DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ex-VP Al Gore has "sum 'splaining to do" Going green???

When Al Gore stated that he and Tipper had gone "GREEN" we thought he meant using solar power or other means to avoid high energy consumption use. Well according to the "Tennessean" newspaper the "Green" stands for a huge green dollar electric bill.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_102512.asp





Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
by Drew Johnson, Tennessee Center for Policy Research
posted February 26, 2007

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

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.



The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh — more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh — guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

(The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.)


"

Al Gore is nothing more than a punchline.

How again do they obtain private electric and nat gas bills?

Actually I like Al Gore...I wish him great success in his life and would love for him to run again for President in 2008.

Lord...let us get Joe Thomas at LT for the Browns and Al Gore to face off against Obama and Hillary Clinton. He hates her and she disrepects him. Neither of them want to trail the new guy,Obama, so they'll pull out more dirty tricks for his benefit.

God I can't wait!!!

Not to worry, Al Gore will be chartering a private jet to fly to LA next week to hold a press conference and explain how he does NOT use energy unnecessarily...

Al is a joke.........he rants and raves about the energy usage in the u.s., but he's one of the worst users........He's one of those people that say "you need to reduce your usage..." so that he can increase his........Gore is a joke

And someone will come on here and say that ".....if you check, Gore buys pollution credits...." or whatever they call them......"and he's actually saving the earth...."

Yeah, whatever......why doesn't he try living like he wants everyone else to live?

He needs to create as much man-made pollution as he can possibly can, or else his global warming predictions might not come true and he'll look like an idiot.

That picture says it all to me.

The science used in the movie is and has been duplicated a million times over. So i guess Al is supposed to use his own money to supply himself with alternative energy.

Anybody here study atmospheric science, anybody ever work for a government agency (NOAA) thats sole purpose is to study the atmosphere and oceans??

I did.

The data is more solid than intelligence on WMD's.

I think if somebody who despises Al watched the movie they learn a bit more about who he is. Something he struggled to do as a presidential candidate.

No big deal, I am sure that the browns message board knows more than the worlds scientists.

Come one come all, quote me an acedemic journal that disputes the correlation the exponential growth of CO2 in the atmosphere and the industrial revolution. Go ahead....bring it.



And we wonder why we the rest of the world hates us.

A friend of mine invited me downtown several months ago to see a movie with him. The idea was to take the new bus (orange) line over to North Hollywood, then catch the train downtown and meet up with him. Call it a personal test of the commuter system for practical social use, and my attempt at a bit of social responsibility. Everything went smoothly, the bus and train ran on time, and I didn't even mind the half-mile uphill walk, or the 200 step climb to the outdoor venue which was showing the movie. Needless to say I was a little peeved when my staunchly liberal buddy (who knows I'm basically a conservative) pointed out that the nights film was a special showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" (like his revelation to me) featuring a live musical set with Bon Jovi & Richie Sambora (cool) and an introduction by none other than Al Gore himself (not cool). Well, besides the fact that I was completely surrounded by liberals in expensive leathers and furs who arrived in their Benz', Beemers & Lexus', I was hugely annoyed by the fact that the event seemed to be some sort of political rally designed to garner support for Gore's next run at the Whitehouse. Gore's "joke" about him being formerly known as the next president of the United States was a big hit and the ending of his speech coincided perfectly with the planted criers pleas of, "Run for president!" which was quickly picked up by some of the crowd. Fortunately the chant died from lack of momentum (a suprising bonus) and the movie got underway. Aside from the annoyance I felt from the overblown tone and overstated so-called "facts", I really had to wonder what the chad count in Florida and the ineptitude of the current administration had to do with global warming. Walking out after the show, (after a rousing standing ovation,) my friend and I got into a pointed argument about whether or not that so called "documentary" is nothing more that a long, cost effective campaign commercial with a built in platform. I say it is... Thoughts?

At least you got to see Jovi jam.

Quote:

---

overstated so-called "facts

---

I'll bite Cal.

Which "overblown fact"are you referring to. Specificity is needed here.

Assassin, this thread isn't about whether the content of his documentary is right. It's about him be a hypocrite. I wouldn't expect to see his mansion's electricity bills lower than my 1,100 sq ft condo but he shouldn't be that high. Practice what you preach Al.

So I guess he should spend his money on making his own alternative energy sources when he pays taxeslike the rest of us??

I didnt say the guy is my hero


So if you drink beer...even ALOT of beer you cant be against drunk driving??

I haven't seen the movie, nor do I plan to, but I will say that he should not be the poster boy for global warming when he pays more for his utility bills than most Americans make in a single year. Sure looks like he is worried about the environment Kinda like Edwards and his 6 million dollar, 28,000 square foot home - he's for the poor people in this country; yeah, right.

Politicians, most are such a joke. Anyhow....

I do believe that humans are possibly accelerating the warming trend, but I also believe that the planet has it's cycles of warm and cold - a much larger factor in all of this IMO.

I would expect you or anyone else to do their own research, but here's one particular article by a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT you may find interesting:

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.

Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Source

This bears repeating: "...there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

I see where Australia is planning on banning the use of incandescent light bulbs in favour of the energy saving ones.

I think anything any of us can do to conserve energy is a good thing. Imagine Al's electricity bill if he didn't use the new bulbs.

Gore can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk. He is nothing but a joke, same with his movie (which a recent UN report contradicts).

No sir..... but if you tell me that I must stop drinking to the greatest extent possible or my grandchildren and theirs will be paying for my damages caused by DWI/DUI....I would hope you wouldn't carry a heavy tab monthly at the liquor store.?????

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has been established as a right-wing organization, led by its President who came out of the American Enterprise Institute (right-wing think tank funded by Exxon-Mobil, who has constantly sought out and funded global warming skeptics).

They are also considered "not a legitimate organization" by the Tennessee tax dept. http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?news_id=54656

According to Al Gore's office (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/2/26/21750/6965/394#c394):
"Vice President Gore's office also wanted everyone to know:

100 percent of the power the Gores use in their home (and in all their homes though I wouldn't bring this up) is green power.

Both the Vice President and Mrs Gore have home offices and conduct business at the house so obviously they use more power than someone who is just a homeowner

The Gores drive a hybrid, use compact fluorescents, et cetera

And the Gores live a carbon neutral life which means that for every ton of carbon they emit, they also purchase offsets."

Yet right-wing news organizations, talk radio, etc. has had a field day with this story.

If you want to complain about energy bills, what about Dick Cheney's $186,000 electric bill paid for by the U.S. Navy?

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/2/27/164154/282/42#c42

Isn't it true that Al Gore has a electrified fence surrounding his mansion for fear of an attack from man-bear-pig.

that probably uses up a lot of electricity, goodness.

Has Cheney lectured you on how to fuel your cars,home and or office?

I don't care a whit that Gore uses tons of electricity...that is his choice.

What I do care about is how he expects you and I to conserve power while he uses enormous amounts himself. To overuse electricity and spend money on energy credits.....which I bet is an investment for future profit is hypocritical!!
What do you expect from the man who never claimed that he invented the internet ....but allowed the notoriety to continue before it turned ugly?
Same with the "Love Story" fiasco. He allowed others to claim that he and his lovely wife,Tipper, were the models for the "Love Story" screenplay.....until it turned ridiculous then he denied involvement or even knowledge of the fiasco.

If you bothered to read my response, he uses "green power," meaning power that doesn't emit carbon emissions, and therefore does not contribute to global warming.

Interesting excerpt from the article that the blog you linked to cited:

Quote:

---

The vice president's budget and the Navy had been sharing the cost of electricity at the vice president's residence. That arrangement had the Navy paying $93,300 and the vice president's budget $42,000 last year.

Inslee's amendment was aimed at stopping the administration from using the Navy to pay for electricity at the 33-room mansion. In arguing for the change, the White House said it was permissible because the Navy owns the mansion.

Republicans said the idea of shifting responsibility originated in the Clinton administration. They also said that Cheney's electricity consumption was 25 percent less than former Vice President Al Gore's was .

---

And seriously, can you give me any actual facts about "carbon credits". I understand some go toward tree planting efforts and such, but how does that really offset an individuals "carbon debt"?

These quotes are from a hardcore environmentalist website (treehugger.com) and seem to sum up how I feel.

Quote:

---

Seems that a lot of people rather buy an indulgence than make minor adjustment s to their lifestyle.

---

Quote:

---

some organic matter (carbon) from the trees will likely be someday naturally buried, removing a tiny amount of carbon from the atmosphere semi-permanently.

---

Quote:

---

I applaud the efforts, but I just don't see how carbon offsets are really going to offset CO2 emissions. It's like the whole debate with sinks in the CDM (clean development mechanism) of the Kyoto Protocol - an easy way out for emitters to do good, yet still emit.

---

Quote:

---

Carbon Offsets sound great, but we should ponder that Enron was a big fan of the billions it hoped to make in marketing credits.

---

And so on. I personally don't care about Gore, his movie, or his house. But to tell the world it's on the brink of destruction and to have energy use like that IS hypocritical. And to say it's OK because I drive a Prius and buy carbon credits, well, that's just not a good excuse.

Quite frankly, this type of "representation" on behalf of the environment is entirely counter productive. It's the typical do as I say mentality, it never works. Worse it takes focus off meaningful, common sense issues.

Actually, from what I read, he does not use green power (which would be almost exclusively solar and wind). He is carbon neutral because he buys carbon credits, that's it, he uses electricity from the same grid as everyone else and natural gas to boot.

I'm not defending carbon offsets. They remind me of when people would purchase those things from the Catholic church (can't remember what they were called) after they sinned. But when traveling around the country to promote awareness of a very serious subject, Gore will obviously have to use some energy, no getting around that. At least they're something .

"Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

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

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

Anyhow, I don't feel this topic is worth debating. The facts are what they are, and everybody can take them however they wish. I don't feel that this topic needs to be bumped to the top of the page anymore, so this will be my last post of the topic.

Quote:

---

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

---

USA Today
And OK, if you don't want to discuss, fine. But I would certainly not say "the facts are the facts". Interesting that if you feel so strongly about, you find it not worth debating though.

Quote:

---

They remind me of when people would purchase those things from the Catholic church (can't remember what they were called) after they sinned.

---

What, pagan babies?

I don't trust just anything.

More people report on it and I might believe some of it.

Quote:

---

I don't feel that this topic needs to be bumped to the top of the page anymore, so this will be my last post of the topic.

---

No problem, I'll do it for you. Gore has turned into such a joke with his rants I can't take anything he says serious anymore. He can preach all he wants to people telling them how to live. I have to go now my Suburban needs gas and I have to turn my heater up to 78. I feel a chill.

Okay, maybe I'm just dumb...I did miss a couple questions on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader" last night...but, regardless of the type of car Al drives, or the lightbulbs he uses, he's still using a hell of a lot of energy, isn't he. In the end, a kilowatt is a kilowatt, right?

If the Gores both have home offices and they both run computers, printers, copiers, etc., that's a BOATLOAD right there. Too bad he can't run all those on energy saving ligtbulbs. And, I doubt they own two hybrid cars and those are the only ones they drive (though I am quite sure they own one...he simply MUST).

C'mon, Mac, stop being such an apologist. The "truth" is very simple. Gore is using $30,000 a year in utilities while preaching to everyone how they must reduce using them themselves. You wan the truth, mac? Look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary and there you will see a perfect definition of Mr. Gore.

Gore needs to put his money where his mouth is.

On the same token, so do others. It's about time King Ralph picks up a rifle and fights the good fight.