I'm sorry to be so snarky, but when you can't comprehend what you've written yourself, much less what others have written, one can only conslude that you are dishonest or illiterate. First, you write....

"Clearly you don't think Al Gore has done "as much as possible" but that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Regardless of whether you personally find any "essential meaning" in the phrase, it means "as much as you can handle." You say this phrase has no "essential meaning" which is not true."

Now you write...

"Yes, the amount of reductions that constitutes "as much as possible" is open for interpretation, i.e., doesn't mean anything. I don't understand why this is a story."

Tell me, Lamar, how do you reconcile those two statements? Also, could you please explain, once and for all, if "as much as possible" in synonymous with "as much as you can handle" (you did write that, didn't you?), what does it mean to say that Al Gore cannot handle less than living in three homes and flying by private jet?

|2.28.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Lamar, if all Gore had ever said on the issue was that rich people should buy offsets for their carbon consumption which exceeds what the mean per capita carbon consumption is, I wouldn't have a thing to say about him.

|2.28.07 @ 4:20PM|#

Will Allen:

Things like "as much as you can handle" have meaning to me, because I know how much I can handle. When Gore says it to the world, it doesn't mean anything, at least not until the listener fills in the blanks. That's sort of the nature of individualism. Messages for mass consumption, by their very nature, have to be broad.

I love it how you are interpreting my sentences, but you won't even go on record as to whether "as much as possible" is a literal phrase.

|2.28.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Sure, it's a literal phrase. For an honest person, which is why an honest person would never say it. To a dishonest person like Gore, it doesn't mean anything.

Now, since we have now devolved to the point that you agree that Al Gore doesn't say anything that means anything, it can be safely said it would be preferable if public figures who mouth all manner of meaningless nonsense would instead just shut up.

By the way, it's kinda funny how you try to finesse an explanation that the phrase "As much as possible" has meaning, except when it doesn't have meaning. Or something.

|2.28.07 @ 4:42PM|#

BigBigSlacker,
I found this mercury comparaison, also at TreeHugger, between the 5 year lives of a CFL and an Incandescent:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php

Basically, assuming all the power is from coal, and both bulbs are thrown out after five years (assuming they both last that long), the CFL results in roughly 3/5s the mercury pollution. That CFLs last longer, and can be recycled, adds to their relative betterness.

This is of course countered by the fact that a fair amount of energy isn't coal powered.

...And assuming of course a site called TreeHugger is being honest with itself and with us.

/me hoping for improved LED tech.

|2.28.07 @ 4:50PM|#

"Sure, it's a literal phrase. For an honest person, which is why an honest person would never say it. To a dishonest person like Gore, it doesn't mean anything."

Well, this is a disingenuous statement. When I said Gore's statement doesn't mean anything, I meant it doesn't mean anything specific. It's a political message, not a detailed instruction. Gore isn't micromanaging our energy use as you are attempting to do to him.

I really can't believe you are applying a literal standard to a soapbox speech. Should we impeach George W. Bush because he didn't use actual smoke to capture terrorists? Or are we reasonable enough to know what he meant?

"Now, since we have now devolved to the point that you agree that Al Gore doesn't say anything that means anything, it can be safely said it would be preferable if public figures who mouth all manner of meaningless nonsense would instead just shut up."

This applies to all politicians. I dig the idealism, but it just isn't practical to have a representative government and prohibit broad messages. This would effectively end all campaigns and communication between rep and constituent.

"By the way, it's kinda funny how you try to finesse an explanation that the phrase "As much as possible" has meaning, except when it doesn't have meaning. Or something."

Too complicated for you? Al Gore says, "use as little energy as possible." Does it mean I rip the electrical system out of my house? Or does it mean something else? Surely reasonable people can figure out what this essentially meaningless statement means to them. Right? Still too complicated?

Al Gore tells me to reduce CO2 as much as possible. He has no idea what is possible, or whether I would take his statement literally or as a reasonable person would. He is simply spreading a message that can be interpreted in many ways. It might be essentially meaningless (i.e., can't draw specifics from it), but it certainly has value.

|2.28.07 @ 4:58PM|#

Does he get any credit for flying around the world in his private jet to further his message?

Gore's "message" is designed and taken to get people to lobby their respective governments to limit greenhouse gas emissions by force while putting as little thought as possible into considering costs and benefits of such actions.

He gets major league negative credit for that.

Maybe he purchases some sort of suggestions of inappropriate use of government force offset...

|2.28.07 @ 5:14PM|#

No, lamar, I'm not trying to micromanage anything about Gore's energy use. I am asking him to just shut up and refrain from making moral pronouncements regarding carbon consumption, because he consumes carbon in a fashion which suggests that his rhetoric is not to be taken seriously. A man who says that one should be morally compelled to reduce one's carbon footprint "as much as possible", prior to purchasing offsets, while living in three large residences, and flying in a private jet, is not a man to be taken seriously.

Yes, I think our public life would be considerably improved if public figures would refrain from making moral pronouncements which they themselves did not take seriously with regard to their own behavior. No, hypocrisy is not the worst of all behaviors, but we would be better off without it.

|2.28.07 @ 5:30PM|#

When I said Gore's statement doesn't mean anything, I meant it doesn't mean anything specific.

What a nauseating smear of candy-assed spin.

|2.28.07 @ 5:32PM|#

Somehow the guy in the Hummer is an "asshole", but Al Gore is not.

Al Gore is an asshole, and the green message is suicidal.

|2.28.07 @ 5:44PM|#

Spin of what? Is there something inherently untruthful about my claim that many political messages are essentially hollowed out, giving only the ideals and waiting for people to fill in the blanks?

|3.1.07 @ 4:42AM|#

It seems that this conversation rests on just what exactly Gore wants us to do, and as such is he doing something reasonably similar.

The TCPR said of him, "In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home."

But this is not a direct quote. My Grandma has my DVD and is very tardy in getting it back, so I can't quote directly either.

How can we be sure that this is a direct and in context quote?

Since I don't have the DSVD handy I can't quote one part either, but I recall that Gore does not see willful or forced poverty as a good solution to global warming. This was in the added section, not the released movie.

I am interested in hearing a collation of all that Gore has actually said (in context) on the subject of what he expects people (and himself) to do about Climate Change.

|3.1.07 @ 5:06AM|#

To that end, there is:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/
a 6 short-page list of things he expects us to do. Basically (there are more details but I am not going to plagarize):
1. Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl).

2. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer.

3. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner.

4. Install a programmable thermostat.

5. Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases.

6. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket.

7. Use less hot water.

8. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible.

9. Turn off electronic devices you're not using.

10. Unplug electronics from the wall when you're not using them.

11. Only run your dishwasher when there's a full load and use the energy-saving setting.

12. Insulate and weatherize your home.

13. Be sure you're recycling at home.

14. Buy recycled paper products.

15. Plant a tree.

16. Get a home energy audit.

17. Switch to green power.

18. Buy locally grown and produced foods.

19. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen.

20. Seek out and support local farmers markets.

21. Buy organic foods as much as possible.

22. Avoid heavily packaged products.

23. Eat less meat.

24. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible.

25. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates.

26. Keep your car tuned up.

27. Check your tires weekly to make sure they're properly inflated.

28. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle.

29. Try car sharing.

30. Try telecommuting from home.

31. Fly less.

There it is, the 31 basic Gore Walk to Walk...so this seems what he actually means by TCPR's vague reference to "...conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home."

Mud huts and suicide are not mentioned as options...I gotta wonder if he uses a clothes line at all.

|3.1.07 @ 5:51AM|#

Wow, Sam-hec, that's quite a wide ranging list of feel-good actions.

And the net result of all of us doing all of them on global warming is, to a first approximation, zero.

The only one that has a shot of having a nonnegligable effect on GHG production is 17. Switch to green power.

If all of us switched all our power to green power, that would have a real effect on CO2 emissions. It would also be impossible in today's world with today's technology without massively decreasing total power consumed and the consequent prosperity of society.

We cannot conserve ourselves out of global warming. That environmental evangelists like Gore imply we can is simply lying in order to gain converts.

|3.1.07 @ 6:03AM|#

The only one that has a shot of having a nonnegligable effect on GHG production is...

I should also not give too short a shrift to 15. Plant a tree, even though it would take planting many trees to offset one's carbon footprint.

I have a warm spot for this suggestion because my own expectation of how the greenhouse gas problem will be solved, if it is ever deemed economically necessary to do so, is through industrial-scale sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Once that technology becomes available, we could convert the proposed sad Pigouvian carbon tax into a Coaseian one instead, as the proceeds can go directly toward eliminating the externality.

|3.1.07 @ 6:08AM|#

"We cannot conserve ourselves out of global warming. That environmental evangelists like Gore imply we can is simply lying in order to gain converts."

I never got the impression from Al Gore that we could really stop global warming. But rather we could slow it down, and possibly stop the worst effects from happening at all, such as the 20ft sea level rise thing.

Conservation efforts help slow it down, and just might make us wealthier in the process.

IMO, ending subsidies and other protections for fossil fuels would help towards that. But I've been over that hobby horse before...

Time for bed.

|3.1.07 @ 8:40PM|#

Everything I have seen shows that carbon offsets are absolute bullshit.

I just had to have the last word.

Of course, if anyone can demonstrate that there is actual benefit to carbon offset purchases, I'm willing to listen.

|3.2.07 @ 5:58AM|#

HA! Now I have the last word...but if I don't, JF:

How do you define 'Benefit'?

Where have you looked at for basic information (such as benefits of) about Carbon Offsets?

|3.2.07 @ 9:46AM|#

"Everything I have seen shows that carbon offsets are absolute bullshit."

You might be right, but the issue is whether Al Gore is a hypocrite for purchasing something that he believes in.