Al Gore uses 20 TIMES as much electricity as you do

[Laz]

This is amusing if you understand science and how real studies are published. There is a concept called peer review where respectable journals and publications have other scientists in the field review an article before it is published. The tobacco companies used to have problems with peer review and so they paid scientists to produce fake articles that were "published" in fake or none-peer reviewed publications. EXXON and the AEI have been using the same trick until EXXON decided to cut off the AEI's funding.

Vice President Gore made an interesting comment this week about articles like the one you just posted. http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02Again, according to the study cited, all peer review studies support global warming.

True, I know little about scientific research. I rely on past experience and perception. Hence the struggle to reach some people in my age group. I do not believe conservation is the ultimate answer. This country must find a reliable, reusable, powerful clean energy source to solve many of our problems (more than just global warming). I would even be willing to use public money IF I could be assured it wasn't wasted in the typical government bureaucracy.

 

[DawnCt1]

Feted at Sundance,French kissed at the Oscars,there may even be a Nobel Prize in his future. After having his election and subsequent re-election stolen from him, it appears that Al Gore is finally getting the respect he deserves – and not just from celebrities. The whole world is united in love and admiration for the man who would awaken us to an inconvenient truth and save us from our own polluting selves.

There are, as expected, the typical right-wing bullies on the beach who can’t resist kicking sand in Al’s face as he basks in the glow of his much-deserved stardom. Always the turds in the proverbial punchbowl, these smearmongers have procured “evidence” that Gore uses twenty times more electricity than your average American household. Well, of course he does – he’s twenty times more important than your average American. What the GOP attack machine neglects to factor into their hate-fueled orgy of hate is the utter itsy-bitsyness of Gore’s teensy weensy “carbon footprint” ,that is, the amount of damage one does to the environment simply by cursing this planet with their existence.

Naturally, Al Gore’s carbon footprint is drastically smaller than that of a carbon-based lifeform. This allows him to enjoy the sort of lavish lifestyle that only a progressive celebrity truly deserves. There is also the matter of "carbon offsets" to consider - special “Eco-Credits” we can use to offset the amount of Carbon Debt we incur throughout our daily lives. The more environmentally-friendly you are, the more credits you obtain. Voting Democrat, for instance, earns you an automatic 1000 Eco-Credits. Wearing earth tones gets you another 5,000 Eco-Credits. Having at least one Prius in your 17-car garage is worth 20,000 Eco-Credits, and an additional 10,000 if you slap a Greenpeace bumper sticker on it. For those who can't afford a hybrid vehicle, abortions an inexpensive way to nab an easy 10,000 credits. Once you have accumulated enough Eco-Credits, you can exchange them for the privilege of heating your home, driving your car, or flushing your toilet.

Unfortunately, there are only so many Eco-Credits to go around, and Al Gore has most of them. His tireless devotion to scaring the crap out of people has earned him enough Eco-Credits that he could raise a herd of bean-fed bovines in his front yard and still have enough left over to heat his indoor olympic swimming pool for the next 1000 years if he wanted to. Instead, Gore has chosen to hold his vast wealth of Eco-Credits in trust for the America people, until such a time that Mother Earth has passed safely from under the shadow of an environmental holocaust. Until that day comes, it is important that the rest of us reduce our carbon footprints by shutting off our heat, turning off our lights, and eating cold dog food directly from the can.

Well, not all of us

Nelson I hope that these wonderful posts are making it to the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers; they are fabulous!

 

[rockbottomsound]

Feted at Sundance,French kissed at the Oscars,there may even be a Nobel Prize in his future. After having his election and subsequent re-election stolen from him, it appears that Al Gore is finally getting the respect he deserves – and not just from celebrities. The whole world is united in love and admiration for the man who would awaken us to an inconvenient truth and save us from our own polluting selves.

There are, as expected, the typical right-wing bullies on the beach who can’t resist kicking sand in Al’s face as he basks in the glow of his much-deserved stardom. Always the turds in the proverbial punchbowl, these smearmongers have procured “evidence” that Gore uses twenty times more electricity than your average American household. Well, of course he does – he’s twenty times more important than your average American. What the GOP attack machine neglects to factor into their hate-fueled orgy of hate is the utter itsy-bitsyness of Gore’s teensy weensy “carbon footprint” ,that is, the amount of damage one does to the environment simply by cursing this planet with their existence.

Naturally, Al Gore’s carbon footprint is drastically smaller than that of a carbon-based lifeform. This allows him to enjoy the sort of lavish lifestyle that only a progressive celebrity truly deserves. There is also the matter of "carbon offsets" to consider - special “Eco-Credits” we can use to offset the amount of Carbon Debt we incur throughout our daily lives. The more environmentally-friendly you are, the more credits you obtain. Voting Democrat, for instance, earns you an automatic 1000 Eco-Credits. Wearing earth tones gets you another 5,000 Eco-Credits. Having at least one Prius in your 17-car garage is worth 20,000 Eco-Credits, and an additional 10,000 if you slap a Greenpeace bumper sticker on it. For those who can't afford a hybrid vehicle, abortions an inexpensive way to nab an easy 10,000 credits. Once you have accumulated enough Eco-Credits, you can exchange them for the privilege of heating your home, driving your car, or flushing your toilet.

Unfortunately, there are only so many Eco-Credits to go around, and Al Gore has most of them. His tireless devotion to scaring the crap out of people has earned him enough Eco-Credits that he could raise a herd of bean-fed bovines in his front yard and still have enough left over to heat his indoor olympic swimming pool for the next 1000 years if he wanted to. Instead, Gore has chosen to hold his vast wealth of Eco-Credits in trust for the America people, until such a time that Mother Earth has passed safely from under the shadow of an environmental holocaust. Until that day comes, it is important that the rest of us reduce our carbon footprints by shutting off our heat, turning off our lights, and eating cold dog food directly from the can.

Well, not all of us

Don't forget to add to the list to just talk a lot of smack. Talking smack makes you an environmentalist. You don't have to live like one, just talk like one. That's all that counts.

 

[ford family]

The tobacco companies used to have problems with peer review and so they paid scientists to produce fake articles that were "published" in fake or none-peer reviewed publications. EXXON and the AEI have been using the same trick until EXXON decided to cut off the AEI's funding.

You have made this statement so many times I thought I would see how true it was.
All I can see, with the latest figures, is that the AEI had 2005 revenue of USD37,900,000 of which ExxonMobil provided USD252,500.
Do you really believe that such a small contribution would be sufficient to cause the AEI to produce biased research?

ford family

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is some real (i.e. funny) satire from Andy Borowitz.

Supreme Court Gives Gore’s Oscar to Bush

Stunning Reversal for Former Veep

Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received an Academy Award for his global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Oscar and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.

For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of his Hollywood audience Sunday night, the high court’s decision to give his Oscar to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.

But in a 5-4 decision handed down Tuesday morning, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Oscar because President Bush deserved it more.

“It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. “But President Bush has actually helped create global warming.”

In another setback for the former vice president, a group of scientists meeting in Oslo, Norway today said that Mr. Gore was growing at an unsustainable rate.

“The polar ice caps may be shrinking, but Al Gore is clearly expanding,” said Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo.

The scientists concluded that if Mr. Gore continues to expand at his current rate, he could cause the earth to spin off its axis by 2010, sending it hurtling into the sun.

“Here’s an inconvenient truth,” Dr. Kyosuke added. “Al’s got to stay away from those carbs.”

Elsewhere, after foreigners received a record number of Academy Award nominations, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs proposed building a 12-foot high fence around the Kodak Theater.

 

[TheDoctor]

You have made this statement so many times I thought I would see how true it was.
All I can see, with the latest figures, is that the AEI had 2005 revenue of USD37,900,000 of which ExxonMobil provided USD252,500.
Do you really believe that such a small contribution would be sufficient to cause the AEI to produce biased research?

ford family

You clearly do not undestand how fake studies are prepared. The AEI ir a right wing organization and has a political agenda that includes disputing the existence of global warming. EXXON used to provide funds to the AEI that the AEI used to generate fake studies to support what every position that EXXON wanted. The tobacco companies used to do the same thing back in the 1970s and the 1980s. I remember seeing some amusing studies that showed that tobacco was actually good for you but these studies were not that helpful because they were not peer reviewed and it was easy to show that the tobacco companies paid for these studies.

Here the AEI and EXXON paid so called experts and pretend scientists to come up with results and then would publish these results in non-peer reviewed publications. The AEI was of use to EXXON because it would "publish" these fake studies itself and try to pass them off as real science.

The AEI is a right wing political organization with its own agenda. EXXON did not have to bribe the AEI to generate these fake studies. The AEI was glad to do so because the AEI had the same political agenda as EXXON. The amounts on the AEI budget are the funds that EXXON provided to generate these studies. Remmeber that global warming is just one of the right wing causes championed by the AEI and the rest of its budgets is used for other faked or fixed studies in other areas.

I remember a great AEI study from my college days where the AEI found a scientist named Peltzman who concluded that having air bags in cars would cause drivers to drive more dangerously and therefore cause more car crashes. The study was paid for by the auto industry but was cited by everyone who wanted to oppose requiring airbags in cars back in the 1970s. Fake studies from the AEI like this airbag study probably delayed the installation of airbags in cars for a good number of years.

 

[DancingBear]

See this greatly shines enlightenment on the fundamental lack of understanding.

Its not his "statements" that make him a hypocrite, its his "actions."

Uhhh, no, it's when his "actions" contradict his "statements."

Why don't you just claim that "Al Gore is a hypocrite because he pretends to be a fitness freak but his actions include eating a lot of cake." It would be just as logical.

Although he has recently become so enlightened that he is now "planning on" installing "some" solar panels in his mansion.

I guess you forgot that I corrected you earlier (and you acknowledged the correction) that the mansion renovation including the solar panels is currently happening, not just "planned"?

Gore talks good feel good smack so he's a savior of the planet, despite the fact that he practices not even any minimal standard of environmentally friendly pracitices such as installing solar panels and driving green vehicles, which he could have done 20 years ago.

You're really obsessed about those solar panels, aren't you?

 

[Andy B]

See this greatly shines enlightenment on the fundamental lack of understanding.

Its not his "statements" that make him a hypocrite, its his "actions." (Living like any other rich celebrity in extravagence and luxery, driving limos, SUVs, jet setting across the nation) Although he has recently become so enlightened that he is now "planning on" installing "some" solar panels in his mansion.

But the enlightenment is that with some on here, actions don't matter, its just how much good smack you can talk that counts. Gore talks good feel good smack so he's a savior of the planet, despite the fact that he practices not even any minimal standard of environmentally friendly pracitices such as installing solar panels and driving green vehicles, which he could have done 20 years ago.

Apparently the poor Gores have just recently found out about solar panels despite the fact that real environmentalist activists, ones that walk the walk like a conservative Republican Clint Eastwood, has utilized them for years and years.

I am getting a little tired of the same comments which are said in support of this argument. Al Gore has not been campining in this way on a single issue for 20 years so the solar panels point is rather stale also the efficiency of such things and costs have improved to make them reasonable on a dwelling scale recently.

The points are;
Is Al Gore saing give up all consumption. No.

Is he saying improve the way we consume. Yes.

Has he given up all consumption No.

Has he improved his consumption. Yes

Is he perfect. No

I see no major Hypocritical actions but an easy target for narrowly focused right wing republicans.

But even Jesus said take the plank out of your own eye before you try to take the splinter out of someone else's.

 

[LuvDuke]

Unfortunately not true. It's now part of Al Gore wingnut lore, just like "I invented the internet."

And it's the wingnuts who'll keep repeating it to other wingnuts.

 

[sdy]

I'm going to apologize, in advance, for jumping in.

But, after reviewing this entire thread, I'm disturbed by the tenor of this debate.

I am most discomfitted by the, seemingly widely, accepted notion that intellectual belief and practical lifestyle are in no way mutually exclusive. How can that be? Since when is life so simply defined in black and white? And who determines those standards by which ones beliefs and lifestyle are allowed to intersect?

It seems to me that there is no argument whatsoever that Gore takes steps daily to adjust his lifestyle to more firmly cohere with his environmental concerns. If there is, there shouldn't be. I can say with authority, he does.

So then the argument took on a life of little more petty judgements that seem fueled only by a certain contempt for his assumed wealth or political affiliation. Statements like "Noone needs three homes", etc. are being bandied about. Let's be clear. Al Gore cannot be expected to live like a "regular joe". Because he isn't. He has a certain amount of money with which he is entitled to have a certain amount of things. Just like me. And you. He has a certain amount of status which demands a certain amount of...well, things. Why not applaud his efforts instead of chanting a meanspirited refrain of "you have more so you should do more and more and more"? The very idea that his installing solar panels now is not okay because they've been around alot longer than now is nothing less than asinine. With that logic, nothing any of us do to better our lives (famous or not) is ever acceptable, much less laudable. (And yes, DiCapprio does indeed use a hybrid for his day-to-day driving...and though he does quite a bit to live a greener lifestyle, he's decidedly less green than Gore).

I don't see his efforts to ignite and maintain a global dialogue about environmental issues to be preaching. Or bullying. He's simply taking good advantage of his public profile in an effort to affect some change in an arena he believes in. What is the fault in that?

Even more upsetting is the idea that environmental concerns are a partisan issue. Since when? I'm, personally, heartsick at the idea that conservation and all-around respect for nature are now, somehow, dirty notions. And am definitely not clear on what is to be gained by not engaging at all.

Individual beliefs, aside, I believe this is good work Gore is doing. And more than I have done. With regard to any issue that I care about.

 

[LuvDuke]

Nice attempt to shift the argument again. Have you not yet found those statements by Al Gore that make him a hypocrite?

He'll find those statements after he finds out what's funny and what isn't. So far, no luck.

 

[LuvDuke]

Nelson I hope that these wonderful posts are making it to the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers; they are fabulous!

That's a ringing endorsement.

 

[TheDoctor]

That's a ringing endorsement.

DawnCT1 and Nelson may be the only people in America who find the Fox Half Hour News Hour to be funny.

 

[mefordis]

DawnCT1 and Nelson may be the only people in America who find the Fox Half Hour News Hour to be funny.

I'm sure the National Enquirer is also a staple in their "libraries". I swear, this board really brings to life the movie "Idiocracy". It's scary!

 

[mefordis]

I'm going to apologize, in advance, for jumping in.

But, after reviewing this entire thread, I'm disturbed by the tenor of this debate.

I am most discomfitted by the, seemingly widely, accepted notion that intellectual belief and practical lifestyle are in no way mutually exclusive. How can that be? Since when is life so simply defined in black and white? And who determines those standards by which ones beliefs and lifestyle are allowed to intersect?

It seems to me that there is no argument whatsoever that Gore takes steps daily to adjust his lifestyle to more firmly cohere with his environmental concerns. If there is, there shouldn't be. I can say with authority, he does.

So then the argument took on a life of little more petty judgements that seem fueled only by a certain contempt for his assumed wealth or political affiliation. Statements like "Noone needs three homes", etc. are being bandied about. Let's be clear. Al Gore cannot be expected to live like a "regular joe". Because he isn't. He has a certain amount of money with which he is entitled to have a certain amount of things. Just like me. And you. He has a certain amount of status which demands a certain amount of...well, things. Why not applaud his efforts instead of chanting a meanspirited refrain of "you have more so you should do more and more and more"? The very idea that his installing solar panels now is not okay because they've been around alot longer than now is nothing less than asinine. With that logic, nothing any of us do to better our lives (famous or not) is ever acceptable, much less laudable. (And yes, DiCapprio does indeed use a hybrid for his day-to-day driving...and though he does quite a bit to live a greener lifestyle, he's decidedly less green than Gore).

I don't see his efforts to ignite and maintain a global dialogue about environmental issues to be preaching. Or bullying. He's simply taking good advantage of his public profile in an effort to affect some change in an arena he believes in. What is the fault in that?

Even more upsetting is the idea that environmental concerns are a partisan issue. Since when? I'm, personally, heartsick at the idea that conservation and all-around respect for nature are now, somehow, dirty notions. And am definitely not clear on what is to be gained by not engaging at all.

Individual beliefs, aside, I believe this is good work Gore is doing. And more than I have done. With regard to any issue that I care about.

This is one of the more intelligent posts on this board. I'd say, unless you want your IQ to drop a few points, stay away from these boards. They will have your brain cells fighting to make sense of what you are reading. I have to quit as well. For me it's like junk food for my intellect.

 

[TheDoctor]

I'm going to apologize, in advance, for jumping in.

But, after reviewing this entire thread, I'm disturbed by the tenor of this debate.

I am most discomfitted by the, seemingly widely, accepted notion that intellectual belief and practical lifestyle are in no way mutually exclusive. How can that be? Since when is life so simply defined in black and white? And who determines those standards by which ones beliefs and lifestyle are allowed to intersect?

It seems to me that there is no argument whatsoever that Gore takes steps daily to adjust his lifestyle to more firmly cohere with his environmental concerns. If there is, there shouldn't be. I can say with authority, he does.

So then the argument took on a life of little more petty judgements that seem fueled only by a certain contempt for his assumed wealth or political affiliation. Statements like "Noone needs three homes", etc. are being bandied about. Let's be clear. Al Gore cannot be expected to live like a "regular joe". Because he isn't. He has a certain amount of money with which he is entitled to have a certain amount of things. Just like me. And you. He has a certain amount of status which demands a certain amount of...well, things. Why not applaud his efforts instead of chanting a meanspirited refrain of "you have more so you should do more and more and more"? The very idea that his installing solar panels now is not okay because they've been around alot longer than now is nothing less than asinine. With that logic, nothing any of us do to better our lives (famous or not) is ever acceptable, much less laudable. (And yes, DiCapprio does indeed use a hybrid for his day-to-day driving...and though he does quite a bit to live a greener lifestyle, he's decidedly less green than Gore).

I don't see his efforts to ignite and maintain a global dialogue about environmental issues to be preaching. Or bullying. He's simply taking good advantage of his public profile in an effort to affect some change in an arena he believes in. What is the fault in that?

Even more upsetting is the idea that environmental concerns are a partisan issue. Since when? I'm, personally, heartsick at the idea that conservation and all-around respect for nature are now, somehow, dirty notions. And am definitely not clear on what is to be gained by not engaging at all.

Individual beliefs, aside, I believe this is good work Gore is doing. And more than I have done. With regard to any issue that I care about.

Good post. The conservatives find it okay for the rich to have special privileges so long as these rich people are republicans (i.e. cutting out the estate tax and dividend tax cuts) but evidently object to a Democrat having money.

 

[TheDoctor]

What's funny is he uses like 20x as much power as us and yet he complains about global warming! He is the reason we even have global warming!

The 20X number cited by the so-called foundation has always seemed wrong to me and someone did some research and found out that this number is as bogus as the so-called foundation that put it out. http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.html

The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house.

As I mentioned earlier if drudge is backing a piece of information, then you can rest assure that it is wrong. Here the so called foundation/gop slime artists both used a number that includes apartments and ignores the average electricity usage for the region where Vice President Gore's home is located. If you look at the per foot usage, Vice President Gore's electric usage is average.

I hope that some facts will put this stupid talking point to bed.

 

[profdsny]

The 20X number cited by the so-called foundation has always seemed wrong to me and someone did some research and found out that this number is as bogus as the so-called foundation that put it out. http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.htmlAs I mentioned earlier if drudge is backing a piece of information, then you can rest assure that it is wrong. Here the so called foundation/gop slime artists both used a number that includes apartments and ignores the average electricity usage for the region where Vice President Gore's home is located. If you look at the per foot usage, Vice President Gore's electric usage is average.

I hope that some facts will put this stupid talking point to bed.

Thanks for the link. Now maybe the righties will crawl back under their rocks where it is safe until the next call to arms from Druggie and Hateity.

 

[BuckNaked]

The 20X number cited by the so-called foundation has always seemed wrong to me and someone did some research and found out that this number is as bogus as the so-called foundation that put it out. http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.htmlAs I mentioned earlier if drudge is backing a piece of information, then you can rest assure that it is wrong. Here the so called foundation/gop slime artists both used a number that includes apartments and ignores the average electricity usage for the region where Vice President Gore's home is located. If you look at the per foot usage, Vice President Gore's electric usage is average.

I hope that some facts will put this stupid talking point to bed.

Good God, are you going to post this everywhere? Perhaps I should copy and paste my response so that I don't have to keep typing it.

The article you link to does not say that the 20x number is bogus. It agrees that the national average as posted in the Drudge link is correct, and it accepts the number given by the Drudge link for Gore as accurate.

Where the Drudge article is misleading is that it doesn't break down the numbers by region and house size, which does skew the numbers against Gore.

But your claim that the "20x the national average" is bogus is incorrect.

 

[TheDoctor]

Good God, are you going to post this everywhere? Perhaps I should copy and paste my response so that I don't have to keep typing it.

The article you link to does not say that the 20x number is bogus. It agrees that the national average as posted in the Drudge link is correct, and it accepts the number given by the Drudge link for Gore as accurate.

Where the Drudge article is misleading is that it doesn't break down the numbers by region and house size, which does skew the numbers against Gore.

But your claim that the "20x the national average" is bogus is incorrect.

I have responded to your attempt at analysis on the other thread. Again, you are wrong. Under the law a statement is fraudulent and misleading if it fails to state a fact necessary to make such statement not misleading. The statement by drduge and the faked foundation are fraudlent and bogus under that standard.