Al Gore uses 18,400 kWh of electricity per month?

[cje1980]

Can you believe this hypocrite? He uses more electricity in 1 month than an average American family uses in an entire year. Typical liberal does completely the opposite of what he says. I think they should make a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth about his lavish life-style.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html

[Danase]

The bigger the house and building the more energy it is going to use. Instead of comparing it to the average joe smoe household they should compare it to houses and buildings of the same size as his.

Not to mention the article also states:
"Kreider said the 60- to 70-year-old house is undergoing renovations to add solar panels to reduce consumption off the power grid, and energy-efficient windows have been installed. The home also uses "compact" fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technology, the Gores drive hybrids and participate in two programs that indirectly reduce carbon emissions."

Sounds like he is making an effort to save energy to me!

[Eghad]

Remember the Oscars were "green" this year. :rolleyes:

[cje1980]

I'm not saying that he wouldn't naturally use more electricity than the average Joe but using more energy in a month than twice the rate that an average American family uses in a year is pretty steep. The Bush ranch in Crawford doesn't use any electricity and he doesn't claim to be green like Gore does. Somebody with the resources that Gore does should have figured out how to use less electricity, especially if you consider his politcal stance on global warming and electricity usage.

[Fremmer]

Sounds like he is making an effort to save energy to me!

Yeah, sure he is. He has built a huge house that consumes a huge amount of energy. But that's OK, he is "special" and justified in consuming enormous amounts of energy that contribute more to the global warming problem than the average joe's house.

Remember, this global warming problem must be solved by prohibiting energy consumption by average american citizens and evil corporations, but certain "special" people get a pass. :rolleyes:

[wingman]

Please remember the only people ever ask to conserve and sacrifice is the
middle-class, anything else is show.

[JuanCarlos]

It's a big house, it's going to have a large power bill. If Gore wasn't living there, it's quite possible (likely?) that whoever was would consume even more electricity/energy. It sounds as if he is taking further measures to reduce consumption, and also takes measures outside his home (vehicles, programs) to further reduce emissions.

Nobody's perfect, and I'd like to see a comparison of his energy usage compared to others of similar wealth and stature.

All that said, I'm sure if you gave me a day or two at his house I could point out several steps he could take immediately to reduce consumption; after all, I (like most of us) have actually had to do so in order to be able to afford my bill. It's a great motivator.

The Bush ranch in Crawford doesn't use any electricity and he doesn't claim to be green like Gore does.

How so? I'm assuming it must be on either wind or solar, but I'm honestly curious.

[MemphisReason]

Stop freaking out. Just because he may use more energy than you approve of given as an environmental watchdog doesn't make his message any less valid.

[Pointer]

Daryl Hanna... an avid but reasonable Environmentalist... was on Hannity this morning (27 Feb)...

He asked her if she thought Al Gore was a hypocrite...

She said she didn't want to call anyone names, but if everything being said about Al Gore's use of energy is true... she would agree with Hannity...

She said something to the effect, that a representative of the Global Warming Environmentalists like Al Gore, should practice what he preaches.

SUV's, private jets, and 3 and possibly 4 mansions, were specifically mentioned...

She and Hannity had a perfectly agreeable and civil meeting...
It was refreshing to hear a mannerly discussion... for a change.

She didn't "screech" at Hannity, even once, in the entire interview...

[oldandsore]

That is one of four houses that he owns,and lets not forget the limmos and private Jets that he uses. In the 70's they said the ice age was coming now its warming. I remember when I was in school (long time ago) they called oil dino oil, it came from decayed dinosurs. Think about it there was once a ICE AGE that formed our montains and valleys (at least thats what I was tought) Gee what caused all that ice to disapear GLOBAL WARMING and NO suv's.

[SecDef]

If he has to spend 40 units (flying jets around the country) to save 400 or 4000 (think of how many people his message has reached) then it's fine. No hypocrisy at all. Merely not being a role model for the average citizen, mostly because he doesn't just do average citizeny things.

[JuanCarlos]

If he has to spend 40 units (flying jets around the country) to save 400 or 4000 (think of how many people his message has reached) then it's fine. No hypocrisy at all. Merely not being a role model for the average citizen, mostly because he doesn't just do average citizenry things.

Good point. Also, this is a classic ad hominem attack...whether he is a hypocrite or not, his personal habits have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his message.

So if this thread is just about hating on Al Gore, cool. If it's about "he doesn't even conserve energy, why should I?" then you've fallen neck-deep into a huge logical fallacy.



Oh, and I totally missed this:

Yeah, sure he is. He has built a huge house that consumes a huge amount of energy. But that's OK, he is "special" and justified in consuming enormous amounts of energy that contribute more to the global warming problem than the average joe's house.

Really?

"Kreider said the 60- to 70-year-old house"

Wait for it..........

Born March 31, 1948 (age 58)

So that's where all the power is going...into his giant time machine!

[sanson]

I'm sick of our employees living so much better than the rest of us:barf:

[JuanCarlos]

I'm sick of our employees living so much better than the rest of us.

He's not your employee anymore. Hasn't been for nearly a decade.

Also, given the level of power and responsibility of the offices, the salaries of Senators and the Vice President aren't excessive...especially consider the small number of positions. Basic economics. Plus if you want to attract well-qualified applicants, theoretically you have to offer competitive salaries. More basic economics.

[towerclimber37]

this is a classic ad hominem attack...whether he is a hypocrite or not, his personal habits have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his message.
His message is NOT valid truth..its hearsay arguments by a bunch of scientists.
heh...I remember when some scientist wrote an article that said tomatoes promote cancer!!! There's a panel of scientist that refute all the bushwa about global warming. so pick a side..
While I agree that conservation of fossil fuels and the research and development of alternative fuel sources is a great idea..I WILL ridicule some stupid effete a-hole that jumps up on his soapbox, Cajoles, ridicules and extorts us to CONSERVE ..and is one of the biggest wastrels that there is. If he were REALLY serious, he'd use MASS TRANSIT...try taking a TRAIN or selling some of his mansions and buying or building something more cost efficient Selling his plane and flying first class with the rest of us schmoes.
and for those of you who defend him..its ok..you'll win in the end right? I mean, you're supporting the guy that invented the internet. I suggest though that you don't attempt to belittle someone for ridiculing an idiot..it'll leave YOUR intelligence in question.

[towerclimber37]

and before you Jump on me and say that "al gore never said he invented the internet"...this is a TRANSCRIPT of his 2000 interview with Wolfe Blitzer.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

most people that ridicule people like Al Gore or John Kerry, or quite a few other liberals, do so because there is inherently something wrong with their arguement..and they don't want to go to lengths to argue. I on the other hand don't mind it.
:cool: come correct or don't come at all!:cool:

[JuanCarlos]

His message is NOT valid truth..its hearsay arguments by a bunch of scientists.

Yeah.....

heh...I remember when some scientist wrote an article that said tomatoes promote cancer!!! There's a panel of scientist that refute all the bushwa about global warming. so pick a side..

No, scientists aren't always correct. Then again, the "debate" over global warming is largely created by the (non-scientific) media...a majority of those scientists that refute global warming are or have been on the payrolls of energy/oil companies.

While I agree that conservation of fossil fuels and the research and development of alternative fuel sources is a great idea..I WILL ridicule some stupid effete a-hole that jumps up on his soapbox, Cajoles, ridicules and extorts us to CONSERVE ..and is one of the biggest wastrels that there is. If he were REALLY serious, he'd use MASS TRANSIT...try taking a TRAIN or selling some of his mansions and buying or building something more cost efficient Selling his plane and flying first class with the rest of us schmoes.

Mass transit? You're kidding, right? I mean, security concerns alone....after all, I hear there are a lot of gun-owning wackos that don't like him much. ;)

But seriously, that is pretty preposterous due to security concerns. And with as much traveling as he does, I'd say if he can afford a private jet more power to him. EDIT: Also, what SecDef said.

and for those of you who defend him..its ok..you'll win in the end right? I mean, you're supporting the guy that invented the internet. I suggest though that you don't attempt to belittle someone for ridiculing an idiot..it'll leave YOUR intelligence in question.

"Invented the internet," eh? Still buying that spin? I thought the sell-by date on that had long since passed...might want to give it a sniff before you drink it.

[JuanCarlos]

and before you Jump on me and say that "al gore never said he invented the internet"...this is a TRANSCRIPT of his 2000 interview with Wolfe Blitzer.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

most people that ridicule people like Al Gore or John Kerry, or quite a few other liberals, do so because there is inherently something wrong with their arguement..and they don't want to go to lengths to argue. I on the other hand don't mind it.
come correct or don't come at all!

That's not a transcript, that's a paragraph. Also, discrediting somebody personally does not necessarily invalidate their position...so while it might be fun to ridicule Al Gore (or Kerry, or anybody else) it doesn't actually prove your point.

And yes, I was well aware of what he said. But as I said, that spin has long since expired:


1999 CNN interview

As a result of the publication of three articles in Wired News[77], Gore's 1999-03-09 interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer became the subject of heavy satire. [78] During this interview, Gore stated:

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. [79]"

Media reports surrounding this statement sometimes re-wrote it, stating that Gore claimed he "invented the internet".[80] Gore received support from members of the computer industry, however, notably Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn. Cerf and Kahn issued the following statement on 2000-09-28 in response to the controversy:

"[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.[81]"

Gore, himself, poked fun at the controversy. In September 2000, as a guest on the The Late Show with David Letterman, he read a list of the "Top Ten Rejected Gore - Lieberman Campaign Slogans." Number nine on the list was: "Remember, America, I gave you the Internet, and I can take it away!" [82]

Aftermath: Apple, Google, and the Webbys

Despite the controversy, Gore continued to be involved with the computer industry. He has been a member of the board of directors of Apple Inc. since 2003 [83] [84] and serves as a Senior Advisor to Google Inc.[84] In 2005, the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences honored Gore at the Webby Awards with the Lifetime Achievement Award "for three decades of contributions to the Internet". The Webby Awards, which are widely hailed as the Oscars of the web, "wanted to set the record straight" according to Tiffany Shlain, the awards' founder and chairwoman. She further stated, "It's just one of those instances someone did amazing work for three decades as Congressman, Senator and Vice President and it got spun around into this political mess." [85] Gore, during his acceptance speech (limited to five words according to Webby Awards rules), joked: "Please don't recount this vote".[86]

Yeah, yeah, wikipedia har har. But still, the whole "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" argument has long been regarded by most intelligent people with reasonable critical thinking skills as silly and juvenile.

[SecDef]

And I hear some of those scientists aren't even AMERICAN scientists!!!!!!

I'm gonna throw my burger king wrappers out the car door, cause I put the NUT in nutjob.

And before you attack me for being an idiot, that makes your argument weaker.

Scientists have no idea what they are talking about. *I* know because I'm somehow smart or something.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet. Deal with it.

[JuanCarlos]

Because it was worthy of its own post:

Also, I notice nobody here has yet mentioned that part of that gigantic power bill is the extra he pays so that all those kilowatt-hours come from renewable energy sources (solar, wind, etc)...$432 a month, over double my entire bill. It's mentioned in passing in the article, but I'd say it's a pretty significant point.

Source, of course. (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070226/NEWS01/70226055)

[WeedWacker]

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

[JuanCarlos]

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

Which, despite a poor choice of phrasing far too many mouthbreathers have been more than happy to jump on top of, is pretty much all Gore was claiming. Well, he was probably claiming a bit more active of a role as a proponent of it in Congress...but still.

So, your point?

EDIT: Note, he doesn't use the word "invent" or "inventing." Also, it should be clear when somebody talks about "taking the initiative in creating" something that was created during their time as a politician, they probably mean the initiative in advocating and funding it. At least to anybody with an above-room-temperature IQ.

EDIT: Hey, SecDef, I didn't tag you in yet. :)

[SecDef]

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

And if Hitler said said he funded it but the media misquoted him as saying he invented it, there would still be fools TO THIS DAY Godwin'ing threads.

Thank you, come again.

[deanf]

It wouldn't be such a big deal if a substantial portion of his energy came from nuclear power.

But no, he and his and his vulgar, hypocritical ilk had to defacto ban nuclear power in this country about 25 years ago, and force us to burn filthy coal for our power. Filthy coal that leave vast radioactive waste on the ground after burning, and pours tons of CO2 into the air. And now they want to force us to ride buses to fix a problem they forced us into.:mad:

[rem33]

Hey! Wake up!

He's just like most people in powerful positions including most gun grabbing politicians. It's OK for them to have it just not you the general public.. Figure it out folks.

[JuanCarlos]

Hey! Wake up!

He's just like most people in powerful positions including most gun grabbing politicians. It's OK for them to have it just not you the general public.. Figure it out folks.

To have what? Gore spends what sounds like an extreme amount of money in order to reduce his overall carbon footprint, despite this apparently high usage of power. Yes, he's wealthy enough that he can afford to do so while still consuming at this rate...but at some point, that's just how capitalism works.

Additionally, he's not expecting every person to reduce their overall carbon footprint to zero...at least not at the moment. It's not economically feasible. He simply advocates doing what you can (more fuel-efficient cars, CFLs instead of incandescents, etc.) and getting the government to encourage making more options economically feasible as well.


A previous post that I think is related:

Yeah, sure he is. He has built a huge house that consumes a huge amount of energy. But that's OK, he is "special" and justified in consuming enormous amounts of energy that contribute more to the global warming problem than the average joe's house.

Yes, I already pointed out how incredibly misinformed that first part was (reading is fun-damental!)...but let's move to the second. If Gore (or anybody else) purchases only (or mostly) "green" power, then regardless of their usage they may still be contributing less to global warming than the average Joe. If my home is powered entirely by solar panels I own, for instance, and I leave my lights on all day long...am I really "wasting" power? Assuming I'm not hooked up to feed back into the grid, that is.

Gore pays an excessive amount of money in addition to what anybody else would pay for such usage to ensure that his energy comes from "green" sources...primarily wind and solar, with a little bit of recaptured methane thrown in. So hard as it might be to believe, it's possible that the greenhouse emissions from his gigantic mansion are similar to or actually less than from my two-bedroom duplex.


So now some of you might be wondering why he wouldn't still want to conserve energy, so that that "green" power could be used elsewhere thus reducing the overall use of "dirty" power. In theory, this makes sense...but often it doesn't quite work that way. Unless there is demand for "green" power (which often costs more, and has a large initial investment involved), the capacity won't be built. So Gore, and people like Gore, who pay for "green" power blocks are actually encouraging the expansion of our "green" power capacity. The best part is that if these people later do start using less (which most are working towards at the same time...such as the renovations being done to Gore's residence), that capacity remains. It's not like coal where you burn X amount of coal today to produce X power at a given time, and you have to do the same tommorow...the additional windmills or solar plants built because of the demand from people buying "green" power blocks keep on producing even after people those stop using them.

[SecDef]

It wouldn't be such a big deal if a substantial portion of his energy came from nuclear power.

But no, he and his and his vulgar, hypocritical ilk had to defacto ban nuclear power in this country about 25 years ago, and force us to burn filthy coal for our power. Filthy coal that leave vast radioactive waste on the ground after burning, and pours tons of CO2 into the air. And now they want to force us to ride buses to fix a problem they forced us into.

You mean that NEW nuclear facilities weren't being built. Obviously there wasn't a ban on existing ones.

The reason for it was because of the even more filthy radioactive waste that was causing massive logistical problems in terms of storage.

Of course, this is a huge mistake. We should be building nuclear power plants like crazy.

Can you point me to where Gore voted against nuclear power or otherwise discouraged it as a Senator? I can't seem to find it.

[JuanCarlos]

The reason for it was because of the even more filthy radioactive waste that was causing massive logistical problems in terms of storage.

That, and I imagine that Three Mile Island (and later Chernobyl) turning them into the mother of all NIMBY projects didn't help much. People generally being irrational about such things and all.

Can you point me to where Gore voted against nuclear power or otherwise discouraged it as a Senator? I can't seem to find it.

Yeah, I'd be interested too. A quick search didn't turn anything up, and I imagine he must have something to back it up other than "he's a dirty, vulgar liberal."

[kennybs plbg]

Global warming doesn't matter, we're all on borrowed time now anyway. Are you forgetting Ronnie didn't sign on to the Acid Rain bill back in 1981 and dish out millions of dollars for the cause. His foolishness and stupidity only left us with a projected 10-20 years here on earth.

kenny b

[WeedWacker]

where do you get those figures kenny?

[kennybs plbg]

Memory, I was there. It was laid out as dooms day. Lakes around the world would no longer sustain life, they would all be dead within the next 20 years.
This would lead to our distruction as man.
I kid you not this is what everyone talked about in the late 70's as we waited in line for gas, at least on odd days. :)

kenny b

[Playboypenguin]

Thi story is complete crap. It is muckracking and political partisanship at it's worst.

They chose a singe month (the hottest of the year) and chose a time when the home was having work done on it.

I flip house for a living and I can tell you that when I am working on a house (running compresors, running power tools, running heat or cooling with doors and window constantly opening or missing, etc) I will use as much power in two months that I do in a whole year in my own home.

This story is just a case of taking select information and turning it into something it isn't and then counting on the fact that most people will not understand the circumstances and that some loud mouths will take this misinformation and run with it without giving thought to what it really is...which is just propaganda.

[GoSlash27]

"Above room-temperature IQ" :D

[9mmsnoopy]

BFD. He would have been a better president then that clown we have now.

[cje1980]

How so? I'm assuming it must be on either wind or solar, but I'm honestly curious.

Does that answer it for you. They ran the Al Gore story pretty much non-stop on foxnews last night. He basically uses 20x the national average rate of electricity. I understand him having a bigger home but using 20x more? The excuses that are being given is that he devotes so much of his time and resources to getting the word out about global warming. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly. President Bush many times does his business from his ranch and he doesn't use any electricity at all. Like I said, Al Gore has plenty of resources and given his stance on the issue I would think it would be him not using electricity as opposed to Bush. I'm not a particularly green but I try to reduce the amount of electricity I use, mainly just to reduce by electricity and gas bill.

And we're not the only ones to learn how to save money by building an energy-efficient home. So did George and Laura Bush, much more recently. Their new ranch home in Crawford, Texas, is heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps, totally independent of the electricity grid.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/12/press.column/index.html

[cje1980]

You my friend are in complete contradiction of yourself. At first you said that Senators and Vice Presidents don't have excessive salaries yet later you say that he is wealthy and therefore can use as much electricity as he wants. I do believe in lowering electricity consumption and protecting the environment. I just think that you should live by what you say. Look at the great leaders of the past. They were respected because they did what they said and lived by what they preached. Gore isn't doing this.

I'm an avid outdoorsman and it truly is a painful sight to see trash out in the woods but Al Gore is a hypocrite. Are you telling me that Senators don't get extremely generous gifts by lobbyists? It happens on both sides Republican or Democrat. The political world is made up of politicians and lobbyists. Everybody is represented by lobbyists who give generous donations in the hopes that their favorite candidate will win. If Al Gore simply wants to tell people to conserve energy and reduce pollution by all means I would even support him. Its when he ties it to global warming that I have a problem with it. Saying that global warming is the cause of recent hurricane activity is nonsense. The temperature has increased less than one degree C over the last 100 years and most of the increase was before the 1940s. Many scientists actually say that after the 1960s the world was actually cooling. The Leipzig Declaration is a declaration of over 100 scientists and climatologists who are on opposition to the fact that the world is warming to begin with. You can't prove that humans are the cause or a major contributor of global warming when you can't even prove that the world is warming to begin with.

To have what? Gore spends what sounds like an extreme amount of money in order to reduce his overall carbon footprint, despite this apparently high usage of power. Yes, he's wealthy enough that he can afford to do so while still consuming at this rate...but at some point, that's just how capitalism works.

Also, given the level of power and responsibility of the offices, the salaries of Senators and the Vice President aren't excessive...especially consider the small number of positions. Basic economics. Plus if you want to attract well-qualified applicants, theoretically you have to offer competitive salaries. More basic economics.

[JuanCarlos]

Does that answer it for you. They ran the Al Gore story pretty much non-stop on foxnews last night. He basically uses 20x the national average rate of electricity. I understand him having a bigger home but using 20x more? The excuses that are being given is that he devotes so much of his time and resources to getting the word out about global warming. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly. President Bush many times does his business from his ranch and he doesn't use any electricity at all. Like I said, Al Gore has plenty of resources and given his stance on the issue I would think it would be him not using electricity as opposed to Bush. I'm not a particularly green but I try to reduce the amount of electricity I use, mainly just to reduce by electricity and gas bill.

No, it doesn't answer it. They use geothermal to heat and cool, and are independent of the grid. Got it. But they do use electricity, I assume. Bush has conducted business from the ranch, and that generally requires being able to plug the occasional thing in. So it's solar or wind produced on site, correct?

Well guess what: most of Gore's energy is produced by solar or wind as well. Why does it matter whether he own the turbines or panels, or if he simply pays extra to the power company for similar "clean" power? Same net effect, right?

So 20x more, right? You seem stuck on that number. Well, first we have to consider that his house is 4x-5x the size of the average house. So really he's only using 4x of the "average" for a similarly-sized dwelling. Both he and his wife have home offices, which I assume means more than a computer at a desk (for folks like them it may well mean independent fax machine(s), copier(s), possibly even some sort of server setup on their LAN). Then you take into account additional security considerations, given that he is both the ex-vice-president, a former presidential candidate, and generally high-profile guy. At 20 rooms, does he have a live-in staff? Because they would cause "him" to consume more energy than the "average" as well. Plus construction and renovations, which consume additional energy...possibly lots of it.

Add all this up, and you'd probably still find his energy usage is a bit excessive. Which he then compensates for by paying a ton of extra money to ensure it comes from "green" sources.. Al Gore has never said we need to stop using power...he has said we need to use it in environmentally sustainable ways. The main reason power conservation right now is such a huge deal is because so much of our power is produced by burning things....he pays a premium to make sure the bulk of his does not come from such methods.

I've already typed all this. You get it or you don't.

Oh, and they ran the Gore story all night on Fox News? Ya don't say? I'm *shocked*. Do you know why they ran the story all night on Fox News? Because A) Fox News has a blatant conservative bias, and B) the story appears very cut and dry on the surface, so it will easily convince people who don't know any better, and thus makes excellent partisan propaganda. If the bulk of your knowledge on this subject comes from what you've gleaned from Fox News (really, any television news) then honestly I shouldn't even bother replying to you.

You my friend are in complete contradiction of yourself. At first you said that Senators and Vice Presidents don't have excessive salaries yet later you say that he is wealthy and therefore can use as much electricity as he wants. I do believe in lowering electricity consumption and protecting the environment. I just think that you should live by what you say. Look at the great leaders of the past. They were respected because they did what they said and lived by what they preached. Gore isn't doing this.

Yes, he is living by what he preaches. He doesn't solely preach "less energy consumption." He talks about reducing carbon emissions, and overall carbon footprint. For most people, that's probably going to involve some sort of conservation...for him, he can afford to pay the extra for "green" power and he's currently investing in solar panels to both reduce his use of grid power and create additional overall solar capacity. How is this not practicing what he preaches?

You my friend are in complete contradiction of yourself. At first you said that Senators and Vice Presidents don't have excessive salaries yet later you say that he is wealthy and therefore can use as much electricity as he wants.

As far as him being wealthy goes, and me supposedly "contradicting" myself...um, no. I said that his salary, both as a Senator and VP, was not excessive. It wasn't. It was in response to somebody mentioning our "employees" making too much money, and I'm of the opinion that low-end six-figure salaries are reasonable for the people we have running our country.

Now, he is quite wealthy. Part of that is due to the sheer number of years he collected fairly high salaries (six-figure salaries over decades add up...to millions, actually). I'm guessing some portion is from either his family or Tipper's. Part from wise investment, part from such things as speaking engagements as former VP/Presidential candidate or being on various boards. And that's before you get to the pretty big chunk he's probably made for An Inconvenient Truth. Oh, and possibly a couple small gifts from lobbyists along the way, which compared to his overall wealth are insignificant.

So, the portion of that he made as "our employee" is, I think reasonable. His federal salary wasn't particularly excessive. The fact that he's been able to use that position to since make even more money is just the way the cookie crumbles...if you're jealous, run for office.


EDIT: In conclusion, just so you know, here is what I take away from this story. Al Gore, despite being a huge environmental advocate, has only managed to reduce his carbon footprint to almost nothing, and has probably the same (or slightly less) net impact on the environment as the average American...though still significantly less than most Americans of similar levels of wealth. Wow. Color me outraged.

[Silver Bullet]

Just because he may use more energy than you approve of given as an environmental watchdog doesn't make his message any less valid.
whether he is a hypocrite or not, his personal habits have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his message.

Nobody was laughing at his message, just at him.

Then again, the "debate" over global warming is largely created by the (non-scientific) media...a majority of those scientists that refute global warming are or have been on the payrolls of energy/oil companies.

Just because the oil companies were conscientious enough to do their own investigation, doesn’t make their message any less valid.

There ! That’s an example of a properly applied “any less valid” comment. See the difference ?


Blowing the cover off the global warming scam ( http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061015733/sr=1-1/qid=1172676472/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1266266-8902520?ie=UTF8&s=books)


That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.
Excellent analogy ! In more ways than one, considering Gore’s gun-banning past.

He can run, but he can't hide (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/initiatives/crime.html)
Al Gore stood up to the gun lobby, fought to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons, and cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on legislation to close the gun show loophole.

[NukeCop]

Here's an easy one. People are getting downright crazy over this, and I'm sure I'll get flamed too! ;) How about, you guys ready?....drum roll..... He just practices what he preaches. Very simple. If you want people to listen to you start being a role model. He isn't a role model. I dont care what he's doing to fix the problem. The fact is he's DOING it.

I mean, would you let Ted "I wasn't driving drunk that night" kennedy lecture you about honesty? or, better yet, Consuming alcohol in AA responsible manor?

Come on Juan, I know you have a retort. Hit me. :D

[invention_45]

Yeah, sure he is. He has built a huge house that consumes a huge amount of energy. But that's OK, he is "special" and justified in consuming enormous amounts of energy that contribute more to the global warming problem than the average joe's house.

You don't have a problem with people being rich in America, do you?

[DasBoot]

You write this:Yeah, sure he is. He has built a huge house that consumes a huge amount of energy. But that's OK, he is "special" and justified in consuming enormous amounts of energy that contribute more to the global warming problem than the average joe's house

Only a lib could twist it to deduce this:You don't have a problem with people being rich in America, do you?:rolleyes:
Unless that was tongue in cheek.

If you are spearheading ANY type of movement, regardless of it's political/sociological/philosophical message, I don't think anyone can argue that your lifestyle should embrace the ideals of that movement.
If not, than "hypocrite" is quite applicabe.
If you are admonishing everyone else for their wonton use of fossil fuel, yet you choose to drive SUVs and use private jets, well, how intellectually honest are you?

[Fremmer]

Not at all. I just have a problem with those who contribute to the purported global warming problem by occupying an enormous house that requires enormous amounts of energy to build, maintain, and heat, who fly around in jets constantly, and who blame everyone else for destroying the environment by....using too many resources and energy.

Yeah, I'm sure he's thrown up some solar panels and has a windmill or two up. It doesn't change the fact that his house consumes tremendous amounts of energy -- while, at the same time, he is telling everyone what a terrible problem we have because we consume too much energy. Stated otherwise, he is a hypocrite.

According to Gore's spokesperson:

Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.



I gotcha. So it is acceptable to emit enormous amounts of carbon emissions if one is wealthy enough to invest money in other "projects to reduce energy consumption." Like movies. And speeches. Glad to know that. :rolleyes:

[JuanCarlos]

Nobody was laughing at his message, just at him.

Untrue. You may only have been laughing at him, but there are always those weak-minded enough to suddenly disregard his message because of a perceived personal hypocrisy.

Just because the oil companies were conscientious enough to do their own investigation, doesn’t make their message any less valid.

There ! That’s an example of a properly applied “any less valid” comment. See the difference ?

Hmm...a somewhat interesting point. Of course, the way I look at it oil companies doing their own investigation isn't so much "conscientous" as "in their own self-interest," and that self interest could very well color any research that comes out of it. Al Gore has little personal stake in making you believe in climate change; he gets paid if you listen, not so much if you care/believe. Oil companies, on the other hand, desperately need you to not care/believe.

And I'm not necessarily trying to say that the scientists who work for, say, oil companies are wrong because they work for oil companies...just that their evidence is less compelling because of it (due to a percieved self-interest being a good explanation for contrary results) especially in the face of the evidence for human-caused climate change gathered by the bulk of scientists in the field who have less percieved self-interest. I mean, neither side is correct simply because they're scientists anyway. It's about the preponderance of evidence.

But seriously, good point...made me think and was actually worth replying to.

Excellent analogy ! In more ways than one, considering Gore’s gun-banning past.

How does his gun-banning past relate to climate change? It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet. The only people using the word "invent" were his opponents. But I already covered that at length, and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

Here's an easy one. People are getting downright crazy over this, and I'm sure I'll get flamed too! How about, you guys ready?....drum roll..... He just practices what he preaches. Very simple. If you want people to listen to you start being a role model. He isn't a role model. I dont care what he's doing to fix the problem. The fact is he's DOING it.

I mean, would you let Ted "I wasn't driving drunk that night" kennedy lecture you about honesty? or, better yet, Consuming alcohol in AA responsible manor?

Come on Juan, I know you have a retort. Hit me

I already retorted. He does practice what he preaches. Read any one of my lengthy responses for more info. You don't become worthy of your own response simply because you've parrotted what others have already said.

Care to actually reply to any of the responses I've already made to your comment? Any points to make regarding carbon neutrality, "green" energy credits, carbon credits, the ability to mitigate environmental impacts outside of strict energy conservation, etc? Or was the bulk of what you had to add here "yeah! me too!"

[JuanCarlos]

Not at all. I just have a problem with those who contribute to the purported global warming problem by occupying an enormous house that requires enormous amounts of energy to build, maintain, and heat, who fly around in jets constantly, and who blame everyone else for destroying the environment by....using too many resources and energy.

Yeah, I'm sure he's thrown up some solar panels and has a windmill or two up. It doesn't change the fact that his house consumes tremendous amounts of energy -- while, at the same time, he is telling everyone what a terrible problem we have because we consume too much energy. Stated otherwise, he is a hypocrite.

If the bulk of the power for his house comes from renewable/clean resources (which it does), then it's quite possible that the environmental impact of his house is less than yours or mine. And he doesn't simply say we have a problem because we consume too much energy, but rather the bulk of the problem is the kind of energy we are consuming. If I leave a light bulb on all day that is fed by solar power, it's not really "wasting" anything. The sun was shining anyway. If that same light bulb is fed by coal, it's a huge waste...coal that otherwise would not have been burned has to be. If you're going to suggest that he should conserve "green" power so that it can be used by others in place of "dirty" power, I've already answered that...so please reply to my reply, so that I don't need to simply repeat myself.

Also, while he may occupy the house he didn't build it. You already looked foolish when I pointed this out the first time, do we really need to go over it again? So by taking what would otherwise be a large, inefficient house and renovating/retrofitting it to be more efficient, he's also creating a net positive. The house would likely still be there and be occupied either way, no?

As for jets, already answered. If his flying around actually helps reduce emissions by orders of magnitude more than it emits, then it's a net positive (huge one, actually) and the environmental impact of his one specific jet is negligible in comparison.

I gotcha. So it is acceptable to emit enormous amounts of carbon emissions if one is wealthy enough to invest money in other "projects to reduce energy consumption." Like movies. And speeches. Glad to know that

So you really do just have a problem with people being wealthy and enjoying it? The bulk of his electricity comes from non-carbon-producing sources (wind, solar) and what's left comes from relatively clean and renewable sources (such as recaptured methane). Heating his house, assuming it's done with gas, produces some emissions...as does his jet and occasional SUV ride. So to balance this out, he spends large amounts of his own money to offset this.

So he goes to great lengths/expense to reduce his carbon emission, and then to greater expense to offset what emissions he does cause. So while still enjoying his wealth, he attempts to do so in a way that is responsible and with minimal impact to the environment.

Oh, and this is before we get into the general advocacy and trying to get a majority of people to do the same.

And this is not practicing what he preaches? This is being a hypocrite?

[invention_45]

As for Al Gore claiming to have "invented" the internet, I'm sure this accusation comes from the same crowd that puts the statements of others in their own words and then jumps up and down in a straw-man flap.

Just like back when the claim was that the Beatles said they were "better" than Christ, resulting in much album burning (I was in Mobile AL at the time, so I saw it), when in fact what they said was that they were "more popular" than Christ. The meaning of what they said was simply that more people knew who they were.

[Fremmer]

The bulk of his electricity comes from non-carbon-producing sources (wind, solar) and what's left comes from relatively clean and renewable sources (such as recaptured methane).

I'd like to see a source for that. I don't think that the bulk of his electricity comes from renewable energy sources. But even if it does, the reason that most of us don't use solar/wind/methane gas to power our homes is simple: we can't afford it. It cost too much to add that stuff to a house (at least, for an "average" person).

Not to mention we don't want to contribute to the global warming that is caused by the amount of energy required to manufacture solar panels. :D

Nah, I smell a rat here. Ol' Al doesn't practice what he preaches.

If his flying around actually helps reduce emissions by orders of magnitude more than it emits, then it's a net positive (huge one, actually) and the environmental impact of his one specific jet is negligible in comparison.

I have no idea what that means. Not surprisingly, since I already look foolish for stating that he occupies his house. :rolleyes: Regardless, if he is truly concerned about global warming, he would use video-conferencing or other means of communication instead of destroying our planet by flying around in a terrible, dirty, unclean, fuel-comsuming-gas-emitting jet to make personal appearences for the purpose of lecturing everyone else about how they shouldn't, inter alia, fly around in jets. :D

[cje1980]

Juan Carlos you don't understand economics. It isn't ok to use all the energy you want as long as it is some form of green power. This increases demand for green power and thus sets pricing higher. This makes it harder for average people to acquire green power and keeps the price for conventional power lower. If you're ultimate goal is to encourage others to use forms of green power then its probably not a good idea to use 10-20x more electricity than others. I just drove through California the other day and I don't what is worse, air pollution or visible pollution. There was wind-mills all over the darn place. The problem with wind mills is that they have to be in very visible places such as on open plains or on mountain tops. I'm an avid hiker and mountaineer and I don't want wind mills all over the mountains that I climb. Wind mills also don't support lavish electricity consumption behavior such as Mr. Gore's. The more he uses, the less that is available to others. Now that is basic economics.

[NukeCop]

Juan, its not that Im parroting what others have said. It's that I agree with them. Why can't you accept that in order to provide some sort of guidance, you need to be a respectable person. Mr. Gore, sadly enough,for you anyway) is a pi$$ poor role model. He doesn't practice what he preaches at all. What he does indeed do is COMPENSATE. He knows what he's doing is wrong. So he dumps money into the "green" idea.

COMPENSATE:
adjust for; "engineers will work to correct the effects or air resistance"

make amends for; pay compensation for;

"She was compensated for the loss of her arm in the accident"
cover: make up for shortcomings

good qualities; "he is compensating for being a bad father"

right: make reparations or amends for;

Al Gore=:barf:

[JuanCarlos]

Juan Carlos you don't understand economics. It isn't ok to use all the energy you want as long as it is some form of green power. This increases demand for green power and thus sets pricing higher. This makes it harder for average people to acquire green power and keeps the price for conventional power lower. If you're ultimate goal is to encourage others to use forms of green power then its probably not a good idea to use 10-20x more electricity than others.

...

Wind mills also don't support lavish electricity consumption behavior such as Mr. Gore's. The more he uses, the less that is available to others. Now that is basic economics.

Wrong, wrong, oh so utterly wrong.

As it is, basic economics suggests that since renewable power sources (wind, solar, etc.) are more expensive to produce than conventional "dirty" power (coal, oil) then the demand will be low and thus less will be produced. Demand for "green" power being low will not mean lowered price, because A) there is a substitute, "dirty" power and B) there is a bare minimum cost to supply.

I mean this is 101 level economics. Did you sleep through that day?

Unless people willingly pay more for "green" power, it will simply not be produced (in other words, more capacity will not be developed). People like Gore stepping up and being willing to pay excessive amounts leads to increased willingness of suppliers to supply, and thus development of capacity. Capacity which will remain after Gore is no longer buying it (due to installation of person supply), thus in the long run lowering the prices for other consumers.

I'd like to see a source for that. I don't think that the bulk of his electricity comes from renewable energy sources. But even if it does, the reason that most of us don't use solar/wind/methane gas to power our homes is simple: we can't afford it. It cost too much to add that stuff to a house (at least, for an "average" person).

Already linked the source. Or are you not actually reading the posts in the thread? It's only two pages long. Go back and find it, I'm not linking it again to positively reinforce your negative behavior.

Gore pays what appears to be roughly 50% more for his power in order to purchase it through the local utility's "green power" program. The bulk of this, from what I understand, is produced by wind and solar with additional power produced by recaptured methane (from a waste treatment plant, IIRC). So renewable, and what little portion isn't carbonless still produces less carbon that burning coal or oil.

As for your last couple sentences...so you just don't agree with people being allowed to enjoy their wealth in America? It appears that he makes a concerted effort to do so in a relatively environmentally responsible way.

Not to mention we don't want to contribute to the global warming that is caused by the amount of energy required to manufacture solar panels.

I saw the smiley, so I know you were at least half-joking. But the way I see it Gore's conspicuous consumption of energy is leading to an increase in capacity of non-dirty energy. This admittedly does often require the use of "dirty" energy to produce (the construction of wind farms, solar panels)...but these will replace dirty capacity and continue to produce without significant further input long after Gore has taken further measures to reduce his consumption. So in the long run, even the moderate run, the emissions caused by the construction of the "green" capacity to feed Gore's insatiable need for power today will be more than offset by the emissions that increased capacity pulls out of the air five years from now.

I have no idea what that means. Not surprisingly, since I already look foolish for stating that he occupies his house. Regardless, if he is truly concerned about global warming, he would use video-conferencing or other means of communication instead of destroying our planet by flying around in a terrible, dirty, unclean, fuel-comsuming-gas-emitting jet to make personal appearences for the purpose of lecturing everyone else about how they shouldn't, inter alia, fly around in jets.

Video conferencing is not as compelling or convincing as actual live speaking engagements. As far as the whole "orders of magnitude" thing, I'll illustrate with numbers that are (admittedly) pulled entirely from my rear end.

Gore's jet emits X amount of carbon flying him to a speaking engagement. His appearance there indirectly reduces carbon emissions by 100X. Already we're looking at a net positive. Say Gore could only cause .1X or .05X to be emitted by flying commercial. Reasonable, I'm thinking, considering that while they carry more people they are also bigger jets and carry more luggage as well...but to be honest I have no idea about fuel consumption of a Gulfstream compared to a 747...regardless of this ratio, my argument will still hold though. Anyway, the extra .9X amount of carbon saved is negligible compared to the 99X already saved. Even more so if he participates in other programs and takes other actions to offset this emission anyway. Hence, enjoying his wealth while trying to do so in an environmentally responsible way.

Is this making sense?

Juan, its not that Im parroting what others have said. It's that I agree with them. Why can't you accept that in order to provide some sort of guidance, you need to be a respectable person. Mr. Gore, sadly enough,for you anyway) is a pi$$ poor role model. He doesn't practice what he preaches at all. What he does indeed do is COMPENSATE. He knows what he's doing is wrong. So he dumps money into the "green" idea.

That's fantastic that you agree with them...but I already knew that. But repeating what they said, and then asking me for a retort when I've already responded to what they said, is somewhat silly, no? Perhaps even a bit stupid?

Putting words in all caps and substituting dollar signs for s's doesn't make your argument any more compelling. Also, I'll see your "compensate" and raise you an "offset:"

off·set (ôf'sĕt', ŏf'-) pronunciation
n.

1. An agent, element, or thing that balances, counteracts, or compensates for something else.

Yeah, "compensate" is in there. So is "counteract" and "balance." The main difference is just which way you're trying to spin it. Also, offsetting these emissions is not an admission that what he is doing is "wrong," per se. It's simply an acknowledgment that his actions create negative externalities that he then takes action to offset.

[NukeCop]

Ok a lil OT here, but Juan, really. I use the $'s because I would like to keep the thread open and clean. I do not want them locking it for some inappropriate words. Suggesting I'm stupid? lmao, nice touch, also.

Did you get beat up often in High school? :p

[cje1980]

No I'm not wrong. You are mostly right in that green power is more expensive thus the demand is low. The price mechanism does determine demand in economic theory. The reason the price is high is because there is a limited supply of it and the high price keeps people from buying it all. However when high rollers such as Al Gore consume massive amounts of an already limited supply it increases the price even more. This makes purchasing green power simply not an affordable option. You are wrong in that customer demand has a direct response to price. When more of a supply is demanded the price is raised not lowered. Companies offering services or products set their prices in order to control demand. In other words if you have limited supply of something you have to keep prices high in order to maintain a supply. So maybe if Al Gore bought massive amounts of green power then just stopped using it it could create more affordable green power for the rest of us but that is utopian thinking.

Maybe it would work if Al Gore bought like 50 mansions and used 200,000 kWh of electricity of green power each year per residence and then suddenly started using conventional power. Sure this would create a higher supply and then a massive drop in demand ultimately lowering prices. But you see I was right in saying that by Al Gore's actions he is actually encouraging people to remain using conventional power. Since there is a cheaper alternative people will typically go with the more affordable option. He is merely jacking up the price of green power making conventional power look even better.

Wrong, wrong, oh so utterly wrong.

As it is, basic economics suggests that since renewable power sources (wind, solar, etc.) are more expensive to produce than conventional "dirty" power (coal, oil) then the demand will be low and thus less will be produced. Demand for "green" power being low will not mean lowered price, because A) there is a substitute, "dirty" power and B) there is a bare minimum cost to supply.

I mean this is 101 level economics. Did you sleep through that day?

Unless people willingly pay more for "green" power, it will simply not be produced (in other words, more capacity will not be developed). People like Gore stepping up and being willing to pay excessive amounts leads to increased willingness of suppliers to supply, and thus development of capacity. Capacity which will remain after Gore is no longer buying it (due to installation of person supply), thus in the long run lowering the prices for other consumers.

[JuanCarlos]

EDIT: Actually, screw that. I'll just let DasBoot and NukeCop's words speak for themselves...

Did you get beat up often in High school?
WOW!
Subliminally I was thinking that, but didn't realize it till you said something!!!
His own words explain everything:
So yeah, I'm a liberal politically correct idiot
That pretty much sums up ANYTHING coming out of his mouth!

So is this the level of debate and discourse to be expected at TFL? I mean, tossing somebody a jab when they actually say something stupid is one thing....but come on. This is some elementary school crap.

Also, do the mods here ever consider actually banning people like this instead of just locking the thread? Because that just encourages them to crap on them.

No I'm not wrong. You are mostly right in that green power is more expensive thus the demand is low. The price mechanism does determine demand in economic theory. However when high rollers such as Al Gore consume massive amounts of an already limited supply it increases the price even more. This makes purchasing green power simply not an affordable option. You are wrong in that customer demand has a direct response to price. When more of a supply is demanded the price is raised not lowered. Companies offering services or products set their prices in order to control demand. In other words if you have limited supply of something you have to keep prices high in order to maintain a supply. So maybe if Al Gore bought massive amounts of green power then just stopped using it it could create more affordable green power for the rest of us but that is utopian thinking.

The demand caused by "high rollers" has absolutely nothing to do with making green power not affordable for the average Joe. At this point in green power generation, the increased price is due pretty much entirely to the increased cost to supply and the large initial outlay to build capacity.

Put simply, green power producers are not having much trouble meeting the demand for their power, they're having trouble finding people willing to pay more for it in the first place. Basically, because of the availability of substantially cheaper and near-perfect (to most people) substitutes, if you were to draw a supply and demand curve for green power the demand curve might not actually reach the supply curve [EDIT: You do realize this is possible, right? I mean, Veblen goods aside, I cannot produce diamond-encrusted toilet seats at a price people would be willing to buy them for]. The only way any green power is currently produced, basically, is either through government subsidization or individuals personally motivated to pay the extra. It's not about him crowding you out of the green power market, it's the fact that the cost of green power (which, at present, cannot be significantly reduced) prices it out of your range.

So maybe if Al Gore bought massive amounts of green power then just stopped using it it could create more affordable green power for the rest of us but that is utopian thinking.

This is exactly what he's doing. He's buying a lot now, while renovating his home so that he'll need less in the future. In addition, he could quite possible die before whatever extra capacity was built to meet his needs stops producing. So at worst, a tiny positive effect. But a tiny positive is still not negative, no?

[DasBoot]

Did you get beat up often in High school?
WOW!:eek:
Subliminally I was thinking that, but didn't realize it till you said something!!!:D
His own words explain everything:So yeah, I'm a liberal politically correct idiot

That pretty much sums up ANYTHING coming out of his mouth!:rolleyes:

[SecDef]

Bush lives in the white house, shall we compare his power consumption? When he moves full time back to his ranch, do you really think he uses no electricity?

If the only problem you guys have is that Gore is touting global warming, then so be it.. leave it at that and make scientific arguments. If your entire argument is hypocrisy, then show how what Gore does is NET against what he is saying.

Don't be children, though. At least come up with some creative insults!

[DasBoot]

Must be the sensitive type!:rolleyes:

[SecDef]

I didn't realize that the point of the forum was to throw around insults without even having a point.

In that case, you are doing a fabulous job, keep it up! I'm sure the moderators will give you a gold star!:D

[JuanCarlos]

I didn't realize that the point of the forum was to throw around insults without even having a point.

Seriously. The Laws of Internet Forums(TM) generally suggest that it's okay to insult somebody, but generally only if you're actually contributing to the discussion at the same time and preferably only in a way that relates to their point.

In that case, you are doing a fabulous job, keep it up! I'm sure the moderators will give you a gold star

No, they'll lock the thread and just wait for him to crap on the next one. Then lock that one, too. Seems to be the way it works here more often than not, at least here in L&P in any threads that aren't the basic pro-gun circle-jerks (not that being pro-gun is bad, of course, just that when everybody more or less agrees usually nothing interesting follows). I mean, I'd feel bad about the derail here except that once a couple of these guys show up the thread is as good as dead and any interesting discourse is probably over anyway.

[Camp David]

If the only problem you guys have is that Gore is touting global warming, then so be it.. leave it at that and make scientific arguments. If your entire argument is hypocrisy, then show how what Gore does is NET against what he is saying.

Let me reply...

Gore sets himself up by advancing the cause of the global warming theory and telling us citizens to do our part to conserve... in the most blatant act of hypocrisy we find out that this Gore guy uses 10 times more electricity that the average guy in just one of his homes! As an excuse, he postures that he buys something called 'carbon credits' which seem to me to be the height of absurdity... Either conserve or don't conserve... these 'carbon credits' sound like the Church selling indulgences; you know how that worked out? It's hypocrisy, pure and simple... This Gore is not at all interested in conserving electricity or he would have done that already... Worse... today we hear that Gore is installing solar panels on his home and advises others to do the same! You know the cost of solar panels? You know how much energy is used to manufacture solar panels? Gore also postures that he buys something called "green power"! Another wealthy dodge I think!

I know of lots of honest men that reduce their imprint on the earth by using less paper, less electricity, and less fuel. Generally they don't get their name in the paper or anything fancy. Democrat Gore is not a part of this group.

Two months ago I heard that an outfit was going to build a massive wind farm off the Massachusetts coast, which would enable state residents to get cheap electricity and help our environment. Know what happened to this great ecological idea? Shot down by another Democrat, Ted Kennedy.

Don't trust Gore. He is a snake oil salesman using global warming, and the environment, as a stepping stool to his own fame... he has zero interest in helping the earth, except that part of the earth where his money is stored.

[JuanCarlos]

Gore sets himself up by advancing the cause of the global warming theory and telling us citizens to do our part to conserve... in the most blatant act of hypocrisy we find out that this Gore guy uses 10 times more electricity that the average guy in just one of his homes!

It's 20 times...at least comparing household to household.

Of course, assuming he can reduce the carbon emissions he causes by spending more money instead is this a bad thing or necessarily hypocritical? He's still working toward the same end goal (combatting global warming) just enjoying his wealth at the same time.

I've asked before, I'll ask again...is it the fact that he's enjoying wealth that(presumably) none of us have that is the issue here?

As an excuse, he postures that he buys something called 'carbon credits' which seem to me to be the height of absurdity... Either conserve or don't conserve... these 'carbon credits' sound like the Church selling indulgences; you know how that worked out? It's hypocrisy, pure and simple...

The wealthier among us live more lavish lifestyles. In many ways, not just in energy consumption. Why should energy consumption be any different? If he has the money to theoretically offset his use, I don't see the issue personally.

This Gore is not at all interested in conserving electricity or he would have done that already... Worse... today we hear that Gore is installing solar panels on his home and advises others to do the same! You know the cost of solar panels? You know how much energy is used to manufacture solar panels? Gore also postures that he buys something called "green power"! Another wealthy dodge I think!

Last I checked the energy we get out of solar panels greatly outweighs the energy put in...let's see what wikipedia has to say:


Greenhouse gases
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions [for photovoltaics] are now in the range of 25-32 g/kWh and this could decrease to 15 g/kWh in the future; though, this is speculative. [14] For comparison, a combined cycle gas-fired power plant emits some 400 g/kWh and a coal-fired power plant with Carbon capture and storage some 200 g/kWh. Nuclear power emits 25 g/kWh on average; only wind power is better with a mere 11 g/kWh.

So almost definitely a net positive over the lifecycle of the cells. Heck, it looks like at that point the carbon emissions from production could be offset in a matter of a few short years. I still like nuclear better, but I think distributed photovoltaics aren't a bad idea for us to move forward with.

Also, what does the cost (in dollars) of solar panels have to do with anything? He's got money, that's long since established. I've still yet to hear a decent argument on why him spending it in this way is bad, or runs counter to his principles.

And "something called" green power? Do you just not know anything about the program, or was it an attempt to make it sound either insignificant or malicious? Either way I think I've replied to this one...it's a program that creates economic incentive for the expansion of alternative energy capacity, and nearly a third of Gore's bill goes to this program.

I know of lots of honest men that reduce their imprint on the earth by using less paper, less electricity, and less fuel. Generally they don't get their name in the paper or anything fancy. Democrat Gore is not a part of this group.

I'd still like to see Gore's usage in comparison to others of similar wealth/stature. I'd wager it's less, and his imprint almost certainly is. Is calling him "Democrat Gore" supposed to carry any weight? I mean, I know this is a firearms forum and Democrats are pretty universally reviled...but I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand. And regardless, it's not like he's even in office anymore so his party affiliation means less than it did then.

At least the last guy bought up his record with regards to firearms...more substantial, at least, though no more relevant.

Two months ago I heard that an outfit was going to build a massive wind farm off the Massachusetts coast, which would enable state residents to get cheap electricity and help our environment. Know what happened to this great ecological idea? Shot down by another Democrat, Ted Kennedy.

And again, I don't much care that Kennedy is a Democrat, I generally dislike him regardless. Our Democrat governor has taken the initiative in getting some wind power capacity installed here (invented wind farms olol!!!1!!1!). So how does that effect things?

[invention_45]

This makes purchasing green power simply not an affordable option. You are wrong in that customer demand has a direct response to price. When more of a supply is demanded the price is raised not lowered. Companies offering services or products set their prices in order to control demand

You are confusing a commodity with capital. Oil is a commodity like electricity. When you make the electricity, you use up the oil.

"Green power" is not a commodity. It is capital. It is equipment. Once manufactured and installed, sunlight replaces the oil. The solar panels are simply the conversion device, and replaces the capital now owned by power companies.

So buying the capital equipment to convert the free commodity of sunlight into electricity is like buying electric motors or any other durable good. Bigger demand means bigger production. Bigger production leads to a lucrative market. A lucrative market attracts competitors. Competitors drive down prices. They can do this because a healthy demand funds R&D that leads to lower manufacturing costs and higher efficiency solar cells (better products).

I don't know squat about economics, but I can see THAT.

[buzz_knox]

Of course, assuming he can reduce the carbon emissions he causes by spending more money instead is this a bad thing or necessarily hypocritical? He's still working toward the same end goal (combatting global warming) just enjoying his wealth at the same time.


Last summer was a record setting one for TVA, with both an all-time record and a record for August. To meet the demand, TVA had to run its facilities at maximum, including activating combustion turbines, and buying power from other utilities. The purchased power, in turn, required other utilities to generate at a higher rate themselves.

This means that the suggestion Gore was reducing his "carbon footprint" is pretty much hilarious. The power he consumed during that period resulted in increased heat generation from his own system (with the need to cool the house, resulting in more heat, in a lovely cycle) and increased use of fossil fuels from generating units.

I don't buy Gore's crap, and I generally think he's a two bit slime bag (for the sake of clarity). But suggesting that he was somehow aiding the environment at a time when conserving electricity would have been of far more benefit. And I say this as someone whose building had its air conditioning turned off so TVA could meet the power demand.

[Camp David]

I'd still like to see Gore's usage in comparison to others of similar wealth/stature.

You make the mistake of treating Gore and his wealth together. Gore has set himself up as the advocate for Global Warming. As such he should be the spokesman of conservation. He's not. He wastes electricity more than most of us... 20 times or more I guess. That is why he is a fraud.

Gore specifically said, at the Oscars, that we all need to do our part... Well? What has he done...conservation speaking? Anything? You know how much one flight, east to west, on a Lear jet costs in fuel?

Tell you what... if Gore wants any respect he needs to start giving away some of his millions and divest himself of the outrageous excess ...otherwise his message is simply one of hypocrisy

[buzz_knox]

So buying the capital equipment to convert the free commodity of sunlight into electricity is like buying electric motors or any other durable good. Bigger demand means bigger production. Bigger production leads to a lucrative market. A lucrative market attracts competitors. Competitors drive down prices. They can do this because a healthy demand funds R&D that leads to lower manufacturing costs and higher efficiency solar cells (better products).

For utilities, it's not that easy. The demand for power far outstrips the supply of power available from green power. Combine that with the not in my back yard attitude that many feel towards green power (facilities for wind power generation aren't exactly beloved in these parts), the need to locate them in particular areas, and the expense of acquiring the necessary property (which is quite fun), and green power becomes a losing proposition.

[JuanCarlos]

I don't know squat about economics, but I can see THAT.

You may not know squat about economics, but you seem to have said it better than I did.

So buying the capital equipment to convert the free commodity of sunlight into electricity is like buying electric motors or any other durable good. Bigger demand means bigger production. Bigger production leads to a lucrative market. A lucrative market attracts competitors. Competitors drive down prices. They can do this because a healthy demand funds R&D that leads to lower manufacturing costs and higher efficiency solar cells (better products).

Exactly. I was also wrong before; demand for solar cells has always met supply, it's just that demand before was always rather low and inelastic. Basically, it was only economically viable for applications where there were no suitable alternatives; think remote locations or satellites. So with low and inelastic demand, there was little incentive for R&D; the people that needed it would buy it regardless of price, and there weren't going to be many anyway.

So without government subsidies as well as individuals motivated to invest regardless of cost, solar power wouldn't be progressing at the rate that it is now.

You make the mistake of treating Gore and his wealth together. Gore has set himself up as the advocate for Global Warming. As such he should be the spokesman of conservation. He's not. He wastes electricity more than most of us... 20 times or more I guess. That is why he is a fraud.

Huh? Why is it a mistake to treat Gore and his wealth together? If I donate 10% of my earnings to charity, and a millionaire donates 10% of his earnings to charity, who is the greater philanthropist? In my eyes, they are roughly equal. This is little different; it would seem that, despite his lifestyle, Gore actually puts more effort into combatting global warming (even through his own actions) than most.

Now, at a certain point you have to adjust for means; my donating 10% of my income may well start eating into my food money, whereas a millionaire would only be reducing his yacht fund. At the same time, most people in America seem to agree that the wealthy (even the philanthropic among them) should be allowed to enjoy a somewhat lavish lifestyle without derision. Expecting every wealthy person that claims to be generous to live in a studio apartment and donate the rest to charity isn't generally considered reasonable.

Whether Gore's usage, and the measures he takes to offset it, are within reason given his principles and level of wealth is the issue at hand...and it at least appeared to me that they were...


Last summer was a record setting one for TVA, with both an all-time record and a record for August. To meet the demand, TVA had to run its facilities at maximum, including activating combustion turbines, and buying power from other utilities. The purchased power, in turn, required other utilities to generate at a higher rate themselves.

This means that the suggestion Gore was reducing his "carbon footprint" is pretty much hilarious. The power he consumed during that period resulted in increased heat generation from his own system (with the need to cool the house, resulting in more heat, in a lovely cycle) and increased use of fossil fuels from generating units.

I don't buy Gore's crap, and I generally think he's a two bit slime bag (for the sake of clarity). But suggesting that he was somehow aiding the environment at a time when conserving electricity would have been of far more benefit. And I say this as someone whose building had its air conditioning turned off so TVA could meet the power demand.

This on the other hand is an interesting point. I'd still say Gore has been a net positive for the environment either way. Assuming you agree that climate change is occurring, An Inconvenient Truth has done loads to increase awareness and spur people into action, regardless of what the guy on camera might do at home...he as an individual couldn't possibly offset that level of change. But this would definitely make this a bit more of a head shaker. Something for me to look into and think about, which is why I hang out in places like this.

Still seems like his paying for green credits should encourage utilities to build more capacity...even if it's other utilities that do it. Could utilities "trade" green power to bring it from nearby areas where, say, wind or solar is more feasible to those where it's more difficult to build? If people like Gore are willing to pay excessive amounts of money for this, shouldn't somebody step in to fill demand?

For utilities, it's not that easy. The demand for power far outstrips the supply of power available from green power. Combine that with the not in my back yard attitude that many feel towards green power (facilities for wind power generation aren't exactly beloved in these parts), the need to locate them in particular areas, and the expense of acquiring the necessary property (which is quite fun), and green power becomes a losing proposition.

I've always thought that distributing power generation through solar cells on-site was a pretty good idea...they're a lot less conspicuous than wind turbines, energy to emission level is pretty high in many areas of the country, etc. You'd obviously still have to have some centralized generation, but I'd think this would take a lot of strain off the grid...especially since peak usage generally coincides with daylight. I'm not far enough into my degree to really understand the intricacies involved with such a plan, so maybe there's some reason this wouldn't work (or scarcity of resources to create them)...but to me it has always seemed that the cost was the main limiting factor.

[Camp David]

I'd still say Gore has been a net positive for the environment either way.

Okay fine... until I waste as much electricity and energy as Gore don't bother me! Matter of fact, Gore aspires me to waste far more than I do now... he is a true leader in the field of waste; I leave a 200 watt light on in my outhouse dedicated in his memory and honor as a true environmental!

[JuanCarlos]

Okay fine... until I waste as much electricity and energy as Gore don't bother me! Matter of fact, Gore aspires me to waste far more than I do now... he is a true leader in the field of waste; I leave a 200 watt light on in my outhouse dedicated in his memory and honor as a true environmental!

Logical debate response: He, despite his usage, has had a net positive effect by convincing others to conserve. You, because you've convinced nobody to conserve, would have only a net negative effect. And I'm guessing that even taking into account all the people like you inspired to waste energy just to spite him, his effect is probably still a net positive.

That was pretty darn funny response: You do that, I'll blare some extremely obscene music out my car window in honor of Tipper, and later we can both get together and see how much ammunition we can burn through in honor of Sarah Brady. :D

[CobrayCommando]

LOL! Reagan is honored every day in Compton! :D

So is Nancy Reagan... 21 needle salute!

[SecDef]

So, the home offices for both Al and Tipper have zero impact? The fact that there isn't another building that has to be lit up doesn't mean anything? The fact that in a normal day Al has to WALK to his office is ignored?

Sure, he uses a lot of energy. He spends money to try and offset that. He doesn't have to, he does it to try and stay true to his message.

You guys sound like you'd be happier if he ate babies but was open and honest about it!

If he drove around in an SUV all by himself, then yeah, that's insane, but if he is with 4 or 5 people then you know what, he's staying true to his message.

In the end, it doesn't matter how much he uses. A single person can't make that big of a difference. Unless they are influencing others. Feel free to burn 200 watt bulbs.. that'll show him!

I'm still waiting for the links to where Gore went against nuclear power. It wouldn't surprise me too much, but I certainly can't take the word of "I remembered it" as there is a lot of bogosity flying around here. I'd like to see for myself.

[Fremmer]

OK, I think I understand Gore's excuse, at least a little better. I didn't understand it from the Internet articles, but a (presumably) AP story in the Omaha World Herald went into a bit more detail. I'll type the relevant paragraph for everyone:

"Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources"

Note that the paragraph does not state that the electricity that powers Gore's house originates from a renewable energy source. The extra amount he pays merely subsidizes renewable energy sources. He's getting his power from the same electrical grid as everyone else. How much coal ya think has to be burned (or how much nuclear waste is produced) to supply the power for Gore's mansion? I'll bet that it is a lot.

So Gore's justification for the enormous amount of energy that his house consumes (and adds to the greenhouse problem) consists of paying more for the energy. In other words, Gore doesn't need to cut his consumption because he can afford to pay more for energy, and the extra money he pays will be applied to renewable energy sources.

If you are willing and able to pay more for energy, then it is OK to consume whatever amount of energy you wish.

If Gore were serious about global warming, he wouldn't consume so much electricity every month. Simple as that. Next he'll be telling everyone that they shouldn't drive SUVs because they are too big and consume too much gas. I doubt that he'll care that you gas up from a gas station that charges an extra amount per gallon and is applied to renewable energy.

Hypocrite.

[SecDef]

Sadly it looks like you guys didn't read the book or watch the movie, so you actually have no idea what Gore suggests to call him a hypocrite...

Here are his tips to help prevent global warming (pages 306-321):

1. Buy energy efficient lights (i.e. compact fluorscents).
2. Buy energy efficient appliances.
3. Maintain your appliances (i.e. clean off your refrigerator's condenser coils).
4. Buy a programmable thermostat (to lower your home heating).
5. Insulate your house.
6. Get a home energy audit.
7. Conserve hot water (i.e. use less hot water in your dishwasher).
8. Reduce standby power usage (i.e. completely turn off your computer).
9. Switch to green power (see if your utility adds an option where you can pay for electricity generated by alternative energy).
10. Buy fuel efficient cars.
11. Reduce the mileage that you drive (i.e. use mass transit, bike or walk).
12. Drive smarter (i.e. don't drive 100 mph).
13. Hybrid cars .
14. Buy ethanol.
15. Tele-commute.
16. Fly less.
17. Consume less.
18. Recycle/reuse. Less energy is used on things such as the trucks that deliver the new products and dispose of the old products.
19. Don't waste paper (as this is a very energy-intensive industry).
20. Compost.
21. Refill your own water bottles.
22. Eat less meat.
23. Buy local. I guess this helps to lower the fuel used by long distancing trucking.
23. Offset your carbon emissions (carbon credits).
24. Educate others & write your local politicians. Visit our "Email the President" page if you want to email the President, your Senators, etc.
25. Support environmental groups.
26. Invest in energy friendly companies.

#'s 16 and 17 seem to be at the crux of the complaint that Gore isn't practicing what he preaches. I suggest that comparing him to the average american's home doesn't fit the whole picture of whether he is not leading by example.

BTW, since it isn't noted here, here is Gore's response to FOX:
– Gore lives a strict carbon-neutral lifestyle both in his work and private life. That means he tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible, and then purchases carbon offsets for the remaining emissions.

– In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions.

I totally agree that 20x average home sounds like an awful lot.

Go ahead, keep calling him a hypocrite, but at least now you'll be informed as to WHY instead of weird comparisons.

[mvpel]

Assuming you agree that climate change is occurring, ...

It is a given that climate change is occurring. It has always occurred, and will always occur. Climate change is why the spot where I am sitting here in New Hampshire is no longer under a mile-thick sheet of glacial ice.

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/isgshome/ic_small.gif

[Silver Bullet]

Juan Carlos, post 43, in a reply to me:
and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

Juan Carlos, post 52, complaining about someone else’s comments.
So is this the level of debate and discourse to be expected at TFL? I mean, tossing somebody a jab when they actually say something stupid is one thing....but come on. This is some elementary school crap.

Also, do the mods here ever consider actually banning people like this instead of just locking the thread? Because that just encourages them to crap on them.


Are you “freaking out” ? I was merely pointing out that there are worse things than being a stooge for the enviro-whackos; namely, being a stooge for the Brady Bunch.

See ? I was actually on your side ! I was pointing out that there are worse people than Gore.

Oh … wait. Gore was also my example of Brady Bunch stooge. Hmmm. Huh.

Never mind.

[JuanCarlos]

I totally agree that 20x average home sounds like an awful lot.

That's the beauty of inappropriately chosen statistics. They have a tendency to completely blow facts out of proportion.

However. Even after accounting for the size of the house, home offices, live-in staff, security concerns/staff, entertaining (some of which would be in furtherance/promotion of his cause), and construction/renovation I have a hard time seeing how his usage could be that high. Especially if he is taking any real measures to conserve.

I mean, when put in context his usage is probably not significantly higher than the usual (compared to others of similar wealth and accounting for all the aforementioned circumstances)...it might even be a smidge lower. But I'll admit his usage still seems at least a little high considering his environmentalist stance. Nothing like what the "20 times" number suggests...but still. *shrug*

However, out of the 26 points SecDef quotes, I've only seen evidence that he fails to implement maybe 4 or 5. At most. And evidence that he implements at least 10. Probably more, because many of the rest are simply things that would be hard to spot from the outside.

So maybe mildly hypocritical. As in no more and possibly less than the average guy on the street (most people are hypocritical about something). But it certainly doesn't seem like enough to me to justify the yelling and arm flailing that has resulted from this "revelation." And it still seems like he does more harm that good. If this is the extent of his hypocrisy, I'm having a hard time feeling outrage.

"Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources"

Note that the paragraph does not state that the electricity that powers Gore's house originates from a renewable energy source. The extra amount he pays merely subsidizes renewable energy sources. He's getting his power from the same electrical grid as everyone else. How much coal ya think has to be burned (or how much nuclear waste is produced) to supply the power for Gore's mansion? I'll bet that it is a lot.

Well, aside from building a power plant on your own property there is no way to get power directly from green sources. It's a limitation of the very idea of a power grid and centralized production, and hardly his fault. Besides which, he is actually (apparently) installing solar panels on site in an attempt to ameliorate this to some extent.

However, by paying extra for blocks of green power, a consumer is directly subsidizing green power. In theory, a utility should sell no more blocks of green power than they can realistically supply, and if their entire supply is being used the extra money they're taking in should subsidize the creation of more capacity (as opposed to, say, padding the company's bottom line). If this isn't what's happening, that's a problem the utility needs to solve. But logically and rationally purchasing blocks of green power should be no different than purchasing the power directly from the alternative energy plant, regardless of whether it comes off the common grid.

So Gore's justification for the enormous amount of energy that his house consumes (and adds to the greenhouse problem) consists of paying more for the energy. In other words, Gore doesn't need to cut his consumption because he can afford to pay more for energy, and the extra money he pays will be applied to renewable energy sources.

If you are willing and able to pay more for energy, then it is OK to consume whatever amount of energy you wish.

So we're back to having a problem with wealthy people enjoying their wealth? If you're willing to pay more for your energy so that it is produced in an ecologically sustainable way, then yes, it is okay to consume whatever amount you wish. It's called being rich, and all I'm hearing there is jealousy.

Gore spends gobs of money to try and ensure that he is carbon neutral; that is to say that his net impact on the environment (at least the global warming aspect) is zero. I suppose he could push for a negative carbon footprint (it's arguable that through his advocacy and such films as AIT he has done so indirectly, but whatever) but the man's not running for sainthood. I don't ever remember him claiming to be perfect, either.

If Gore were serious about global warming, he wouldn't consume so much electricity every month. Simple as that. Next he'll be telling everyone that they shouldn't drive SUVs because they are too big and consume too much gas. I doubt that he'll care that you gas up from a gas station that charges an extra amount per gallon and is applied to renewable energy.

It's possible to be serious about something without being perfect. And if the amount you pay per gallon is enough that, when put into whatever programs it goes to, it completely offsets the carbon emissions of your SUV I bet old Al would give you any crap about it. Who knows.

It is a given that climate change is occurring. It has always occurred, and will always occur. Climate change is why the spot where I am sitting here in New Hampshire is no longer under a mile-thick sheet of glacial ice.

Oh, of course. I guess I could type more and say "Assuming you believe climate change is occurring at a faster rate that what would naturally happen without the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from humans"...I certainly am not conservative when it comes to word count. ;)

I guess I was just lazy.


On the topic of human-caused climate change, I can't help but feel it's a modern version of Pascal's Wager. Slightly modified, of course...the gain and loss if it does exist are not infinite obviously. But there is much more gain to be had if it does not exist and you believe (and act accordingly) than in the original as well...cleaner environment, and all. Also, there is also some amount of scientific evidence in favor of it, which is a huge difference. Lastly, a huge difference is that there is a high probability (at least currently) that a majority of the effects will not be felt until after the decision-maker's death. I suppose this is fair, but you'd think if you have kids or grandkids you'd take the possible price paid by them into account, so it would still apply.

Seems like the only rational conclusion given this is that one should believe in climate change and act accordingly.

EDIT:

Are you “freaking out” ? I was merely pointing out that there are worse things than being a stooge for the enviro-whackos; namely, being a stooge for the Brady Bunch.

Wait a minute, let's get some context.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.
That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

Okay, I then responded by pointing out that Al Gore never claimed to have "invented" the internet...nor did his supporters ever make such a claim. I explained why logically this analogy makes no sense, and why logically nobody would assume that his statements in that interview were actually meant as a claim of invention. If you care to reply to those explanations and somehow discredit them, feel free.

You come in with this:

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.
Excellent analogy ! In more ways than one, considering Gore’s gun-banning past.

No, incredibly poor analogy. Even by internet forum standards, which are admittedly often quite low. Yet you think it was "excellent" "in more ways than one."

As an excuse to take a not entirely relevant jab at his gun politics, I suppose your reply worked. But unless you want to rethink your assessment of the analogy and/or somehow answer my analysis of it, I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.

[kennybs plbg]

Global Warming Plan in a nut shell.

All members get credited a certain number of allowable units for release into the atmosphere.

The USA is allowed to release 20 units of emissions a year.

Some small 3rd world country is credited with 2 units but only uses 1.
It can now sell its extra one to the USA for 5 million $.

The overall emissions may increase in the world but now it’s O.K. because we paid for it.

Result: the only change here is who has the money and everyone is now happy.

Sign me up so I can help save the world.:)

kenny b

[Silver Bullet]

I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.
Not my fault if you can't follow the logic.

I was merely pointing out your double-standard between posts 43 and 52.

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

[JuanCarlos]

Not my fault if you can't follow the logic.

What logic? Explain the logic. Actually, I'll give you this; had SecDef (or Gore, for that matter) actually made a claim that Gore "invented" the internet, the analogy would have merit. But they didn't, so it didn't.

As it stands, Cerf and Kahn (two of the people who actually did invent the internet, so to speak) seem to back up what SecDef (and Gore) said. If you plan to assert that this analogy is "excellent," I'd suggest you begin by somehow responding to this. And here, let's refresh everybody again on the analogy.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.
That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

No, that's like saying that Hitler was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives leading ultimately to the creation of the V2, because he funded it. Which he would have been, since no funding would probably have led to no V2.

Your response?

.
.

And double standard?

Here, let me help. The first post you quoted:

How does his gun-banning past relate to climate change? It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet. The only people using the word "invent" were his opponents. But I already covered that at length, and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

And the second:

So is this the level of debate and discourse to be expected at TFL? I mean, tossing somebody a jab when they actually say something stupid is one thing....but come on. This is some elementary school crap.

Also, do the mods here ever consider actually banning people like this instead of just locking the thread? Because that just encourages them to crap on them.

I don't see a real double standard there. I responded to your "point," while at the same time taking a jab at your intelligence for making said point when it had already been answered (instead of, say, pointing out any flaws in that reply).

This would be in comparison to NukeCop's and DasBoot's whole "Bet you got beat up a lot in high school, huh?"/"Har har I was thinking the same!" gems. I suggested that simply parroting points already made and responded to, while asking me specifically for a response that would presumably be no different was less than intelligent. Rather than responding as to why this would not be the case, he simply replied that I must have gotten beat up a lot. I'm suggesting this was because he had no response as to why that wouldn't be less than intelligent, because it quite simply was less than intelligent. Or possibly downright stupid.

[Silver Bullet]

How does his gun-banning past relate to climate change? It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet. .

It was an excellent analogy, because it doesn’t matter what Gore claimed, it only pertains to what Gore’s apologists claimed.

and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.
I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.
I notice that in the absense of anything substantital, you resort to insults. I’m puzzled about why you’re behaving in this manner. Are you trying to distract us from Gore’s abysmal record on matters of Right to Keep and Bear Arms ?

[Camp David]

"...Cerf and Kahn (two of the people who actually did invent the internet, so to speak) seem to back up what SecDef (and Gore) said. 'Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.'... No, that's like saying that Hitler was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives leading ultimately to the creation of the V2, because he funded it. Which he would have been, since no funding would probably have led to no V2.

Juan: Be careful about being led into believing Congressional-speak which politicians use to allege this and that to boost their reputation... Al Gore "pushing forward initiatives" could mean either he spoke to someone in the hallway over funding or actually signed a bill... if you examine the history on this point he did neither... Since DARPA was the funding vehicle and sponsor here of what became the ARPANET research effort, I doubt Gore, or any Congressman or Senator for that matter, had anything technical at all to do with ARPANET and its funding at the time, as it came under SecDef approval as do most DARPA research efforts, many which were 'black' programs. Indeed, since Gore's record in Congress frequently listed him voting against defense programs, I find little proof of him either realizing what this ARPANET effort was and its potential (the modern internet), or him supporting it. In fact, I believe just the opposite based on Gore's record! Only later, when the true potential of the Internet bore fruit, did Gore jump aboard.

Yet another case of Gore inflating his accomplishments. Nonetheless:

Algore's Carbon Footprint: A Comparison.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_Q_4mbCuV7QE/ReQ1dJGdfDI/AAAAAAAAASQ/7_2ULDJw984/s400/2goreprint.jpg

[Fremmer]

Let's keep this on-topic, folks. Gore's internet activity is irrelevant with regard to his use of energy.

And please refrain from asking about getting beat up in high school. You folks are bringing back painful memories about my high school days. :D

Fremmer, who wants to keep this Thread going and avoid personal comments directed at our fellow members.

P.S. Juan, I disagree with you about Gore, but at least you're presenting some interesting arguments. Well done.

[JuanCarlos]

It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet.
It was an excellent analogy, because it doesn’t matter what Gore claimed, it only pertains to what Gore’s apologists claimed.

Except his apologists have never claimed he "invented" the internet, either.

Let's go back to the analogy in question. I'll just go ahead and repeat my argument verbatim, since you didn't bother to respond to it and it actually pre-emptively responds to what you just said.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.
That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.
No, that's like saying that Hitler was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives leading ultimately to the creation of the V2, because he funded it. Which he would have been, since no funding would probably have led to no V2.

SecDef didn't claim Gore invented the internet. So the analogy doesn't hold.

Response?



Juan: Be careful about being led into believing Congressional-speak which politicians use to allege this and that to boost their reputation... Al Gore "pushing forward initiatives" could mean either he spoke to someone in the hallway over funding or actually signed a bill... if you examine the history on this point he did neither...

*snipped more good points*

The only thing I can argue with is that his history probably wouldn't show who he talked to in hallways, so you can't definitively say he did neither. But yes, this may well be simply a case of Gore inflating his accomplishments. Which makes him...no different than pretty much any other politician, and most people.

This still doesn't change the fact that what Gore claimed to do (whether he did it or not, I suppose) and what his opponents are apparently still accusing him of claiming are worlds apart.

Say I tell you I was at the seventh game of the 2001 World Series (an excellent game, by the way) and caught a foul ball. Regardless of whether I was actually there or I just watched it on TV, I still never claimed I played in the seventh game of the 2001 World Series. One makes me sound like I might be inflating my accomplishments (not that going to a baseball game is an accomplishment...but I couldn't think of a better word on the spot), but the other makes me sound like an idiot with delusions of grandeur.

Gore was only claiming he helped fund/advocate for the internet. Yet his detractors latch on to this claim of "invention" because it makes him sound like an idiot with delusions of grandeur, rather than a politician who might be mildly inflating his political record.

Heck, Gore may well be an idiot with delusions of grandeur. But not because he claimed he invented the internet, since he never did so.

[SecDef]

Actually, since this is a discussion about Gore's alleged hypocrisy, I think the whole "invented the internet" thing is fair play.

Of course, this is not in question. Gore apologists never said he invented the internet, his detractors did.

I don't much care whether it was actual voting on the house floor or conversations in the hallway. It is clear from the guy who can best be described as the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf. It was a collaboration, Vint was one of many. Not even HE invented the thing.

Here is Vint's take.. he was there, he knows best:
Vint on Gore inventing the Internet (http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html)

Hey, I still think it's funny to call Gore the Inventor of the Internet, but I know it's not an accurate term, and he never said it.

It's MORE funny that people still say he said it...:rolleyes:

[SecDef]

It was an excellent analogy, because it doesn’t matter what Gore claimed, it only pertains to what Gore’s apologists claimed.

Yeah, it wasn't very good. It was trolling and too recently on the heels of Dr. Rice's poor statements comparing Saddam/Iraq with Hitle/Germany.

Can you show me where Gore apologists claim he invented the internet? I think you will find that all quotes come from people such as yourself, people that dislike the guy and are misstating things in your blind rage. Here's my side: Inventor? False (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp), where's yours?

[JuanCarlos]

Hey, I still think it's funny to call Gore the Inventor of the Internet, but I know it's not an accurate term, and he never said it.

Oh yeah, it's still hilarious even if you like the guy. It makes great material for jokes. It's just not something anybody with half a brain should take seriously, or use as an actual point in an argument...because it's pretty much indefensible.

But the person who brought it up originally did.

and for those of you who defend him..its ok..you'll win in the end right? I mean, you're supporting the guy that invented the internet. I suggest though that you don't attempt to belittle someone for ridiculing an idiot..it'll leave YOUR intelligence in question.

I'm thinking to myself, "it's alright, he could just be poking fun at the guy..."

and before you Jump on me and say that "al gore never said he invented the internet"...this is a TRANSCRIPT of his 2000 interview with Wolfe Blitzer.

"...Nope! We've got a live one here!"

[Camp David]

Here is Vint's take

That's quite a marvelous piece of fiction there! Was WorlCom doing advocacy puff pieces for the Gore campaign in 2000?

Who is Vint and what was his relation with MCIWorldCom in 2000?

[SecDef]

That's quite a marvelous piece of fiction there! Was WorlCom doing advocacy puff pieces for the Gore campaign in 2000?

Please list out which parts of fiction. I'd be interested in seeing hard facts rather than your take. It doesn't matter what the motivation for the piece was as long as it is factually correct and not mis-representative of the truth.

Who is Vint and what was his relation with MCIWorldCom in 2000?

He wrote the TCP/IP protocol. He's a geek. Feel free to spend 5 seconds and get off your butt to find out. Here, I'll give you a hand with a link to his wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf) to get you started.

I applaud your questioning sources, but I scorn your lack of support in refuting the truth.

[buzz_knox]

#'s 16 and 17 seem to be at the crux of the complaint that Gore isn't practicing what he preaches. I suggest that comparing him to the average american's home doesn't fit the whole picture of whether he is not leading by example.

How about the heated swimming pool and gas lamps lighting his driveway?

Still seems like his paying for green credits should encourage utilities to build more capacity...even if it's other utilities that do it. Could utilities "trade" green power to bring it from nearby areas where, say, wind or solar is more feasible to those where it's more difficult to build? If people like Gore are willing to pay excessive amounts of money for this, shouldn't somebody step in to fill demand?

No one is heavily building green power right now because 1) it doesn't produce the power needed and 2) the environmentalists pushing for it in the abstract refuse to allow it in actuality as it requires lots of "visual pollution." They don't like wind farms or solar farms ruining their view. Combine those problems with the fact that solar panel production involves heavy metals and toxic chemicals, and it's not worth the time or energy, no pun intended.

There is really only one answer to these issues, and it involves conservation and nuclear energy. Gore doesn't practice the first one, and doesn't support the second.

[stevelyn]

I think everyone is missing the point. Al Gore jumped on the global warming scam because he figured out how to make a buck from it. I don't think even he believes his own BS. His lifestyle reveals this "inconvient truth".

[buzz_knox]

Gore didn't claim to invent the internet; he just said he was responsible for creating it. This claim is, itself, rather dubious as the internet was beginning to evolve prior to his coming to Congress, or passing the legislation he credits with creating the internet.

I think everyone is missing the point. Al Gore jumped on the global warming scam because he figured out how to make a buck from it. I don't think even he believes his own BS. His lifestyle reveals this "inconvient truth".

Agreed. People forget that Gore was pro-gun and pro-life until 1988, when he sought the Democratic presidential nomination. At that time, he switched to pro-gun control and pro-abortion in order to compete on a national level.

[SecDef]

How about the heated swimming pool and gas lamps lighting his driveway?

Who the what now? Are you adding to the #17 - Consume less, which I already said is the bone of contention, or what?

No one is heavily building green power right now because 1) it doesn't produce the power needed and 2) the environmentalists pushing for it in the abstract refuse to allow it in actuality as it requires lots of "visual pollution." They don't like wind farms or solar farms ruining their view. Combine those problems with the fact that solar panel production involves heavy metals and toxic chemicals, and it's not worth the time or energy, no pun intended.

There is really only one answer to these issues, and it involves conservation and nuclear energy. Gore doesn't practice the first one, and doesn't support the second.

Your #1 makes absolutely no sense... power is power. You can sell extra solar power from your house back into the grid... Same thing these "green" energy companies do.

#2, yeah, I agree that solar turbines being shutdown because birds keep landing on them and esplodin' makes their arguments silly.

[JuanCarlos]

I think everyone is missing the point. Al Gore jumped on the global warming scam because he figured out how to make a buck from it. I don't think even he believes his own BS. His lifestyle reveals this "inconvient truth".

Wow. Welcome to page one of the thread.

That's quite a marvelous piece of fiction there! Was WorlCom doing advocacy puff pieces for the Gore campaign in 2000?

Who is Vint and what was his relation with MCIWorldCom in 2000?

The fact that you didn't take the twenty seconds it would have taken to see for yourself who Vint Cerf (and Robert Khan, who the message was apparently co-written by) is suddenly leads me to question whether your previous comments still have any merit.

What are you claiming is fiction, by the way? Gore's involvement (leadership role, actually) in the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991? It's documented. Are you suggesting that he wasn't involved at all prior to that? That seems unlikely. And in 1991 the "true potential" of the internet had not quite yet "borne fruit." EDIT: Was the WWW even around in 1991? I know it certainly didn't in any way resemble its current form back then. Even in 1993, when I first got "real"access to the internet (before that I had had only email access), it bore little resemblance to the internet of today.

[SecDef]

Agreed. People forget that Gore was pro-gun and pro-life until 1988, when he sought the Democratic presidential nomination. At that time, he switched to pro-gun control and pro-abortion in order to compete on a national level.

OMG, actual facts, you'll probably be thrown off these boards soon for this offense. :D

You are indeed correct. And I have yet to find a politician (or even an american) that believes exactly in the same things and has the same priorities at 60 as they do at 21.

Does that make him a hypocrite?

[Camp David]

Please list out which parts of fiction. I'd be interested in seeing hard facts rather than your take. It doesn't matter what the motivation for the piece was as long as it is factually correct and not mis-representative of the truth.

Stated again for clarity, I am questioning Gore's statement directly; to wit, that he in any way facilitated the ARAPNet effort. Congressman and Senators do this all the time; jump aboard successful defense R&D efforts even though they had no import to their development. In the case of DARPA and its ARAPNet effort, I seriously doubt he was even aware of it until the potential was out; the cat out of the bag if you will. Again, so you understand, I doubt Gore, or any Congressman or Senator for that matter, had anything technical at all to do with ARPANet and its funding at the time, as it came under SecDef approval as do most DARPA research efforts, many which were 'black' programs. Likely Gore jumped aboard the internet bandwagon, as he's done with global warming bandwagon, since that is what he does as a politician.

Insofar as AlGore's involvement with the High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991, many others assumed a technical leadership role for that effort (based on the existing literature) but they did not later claim they facilitated the internet. Gore did. Hence the hypocrisy.

He wrote the TCP/IP protocol. He's a geek. Feel free to spend 5 seconds and get off your butt to find out. Here, I'll give you a hand with a link to his wikipedia entry to get you started.

I didn't doubt Vinton Gray Cerf's technical background with my "fiction" statement; that was intended for that part of e-mail I read from MCIWorldCom "puffing" Gore's record in respect to internet. I found that "fictional".

[JuanCarlos]

Likely Gore jumped aboard the internet bandwagon, as he's done with global warming bandwagon, since that is what he does as a politician.

In 1991 there wasn't really much of an internet "bandwagon." It was still in its infancy, and the public at large certainly didn't know much of anything about it.

I didn't doubt Vinton Gray Cerf's technical background with my "fiction" statement; that was intended for that part of e-mail I read from MCIWorldCom "puffing" Gore's record in respect to internet. I found that "fictional".

I didn't get the impression that that was a press release (or even a correspondence) from MCI WorldCom. It was a correspondence from Vint Cerf and Robert Khan which was sent from a WorldCom address and which gave his current work contact rather than home. Robert Khan doesn't seem to have even been employed by WorldCom at the time.

Insofar as AlGore's involvement with the High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991, many others assumed a technical leadership role for that effort (based on the existing literature) but they did not later claim they facilitated the internet. Gore did. Hence the hypocrisy.

So because he claimed credit for something he (along with others) did, while the others did not, that is hypocrisy?

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
F1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l75/itscolduphere/inigo_small.jpg

I do not think it means what you think it means...

[sanson]

the elite we employ (former or present) do not provide for the middle class any more. they are self-serving(gore included)

[Camp David]

So because he claimed credit for something he (along with others) did, while the others did not, that is hypocrisy?

Yes. Gore certainly plays the part well; feigning to be what he is not. He has no technical academic background therefore I fail to see how he could have facilitated any technical effort, with researchers, at DARPA or elsewhere. At the time of ARAPNet, he held no budetary or financial authority in regard to the Pentagon or black programs. About the only thing Gore could have done, and likely did do, was overread or overhear a classified note of ARAPNet's progress - while involved with other Congressional duties - and assume the rest from there. Hypocrisy in what he lated claimed? Absolutely! Par for the course for Al Gore? Certainly!

[JuanCarlos]

Yes. Gore certainly plays the part well; feigning to be what he is not. He has no technical academic background therefore I fail to see how he could have facilitated any technical effort, with researchers, at DARPA or elsewhere. At the time of ARAPNet, he held no budetary or financial authority in regard to the Pentagon or black programs. About the only thing Gore could have done, and likely did do, was overread or overhear a classified note of ARAPNet's progress - while involved with other Congressional duties - and assume the rest from there. Hypocrisy in what he lated claimed? Absolutely! Par for the course for Al Gore? Certainly!

He never claimed to have been part of the technical effort. And at the time of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991 he seems to have had a hand in things...and there are roles other than technical leadership that are often necessary to make such things happen. He seems to have played a fairly significant political role in the process, at least at this point in the game. Which is why I responded to the comment below:

Insofar as AlGore's involvement with the High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991, many others assumed a technical leadership role for that effort (based on the existing literature) but they did not later claim they facilitated the internet. Gore did. Hence the hypocrisy.

So I ask you to show me anywhere that one of those who assumed a technical leadership role claimed to have facilitated the creation of the modern internet, and Al Gore refuted that claim. Al Gore claimed credit for his part. If others did not feel the need to, more power to them. But that does not make it hypocrisy. You simply use that word because of the connotations it holds and the sway it would have with those who don't fully understand the issue at hand.

You may be able to show hypocrisy elsewhere. Actually, I'll say you can. Most people are hypocritical in one way or another. But your "Hence the hypocrisy" here seems to indicate that you think this statement illustrates some form of hypocrisy.

So again I refer you to my friend Mr. Montoya.

[Camp David]

He seems to have played a fairly significant political role in the process

FINALLY! Took me about four posts and five replies to get that posted from you. Now compare that statement above with this:

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

See that word I highlighted? "creating"? Understand what that means? No way, no how, no earthly possibility anything political that Gore did had anything at all to do with "creating" the internet, that he later claimed.

See the seperation?

You understand my point now?

[SecDef]

No. That's just a weird way of interpreting it.

That ARPANet existed (No idea why you keep saying ARAPNet, makes it look like you are unfamiliar with it) and the Internet is the not en entirely different beast, but it was through the POLITICAL process that it came about that the NSF backbone would tie-in to what later became known as Tier 1 providers (AT&T, MCI, etc). It was the political process that made the Internet different from ARPANet, namely commercial usage, etc.
Without someone taking the role that Gore had, it would have remained a government run, educational only, non-commercial entity.

Vint Cerf is the perfect person to discuss this as he implemented MCI Mail, the first commercial email application on the Internet.

I think your distinction is petty and inaccurate.

[JuanCarlos]

See that word I highlighted? "creating"? Understand what that means? No way, no how, no earthly possibility anything political that Gore did had anything at all to do with "creating" the internet, that he later claimed.

See the seperation?

You understand my point now?

I understand your point, and I largely responded to it back on page one. At which point I'd say it was simply a poor choice of words, and you're going to great lengths to try and wring as much technical inaccuracy as possible from it due to your bias regarding him.

Here we go, from the previously linked Vint Cerf email, for those that might not have read it:

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we
know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in
the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high
speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating
the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into
an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials
in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the
passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.


So, it appears that his advocacy of the idea of "the internet" (before it was known as such) predates the internet as we know it. No, he doesn't seem to have had much of a hand in the creation of the networks that predated the internet. However, it does appear that his advocacy of the idea of "the internet" (before it had such a name) in a political capacity might well have played a role, even an important one, in the transformation of those networks into the modern internet.

Or, since you seem hung up on the whole use of the word "create," the creation of the internet from those networks.

EDIT: Also, what SecDef said. Basically, the only way I can see coming to the conclusion you've come to regarding his statement is if you needed to do so to satisfy some strong pre-existing bias. Which isn't intellectually honest.

[Camp David]

Without someone taking the role that Gore had, it would have remained a government run, educational only, non-commercial entity.

So you're alleging that in addition to "creating" the internet, Gore transitioned it to the private sector?

Wow! Just Wow! That's all I have to add here...

[JuanCarlos]

So you're alleging that in addition to "creating" the internet, Gore transitioned it to the private sector?

Wow! Just Wow! That's all I have to add here...

No, he's saying that Gore (among others) played a political role in facilitating that transition. But please, continue to intentionally misinterpret things in order to satisfy your pre-existing bias. It's actually amusing.

[CobrayCommando]

But please, continue to intentionally misinterpret things in order to satisfy your pre-existing bias. It's actually amusing.

This is the way of the intraweb. :) There is almost no real point in arguing.

[JuanCarlos]

This is the way of the intraweb. There is almost no real point in arguing.

No point in arguing, maybe, but in looking up info related to points I was making or responding to here I learned quite a bit about Al Gore's environmental record that I hadn't previously been aware of. So obviously not a total loss.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l75/itscolduphere/themoreyouknow.jpg

[Pointer]

The big corporations are "hated" because they are a major source of polution and energy waste...

Al Gore uses far more enregy and polutes far more than nearly every individual...

I don't care about his reasons... they can't be more necessary than anyone else's reasons... :rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

OMG, actual facts, you'll probably be thrown off these boards soon for this offense.

You are indeed correct. And I have yet to find a politician (or even an american) that believes exactly in the same things and has the same priorities at 60 as they do at 21.

Does that make him a hypocrite?

When he changed his position soley for the purpose of political gain, yes.

And please, don't try to red herring things by expanding the time line here. Gore was consistent on these issues from his election to the House in 1977, through his election to the Senate in '85. He changed in 1988 specifically (and admittedly according to statements he made to the NRA) in order to get the Democractic nomination. So, we aren't talking 39 years as you suggest; we're talking, at most, 3 years.

[Silver Bullet]

and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.
I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.

Back in post #52, you advocated that somebody be banned because you felt they were too insulting. It turns out you’re the biggest offender in this thread. Given your previous position, are you going to do the right thing and ban yourself ? Or are you, like algore, to be given special dispensation because you perceive that the length and verbosity and self-gratification of your expositions outweighs any insults delivered by you, and that you are therefore a “net positive” ?

Just asking.

[Silver Bullet]

Can you show me where Gore apologists claim he invented the internet?
What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet" don’t you understand ?

[JuanCarlos]

What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet" don’t you understand ?

The part where a politician claiming he "took the initiative in creating" something during his time in office would be interpreted by a reasonable person as a claim of technical invention.

For instance, if my Governor were to claim he "took the initiative in building additional wind power generation capacity" in my state, I'd not assume he was actually out there physically helping install wind turbines. I'd assume it meant signing bills and securing funding, not turning wrenches.

What part of that don't you understand? In fact, is there some reason you didn't bother to respond to any of the further arguments on the subject, and rather parroted what is basically the starting point from back on page one? Have you nothing else to add?

Back in post #52, you advocated that somebody be banned because you felt they were too insulting. It turns out you’re the biggest offender in this thread. Given your previous position, are you going to do the right thing and ban yourself ? Or are you, like algore, to be given special dispensation because you perceive that the length and verbosity and self-gratification of your expositions outweighs any insults delivered by you, and that you are therefore a “net positive” ?

Just asking.

Hey, wow...maybe you do get the idea of a net positive. Check this out...my position was that simply throwing insults while adding nothing else to the conversation was the problem I had with those two. I, on the other hand, have no problem with me (or anybody else) tossing the occasional insult towards somebody's intelligence when also responding to something that person has said that was.....well, unintelligent.

Also, it's a matter of whether the insult is, for lack of better word, appropriate to the topic at hand. Questioning somebody's intelligence (in an admittedly insulting way) when pointing out that they're failing to grasp a basic logical concept seems relevant in the course of an informal intellectual debate. Asking if somebody got beat up a lot as a kid bears no relevance.

If I question your intelligence because you can't add 2+2 in a debate on mathematics, it's relevant to the conversation. Your inability to add 2+2 may well disqualify you from adding anything useful to the conversation. However, asking if I get beat up a lot after I do so (or, in person, the more common tactic of actually threatening physical violence) is generally the last resort of somebody who has no intelligent retort, no defense, and nothing else to add to the conversation. How does the frequency with which I got beat up relate to the sum of 2 and 2, or my ability to find said sum? If we were in a debate on self-defense, I suppose it'd be relevant. Here, not so much.

Also, in case anybody wants to bring up the ad hominem fallacy...that's not the same thing. If I say you're wrong because you're stupid, that's an ad hominem attack. If I say you're stupid because you're wrong, that's just a plain old insult.

In fact, those two's simple insults to my character without actually responding to my point would be classic ad hominem attacks.

[SecDef]

When he changed his position soley for the purpose of political gain, yes.

And please, don't try to red herring things by expanding the time line here. Gore was consistent on these issues from his election to the House in 1977, through his election to the Senate in '85. He changed in 1988 specifically (and admittedly according to statements he made to the NRA) in order to get the Democractic nomination. So, we aren't talking 39 years as you suggest; we're talking, at most, 3 years.

My point wasn't to expand the timeline, merely to choose two ages that generally have dissimilar opinions and priorities about things. Compromises and agreements made by both will reflect these differences...

The point I was making was that people change, their perspectives, they experience things. Just the act of reversing a position doesn't make someone necessarily a hypocrite, there can be other factors.

For instance, Dennis Miller moved to a position of completely supporting the president post-9/11. His justification was: I'm scared (crap)less. Give the president all the power he wants. I don't think Miller's reversal is hypocritical.

My question was (and let me reword it better): Does a reversal of opinion make Gore a hypocrite?

If someone is actively saying one thing and doing another, it is accurate to label them a hypocrite. If someone reverses position (which I am saying happens to all of us on some topic during our lives, we grow individually) at what point do label them a hypocrite.

If Gore ran on a certain platform, then reversed directions immediately upon election, yes, that's hypocritical.. he made promises.

if Gore changed his position before he ran and when elected maintained that position threw legislation, I'm not so quick to call him a hypocrite, rather a politician.

I do think that using a number published about his energy usage without clear context isn't a great way to judge whether he over consumes. Lacking other information, it's just the best we have.

[Pointer]

Silver Bullet Question...
What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." don’t you understand ?
JuanCarlos
The part where a politician claiming he "took the initiative in creating" something during his time in office would be interpreted by a reasonable person as a claim of technical invention.

Actually, it is a claim of "credit" for bringing the World Wide Net into existence... :rolleyes:
Which was VERY badly worded, and even worse... ill-considered. :o
These are hardly good traits of leadership... but as you said he is a politician...

No matter how we choose to view it... falsehood is still a lie... and the only difference is manifested in the results. ;)

me
The big corporations are "hated" because they are a major source of polution and energy waste... Al Gore uses far more enregy and polutes far more than nearly every other individual...
I don't care about his reasons... they can't be more necessary than anyone else's reasons...

SecDef
My question was (and let me reword it better): Does a reversal of opinion make Gore a hypocrite?
Depending on his reasons and his frequency... perhaps it does...
But it definitely makes him more flexible...

...like a thin rubber "flip-flop". :o

[SecDef]

Can you show me where Gore apologists claim he invented the internet?

What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet" don’t you understand ?

There is a significant difference between created and invented. Especially in connotation. Ours is a wondrous language, and not all synonyms are directly interchangeable.

Did Eisenhower invent the Interstate Highway System or did he create it?

[SecDef]

Actually, it is a claim of "credit" for bringing the World Wide Net into existence...

Which is a claim people that were there support.

Are you saying he didn't bring initiatives forward to bring about the Internet? Show some sources instead of sniping.

[cje1980]

Changing your mind about something is not hypocritical. The definition of hypocrite or hypocrisy has nothing to do with changing your mind. Being a hypocrite is the practice of professing beliefs that one does not personally hold. In the direct definition of the word hypocrisy, Al Gore is a hypocrite. Someone can change their mind all they want and they wouldn't be be a hypocrite as long as they are announcing that they have changed their mind.

For instance, Dennis Miller moved to a position of completely supporting the president post-9/11. His justification was: I'm scared (crap)less. Give the president all the power he wants. I don't think Miller's reversal is hypocritical.

[SecDef]

Can you be specific? Exactly which belief is Gore pretending to have?

[cje1980]

I don't know if your comment was directed in response to mine. I'm not saying Al Gore pretends to or has anything. What I'm saying is that in the direct definition of hypocrisy Al Gore is a hypocrite. He professes about the virtues of conserving and the need to conserve energy yet he personally does not conserve energy and in fact uses lots of energy. It doesn't matter if he lives a carbon-balanced lifestyle or not. The bottom line is that he uses a lot of energy. Energy is a valuable resource that does need to be conserved. Not because of global warming though. Can anybody direct me to a link or resource showing where a hypothesis has successfully been proven that global warming is indeed happening let alone is caused stimulated by human activity? I don't want to hear about whether Al Gore uses more energy about people who live similar life-styles. The bottom line is that if he truly believed in what he professed he would modify his life-style so that he wouldn't need to use massive amount of energy that he uses.

Can you be specific? Exactly which belief is Gore pretending to have?

[SecDef]

Ok, so you are saying he is a hypocrite based on his saying people should conserve energy, yet uses a lot of energy.

There are two definitions of conserve that could potentially come into play here: The first is to protect something. The second is to prevent the wasteful or overuse of (a resource).

Can we agree that the second is the definition of the word conserve in this context?

So, if you can show that Gore is being wasteful or overusing energy, he is a hypocrite. Sure. I think we can all agree with that.

We know he drives a hybrid car, uses low electricity appliances, uses florescent instead of incandescent light bulbs, walks to work (in his home) many days, takes commercial flights when possible (private jets when impossible). So, from that we can't claim he is a hypocrite.

We have seen a number in terms of energy used by the Gore household, and we have compared it to the "average" home. 20x, apparently. And I agree that it sounds like a lot.


Do you really have enough information to say that this energy is wasteful or overuse of energy?

Until we actually know what that energy is actually used for, we have no way of knowing. Comparing energy usage to the average citizen makes for a great response, but really has no bearing on whether or not Gore is conserving energy.

Go ahead, call him a hypocrite, just make sure you do so for real reasons (he wastes energy), not made up ones (his home utility bill is 20x national average).

[Marko Kloos]

I think this horse has been beaten to an unrecognizable pulp by now. Let's let it rest in peace, shall we?