Al Gore uses 20 TIMES as much electricity as you do

[TCPluto]

First the drudge piece was nothing but spin and misinformation (heck, even Brenda has agreed that the 20X claim is false and misleading). I have provided a link to the key facts cited in that piece already. http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.html

Well, I wouldn't consider the "anonymousliberal.com" website factual and/or unbiased, just as you discount Drudge.

Funny though, no one, not even algore, disputes the numbers....

Just more spin, not based in fact...

 

[profdsny]

Ah, but don't you know? There was a recent poll that showed people were apprehensive about a Mormon becoming president.

Wait! Gladys Knight is a Morman? Well, I guess that would explain the Pips.

 

[profdsny]

Well, I wouldn't consider the "anonymousliberal.com" website factual and/or unbiased, just as you discount Drudge.

Funny though, no one, not even algore, disputes the numbers....

Just more spin, not based in fact...

I think one of the facts that was mentioned, and I'm paraphrasing here, is that Gore's home is much more than just a residence. My house, and maybe yours, has 4 people right now, which is more or less average.
But, not only is it Al and Tipper, but whatever kids are home, plus security staff, plus both their offices, plus how many other people who work in those offices for them and are in and out of the house on work in a given day, plus that staff, ect.
Comparing his house and the next one down the road from him is like saying the local Holiday Inn around the corner from you shouldn't be using as much power as your house because the only one who lives there is the manager.

 

[TCPluto]

I think one of the facts that was mentioned, and I'm paraphrasing here, is that Gore's home is much more than just a residence. My house, and maybe yours, has 4 people right now, which is more or less average.
But, not only is it Al and Tipper, but whatever kids are home, plus security staff, plus both their offices, plus how many other people who work in those offices for them and are in and out of the house on work in a given day, plus that staff, ect.
Comparing his house and the next one down the road from him is like saying the local Holiday Inn around the corner from you shouldn't be using as much power as your house because the only one who lives there is the manager.

Buck Naked has made that point several times, and it has some validity.

However, I disagree that algore's home is so drastically different than others in his neighborhood. I doubt his neighborhood has many 1500 sf homes, but that's just a guess.

Your Holiday Inn analogy doesn't work at all.

And just how much energy does a security guard consume in an average day?

 

[Andy B]

To many skeptics of the current hysteria the issue isn't "Is there or isn't there global warming", it's "Is the current warming period caused by man's activity in the last 150 years?".

If man's activity isn't a significant component of the current global warming trend, it won't make much difference what we do to reduce our impact on it because it's caused by a mechanism that we can't control. Or affect.

Now this doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to be good stewards of our planet and conserve, recycle and protect the plant as best we can. However, some believe that we need to make drastic, expensive and life style altering changes to make a significant difference.

Again though the principle holds the same;

due to mans activities act to minimise impact and help situation.

Not due to mans activities act to minimise impact, no result but no chance of making the situation worse.

I believe there are other activities and research that science and industry can do to make improvements to the situation not just to reduce emmisions. I do not think it is valid to look at short term climate pattern such as ' we have had more snow this year so there is no Global Warming, or we have had no rain for three months so there is global warming. It is no doubt a system of overlapping patterns and a number of factors could be contributing however as the progression of population and development has increased geometrically rather than arthimetically it would seem counter intuative to deny the possible impact of such factors and therefore make some reasonable changes to minimise these. But I am as selfish as anyone else and do not want to totally give up air travel for instance but will make other changes such as energy reduction measures in the home.

Another thing we consider in the UK is the distance food is transported before it gets to the shops. Not uncommon to see Green Beans from Kenya, Strawberrys from Spain and grapes from Chile.

 

[Andy B]

Buck Naked has made that point several times, and it has some validity.

However, I disagree that algore's home is so drastically different than others in his neighborhood. I doubt his neighborhood has many 1500 sf homes, but that's just a guess.

Your Holiday Inn analogy doesn't work at all.

And just how much energy does a security guard consume in an average day?

Agreed but Al Gores home is not being compared to others in his neighbourhood but the national average, it's not really fair to argue both points.

Also by its very nature an average has top and bottom of the range. Also is it clear what type of average is being referred to, a common arithmetical average, a mean or mode or median? I would say I am pedant but I am afraid some on other threads might get the wrong end of the stick and come after me with lighted torches!

 

[User Name]

Gore rejects to consider any contradictory evidence or stories, refuses to discuss options with the media, wants to silence any dissent. I wonder why?

"There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

 

[LuvDuke]

Gore rejects to consider any contradictory evidence or stories, refuses to discuss options with the media, wants to silence any dissent. I wonder why?

Two questions:

1) Who are you quoting?

2) Do you have a link?

Thanks in advance.

 

[profdsny]

Buck Naked has made that point several times, and it has some validity.

However, I disagree that algore's home is so drastically different than others in his neighborhood. I doubt his neighborhood has many 1500 sf homes, but that's just a guess.

Your Holiday Inn analogy doesn't work at all.

And just how much energy does a security guard consume in an average day?

First off, we aren't talking about one security guard sitting on the front porch with a shot gun. Whether he has secret service or not, I don't know, but don't think so. Still, very likely a security staff, which involves not only offices, but surveilance equipment, etc. This isn't done from a jeep on the front lawn.
Then his office staff and hers and so on.
Be real. The whole focus of this story was to make it seem like Gore and his wife lived by themselves, and left all the lights on and had a tv and radio on in every room, and the windows open with the air conditioning on, with 4 refrigerators running and every bit of electical item running at the same time. And people bought it.
Maybe the Holdiay Inn analoy didn't work. So, let's take the White House. Only two people live there now. What's' their energy bill compared to other homes in the DC area with only 2 people living there ?
After all, it's a house. Is it the same as everyone elses' house? Of course not. And neither is Gore's.

 

[TheDoctor]

Well, I wouldn't consider the "anonymousliberal.com" website factual and/or unbiased, just as you discount Drudge..

Unlike drudge that right wing faked or illegiitimate foundation, this site has links to something called facts. If you had read the cite you would have found links to the following websites http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detailcetbls.html and http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ce_pdf/enduse/ce1-11c_so_region2001.pdf These sites have FACTS that back up the assertions in the website and show that drudge and the illegiitimate Tennesee foundation (BTW, that is a fact also, i.e. the Tennessee Department of Taxation has identiified the so-called foundation as illegitimate) did not have.

I am glad to show you how to access links and to look at the facts for yourself.

 

[TheDoctor]

Gore rejects to consider any contradictory evidence or stories, refuses to discuss options with the media, wants to silence any dissent. I wonder why?

First, you really should provide a link to your quote. I provide links to everything that I quote so that people can check the accuracy of the quote and see if it was taken out of context.

Here this is not necessary since I recognize the quote and know where you got the quote. In fact, I quoted the same source yesterday. The quote that you took was out of context. In order to understand the context you need to understand how real scientists publish their findings in real scientific journals. 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 was discussing articles in the context of comparing peer review studies to non-peer review puff pieces. http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02

Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming.

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."

Again, according to the study cited, all peer review studies support global warming. It is the non-peer review pieces that he was dismissing.

Again, try to provide the link. You did yourself a great disservice because now it is clear that you either did not know the context of the quote or intentionally took the quote out of context. If you do not provide links in the future, I will assume that you are also taking whatever material out of context unless I see and check the link.

 

[User Name]

Two questions:

1) Who are you quoting?

2) Do you have a link?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry...

Quoting VP Gore.

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02


I'm surprised no one's responded to a related thread I started... This is good stuff!!!
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1374105

Finally... a solution to global warming!
And, it comes from a former high-level government official. Phew! We can all relax, now!

UFO science key to halting climate change: former Canadian defense minister
Wed Feb 28, 2:45 PM ET

OTTAWA (AFP) - A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.
"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.
Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.
Such alien technologies could offer humanity alternatives to fossil fuels, he said, pointing to the enigmatic 1947 incident in Roswell, New Mexico -- which has become a shrine for UFO believers -- as an example of alien contact.
"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough," he said.
Hellyer became defense minister in former prime minister Lester Pearson's cabinet in 1963, and oversaw the controversial integration and unification of Canada's army, air force and navy into the Canadian Forces.
He shocked Canadians in September 2005 by announcing he once saw a UFO.

 

[DancingBear]

Uhh, UserName, how does that story support your statement exactly? All Gore is saying is that the media should report the scientific consensus as such, and not report sloppily that "Some scientists say this, some say that." How does that equal:

Gore rejects to consider any contradictory evidence or stories, refuses to discuss options with the media, wants to silence any dissent.

 

[BuckNaked]

Uhh, UserName, how does that story support your statement exactly?

Glad to see you here - you left wet towels in the basement bathroom again today!

 

[Galahad]

Uhh, UserName, how does that story support your statement exactly?

Perhaps is just that the truth is "out there".

 

[TheDoctor]

So, saying that the 20x claim is false (definition: not true or correct; erroneous) is incorrect. Are those calculations erroneous?

I used the word bogus in my posts for a reason. For most people the word bogus means fraudulent or misleading and that is what the dicitionary definitions posted also provide. Even you agreed that the 20X figure is fraudulent and misleading (you just did not know what the world bogus meant). Here is your quote.

I never said it wasn't misleading - I believe it is. I was simply pointing out that your statement that the 20x claim was bogus is incorrect.

Again, the 20X quote is fraudulent, misleading and bogus (unless you have some definition of the word or some other dictionary that you would like to cite).

Under the law, a statement is false and misleading as a matter of law if that statement fails to state a material fact necessary not not make such statement not misleading. Unless you are admitting that you were wrong in your earlier post, even you admitted that the statement is misleading. Under the definition of bogus and under the normal legal principles for evaluating fraud, it is clear that the drudge claims are bogus, fraudulent and misleading which means that they are false.

 

[TheDoctor]

Uhh, UserName, how does that story support your statement exactly? All Gore is saying is that the media should report the scientific consensus as such, and not report sloppily that "Some scientists say this, some say that." How does that equal:

It does not support his statement. He took the quote out of context. Again, if you look at peer reviewed works from real scientists, then Vice President Gore's statements are accurate.

 

[DancingBear]

Doc, I'm on your side on the main issue here, but stop with the semantic battles with Brenda. She said the statement was misleading, that's good enough for our purposes.

 

[BuckNaked]

I used the word bogus in my posts for a reason. For most people the word bogus means fraudulent or misleading and that is what the dicitionary definitions posted also provide. Even you agreed that the 20X figure is fraudulent and misleading (you just did not know what the world bogus meant). Here is your quote.
Again, the 20X quote is fraudulent, misleading and bogus (unless you have some definition of the word or some other dictionary that you would like to cite).

Under the law, a statement is false and misleading as a matter of law if that statement fails to state a material fact necessary not not make such statement not misleading. Unless you are admitting that you were wrong in your earlier post, even you admitted that the statement is misleading. Under the definition of bogus and under the normal legal principles for evaluating fraud, it is clear that the drudge claims are bogus, fraudulent and misleading which means that they are false.

Like I said, even though the math doesn't lie, you try to say that it does.

Here is your quote.
Again, the 20X quote is fraudulent, misleading and bogus (unless you have some definition of the word or some other dictionary that you would like to cite

Well there's a flat out lie - that's not my quote at all. You've taken my words and substituted your own. Don't tell me I have to define the word "quote" for you too!

Again, the 20X quote is fraudulent, misleading and bogus

Is the 20x claim false, i.e., is 221,000/10,656 not equal to 20? Is that number erroneous?

 

[DancingBear]

Okay, Buck, you stop too!