Al Gore: Power Hungry

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

The Real Bill | February 26, 2007, 9:15pm | #

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

MikeP | February 26, 2007, 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...

Will Allen | February 26, 2007, 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.

Ken Shultz | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Derffie | February 26, 2007, 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..]

The Real Bill | February 26, 2007, 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.)

Will Allen | February 26, 2007, 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.

Will Allen | February 26, 2007, 9:41pm | #

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

c&d | February 26, 2007, 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.

juris imprudent | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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?

Ken Shultz | February 26, 2007, 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.

Zing | February 26, 2007, 9:55pm | #

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

Will Allen | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Ken Shultz | February 26, 2007, 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.

Derffie | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 9:59pm | #

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

MikeP | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Ken Shultz | February 26, 2007, 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.

Derffie | February 26, 2007, 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'.

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.

Insane Lurker | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Brian24 | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Captain Holly | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Will Roberts | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 10:44pm | #

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

Jarod | February 26, 2007, 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.

crimethink | February 26, 2007, 10:45pm | #

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

Yeah, but we get to ... DRINK!

thoreau | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

scandalrag | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 10:56pm | #

scandalrag, you funny guy. :-)

madpad | February 26, 2007, 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.

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.

van | February 26, 2007, 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.

Fred | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 11:10pm | #

Van, thanks for the kind words.

Ammonium | February 26, 2007, 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.

madpad | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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.

Jon H | February 26, 2007, 11:24pm | #

Oh come on, this is Hannity-level rhetoric.

Hannity.

I expect more from Hit & Run.

_______ | February 26, 2007, 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.

Fledermaus | February 26, 2007, 11:26pm | #

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

shecky | February 26, 2007, 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 | February 26, 2007, 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

Rimfax | February 26, 2007, 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.)

Rimfax | February 27, 2007, 12:02am | #

Fledermaus,

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

The Wine Commonsewer | February 27, 2007, 12:18am | #

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

Guy Montag | February 27, 2007, 12:24am | #

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

Best rates on the web, guaranteed!

The Real Bill | February 27, 2007, 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.)

MikeP | February 27, 2007, 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.

barnaby | February 27, 2007, 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.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | February 27, 2007, 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...

Will Allen | February 27, 2007, 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?

Bob | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 12:58am | #

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

Will Allen | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 1:35am | #

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

Duder | February 27, 2007, 2:24am | #

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

The Real Bill | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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.

The Real Bill | February 27, 2007, 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.

kevrob | February 27, 2007, 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

Again | February 27, 2007, 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.

Sam-hec | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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.

John in Nashville | February 27, 2007, 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?

gaijin | February 27, 2007, 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?

aaron | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 8:01am | #

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

Finkelstein | February 27, 2007, 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.

Doug | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 8:46am | #

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

MCA | February 27, 2007, 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.

Pug | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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.

jf | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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!

Lamar | February 27, 2007, 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.

joe | February 27, 2007, 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...

joe | February 27, 2007, 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.

R C Dean | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 10:26am | #

Al Gore is no Ed Begley, Jr.

joe | February 27, 2007, 10:27am | #

R C,

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

Lamar | February 27, 2007, 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?

joe | February 27, 2007, 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.

Lamar | February 27, 2007, 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.

Nick M. | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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.

Phillip J. Birmingham | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 11:03am | #

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

Phillip J. Birmingham | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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.

jf | February 27, 2007, 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.

Nick M. | February 27, 2007, 11:10am | #

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

Nick

The Wine Commonsewer | February 27, 2007, 11:12am | #

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

The Wine Commonsewer | February 27, 2007, 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.

Lamar | February 27, 2007, 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.

joe | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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.

Lamar | February 27, 2007, 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.

egore | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 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 | February 27, 2007, 12:10pm | #

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

Lamar | February 27, 2007, 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?

Jake Boone | February 27, 2007, 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!

Loundry | February 27, 2007, 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.

joe | February 27, 2007, 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.

olpete | February 27, 2007, 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.

Loundry | February 27, 2007, 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