NationStates Jolt Archive

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

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.

An Inconvenient Truth (http://************/yrxnrq)

Oh, but I bet he buys voodoo "Carbon Offset" get out of jail free cards.

Not this again. :rolleyes:

That is pretty hypocritical. With all his money there's no reason why he can't have geothermal, passive and active solar, wind, and ultra-efficient insulation in his house to make it as free from the grid and zero-emission as possible.

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

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.

An Inconvenient Truth (http://************/yrxnrq)

Oh, but I bet he buys voodoo "Carbon Offset" get out of jail free cards.
You're right! Everything that man says MUST be invalid!

You're right! Everything that man says MUST be invalid!

When the message can't be attacked, the messenger is.

When the message can't be attacked, the messenger is.

They've had months though--you'd think they'd have come up with something new by now.

They've had months though--you'd think they'd have come up with something new by now.

Being hopelessly behind the times and not with the programme is sort of what being "conservative" is all about.

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

When the message can't be attacked, the messenger is.

But you have a guy, who says that we must conserve energy now, we must do this or that now, or global warming will DOOM US ALLL!111!!!! When you have these alarmist who are saying all of this, and then goes back to his private life that waste more energy than your average American home, it does kind of make you wonder about his alarmist message. I mean if the situation isn't dire enough for him to change his life, then why the hell should the rest of us be concerned?

But you have a guy, who says that we must conserve energy now, we must do this or that now, or global warming will DOOM US ALLL!111!!!! When you have these alarmist who are saying all of this, and then goes back to his private life that waste more energy than your average American home, it does kind of make you wonder about his alarmist message. I mean if the situation isn't dire enough for him to change his life, then why the hell should the rest of us be concerned?

Consider the source this attack is coming from, please. It's not like they have a reputation for honesty. Most of this was handled when the movie came out.

But you have a guy, who says that we must conserve energy now, we must do this or that now, or global warming will DOOM US ALLL!111!!!! When you have these alarmist who are saying all of this, and then goes back to his private life that waste more energy than your average American home, it does kind of make you wonder about his alarmist message. I mean if the situation isn't dire enough for him to change his life, then why the hell should the rest of us be concerned?

As much of a mistaken perception as it is, Wilgrove has a point: Gore is being hypocritical, and to those who aren't educated all that much on climate change and all that jazz would and do misinterpret this kind of thing. It does not render his message invalid, but Gore should not be hypocritical. As Vetalia said, he should have a home specifically designed to use as many alternative energy sources as possible to power it and waste as little energy as possible. If he wants his message to continue to be listened to by idiots who could misinterpret this, he should change his house. Whether he buys carbon offsets or not is beside the point: he can afford and should change his house. I know I would if I had his kind of money, or even enough to build that kind of house, because it would save me money in the long run and be much more efficient.

But you have a guy, who says that we must conserve energy now, we must do this or that now, or global warming will DOOM US ALLL!111!!!! When you have these alarmist who are saying all of this, and then goes back to his private life that waste more energy than your average American home, it does kind of make you wonder about his alarmist message. I mean if the situation isn't dire enough for him to change his life, then why the hell should the rest of us be concerned?

Hear Hear!

You're right! Everything that man says MUST be invalid!

I don't see the OP saying that at all.

I believe that global warming is a serious threat that needs to be addressed immediately, but I don't see Al Gore as some kind of patron saint that is immune to criticism. If he does something hypocritical, he deserves criticism just like anyone else; if you are going to try and promote fighting global warming, you have to make

He doesn't get a free pass on behavior contrary to his beliefs. Gore can easily afford to make the kinds of changes necessary to effectively eliminate his dependence on fossil fuels, yet actually doesn't and consumes far more than the vast majority of Americans. That's not acceptable and it hurts his image as well as his crusade against the threat of global warming.

I don't see the OP saying that at all.

I believe that global warming is a serious threat that needs to be addressed immediately, but I don't see Al Gore as some kind of patron saint that is immune to criticism. If he does something hypocritical, he deserves criticism just like anyone else; if you are going to try and promote fighting global warming, you have to make

He doesn't get a free pass on behavior contrary to his beliefs. Gore can easily afford to make the kinds of changes necessary to effectively eliminate his dependence on fossil fuels, yet actually doesn't and consumes far more than the vast majority of Americans. That's not acceptable and it hurts his image as well as his crusade against the threat of global warming.

Well said Vetalia.

Consider the source this attack is coming from, please. It's not like they have a reputation for honesty. Most of this was handled when the movie came out.

Personally, I consider carbon offsets to be political BS that allows the wealthy to get away with polluting while those not fortunate or rich enough to afford them are forced to cut back or pay more for their needs in order to meet their emissions requirements.

It's just away for them to pretend to be green while still producing the same amount of CO2, and for them to retain their wasteful lifestyles without actually having to do anything.

Why is it I am having a hard time siding with someone who has 'reagan' in their name?

Anyone? Seriously this is making my head hurt.

Personally, I consider carbon offsets to be political BS that allows the wealthy to get away with polluting while those not fortunate or rich enough to afford them are forced to cut back or pay more for their needs in order to meet their emissions requirements.

It's just away for them to pretend to be green while still producing the same amount of CO2, and for them to retain their wasteful lifestyles without actually having to do anything.

Exactly, that's why I don't accept "Well he buys Carbons Credit" or whatever the jazz word for it is these days.

Exactly, that's why I don't accept "Well he buys Carbons Credit" or whatever the jazz word for it is these days.

It's for the simple reason that you're still producing CO2. Even if you offset it, those tons of emissions are still going in to the air either way and are having their effect on the environment now. Cutting CO2 later isn't going to make the stuff you're producing now magically vanish, it's just going to put less in to the air later.

If you cut back to begin with, you're not putting those emissions in to the air at all and you're not going to offset someone else's cuts in the future with your pollution.

for them to retain their wasteful lifestyles without actually having to do anything.

They are doing something. They are paying to reduce CO2, and ensuring that they don't use CO2 frivolously (because they're paying each time they do.)

They are doing something. They are paying to reduce CO2, and ensuring that they don't use CO2 frivolously (because they're paying each time they do.)

Ok, I need to loose my gut, but you know what, meh I don't want to. I mean to actually loose my gut would require me to exercise on a regular bases, to do some actual work, and that's just too hard. So I'll just pay someone else to loose their gut and do the work for me. Yea great plan. :rolleyes:

They are doing something. They are paying to reduce CO2, and ensuring that they don't use CO2 frivolously (because they're paying each time they do.)

Only to make it look like they're doing something so they don't change their lifestyles at all. They are being supremely hypocritical and you know it. Look, it's not like Vetalia and I are saying climate change isn't real, because we both know better. We're simply pointing out that Gore is being a hypocrite and that he is still subject to criticism. It hurts his cause to be seen as such a CO2 producer as he is, because people who don't understand climate change all that well for one reason or another--say, the general populace of the United States--will see that and think that maybe Gore's message about climate change is a lie, that climate change isn't real, and all that.

Ok, I need to loose my gut, but you know what, meh I don't want to. I mean to actually loose my gut would require me to exercise on a regular bases, to do some actual work, and that's just too hard. So I'll just pay someone else to loose their gut and do the work for me. Yea great plan. :rolleyes:

problem is, your fat ass is your problem, not anyone elses problem. You can pay someone to lose weight for you, I don't care. You're only fucking yourself over, nobody else.

Global warming is, however, a global problem. And what does it matter if he cuts down emissions himself or pays other people not to, as long as overall emissions get cut?

They are doing something. They are paying to reduce CO2, and ensuring that they don't use CO2 frivolously (because they're paying each time they do.)

22,619 kWh of electricity is a massive amount. Unless he's running several data centers and a supercomputer or two, there's no chance in hell that he's not wasting massive amounts of electricity. This is consumption on a scale that most Americans can't even approach in a decade, let alone in a single year.

Not to mention the $1,080 per month of natural gas burned to heat his home; I guess he's not a fan of President Carter's energy conservation plan that involved turning the heat down a little and wearing a sweater.

problem is, your fat ass is your problem, not anyone elses problem. You can pay someone to lose weight for you, I don't care. You're only fucking yourself over, nobody else.

Global warming is, however, a global problem. And what does it matter if he cuts down emissions himself or pays other people not to, as long as overall emissions get cut?

Because at the end of the day, he is still polluting too much and not obeying his own message.

Because at the end of the day, he is still polluting too much and not obeying his own message.

so he should invest heavily, build an energy efficient home and cut emissions.

And this is somehow better than cutting out the middle man and simply paying people to reduce their own emissions?

so he should invest heavily, build an energy efficient home and cut emissions.

And this is somehow better than cutting out the middle man and simply paying people to reduce their own emissions?

Either way it's going to cost him money, so why not just try to not appear to be a hypocrite and make his home more energy efficient. I mean Jesus Christ on a bicycle, it's not that hard. Hell, about 90% of the applicants on my house are energy efficients, so is my computer, and we use energy efficient light bulbs. Hell we use cars that has a high MPG. We're still burning fuel, but we're burning less of it. Am I doing it to be greener, Hell no, I'm doing it because well, it's cheaper and our electricity bill has been lower since we've become more energy efficient.

so he should invest heavily, build an energy efficient home and cut emissions.

And this is somehow better than cutting out the middle man and simply paying people to reduce their own emissions?

Uh, yeah. If he actually invests in alternatives, he's not putting those emissions in the air, and any cuts made by others are still being made to meet their requirements. The result is a larger cut in CO2 than would have happened if he only offset his pollution. His actual role in global warming becomes nonexistent.

22,619 kWh of electricity is a massive amount. Unless he's running several data centers and a supercomputer or two, there's no chance in hell that he's not wasting massive amounts of electricity. This is consumption on a scale that most Americans can't even approach in a decade, let alone in a single year.

Not to mention the $1,080 per month of natural gas burned to heat his home; I guess he's not a fan of President Carter's energy conservation plan that involved turning the heat down a little and wearing a sweater.

I don't give a damn about Al Gore's energy usage... no more than I give a damn about anyone else's energy usage, anyway.

My point is simply with regard to the notion of carbon offsets, which make a lot of sense. The principle is the same as that of carbon trading, and similar market solutions to the problem.

Only to make it look like they're doing something so they don't change their lifestyles at all.

No, they are ACTUALLY doing something. They are ACTUALLY spending money. That's the whole point.

No, they are ACTUALLY doing something. They are ACTUALLY spending money. That's the whole point.

*psh* Anyone can spend money, but to really impress people, you have to actually change.

*psh* Anyone can spend money, but to really impress people, you have to actually change.

let's see you spend the kind of money al gore is...

let's see you spend the kind of money al gore is...

Eh I would if I was a lazy hypocrite who wanted everyone to change their habits while I stay the same, Ooooorrr I could live by what I preach and that way not only will I NOT be a hypocrite, but I would also lead by example. Taa-daa!

I don't give a damn about Al Gore's energy usage... no more than I give a damn about anyone else's energy usage, anyway.

My point is simply with regard to the notion of carbon offsets, which make a lot of sense. The principle is the same as that of carbon trading, and similar market solutions to the problem.

I like them, but I also don't think they are equivalent to actually cutting your consumption of things that produce CO2. The point is not that carbon offsets are wrong, but they shouldn't be seen as an alternative to actually conserving energy or cutting CO2 by buying more efficient vehicles and appliances.

I mean, a guy driving a Hummer is driving a Hummer regardless of whether he's buying credits or not. Those CO2 emissions are still going in to the air.

let's see you spend the kind of money al gore is...

He's also making money hand over fist.

No, they are ACTUALLY doing something. They are ACTUALLY spending money. That's the whole point.

And he could do a lot more to help. I'm not debating the use of carbon offsets, because those are definitely useful for cutting emissions. I just think it would make more sense if they would change their own lifestyles as well to reduce emissions even more, that's all.

The funny thing is that usually it's me who's complaining about rich people selfishly putting their interests before the public good....

Now that you've converted, mark your calendars - the Revolution is the Tuesday after next.

I like them, but I also don't think they are equivalent to actually cutting your consumption of things that produce CO2. The point is not that carbon offsets are wrong, but they shouldn't be seen as an alternative to actually conserving energy or cutting CO2 by buying more efficient vehicles and appliances.

But they ARE actually conserving energy and cutting CO2... they're just doing it by paying money instead of changing their daily activities.

I mean, a guy driving a Hummer is driving a Hummer regardless of whether he's buying credits or not. Those CO2 emissions are still going in to the air.

Yes, but the whole point is that they're being offset.

No one is going to stop all CO2 emissions... we can only be reasonably expected to stop some. So why is buying carbon offsets a less legitimate way to fulfill our share?

*psh* Anyone can spend money, but to really impress people, you have to actually change.

The point is not "to really impress people."

And he could do a lot more to help.

Yeah, so could everyone.

Ok, I need to loose my gut, but you know what, meh I don't want to. I mean to actually loose my gut would require me to exercise on a regular bases, to do some actual work, and that's just too hard. So I'll just pay someone else to loose their gut and do the work for me. Yea great plan. :rolleyes:
rather convoluted attempt at a strawman there.
I think a better analogy for carbon credits would be that you want to lose weight so instead of exercising and dieting, you pay someone $10 every time you eat a donut.
Of course this analogy doesn't allow you to use your rolleyes, now would it?

But they ARE actually conserving energy and cutting CO2... they're just doing it by paying money instead of changing their daily activities.

You're not conserving CO2, you're paying someone else to conserve their CO2.

Yes, but the whole point is that they're being offset.

No one is going to stop all CO2 emissions... we can only be reasonably expected to stop some. So why is buying carbon offsets a less legitimate way to fulfill our share?

There's a difference between buying emissions to cover the CO2 you can't eliminate from your life and consuming 22,600 kWh of electricity a month for your mansion. I mean, he's not even making an effort to cut back...that reeks of hypocrisy given that lifestyle changes are one of his major ways of combating global warming.

I think a better analogy for carbon credits would be that you want to lose weight so instead of exercising and dieting, you pay someone $10 every time you eat a donut.

But if you have $1,000,000 to spend, that $10 fee isn't going to have quite the same effect on your lifestyle as if you only had $100 to spend on donuts. You're going to eat as many donuts as you want.

You're not conserving CO2, you're paying someone else to conserve their CO2.

and yet, CO2 is conserved, is it not?

The funny thing is that usually it's me who's complaining about rich people selfishly putting their interests before the public good....

Now that you've converted, mark your calendars - the Revolution is the Tuesday after next.

yeah, it always makes me wonder when groups that claim to be "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions" or whatever start complaining about rich people using market-based cash-for-offsets ideas to attempt to deal with global warming. well, not really, but it would if i believed them about anything they said.

But if you have $1,000,000 to spend, that $10 fee isn't going to have quite the same effect on your lifestyle as if you only had $100 to spend on donuts. You're going to eat as many donuts as you want.

yeah, the analogy needs further fixing. because in this case, you don't actually care how many donuts you personally eat. what you care about is the total number of donuts in the world. so yeah, you still want your two dozen a day. but instead of there just being two dozen a day more made, you also pay for 2 or 3 dozen donuts to not be made at all.

Hey all of you people in this thread crowing about Gore's supposed hypocrisy, you might want to shut the fuck up for a minute (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/). I warned you guys early in the thread to think about what source you were trusting, but did you listen? Noooooo. So suck on this.
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.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
I'm going to bed now. You guys can keep wanking off to right wing attack sites if you want to.

And some of you should know better. I expected this from the usual suspects, but some of you folks surprised me.

Hey all of you people in this thread crowing about Gore's supposed hypocrisy, you might want to shut the fuck up for a minute (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/). I warned you guys early in the thread to think about what source you were trusting, but did you listen? Noooooo. So suck on this.

I'm going to bed now. You guys can keep wanking off to right wing attack sites if you want to.

And some of you should know better. I expected this from the usual suspects, but some of you folks surprised me.
...

Well...I feel like a jackass now...

If I pay someone $25 when I eat a hamburger, I still ate a hamburger, a yummy cow was still awesomely slaughtered, and awesome land was still cleared for the cows. If I found out that eating cows was wrong and I tried to preach this while still eating awesome cows, not very many people will listen to me. I will be called a liar. If you want to change people, you must lead by example as well as by word. After all, talk is cheap. I can say that the sky is green and that hot snow falls up.

Global Warming isn't a charity. Paying will never do as much as doing. I do my part. While I don't pay for carbon, I still walk instead of riding in a car. I turn off all lights when I'm not using them and I use blankets instead of the heater to keep me warm. Hell, it stays well above 100 F most, if not all of the summer around here and I don't use the air conditioning. I do my part and its cheap. No replacing any appliances. No fruity wall things. Just a little thing I call the power button.

You're not conserving CO2, you're paying someone else to conserve their CO2.

So? The point is that CO2 is being conserved.

There's a difference between buying emissions to cover the CO2 you can't eliminate from your life and consuming 22,600 kWh of electricity a month for your mansion..

What's the difference? The relevant question is the quantity of CO2 emissions you cause... and that would be the amount you emit minus the amount you prevent with offsets.

If he pays with offsets for all his CO2 usage, what's the problem?

Not this again. :rolleyes:

I think you mean: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12374017&postcount=8 :D

If I pay someone $25 when I eat a hamburger, I still ate a hamburger, a yummy cow was still awesomely slaughtered, and awesome land was still cleared for the cows.

But if that $25 goes to save cows and land, so what?

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life.

...

Gore is teaching many people how to fish, so I don't see what the big deal is if he (as the OP claims) isn't giving a fish. The former would outweigh the latter by a great deal.

I'll add conditionals into my post ;)

If you pay someone else to reduce their CO2 emissions, then they're the ones reducing their CO2 emissions, but you're not.

If you reduce your emissions and subsequently convince others to do the same, then you're the one reducing your CO2 emissions and they are too.

Now, Gore has already gone over to 100% Green energy, great. However, does he still use that private jet I heard of? If yes, drop it - There are plenty of commercial airliners that fly more people and that will be more environmental than a private jet. Does it matter if he pays somebody else off? Sure, but he could still reduce more and I think that's what everyone was getting it.

Maybe focusing on one person was a bad idea, but in an abstract situation, maybe or maybe not related to Gore. Heck, I've no clue what he does, so don't draw any comparisons between my abstract and him, please.

If I:
Own and use a private jet.
Regularly use several cars at once with low mileage.
Keep my house uninsulated and use lots of oil and gas heating my house as a result.
And only use power from coal power plants

Then:
Sure, I could pay it all off with carbon offsets, but these really aren't as exact as doing the following -

Either:
Using a commercial airliner or not flying (the latter may not be an option. If not, use the commercial airliner)
Using one large car with a high mileage or a small car with a high mileage (large car if space is necessary).
Insulating my house and even changing my heating to something more green - electricity from green sources, solar, biomass.
Only using electricity from green sources.

In all these cases, I've reduced CO2 emissions. My CO2 emissions (although to be honest, I can't really do any of those things :p ). If I did that And paid someone else to reduce Their emissions, that's a win-win situation.

In short, there's nothing that says you can't both buy carbon offsets and reduce your CO2 emissions.

And now just remember that my abstract situation does not necessarily compare to Gore, but rather explains the idea behind what a few posters on here were trying to say.

so he should invest heavily, build an energy efficient home and cut emissions.

And this is somehow better than cutting out the middle man and simply paying people to reduce their own emissions?

If he wants people to actually listen to his messege then yes it is better than being a freakin' hypocrit.

Practice what you preach Gore.

If he wants people to actually listen to his messege then yes it is better than being a freakin' hypocrit.

Practice what you preach Gore.

Read, child (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12374307&postcount=43).

Eh I would if I was a lazy hypocrite who wanted everyone to change their habits while I stay the same, Ooooorrr I could live by what I preach and that way not only will I NOT be a hypocrite, but I would also lead by example. Taa-daa!

And save money in the process.

And save money in the process.

Read, child (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12374307&postcount=43).
And when you have, and acknowledge that what you're saying is wrong, I'll delete these posts.

People criticised Prince Charles for flying to the US to pick up an environmental award. But he did "offset" so its all ok

Read, child (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12374307&postcount=43).

And he can prove that he is reducing? He can say whatever he likes to be seen in a better light but can we believe it 100% since everyone knows he's a politician and the one thing they are good at is lying.

And he can prove that he is reducing? He can say whatever he likes to be seen in a better light but can we believe it 100% since everyone knows he's a politician and the one thing they are good at is lying.

That's fucking rich. You believe attacks from right-wingers who have no way of proving their attacks, who have simply made shit up in the past, but you won't believe the reply? You're fucking dishonest, Corny. You're a hack and a liar and you ought to be ashamed of being so open about it.

I could have predicted it--you were one of the usual suspects I hinted at in that thread above, because you fit the profile. If it makes someone you disagree with politically look bad, you'll believe anything, but if it defends them, oh, that couldn't possibly be correct. You're a dittohead, a sheeple, a member of Savage Nation. I can hear the fapping in the distance even now.

the Tennessee Center for Policy Research

Up there with the 'Alabama Center for Family Research and Gay removal' as a source of unbiased and apolitical information.

*snip*

So when asked for independent proof that he is doing it, you attack the poster. Same old Nazz. Why don't you finally act your age and instead of attacking posters for asking for independent proof, tell them that you do not have it.

So when asked for independent proof that he is doing it, you attack the poster. Same old Nazz. Why don't you finally act your age and instead of attacking posters for asking for independent proof, tell them that you do not have it.

How, pray tell, is Gore supposed to offer independent proof? Open his house up to reporters? Provide receipts? What the fuck would satisfy you, child? Oh, you'll swallow the uncorroborated attacks swiftly enough, because they say bad things about a person you dislike and allow you to feel smug and self-satisfied, but you'll balk when the person being attacked actually dares defend himself against the smears of proven liars because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas about the man involved. You're sad.

How, pray tell, is Gore supposed to offer independent proof? Open his house up to reporters?

Hey why not? That will a great idea. Then I will withdraw my comments if he did that.

Provide receipts?

Nah. That will be a safety violation. Someone could steal his identity :D

What the fuck would satisfy you, child?

Such language from a supposed grown man.

Oh, you'll swallow the uncorroborated attacks swiftly enough, because they say bad things about a person you dislike and allow you to feel smug and self-satisfied, but you'll balk when the person being attacked actually dares defend himself against the smears of proven liars because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas about the man involved. You're sad.

Nice run-on sentence. Now are you done with the personal attacks?

Hey why not? That will a great idea. Then I will withdraw my comments if he did that.
Why should he? The attacks wouldn't stop. They never do.

Such language from a supposed grown man.In other words, you have no real reply. Nice to see you're conceding the point.



Nice run-on sentence. Now are you done with the personal attacks?
Call me when you've taken a grammar lesson or two, child.

Why should he? The attacks wouldn't stop. They never do.

You might be surprised though one could say, he only did it for the interview and went back to it but I'd probably stop calling him a hypocrit on this issue.

In other words, you have no real reply. Nice to see you're conceding the point.

Yea right. Believe what you want to believe.


Call me when you've taken a grammar lesson or two, child.

Grow up :rolleyes:

That's fucking rich. You believe attacks from right-wingers who have no way of proving their attacks, who have simply made shit up in the past, but you won't believe the reply? You're fucking dishonest, Corny. You're a hack and a liar and you ought to be ashamed of being so open about it.

I could have predicted it--you were one of the usual suspects I hinted at in that thread above, because you fit the profile. If it makes someone you disagree with politically look bad, you'll believe anything, but if it defends them, oh, that couldn't possibly be correct. You're a dittohead, a sheeple, a member of Savage Nation. I can hear the fapping in the distance even now.

Nazz, knock it off already. Come on, you're making yourself look like as much of a hack as you're claiming Corny to be. Corny might be a party-liner, but you don't need to accuse him in such harsh language. You're a college professor: grow up.

As for Gore, I do believe he's working to reduce his emissions. I'm curious as to the details of such reductions, more from a curiosity standpoint than anything else.

Nazz, knock it off already. Come on, you're making yourself look like as much of a hack as you're claiming Corny to be. Corny might be a party-liner, but you don't need to accuse him in such harsh language. You're a college professor: grow up.

Actually, I'm not a party liner. I'm an independent leaning republican. I will cross party lines if necessary and I will hand the Republicans their heads as well.

As for Gore, I do believe he's working to reduce his emissions. I'm curious as to the details of such reductions, more from a curiosity standpoint than anything else.

That makes 2 of us.

Nice run-on sentence. Now are you done with the personal attacks?

lollercaust

Anyway, of course Gore is a hypocrite and a douchebag. He's a politician, this isn't news. Rather than attacking him, can you attack his message?

Hey why not? That will a great idea. Then I will withdraw my comments if he did that.


Put your money where your mouth is, Corneliu. Open up your own house to public scrutiny first - then ask Mr. Gore to do the same.

Put your money where your mouth is, Corneliu. Open up your own house to public scrutiny first - then ask Mr. Gore to do the same.If he does, someone alert me. I wanna be the first to poison his well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)

You're not conserving CO2, you're paying someone else to conserve their CO2.



There's a difference between buying emissions to cover the CO2 you can't eliminate from your life and consuming 22,600 kWh of electricity a month for your mansion. I mean, he's not even making an effort to cut back...that reeks of hypocrisy given that lifestyle changes are one of his major ways of combating global warming.

and yet, CO2 is conserved, is it not?

Exactly, should Al create less CO2, yes. Is his energy consumption raising the level of Co2 put into the atmosphere, no. This is the concept behind CO2 credits in the first place. A pragmatist looks at the bottom line and sees that CO2 emissions are reduced by his actions. How much Co2 do you think Air Force 1 and 2 put off when Bush and Cheney go to "fund-raisers" on tax-payer money? But that wouldn't allow you to attack Gore. Are they somehow better because they are admitted CO2 emission abusers? Answer this, if the bottom line that less CO2 gets into the atmosphere as a result of Gore buying carbon credits? So let's end this. You all are so pissed at this
Oscar thing aren't you?

Hey all of you people in this thread crowing about Gore's supposed hypocrisy, you might want to shut the fuck up for a minute (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/). I warned you guys early in the thread to think about what source you were trusting, but did you listen? Noooooo. So suck on this.

I'm going to bed now. You guys can keep wanking off to right wing attack sites if you want to.

And some of you should know better. I expected this from the usual suspects, but some of you folks surprised me.

Oh Noes, wees gots facts involved now. What is I gone do when you present facts?

That's fucking rich. You believe attacks from right-wingers who have no way of proving their attacks, who have simply made shit up in the past, but you won't believe the reply? You're fucking dishonest, Corny. You're a hack and a liar and you ought to be ashamed of being so open about it.

I could have predicted it--you were one of the usual suspects I hinted at in that thread above, because you fit the profile. If it makes someone you disagree with politically look bad, you'll believe anything, but if it defends them, oh, that couldn't possibly be correct. You're a dittohead, a sheeple, a member of Savage Nation. I can hear the fapping in the distance even now.

Hey look AC, now Nazz is calling you a hack. I guess when it's a duck you call it a motherFing duck. So quack quack you hack. Keep ignoring when people put facts in your face.

So when asked for independent proof that he is doing it, you attack the poster. Same old Nazz. Why don't you finally act your age and instead of attacking posters for asking for independent proof, tell them that you do not have it.

You mean like the "independent proof" of the drudge report? quack quack hack hack. Don't ask for what you cannot provide yourself. Just because the ecco chamber keeps repeating it you buy it hook, line, and sinker. And attacking the poster is more your style than that of Nazz. Maybe he's just pissed off because you bring bullshit to the table and tell us it's filet minon.

Nazz, knock it off already. Come on, you're making yourself look like as much of a hack as you're claiming Corny to be. Corny might be a party-liner, but you don't need to accuse him in such harsh language. You're a college professor: grow up.

As for Gore, I do believe he's working to reduce his emissions. I'm curious as to the details of such reductions, more from a curiosity standpoint than anything else.All due respect, I won't stop. Corny and those like him have to be slapped down when they pull this shit or they won't ever stop it. You saw how this thread quickly became a rehashing of right-wing attack talking points. They attack with no respect for fact or accuracy, and I refuse to let it stand. And when they have a well-deserved reputation like Corny does, I refuse to take it easy on them.

All due respect, I won't stop. Corny and those like him have to be slapped down when they pull this shit or they won't ever stop it. You saw how this thread quickly became a rehashing of right-wing attack talking points. They attack with no respect for fact or accuracy, and I refuse to let it stand. And when they have a well-deserved reputation like Corny does, I refuse to take it easy on them.

What ever happened to "what's wrong is wrong?" I agree with you Nazz. There's a difference between debating facts and using slanderous lies and innuendo like many of the echo hacks do. Don't take crap Nazz when Corny deserves to be slammed.

All due respect, I won't stop. Corny and those like him have to be slapped down when they pull this shit or they won't ever stop it. You saw how this thread quickly became a rehashing of right-wing attack talking points. They attack with no respect for fact or accuracy, and I refuse to let it stand. And when they have a well-deserved reputation like Corny does, I refuse to take it easy on them.

Alright, fine. Just remember, the more you act like they do, the worse you look in the eyes of others, and the less effective your argument becomes.

Alright, fine. Just remember, the more you act like they do, the worse you look in the eyes of others, and the less effective your argument becomes.

This is the attitude that has sunk the Democrats in the past two elections. they have been rendered ineffective because they've allowed the 'Bush' Republicans to control the agenda with their fear and smear tactics. If someone is spoiling for a fight then you damn well better fight them. The ideal of the pacifist being stronger by staying silent doesn't work in politics. When you are attacked you must fight back with facts. When they try to smear you then you shine the light on their actions as well. It's because of this attitude that I've found it hard to vote for a Democrat. No one like a coward who shrinks in the face of adversity. From time to time you need to give them a healthy dose of their own trolling medicine.

Put your money where your mouth is, Corneliu. Open up your own house to public scrutiny first - then ask Mr. Gore to do the same.

Why not. We conserve energy in my house. We don't have lights on unless they need to be on and we do not run the Heat or the AC unless it is needed.

Why not open it up!

One problem though. I do not have a house for I live in a dorm :D

Alright, fine. Just remember, the more you act like they do, the worse you look in the eyes of others, and the less effective your argument becomes.

Except I'm not acting like them, other than in tone. I'm using fact, and accurate fact at that, to slap down their lies and distortions.

All due respect, I won't stop. Corny and those like him have to be slapped down when they pull this shit or they won't ever stop it.

Sure. Don't stop. I love it when you attack me. It makes your arguments look less and less legit when you attack me. Keep it up Nazz. Keep it up. BTW: I love the phrase "slapped down". You are talking like a high schooler with a phrase like that.

You saw how this thread quickly became a rehashing of right-wing attack talking points.

And leftist rhetoric retorts and character attacks along with right wing attack points which really have not been taking place.

They attack with no respect for fact or accuracy, and I refuse to let it stand. And when they have a well-deserved reputation like Corny does, I refuse to take it easy on them.

*yawns*

Alright, fine. Just remember, the more you act like they do, the worse you look in the eyes of others, and the less effective your argument becomes.

Hear Hear.

Except I'm not acting like them, other than in tone. I'm using fact, and accurate fact at that, to slap down their lies and distortions.

Character attacks makes you look like less than a man Nazz along with looking desparate. If you are going to argue with facts, stick with them instead of mixing it with character attacks.

That is proper debating tactics.

Except I'm not acting like them, other than in tone. I'm using fact, and accurate fact at that, to slap down their lies and distortions.

No, you're acting like a jackass. Accurate facts or not, I see someone acting the way you did around Corny and I start tuning you out, and I can guarentee you a lot of others will do the same. You want to win an argument? Be rational, reasonable, and respectful even if they are not. It'll net you points for looking like the guy who actually knows what he's talking about while Corny and others look like buffoons.

No, you're acting like a jackass. Accurate facts or not, I see someone acting the way you did around Corny and I start tuning you out, and I can guarentee you a lot of others will do the same. You want to win an argument? Be rational, reasonable, and respectful even if they are not. It'll net you points for looking like the guy who actually knows what he's talking about while Corny and others look like buffoons.

Except for the fact that I never said that Gore was not conserving though Nazz and others like him believe I did. Maybe the size of his house makes him look like he's using more energy than he really is? Maybe the study is wrong? There are alot of factors none of us knows.

Character attacks makes you look like less than a man Nazz along with looking desparate. If you are going to argue with facts, stick with them instead of mixing it with character attacks.

That is proper debating tactics.I'm the only one in this conversation who has used facts, Corny. You certainly haven't. You've cheered the bullshit artists all along, and when presented with rebuttals, have said that they're not trustworthy simply because they're coming from the person who was attacked, a man you wouldn't believe if he told you the sky was blue. So spare me the discussion of my debating style. At least I've never had a dishonest debate tactic named after me, like you have.

I'm the only one in this conversation who has used facts, Corny.

Only according to you that is. I do not doubt the facts but you have used your facts with character attacks which render your facts, useless to me. You want to use facts, go ahead but do so WITHOUT the character attacks that you are so thoughtful to launch at me. Continue to assault my character Nazz and your facts will not be worth the effort for me to read.

You certainly haven't. You've cheered the bullshit artists all along, and when presented with rebuttals, have said that they're not trustworthy simply because they're coming from the person who was attacked, a man you wouldn't believe if he told you the sky was blue. So spare me the discussion of my debating style. At least I've never had a dishonest debate tactic named after me, like you have.

That's only because no one wants to debate me face to face in a public realm. Its one thing to debate on the internet but its a whole different game when debating in the real world. You want a proper debate Nazz, come out to my university. I'm sure we can pack the various rooms we have here on campus for such a debate.

No, you're acting like a jackass. Accurate facts or not, I see someone acting the way you did around Corny and I start tuning you out, and I can guarentee you a lot of others will do the same. You want to win an argument? Be rational, reasonable, and respectful even if they are not. It'll net you points for looking like the guy who actually knows what he's talking about while Corny and others look like buffoons.
Again, all due respect, but you must have no idea how long Corny and I have been going around in circles on this forum. For years. And it's always the same crap, time and again. I tried being rational and reasonable with Corny, and it never mattered, and by all indications, it still doesn't. Ask some of the older folks. Ask Bottle. Ask CToaN. They'll give you the complete history.

And here's the other thing. In these kinds of threads, I'm not here to win an argument. An argument implies that there are legitimate differences of opinion, and that by using logic and reason, all sides can at least put forth and defend their points of view, and perhaps be convinced of the validity of others. But there is no legitimacy to this discussion. This is nothing but a bunch of smears against a man by posters who aren't fit to carry that man's dirty underwear. This isn't an argument--it's a rebuttal, and a dismissal of their arguments as tedious and factless.

Hear Hear.So.. You're not braindead, you're simply lying your ass off in an attempt to bait The Nazz into debasing himself?

Nevermind. Ever heard what happens to the message when you shoot the messenger? I'll tell you; not a fucking thing.

Further, being a the good little mercantilist that you are (yea, I remember you Corney), surely you don't mind the existence of a privileged class living in luxury far beyond what the rest of us can - right? Holy trickle down man, it's what you've been advocating (with all the eloquence of a 5 year old with Coprolalia) for the past two years.

Again, all due respect, but you must have no idea how long Corny and I have been going around in circles on this forum. For years. And it's always the same crap, time and again. I tried being rational and reasonable with Corny, and it never mattered, and by all indications, it still doesn't. Ask some of the older folks. Ask Bottle. Ask CToaN. They'll give you the complete history.

And here's the other thing. In these kinds of threads, I'm not here to win an argument. An argument implies that there are legitimate differences of opinion, and that by using logic and reason, all sides can at least put forth and defend their points of view, and perhaps be convinced of the validity of others. But there is no legitimacy to this discussion. This is nothing but a bunch of smears against a man by posters who aren't fit to carry that man's dirty underwear. This isn't an argument--it's a rebuttal, and a dismissal of their arguments as tedious and factless.
...yes...well...it just seems odd to see a college professor go around ranting like...well...like Corny, that's all. So I try to help because otherwise I'll just sit here confused. I'm still personally think you should be respectful, if only because I find respectful retorts and rebuttals of bullshit to be more amusing and more effective than insulting rebuttals, but that's just me. Carry on, Nazz.

So.. You're not braindead, you're simply lying your ass off in an attempt to bait The Nazz into debasing himself?

Nevermind. Ever heard what happens to the message when you shoot the messenger? I'll tell you; not a fucking thing.

Further, being a the good little mercantilist that you are (yea, I remember you Corney), surely you don't mind the existence of a privileged class living in luxury far beyond what the rest of us can - right? Holy trickle down man, it's what you've been advocating (with all the eloquence of a 5 year old with Coprolalia) for the past two years.

I must of missed your point through all the character (and baseless) bashing. Care to state it without the insults?

must of

...oh you did not just make that grammar mistake in front of me. You did not!

...it's must've. It's a contraction of must and have, not must of, as I see so many people mispell it, to my dismay.

I must of missed your point through all the character (and baseless) bashing. Care to state it without the insults?Why bother? - It'd avail you none & be less fun.

Alright, fine. Just remember, the more you act like they do, the worse you look in the eyes of others, and the less effective your argument becomes.

To be fair, the argument stopped long before Nazz went off. What is the proper debate response to, "Nahnahnah! Ican'thearyou!" really?

Ultimately this is empty at the get go-Gore believes in offsets, advocates offsets, uses offsets. Done. Whether you yourself believe in the value of offsets is another subject, but Gore does in fact what he asks-pack it up and move on to the actual matter...except when we address the actual matter it's becoming harder and harder to stick heads in sand.

So we belabor this point with something that sounds like it's really a point, but isn't. The report is narrow, and that kind of narrowness is a halmark of hackery. Nazz is really just calling a spade a spade.

Really, if you are looking at the argument practically the reader should be able to seperate the personalities of both and look at the argument instead of arbitrarily throwing it one way or the other because one 'seems' more childish than the other. Corny has not proceeded in a way that deserves any respect, Nazz has not given any. If the reader is interested in the subject then one can hope they are sophisticated enough to see the meat. If the reader is looking for some sort of character rating I don't think either party at this point cares.

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

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.

An Inconvenient Truth (http://************/yrxnrq)

Oh, but I bet he buys voodoo "Carbon Offset" get out of jail free cards.and people wonder why no one takes Global warming seriously.

Truth or not, if the people yelling "Global Warming" are not themselves, taking steps, that does tend to work against them.

Not this again. :rolleyes:
this was mentioned before? :p

and people wonder why no one takes Global warming seriously.

Truth or not, if the people yelling "Global Warming" are not themselves, taking steps, that does tend to work against them.

The only negative part I see in that article is:
Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

For why the electricity bill doesn't matter, see Nazz's link.

Personally, I don't see why he uses natural gas when he could also be using electricity for every purpose that natural gas has, and I am almost certain it's heating.

Ultimately this is empty at the get go-Gore believes in offsets, advocates offsets, uses offsets. Done. Whether you yourself believe in the value of offsets is another subject, but Gore does in fact what he asks-pack it up and move on to the actual matter...except when we address the actual matter it's becoming harder and harder to stick heads in sand.[/qoute]

Even though no one is denying Global Warming whatsoever. I'm doing my part to conserve energy.

[quote]Really, if you are looking at the argument practically the reader should be able to seperate the personalities of both and look at the argument instead of arbitrarily throwing it one way or the other because one 'seems' more childish than the other.

I have not been childish in this thread instead of telling people to knock off the character attacks as it goes against proper debating tactics. Something which I am trying to break myself of though I will admit I have had relapses.

Corny has not proceeded in a way that deserves any respect, Nazz has not given any.

WOW!!! And I'm not the one that has launched a Character assassination war. I'm the one that, so far, has kept a level head and letting Nazz hang himself with his character attacks on me.

If the reader is interested in the subject then one can hope they are sophisticated enough to see the meat. If the reader is looking for some sort of character rating I don't think either party at this point cares.

I much prefer to look at the facts when presented in a clear and dignified manner.

I much prefer to look at the facts when presented in a clear and dignified manner.Yet the packaging does not change the contents.

Yet the packaging does not change the contents.

Take a debating class once in a while Similization. You will see that when you attack someone directly, it takes away from what you are trying to tell people.

That is one reason why I do not watch Presidential Debates anymore.

Take a debating class once in a while Similization. You will see that when you attack someone directly, it takes away from what you are trying to tell people. The subject of this thread is a direct - and entirely fabricated - attack on someone. Besides your tendency to ignore when your arguments get debunked, your tendency to apply massive double standards is the main reason I (and I'm guessing most others) have a hard time refraining from belitteling you. It's all there's left when you simply refuse to be engaged in debates, yet take up space here anyway.

And I know I'm not the first to tell you. Hell, I very much doubt it's the first time I tell you.That is one reason why I do not watch Presidential Debates anymore.It's not like they've been different in your lifetime, but 'grats on noticing.

In the end, all I can say is; don't start punching if you're not prepared to fight. Your attempt at a moral highground is staggeringly hypocritical.

Sure. Don't stop. I love it when you attack me. It makes your arguments look less and less legit when you attack me. Keep it up Nazz. Keep it up. BTW: I love the phrase "slapped down". You are talking like a high schooler with a phrase like that.



And leftist rhetoric retorts and character attacks along with right wing attack points which really have not been taking place.



*yawns*


You ask for independent proof when you offer none of your own. Who's the hypocrite now? You trust hack websites of the idiot echo chamber. Repeating crap over and over still makes it crap.

You ask for independent proof when you offer none of your own. Who's the hypocrite now? You trust hack websites of the idiot echo chamber. Repeating crap over and over still makes it crap.

Its not up to me to prove that he is indeed trying to conserve energy. That is up to The Nazz to prove. So far he has not done so because he can't do so.

Its not up to me to proveAnd you're telling me to get lessons on debating?! Mate, you made the claim. Burdon of evidence is on you.So far he has not done so because he can't do so.Not only has he done it, he's done it despite not having to do so, as the burdon of evidence is on you - the one making a claim.

Take a debating class once in a while Similization. You will see that when you attack someone directly, it takes away from what you are trying to tell people.

That is one reason why I do not watch Presidential Debates anymore.

I believe the first order of debate is know your facts and tell the truth. You have done neither. That is why this is not a debate with you. It's a matter of people presenting you with information to the contrary and you simply using a biased source to propagate an attack on someone you dislike from a political standpoint. Your response to someone forcefully shoving your drivel back in your face is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la." Face it, you've been called out for being a hack. Call that a personal attack if you want but it doesn't make it any less true. Go back and read through all the pages of this thread. You got called out and since you had no response you reverted to having hurt feelings. I suppose no one debates you in person because they know the adage, "never argue with a fool because from a distance no one can tell the difference between the two." As for me I'd verbally bury you much like I do here and have quite a fun time doing it. I'd use things like facts, figures, and history while you used recycled talking points, much like you do here. I'd dismantle your "facts" from Newsmax.com and the like because there is such a thing as right and wrong. No one fears you here because we know what you are all about. We know your tactics and we're tired of it. So quack quack hack hack is my response to you again. "I said GOOD DAY sir!"

The only negative part I see in that article is:


For why the electricity bill doesn't matter, see Nazz's link.

Personally, I don't see why he uses natural gas when he could also be using electricity for every purpose that natural gas has, and I am almost certain it's heating.
actually just caught myself up. :p

Ignoring all the personal sniping going around.

Nazz's article doesn't disprove the claim of higher consuption, sure it's great that he signed up for those energy saving technology but it still doesn't refute the increase of energy consuption.

I mean, taking everything with a grain of salt (so much for my high blood pressure) he may have decreased his "Carbon Footprint" but if he did increase the consuption (or at least kept it the same even while adding all these energy saving devices) it does defeat the purpose.

does anyone have an article that answers the question of his consuption rate, and not just his carbon footprint?

Its not up to me to prove that he is indeed trying to conserve energy. That is up to The Nazz to prove. So far he has not done so because he can't do so.

hold on, let me go find it.

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


thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/drudge-gore-global-warming/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/22/drudge-falsely-smears-gore/

And it's one, two, three strikes you're out when smearing Al gore. Play ball
Oh How wrong Drudge can usually be

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=rBl&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=drudge+%2B+wrong&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=rBl&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=drudge+%2B+wrong&spell=1)

Tim Lambert finds Iain Murray engaged in a contemptible bit of smearing. Previously, the CEI falsely claimed that Al Gore was producing 4,000,000 times as much CO2 as the average person in the course of his daily activities, given his heavy use of air travel. This estimate turns out to be way, way off. In addition, it now turns out that Gore is trying to make his promotional tour carbon neutral by purchasing carbon offsets, presumably from organizations like TerraPass. Murray’s response?

Translation: I am rich enough to benefit from executive jets and Lincolns because I pay my indulgences. All you proles have to give up your cars, flights and air conditioning. The new aristocracy; there’s no other way to describe it.

Purchasing carbon offsets is of course a market-based solution to the externalities associated with individual use of cars and air travel and so on. You’d think that the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review would be in favor of that sort of thing. But if Gore is doing it, then it must be the purest form of aristocratic statist elitism.

Back in the day, Murray was the sort of person you could have a reasonable disagreement with. But then he went to work for CEI and he went rapidly downhill. Because he had to follow the CEI line, he began to make stupid mistakes, bad arguments and unsupportable smears. His trajectory is a good illustration of the principle that being paid to follow a certain political line regardless of what the evidence says will turn you into a hack. Taking empty pot-shots at Al Gore is just the latest step down the ladder.

actually just caught myself up. :p

Nazz's article doesn't disprove the claim of higher consuption, sure it's great that he signed up for those energy saving technology but it still doesn't refute the increase of energy consuption.

The way I see it, and this is purely opinion, if he spends 10x the amount of money on 100% green electricity, not only is he supporting green energy sources, he's also making sure that they can provide what they promise.

Does that make any sense?

I'm still lost as to why his natural gas bill is so high. Natural gas, while better than coal, is not carbon neutral.

The way I see it, and this is purely opinion, if he spends 10x the amount of money on 100% green electricity, not only is he supporting green energy sources, he's also making sure that they can provide what they promise.

Does that make any sense?yes, I'm not denying that. The question is, did his electricity from the Electric Company and non green energy consuption go up or remain constant?

increasing his Green Energy is good, but if his non-Green energy consuption remains constant, it kinds defeats the purpose.

I can put Energy saving bulbs in every room in my house, but if I keep all the lights on, even if the room is empty, it defeats the purpose of those energy saving bulbs.

The claim is that his Mansion, uses more electricity per month than the average home per year. (and yes, I am aware it could be before he converted it... so if anyone can show that the electical consuption is down now...)

I'm still lost as to why his natural gas bill is so high. Natural gas, while better than coal, is not carbon neutral.
*shrugs* maybe he likes the convience of gas.

BTW... took the Carbon test. 3.15. Whoot... no propane or heating needed!

yes, I'm not denying that. The question is, did his electricity from the Electric Company and non green energy consuption go up or remain constant?

increasing his Green Energy is good, but if his non-Green energy consuption remains constant, it kinds defeats the purpose.

I can put Energy saving bulbs in every room in my house, but if I keep all the lights on, even if the room is empty, it defeats the purpose of those energy saving bulbs.

The claim is that his Mansion, uses more electricity per month than the average home per year. (and yes, I am aware it could be before he converted it... so if anyone can show that the electical consuption is down now...)

Well, by green sources, I don't think energy saving light-bulbs - what they do is reduce your overall energy consumption.

When I read green sources, I read wind, solar, wave, water, biomass, etc... renewable energy sources, basically.

In spending a lot of money on these sources, and using the electricity they provide, he is not just investing in green energy sources - He makes sure that they work.

If he only invested in green energy, but nobody used them, it'd be like the tree argument that many people have been using - If you buy a tree, that's no gaurantee that it will actually grow and offset your carbon. This way, he is gauranteeing that the green energy sources are working.

That's what I think.

*shrugs* maybe he likes the convience of gas.

Maybe. It's still a lot of gas.

Ok, I need to loose my gut, but you know what, meh I don't want to. I mean to actually loose my gut would require me to exercise on a regular bases, to do some actual work, and that's just too hard. So I'll just pay someone else to loose their gut and do the work for me. Yea great plan. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with them being able to get a pass card just by spending money but your analogy falls rather short

Maybe if you switched it to liposuction rather then paying someone else for work it would be more fitting the situation

The claim is that his Mansion, uses more electricity per month than the average home per year. (and yes, I am aware it could be before he converted it... so if anyone can show that the electical consuption is down now...)

That is what I am waiting for.

The claim is that his Mansion, uses more electricity per month than the average home per year. (and yes, I am aware it could be before he converted it... so if anyone can show that the electical consuption is down now...) The claim yes. But is there even a hint of truth to it? It's a claim made as a platform for a character attack & it's done by source legendary for making up shit. And there's not the slightest bit of evidence to back it up.

Anyway, assuming it's at least loosely based on reality & not exclusively the product of a compulsive liar, then it depends on how much of his electricity comes from sustainable sources. Since it's a wealthy guy we're talking about, it's possible all of it is. Some of it definitly is, if TP isn't just as full of shit as Amazing Stor.. I mean Drudge Report.

In the end, you have no evidence at all, so the only rational position is that of skeptic agnosticism. The claim sounds like bullshit, it's source is someone renowned for lying his ass off, who quite obviously wants it to be true, and it's contradicted by another source that claims to have it's info from the horses mouth, whereas Matt Sludge apparently just 'knows'.

Well, by green sources, I don't think energy saving light-bulbs - what they do is reduce your overall energy consumption.

When I read green sources, I read wind, solar, wave, water, biomass, etc... renewable energy sources, basically.

In spending a lot of money on these sources, and using the electricity they provide, he is not just investing in green energy sources - He makes sure that they work.

If he only invested in green energy, but nobody used them, it'd be like the tree argument that many people have been using - If you buy a tree, that's no gaurantee that it will actually grow and offset your carbon. This way, he is gauranteeing that the green energy sources are working.

That's what I think.



Maybe. It's still a lot of gas.and the claim is... and I still reguard it as a claim, not fact. that he uses alot of electricity from the power plant. a non-green source.

sure he signed up for alot of Green energy stuff. But my question is, is his Non-Green consuption at least consistant? if his home is converted (and I'm not saying it's not.) then the power he's drawing from the power plant should be DOWN. if it's consistant, then his usage went up (the increase being off set by the Green Energy Sources... or the Green Energy sources are not working.) if it went up...

that's what I want to know. what conversions did take place (Nazz's article has alot of "signing up for..." which is saying it's not installed.) and is his consuption still as high as the power plant claims?

and the claim is... and I still reguard it as a claim, not fact. that he uses alot of electricity from the power plant. a non-green source.

sure he signed up for alot of Green energy stuff. But my question is, is his Non-Green consuption at least consistant? if his home is converted (and I'm not saying it's not.) then the power he's drawing from the power plant should be DOWN. if it's consistant, then his usage went up (the increase being off set by the Green Energy Sources... or the Green Energy sources are not working.) if it went up...

that's what I want to know. what conversions did take place (Nazz's article has alot of "signing up for..." which is saying it's not installed.) and is his consuption still as high as the power plant claims?
On the credit side, the goodie bags at the Academy Awards did include vouchers
for offsetting their carbon greenhouse gas use.
The NY Post reports (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272007/gossip/pagesix/penance_for_gas_guzzlers_pagesix_.htm):

The 100,000 pounds "are enough to balance out an average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter," a press release from TerraPass asserts. "For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on commercial airlines, 20 hours in a private jet and a large house in Los Angeles.

Wouldn't want those folks to feel guilty about their actions, now would we?

Sim... some points...
The claim yes. But is there even a hint of truth to it? It's a claim made as a platform for a character attack & it's done by source legendary for making up shit. And there's not the slightest bit of evidence to back it up.yep. which is why I call it a claim.

Anyway, assuming it's at least loosely based on reality & not exclusively the product of a compulsive liar, then it depends on how much of his electricity comes from sustainable sources. Since it's a wealthy guy we're talking about, it's possible all of it is. Some of it definitly is, if TP isn't just as full of shit as Amazing Stor.. I mean Drudge Report. possible. but just because there is no proof, that doesn't make it a lie... doesn't make it the truth, but it doesn't make it a lie either.

also, as a "rich" guy, it doesn't automatically mean that all of his electricity comes from sustainable sources. it just means that he's rich.

In the end, you have no evidence at all, so the only rational position is that of skeptic agnosticism. The claim sounds like bullshit, it's source is someone renowned for lying his ass off, who quite obviously wants it to be true, and it's contradicted by another source that claims to have it's info from the horses mouth, whereas Matt Sludge apparently just 'knows'. me? I made no such accusation. if you read my posts (including the one that admits to catching up with the thread.) I never said that Al Gore was wasting electricity. I also asked for the proof of that claim.

I also pointed out that the article posted to "refute" the consumption claim doesn't prove anything since I too can "sign up" for alot of green energy improvements. that doesn't mean I will be free from the electric company. it just means I am planning on getting my electricity from other sources as well. also the article doesn't say how much electricity Al Gore uses for his mansion or how much is actually coming from Green sources.

On the credit side, the goodie bags at the Academy Awards did include vouchers
for offsetting their carbon greenhouse gas use.
The NY Post reports (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272007/gossip/pagesix/penance_for_gas_guzzlers_pagesix_.htm):

Wouldn't want those folks to feel guilty about their actions, now would we?I would rather a discount for improvements than vouchers. the improvements would be worth it in the long run.

and the claim is... and I still reguard it as a claim, not fact. that he uses alot of electricity from the power plant. a non-green source.

sure he signed up for alot of Green energy stuff. But my question is, is his Non-Green consuption at least consistant? if his home is converted (and I'm not saying it's not.) then the power he's drawing from the power plant should be DOWN. if it's consistant, then his usage went up (the increase being off set by the Green Energy Sources... or the Green Energy sources are not working.) if it went up...

that's what I want to know. what conversions did take place (Nazz's article has alot of "signing up for..." which is saying it's not installed.) and is his consuption still as high as the power plant claims?

Here's the thing Junii--in a discussion like this, personal credibility has to count for something, and since the anti-Gore attackers have already been proven to have been intellectually dishonest more than once, they start from the deficit position. Therefore, in a "he said/they said" fight, Gore wins easily, because he has the edge in credibility in this case simply by virtue of the fact that there's no credible evidence that he's doing what he's been accused of, and because he has made an affirmative defense.

Here's the thing Junii--in a discussion like this, personal credibility has to count for something, and since the anti-Gore attackers have already been proven to have been intellectually dishonest more than once, they start from the deficit position. Therefore, in a "he said/they said" fight, Gore wins easily, because he has the edge in credibility in this case simply by virtue of the fact that there's no credible evidence that he's doing what he's been accused of, and because he has made an affirmative defense.

but al gore lied when he said he invented the internet. oh wait, no, that was actually a lie made up by his opponents to attempt to smear him as a liar. well what about when he lied about personally discovering that love canal was a toxic sludge pit. no, wait, that was also a lie made up by his opponents to smear him as a liar. well what about...

On the credit side, the goodie bags at the Academy Awards did include vouchers
for offsetting their carbon greenhouse gas use.
The NY Post reports (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272007/gossip/pagesix/penance_for_gas_guzzlers_pagesix_.htm):

Wouldn't want those folks to feel guilty about their actions, now would we?

We wouldn't want them making movies, supporting charities, etc. now would we? Do you have anything worth saying or are you just here to echo AC? Seriously, maybe we should have Bush, Cheney, Condi, et al. stop jet setting all over the world as well. That would offset CO2 right? You get another quack quack hack hack. How many puppets does Corny have? :headbang:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_re_us/gore_electric_bill

Here's your answer. The Conservative think tank and Drudge are wrong. You wanted an answer on consumption and green sources and you for them. Now say you're sorry Corny...Oh I'll be waiting for a snowball fight in hell before that happens. Anyhow, it's just gratifying to be on the side of right.

and the claim is... and I still reguard it as a claim, not fact. that he uses alot of electricity from the power plant. a non-green source.

This has been refuted as much as possible. Unless someone can prove that he is getting electricity from a non-sustainable source, I will trust the fact that it is so, since my parents are doing the exact same and it's entirely plausible and logical.

sure he signed up for alot of Green energy stuff. But my question is, is his Non-Green consuption at least consistant? if his home is converted (and I'm not saying it's not.) then the power he's drawing from the power plant should be DOWN. if it's consistant, then his usage went up (the increase being off set by the Green Energy Sources... or the Green Energy sources are not working.) if it went up...

Electricity is not a factor if he gets it all from green sources.

The only thing I am targetting now is his use of natural gas and fuel (car, jet), as these have not been refuted.

that's what I want to know. what conversions did take place (Nazz's article has alot of "signing up for..." which is saying it's not installed.) and is his consuption still as high as the power plant claims?

I'd say that signing up for 100% green energy means that, since you are already connected to the power network, you either get all your energy from green sources, or you don't pay.

But I don't know the details, I just know that this guy is already signed up to receive electricity. Signing up for 100% green energy either means

A) They are going to build it and once they're done, he'll get it all from green sources. (this is positive)

B) He is already getting it from green sources. (this is even better)

*edit*

From reading the source, it seems that, not only does he pay to get all his electricity green, he is actively helping to build up a green energy source infrastructure. Just as I initially suspected - Through his high use, he is a large factor in creating that green infrastructure.

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

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.

An Inconvenient Truth (http://************/yrxnrq)

Oh, but I bet he buys voodoo "Carbon Offset" get out of jail free cards.

He's a hypocrite.

He's a hypocrite.

Read the whole thread and the refutal ;)

]You get another quack quack hack hack. How many puppets does Corny have? :headbang:
I'm pretty sure he is his own crackpot. While both being knee-jerk reactionists and full of crap 90% of the time, he puts it more rationally.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_re_us/gore_electric_bill

Here's your answer. The Conservative think tank and Drudge are wrong. You wanted an answer on consumption and green sources and you for them. Now say you're sorry Corny...Oh I'll be waiting for a snowball fight in hell before that happens. Anyhow, it's just gratifying to be on the side of right.

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

Thank you Associated Press.

I will say this though, I'm glad he is renovating his home to add solar panals. That'll help save electricity.

Well I learned a few things reading this thread.

I learned that apparently in some circles "quack, quack, hack, hack" passes for a valid argument.

I learned that Nazz is a professor (I thought he was a 14 year old kid. Not saying that to be mean.)

I learned that not everybody is impressed by the "shouting down" tactic which I find eminently reassuring.

I learned that Nazz worships the ground Al Gore walks on.

I learned that there's no such thing as a credible source in these threads. If you use one from a traditionally conservative source, you'll be shouted down for it. Rebuttal sources tend to be historically liberal, so neither is objective.

I will say that this thread inspired me to go and learn what Carbon Credits are. That, ultimately is the reason I read these threads... to learn stuff like that.

Thank you Associated Press.

I will say this though, I'm glad he is renovating his home to add solar panals. That'll help save electricity.

There's one problem though, and I only point this out because I don't want there to be any illusions, but the energy cost of manufacturing solar energy panels is IMMENSE. It is acually higher than the amount of energy that will be generated by the average photoelectric panel over the course of a significant timeframe. The exact timeframe depends upon the exact methods and materials, and of course the photoelectric cell efficiency has improved over the years, but yah. I'm goingto root around for it and see if I can get some exact figures for you guys.

The think tank said Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information

Interesting...


I don't see much of a problem here. At least he's doing something.

Seems to me like just another attempt at attacking the messenger instead of the message.

OK here's what I found out on photoelectric cells.

Solar cells and energy payback
There is a common conception that solar cells never produce more energy than it takes to make them. While the expected working lifetime is around 40 years, the energy payback time of a solar panel is anywhere from 1 to 20 years (usually under five) depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). This means solar cells can be net energy producers and can "reproduce" themselves (from just over once to more than 30 times) over their lifetime.

This is disputed, however, by some researchers who object that such analysis doesn't take into account waste, inefficiency, and related energy costs that would come with a real-world solar cell.

Well I learned a few things reading this thread.

I learned that apparently in some circles "quack, quack, hack, hack" passes for a valid argument.

I learned that Nazz is a professor (I thought he was a 14 year old kid. Not saying that to be mean.)

I learned that not everybody is impressed by the "shouting down" tactic which I find eminently reassuring.

I learned that Nazz worships the ground Al Gore walks on.

I learned that there's no such thing as a credible source in these threads. If you use one from a traditionally conservative source, you'll be shouted down for it. Rebuttal sources tend to be historically liberal, so neither is objective.

I will say that this thread inspired me to go and learn what Carbon Credits are. That, ultimately is the reason I read these threads... to learn stuff like that.


You catch on very quickly.

OK here's what I found out on photoelectric cells.

There's more than just energy savings involved in solar though--it's clean energy. No particulate matter getting tossed into the atmosphere. No CO2 emissions. No pollution, in other words.

Hear Hear!

And from what I've seen in many other threads, your lack of care for the environment doesn't surprise me.

SCORE Liberals:72956243048547843, Conservatives:negative infinity.

And from what I've seen in many other threads, your lack of care for the environment doesn't surprise me.

Haha. The joke is on you. I care for the environment very very deeply.

*hears Roma Islamica's plane crashing*

Here's the thing Junii--in a discussion like this, personal credibility has to count for something, and since the anti-Gore attackers have already been proven to have been intellectually dishonest more than once, they start from the deficit position. Therefore, in a "he said/they said" fight, Gore wins easily, because he has the edge in credibility in this case simply by virtue of the fact that there's no credible evidence that he's doing what he's been accused of, and because he has made an affirmative defense.
ah, but the problem with that Nazz, is you look at it from the opposing view. the same can be said for the editorials, FoxNews, and other public figures. which falls back to the claim and the proofs for both supporting the claim and refuting it.

and it really doesn't help those that resort to personal attacks. :)

Personal Credibility also include not just words but action as well. it's great that he did sign up and make arraingements to have his home 100% green free. but can you also deny that others who are just as credible have been caught saying one thing and doing something else?

Make no mistake, I am not attacking Gore. He signed up for conversion, so that is a big plus. (and also why I said the "claim" could be before his home conversion.)

There's more than just energy savings involved in solar though--it's clean energy. No particulate matter getting tossed into the atmosphere. No CO2 emissions. No pollution, in other words.

Yah and once the cell is manufactured, that's absolutely true. Here's the problem:


Dominating material requirements are glass, EVA and aluminum. Other materials that are used in relatively large amounts are the input materials for mg-silicon production (i.c. quartz and carbon sources) and for wafering (mineral oil and silicon carbide). A point of attention in the best case is the large amount of HCl used in producing high purity carbon and high purity silicon. The used HCl is neutralized with Ca(OH)2, and CaCl2 is discharged as solid waste.

...

Emissions in the PV module's life cycle are at this moment largely limited to the production phase. Environmentally relevant substances which may be released in multicrystalline silicon PV module production are fluorine, chlorine, nitrate, isopropanol, SO2, CO2, respirable silica particles and solvents.

Fluorine and chlorine may be emitted to the air as a component of dust particles by the best case silicon purification technology. The estimated air emission is maximally 0.16 kg F and 430 kg Cl per TWhe of electricity supplied by PV modules, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the corresponding emissions of a coal plant.

Fluorine and chlorine are also emitted to the water in all three cases (1,800 kg F and 89,000 kg Cl per TWhe in the base case), resulting from neutralization of etching and texturing solutions and flue gases. Fluorine and chlorine contribute to the human toxicity, as does nitrate, which stems from neutralizing acids used in etching and texturing. Water-borne F- and Cl-emissions of base case PV technology are significant but still 3-5 times smaller than for a coal plant.

The non-energy-related 1 The emissions of SO2, NOx and CO2 can be distinguished into energy-related, i.e. resulting from energy use, and non-energy-related emissions, i.e. resulting from the production process itself. emissions of SO2 (in worst and base case) are caused by using sulphur-containing carbon sources in the reduction of silica. These carbon sources are also responsible for the non-energy-related emissions of CO2. However, the non-energy-related SO2 and CO2 emissions are small compared to the energy-related emissions of these gases.

Silica particles can be released in the mining and refining stage. If they are small enough to be inhaled they may cause the lung disease silicosis.

Emissions of solvents and alcohols contribute to photochemical ozone formation and both direct (the solvents itself) and indirect (ozone) respiratory problems.


Almost all of these waste products are considered pollution.

NOx and CO2 are exhaust gases specifically minimized because of Environmental concerns. (Both are tested for when you take your car in for emissions testing in all 50 states.)

Minimizing flourine and chlorine is a good thing, but I'm not fan of coal burning power plants either.

(*trivia: Did you know that a coal burning power plant releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nucler power plant?)

Well I learned a few things reading this thread.

I learned that apparently in some circles "quack, quack, hack, hack" passes for a valid argument.

I learned that Nazz is a professor (I thought he was a 14 year old kid. Not saying that to be mean.)

I learned that not everybody is impressed by the "shouting down" tactic which I find eminently reassuring.

I learned that Nazz worships the ground Al Gore walks on.

I learned that there's no such thing as a credible source in these threads. If you use one from a traditionally conservative source, you'll be shouted down for it. Rebuttal sources tend to be historically liberal, so neither is objective.

I will say that this thread inspired me to go and learn what Carbon Credits are. That, ultimately is the reason I read these threads... to learn stuff like that.

To be fair I said a little more than the quack hack line, but you're from DC and black and white is the modus operandi there. Drudge is not really liberal or conservative, he's just flat ass wrong. He's proven wrong more than Hannity, Bortz, Papa Bear, Limbaugh, etc. combined. If you want to quote something make it verifiable from a news source like the AP as you can see I did quite earlier. So yes, when you use a source that has cried wolf far too many times then you get called a hack. How often do sites like thinkprogress get proven wrong, media matters, please cite statistics. It's a hell of a lot less wouldn't you concur?

From what I understand, Gallium is the main ingredient in modern solar cells. I heard that Gallium is not good for the enviroment and that if solar cells were ever produced on a large scale, the amount of Gallium being disposed of would cause a huge waste management problem. Thats what the head of the chemistry department at my university said. I dunno, it makes sense I geuss.

They've had months though--you'd think they'd have come up with something new by now.

Conservatives =/= "something new"
:(

Haha. The joke is on you. I care for the environment very very deeply.

*hears Roma Islamica's plane crashing*

You really, REALLY should've TG'd me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm

You really, REALLY should've TG'd me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm

And what are they going to do about it?

Consider the source this attack is coming from, please. It's not like they have a reputation for honesty.


Oh? o_O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Then again, if that debating technique were given the scorn it truly deserves then the Left would doubtless be forever mute. :rolleyes:


Most of this was handled when the movie came out.

No doubt Mr. Gore's PR flacks have indeed been hard at work. It is after all the sort of job for which they were hired. ^O^

Consider the source this attack is coming from, please. It's not like they have a reputation for honesty.Oh? o_O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

so you don't know what an ad hominem is - perhaps you should actually read the wiki entry you linked to

so you don't know what an ad hominem is - perhaps you should actually read the wiki entry you linked to

Let us all give Free Soviets a round of appluase for showing us yet another example of the sort of ad hominem attacks that the Left is so fond of! :)

The only thing more amusing than the double standards of the Left is their essential humorlessness when they have been caught out. ;)

Let us all give Free Soviets a round of appluase for showing us yet another example of the sort of ad hominem attacks that the Left is so fond of! :)The fallacy you should've linked to is called "poisoning the well" on the wiki. I know, as I linked to it earlier in this very thread. You can't accuse someone of a personal attack just because they suggest you dispell your ignorance. Well, you can & you did, but it doesn't make it true, it just makes you a hillariously bad liar.The only thing more amusing than the double standards of the Left is their essential humorlessness when they have been caught out. ;)Because when you lie your ass off in a desperate attempt to make someone look bad & get called on it, it's humour.. But when people catch you doing it, it's character assassination?

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

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.

An Inconvenient Truth (http://************/yrxnrq)

Oh, but I bet he buys voodoo "Carbon Offset" get out of jail free cards.

Wow, I did not know Gore still lived in Nashville or had a mansion at all. I know exactly where Belle Meade is.

The man probably can't even get out in Nashville then, because Nashville is very small, there is the luxury mall in the state there but even then you don't just see famous people walking through I go there a lot. It is not like Hollywood or New York where there are places where the extremely famous can "congregate" or go without fearing being harrassed, I am surprised he is still here lol.

From what I understand, Gallium is the main ingredient in modern solar cells. I heard that Gallium is not good for the enviroment and that if solar cells were ever produced on a large scale, the amount of Gallium being disposed of would cause a huge waste management problem. Thats what the head of the chemistry department at my university said. I dunno, it makes sense I geuss.

Recycling ftw!

Re-use gallium from old solar cells!

Wow, I did not know Gore still lived in Nashville or had a mansion at all. I know exactly where Belle Meade is.

The man probably can't even get out in Nashville then, because Nashville is very small, there is the luxury mall in the state there but even then you don't just see famous people walking through I go there a lot. It is not like Hollywood or New York where there are places where the extremely famous can "congregate" or go without fearing being harrassed, I am surprised he is still here lol.


Hes probably in that fondue joint with the Dixie Chicks three nights a week,making believe he's a rock star.

So what happens while everyone is arguing over whether Gore is saint or sinner? The original issue gets side-stepped. Folks, this is exactly what those fully invested in polluting industries and fossil fuels want to happen. The more we focus on the personalities and attack everyone around us for being hypocrites, the less we see what's really happening.

In this case, no one person is a troll, the whole concept is. I say refuse to feed it any further...but hey, I'm quixotic that way.

So what happens while everyone is arguing over whether Gore is saint or sinner? The original issue gets side-stepped.

No it doesn't! :) In case you hadn't noticed Mr. Gore, by his own chosen actions, has shown us that he considers Global Warming to be nothing more than a scam. Let us take this moment to congratulate Mr. Gore in his rejection of the Global Warming Myth and at the same time succeed in getting money and fame from those who do by pretending he shares their belief. Did you notice that he has the Global Warming cultists so conned that not only do they not get disgusted by his actions but they also feel obliged to defend it? Now *that* is the mark of a master conman and his ability to manipulate the weak of mind! :D

But in all fairness to Mr. Gore let us note that he is not the only conman who demonstrates by his actions that he does not take the global warming scam seriously. Australia it seems also has such conmen who know how to fleece the global warming marks as well. :P

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/and_you_thought_gore_was_a_hypocrite/

How many Australian leftists can fail to be impressed by the likes of Bob Brown? ^_~

Perhaps it might be fun to give this thread and international flavor by citing all the other Global Warming conmen who show their contempt for their followers by their deeds with instances of what they really do? Just a thought! :D

BTW, anyone who would like to see a graphic demonstration of Mr. Gore's carbon footprint is welcome to follow this link. :)

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/shut_up_and_save_the_planet/

You can't accuse someone of a personal attack just because they suggest you dispell your ignorance. Well, you can & you did, but it doesn't make it true, it just makes you a hillariously bad liar.

all disagreement is a personal attack

The fallacy you should've linked to is called "poisoning the well" on the wiki. I know, as I linked to it earlier in this very thread. .

Oh really? o_O

Then let's review! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"An
ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:"argument to the person", "argument against the man") *consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument*. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include *the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;* and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.". (emphasis mine).

The arguement in this case is that Al Gore proves by his actions that he himself either clearly does not believe in Global Warming or else is rather dull of intellect for not thinking through the consequences of his actions. The question of whether this discredits Global Warming as a whole is a seperate issue since a thing can be quite true whether or not a hypocrite or conman believes in it but the fact that Al Gore clearly does not believe in what he says and what this might say about him as a candidate for any future office is a legitimate issue brought up by Mr. Gore's circumstances. (Were I as sincerely concerned about "Global Warming" as so many leftists on this Message Board *profess* to be I would also pause to ponder whether I would want such a person to be a part of my political movement should this prove true but I suppose we should make allowances for the possibility that their "concern" about Global Warming is more opportunistic than sincere, ne? :D ).

In this particular case "The Nazz"'s words, and I quote,

Consider the source this attack is coming from, please. It's not like they have a reputation for honesty. Most of this was handled when the movie came out.

This would seem to be a fine example indicated by the words "the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;"

Since I had in fact both quoted "The Nazz"'s words *and* provided a link to wiki to indicate what I was speaking of, I feel there is very little excuse for anyone who failed to accept the evidence. In the future you might want to keep in mind that just as light may both a wave and a particle so it is that a dishonest or thoughtless rhetorical appeal may violate more than one rule of debate.

You can't accuse someone of a personal attack just because they suggest you dispell your ignorance.


Let us repeat, "An
ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:"argument to the person", "argument against the man") *consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument*."

I am beginning to feel that *some* leftists need to be told this more than once. :D :rolleyes:

"Well, you can & you did, but it doesn't make it true, it just makes you a hillariously bad liar.Because when you lie your ass off in a desperate attempt to make someone look bad & get called on it, it's humour.. But when people catch you doing it, it's character assassination?

Let us continue with our review: "It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."

Phrases like "hillariously[Sic!] bad liar" and false accusations of "character assassinaton" would seem to be a classic example of "criticizing or personally attacking an arguement's proponent in an attempt to discredit that arguement." In that context we owe Similization a debt of gratitude for showing us a clearcut case of the "ad hominem abusive" that allows us to compare and contrast with thebignazz's inadvertant(?) example of the ad hominem circumstantia. :)

Let us note that I do find it interesting that Similization would by implication consider "poisoning the well" to be somehow morally superior to an ad hominem attack - so much so that he would describe it as "an attempt to make someone look bad". I myself would have thought that either would make the guilty party look bad but apparently the Left is so enamoured of situational ethics that this a distinction that matters to them. :rolleyes:

BTW, isn't it interesting that no one among the environmentalists is willing to accept, let alone suggest, that Al Gore might be completely in the wrong? The hypocrisy of Mr. Gore by itself does not condemn the myth of Global Warming but the Left's easy and unquestioning acceptance of such hypocrisy, as well as their rabid defense of it, certainly calls their own sincerity as a whole about the matter into question. :p

This would seem to be a fine example indicated by the words "the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;"

no, it isn't. that isn't what that means either.

here's the trick - pointing out that someone isn't known for their honesty is a completely legitimate reason to reject their assertions until they can come up with solid grounding for them. and without the assertions to serve as premises, they lack an argument to address.


you fuck your mother, therefore your arguments' conclusion is false - ad hom, invalid argument. the conclusion, "your arguments' conclusion is false", doesn't follow from the premise, "you fuck your mother".

you are a well known liar, therefore i won't just accept your factual claims - perfectly valid, once we add some unstated premises.

BTW, isn't it interesting that no one among the environmentalists is willing to accept, let alone suggest, that Al Gore might be completely in the wrong?

it might be because carbon offsets really exist, and will make up an absolutely huge part of the solution to anthropogenic climate change. we all have to have a negative carbon footprint to reverse the damage thus far. it is logically necessary. so therefore gore, while a rich bastard, is currently better for the environment than i am - at least in terms of net carbon.

there is no there there

.

Oh really? o_O

Then let's review! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"An
ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:"argument to the person", "argument against the man") *consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument*. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include *the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;* and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.". (emphasis mine).

The arguement in this case is that Al Gore proves by his actions that he himself either clearly does not believe in Global Warming or else is rather dull of intellect for not thinking through the consequences of his actions. The question of whether this discredits Global Warming as a whole is a seperate issue since a thing can be quite true whether or not a hypocrite or conman believes in it but the fact that Al Gore clearly does not believe in what he says and what this might say about him as a candidate for any future office is a legitimate issue brought up by Mr. Gore's circumstances. (Were I as sincerely concerned about "Global Warming" as so many leftists on this Message Board *profess* to be I would also pause to ponder whether I would want such a person to be a part of my political movement should this prove true but I suppose we should make allowances for the possibility that their "concern" about Global Warming is more opportunistic than sincere, ne? :D ).

In this particular case "The Nazz"'s words, and I quote,



This would seem to be a fine example indicated by the words "the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;"

Since I had in fact both quoted "The Nazz"'s words *and* provided a link to wiki to indicate what I was speaking of, I feel there is very little excuse for anyone who failed to accept the evidence. In the future you might want to keep in mind that just as light may both a wave and a particle so it is that a dishonest or thoughtless rhetorical appeal may violate more than one rule of debate.




Let us repeat, "An
ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:"argument to the person", "argument against the man") *consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument*."

I am beginning to feel that *some* leftists need to be told this more than once. :D :rolleyes:



Let us continue with our review: "It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."

Phrases like "hillariously[Sic!] bad liar" and false accusations of "character assassinaton" would seem to be a classic example of "criticizing or personally attacking an arguement's proponent in an attempt to discredit that arguement." In that context we owe Similization a debt of gratitude for showing us a clearcut case of the "ad hominem abusive" that allows us to compare and contrast with thebignazz's inadvertant(?) example of the ad hominem circumstantia. :)

Let us note that I do find it interesting that Similization would by implication consider "poisoning the well" to be somehow morally superior to an ad hominem attack - so much so that he would describe it as "an attempt to make someone look bad". I myself would have thought that either would make the guilty party look bad but apparently the Left is so enamoured of situational ethics that this a distinction that matters to them. :rolleyes:

BTW, isn't it interesting that no one among the environmentalists is willing to accept, let alone suggest, that Al Gore might be completely in the wrong? The hypocrisy of Mr. Gore by itself does not condemn the myth of Global Warming but the Left's easy and unquestioning acceptance of such hypocrisy, as well as their rabid defense of it, certainly calls their own sincerity as a whole about the matter into question. :p

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Weak minds discuss people.

-Eleanor Roosevelt

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Weak minds discuss people.

-Eleanor Roosevelt

So you wouldn't be weirded out in the least if Bob Marley had spoke to Congress and written books about legalizing medicinal marijuana? :p

So you wouldn't be weirded out in the least if Bob Marley had spoke to Congress and written books about legalizing medicinal marijuana? :p

Considering I didn't know who that was until today, no. But that would be discussing an event, not a person.

So I'm safe. ;)

no, it isn't. that isn't what that means either.

here's the trick - pointing out that someone isn't known for their honesty is a completely legitimate reason to reject their assertions until they can come up with solid grounding for them. and without the assertions to serve as premises, they lack an argument to address.

Your embrace of the ad hominem technique as a debating tactic you regard as legitimate and are willing to defend is duly noted. I consider it more honest than denying ad hominem techniques were precisely what you use. :)



it might be because carbon offsets really exist, and will make up an absolutely huge part of the solution to anthropogenic climate change. we all have to have a negative carbon footprint to reverse the damage thus far. it is logically necessary. so therefore gore, while a rich bastard, is currently better for the environment than i am - at least in terms of net carbon.

there is no there there


Thank you, Gertrude Stein! :p

But it is interesting that your arguement is predicated upon a belief in carbon offsets being universal among the Left. Are leftists truly that conformist and unquestioning that they dare not diverge in their thoughts? o_O

For that matter would you really argue that the fact that Mr. Gore consumes enough energy for 1000 people is OK provided that by doing so he causes 2,000 old ladies to die of cold by preventing them from having the energy they need? :( This really is starting to play up to my suspicion that what we laughingly call environmentalism is 3/4s an excuse for good little liberals to be racist without admitting to themselves that this is precisely what they are doing and 1/4 nothing more than the attempt of Old Wealth to preserve their status by trying to prevent the creation of new wealth.

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Weak minds discuss people.

-Eleanor Roosevelt

Heh. So Eleanor Roosevelt would consider all the anti-Bush people weakminded? :)

I count myself unsurprised! ;)

Your embrace of the ad hominem technique as a debating tactic you regard as legitimate and are willing to defend is duly noted. I consider it more honest than denying ad hominem techniques were precisely what you use. :)

Thank you, Gertrude Stein! :p

But it is interesting that your arguement is predicated upon a belief in carbon offsets being universal among the Left. Are leftists truly that conformist and unquestioning that they dare not diverge in their thoughts? o_O

For that matter would you really argue that the fact that Mr. Gore consumes enough energy for 1000 people is OK provided that by doing so he causes 2,000 old ladies to die of cold by preventing them from having the energy they need? :( This really is starting to play up to my suspicion that what we laughingly call environmentalism is 3/4s an excuse for good little liberals to be racist without admitting to themselves that this is precisely what they are doing and 1/4 nothing more than the attempt of Old Wealth to preserve their status by trying to prevent the creation of new wealth.

Right I know I already commented, but seriously fuck off. The constituent of your posts is "well this guy did this" and "zomg this guy did that" and "you're one of those leftists" blah blah blah blah blah. Fuck. Off.

And some words of wisdom, talk gets you nowhere, only action, talking about Al Gore isn't going to solve the environmental problem so quit trolling, get off your whiny ass and get out there and do something.

Your embrace of the ad hominem technique as a debating tactic you regard as legitimate and are willing to defend is duly noted.

only when it isn't fallacious. if we are calling the non-fallacious arguments ad homs too, then yeah, in some cases 'ad homs' are not only acceptable, but the proper move to make.

[snip retardation]

Heh. So Eleanor Roosevelt would consider all the anti-Bush people weakminded? :)

I count myself unsurprised! ;)

I can't speak for all, but most anti-Bushites are opposed to the Republican agenda, which is based on an ideology, the neocon ideology. So we're talking ideas.

Universal principles are fun, for assholes. I'm trying to be serious.

Right I know I already commented, but seriously fuck off. The constituent of your posts is "well this guy did this" and "zomg this guy did that" and "you're one of those leftists" blah blah blah blah blah. Fuck. Off..

Ah! So you find it inconvenient when the Left gets caught out? o_O

Have you considered that given the fact that this thread itself represents a discussion of the hypocrisy of a prominent leftist it may maladroit of you to resent the discussion of what leftist debating techniques and the stance they take against their own stated principles may imply about the Left? O_o


And some words of wisdom, talk gets you nowhere, only action,....

But if that were the case *you* would not have confessed *your* irritation with *my* talk. Communication is the battlefield in which the clash of memes takes place. :)


talking about Al Gore isn't going to solve the environmental problem so quit trolling, get off your whiny ass and get out there and do something.

But I *am* doing something. By talking about Al Gore I am forcing Leftists like yourself to think and in some cases may very well cause some to realize that environmentalists themselves may be the worst threat the environment faces. Cheerful thought, ne? :)

I can't speak for all, but most anti-Bushites are opposed to the Republican agenda, which is based on an ideology, the neocon ideology. So we're talking ideas.

Ah! So you would argue that those who hate Bush merely make him the symbol of everyone who dared disagreed with them as an expression of their basic fanaticism and intolerance? That in doing so they are expressing their fear of being wrong? o_O

Duly noted. :D

Universal principles are fun, for assholes.

The fact that you scorn principles may go a long ways towards explaining the double standards of both Mr. Gore and his defenders. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to be serious.

Don't worry. You don't need to. No Leftist does. It would be having a sense of humor that would require an effort on the part of the Left. And since that requires an ability to laugh at yourself as well as others I doubt that such a quality will ever afflict your efforts at being more serious than you Leftists already are. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ah! So you find it inconvenient when the Left gets caught out? o_O

Quit trying to stick words in people's mouths. It's not clean. ;)

See, I can be sarcastic too! :p

Have you considered that given the fact that this thread itself represents a discussion of the hypocrisy of a prominent leftist it may maladroit of you to resent the discussion of what leftist debating techniques and the stance they take against their own stated principles may imply about the Left? O_o

But I *am* doing something. By talking about Al Gore I am forcing Leftists like yourself to think and in some cases may very well bring cause some to realize that environmentalists themselves may be the worst threat the environment faces. Cheerful thought, ne? :)

Stop making stupid generalizations. Gore's a hypocrite, true, but Gore doesn't stand for all environementalists. Just like I don't stand for all leftists, and fuck you for suggesting I don't think. Climate change as a whole is more important than painting Gore's hands red for a big energy bill.

But if that were the case *you* would not have confessed *your* irritation with *my* talk. Communication is the battlefield in which the clash of memes takes place. :)

You're right. God there's no sense talking to idiots like you. Man I gotta listen to my own advice.

Sadly I don't. :(

Ah! So you would argue that those who hate Bush merely make him the symbol of everyone who dared disagreed with them as an expression of their basic fanaticism and intolerance? That in doing so they are expressing their fear of being wrong? o_O

Duly noted. :D

I would argue that most Bush haters are opposed to him because he backs the Republican ideology, the ideology being what they are primarily opposed to.

The fact that you scorn principles may go a long ways towards explaining the double standards of both Mr. Gore and his defenders. :rolleyes:

I don't scorn them, I just scorn you. :)

Don't worry. You don't need to. No Leftist does. It would be having a sense of humor that would require an effort on the part of the Left. And since that requires an ability to laugh at yourself as well as others I doubt that such a quality will ever afflict your efforts at being more serious than you Leftists already are. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I laugh at myself all the time. Or slap myself. It depends on whether I'm feeling depressed. I'm not proud of myself, but I'm proud to have an open mind.

You're right. God there's no sense talking to idiots like you. Man I gotta listen to my own advice.

Stop making stupid generalizations. Gore's a hypocrite, true, but Gore doesn't stand for all environementalists.

At last we have a moment of agreement! Mr. Gore indeed doesn't stand for *all* environmentalists but I would argue that he clearly *does* stand for any environmentalist who defends him. The laughter he gets from the Right should be nothing compared to the thunder that descends upon him from the Left if environmentalists really believe what they say. Mind you, in all fairness to Mr. Gore he is not the only Green guilty of some serious hypocrisy in this regard but merely the most spectacular.


Just like I don't stand for all leftists, and fuck you for suggesting I don't think.

Fair enough. :D I shan't blame you for taking what I said the wrong way although considering some of the things that you have said to me I'll just mark the score as even rather than apologize. You may not stand for *all* leftists but you certainly stand for yourself so if the shoe fits then wear it.

Climate change as a whole is more important than painting Gore's hands red for a big energy bill.

But if the parts become rotten than can the whole remain untouched? The Dutch have a saying, "The fish stinks from the head down!". If you guys accept and defend hypocrisy in your more famous figures too readily then aren't you as lacking in a moral center as those who care nothing for issues and participate in politics merely for a livelihood? o_O

I would argue that most Bush haters are opposed to him because he backs the Republican ideology, the ideology being what they are primarily opposed to.

Fair enough. The fact that their rhetoric against him goes back to the 70s and 80s even when it doesn't make sense in a 21st Century context certainly strengthens your point in that regard. That said, the fact that such a large number of these dweebs had no problem with attacking his daughters certainly shows many of them were not motivated by any ideas beyond the idea that girls make convenient targets.



I don't scorn them, I just scorn you. :)

Heh. Sorry, but I don't let go of freudian slips that easily. :p

"Universal principles are fun, for assholes." are *your* words, not mine, and you'll just have to own them the way the Ancient Mariner owned the Albatross. ;)


That said, I'll wish you a good night since the time has come for sleep. I'll look forward to encountering you the next time I'm on these MBs. :)

At last we have a moment of agreement! Mr. Gore indeed doesn't stand for *all* environmentalists but I would argue that he clearly *does* stand for any environmentalist who defends him. The laughter he gets from the Right should be nothing compared to the thunder that descends upon him from the Left if environmentalists really believe what they say. Mind you, in all fairness to Mr. Gore he is not the only Green guilty of some serious hypocrisy in this regard but merely the most spectacular.

Defending a guy doesn't mean you're like him.

Fair enough. :D I shan't blame you for taking what I said the wrong way although considering some of the things that you have said to me I'll just mark the score as even rather than apologize. You may not stand for *all* leftists but you certainly stand for yourself so if the shoe fits then wear it.

Indeed.

But if the parts become rotten than can the whole remain untouched? The Dutch have a saying, "The fish stinks from the head down!". If you guys accept and defend hypocrisy in your more famous figures too readily then aren't you as lacking in a moral center as those who care nothing for issues and participate in politics merely for a livelihood? o_O

Does Al Gore represent climate change? No. Next question.

Fair enough. The fact that their rhetoric against him goes back to the 70s and 80s even when it doesn't make sense in a 21st Century context certainly strengthens your point in that regard. That said, the fact that such a large number of these dweebs had no problem with attacking his daughters certainly shows many of them were not motivated by any ideas beyond the idea that girls make convenient targets.

Funny, I've never heard about it.

Heh. Sorry, but I don't let go of freudian slips that easily. :p

"Universal principles are fun, for assholes." are *your* words, not mine, and you'll just have to own them the way the Ancient Mariner owned the Albatross. ;)

"Universal principles are fun!" are *your* words, not mine, and you'll just have to own them the way the Ancient Mariner owned the Albatross. ;)

That said, I'll wish you a good night since the time has come for sleep. I'll look forward to encountering you the next time I'm on these MBs. :)

Before you go, I must thank you for one thing. You've raised my post count. :)

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

You're right! Everything that man says MUST be invalid!

Oooooooo a critical thinker taking a sarcastic stance to undermine the original point whilst positioning themself as the dominant speaker. Here's an update: No matter what he says, the point is that he doesn't even care about Global Warming. It is merely his ploy to become President. He's not in the race, you say? He will be. Give it time.


The point isn't that Global Warming is or is not happening. In fact, at no point is a stance taken on this. The point was that Al Gore is a hypocrite, and that he does not follow his own "viewpoints", making it further obvious that it is merely a tool for him to gain control as President, as some sort of freakish power trip. If the discussion was on Global Warming I would be with you 100%, but as it turns out, it's really just about how much of a liar Al Gore is. Inconveniant Truth: Al Gore cares about Global Warming about as much as I care what the water temperatures are in the Indian Ocean right now.

Here's an update: No matter what he says, the point is that he doesn't even care about Global Warming.Yet all evidence supports the opposite of your conclusion.It is merely his ploy to become President. He's not in the race, you say? He will be. Give it time.Pure, unsubstantiated specultion on your part.The point was that Al Gore is a hypocrite, and that he does not follow his own "viewpoints", making it further obvious that it is merely a tool for him to gain control as President, as some sort of freakish power trip.In much the same way as he would've lied if he's said he created the interwebs. The common thread here, is that the only evidence there is, is that he indeed does go out of his way to do something about his own impact, and that he did in fact not claim to have created the interwebs.it's really just about how much of a liar Al Gore is.How about showing an actual lie? The man isn't making any claims about being a good socialist, so the fact that he's rich & lording it doesn't make him a hypocrite. A wanker to be sure, but not a hypocrite.Inconveniant Truth: Al Gore cares about Global Warming about as much as I care what the water temperatures are in the Indian Ocean right now.Or perhaps the inconvenient truth is you like to make shit up about other people.

Inconveniant Truth:

You picked apart what I said, seperated all of the ideas into their rudimentary pieces rather than viewing them as a whole, and then critizied the use of "hypocrite" instead of "bastard" while managing to ignore the point I made.

If Al Gore really cared about Global Warming as much as he claims, he wouldn't be burning energy like a river of fire flowing from the gates of Hell.

You picked apart what I said, seperated all of the ideas into their rudimentary pieces rather than viewing them as a whole, and then critizied the use of "hypocrite" instead of "bastard" while managing to ignore the point I made.Actually, I pointed out your conclusion's wrong.If Al Gore really cared about Global Warming as much as he claims, he wouldn't be burning energy like a river of fire flowing from the gates of Hell.You're confusing caring about global warming with not being a **** & you shouldn't. The guy quite obviously cares about global warming. So much so he's willing to pay people to clean up his shit. Sure, it's an asshole's take on caring, but it's still caring.

So..... by paying other people to clean up his messes, he cares?
Nixon paid people to lie about Watergate.
Does that mean Nixon supported human life?

In the end it's other people doing the good work. Gore is just paying them.

I think you need to edit this post

So..... by paying other people to clean up his messes, he cares?
Nixon paid people to lie about Watergate.
Does that mean Nixon supported human life?

In the end it's other people doing the good work. Gore is just paying them.

I think you need to edit this post

I probably do, but I'm too tired and uncaring of actually winning the argument to present a valid, or even sensical, point. If I want to compare Al Gore to Nixon, I will. Also, Al Gore is a centaur.

So..... by paying other people to clean up his messes, he cares?
Nixon paid people to lie about Watergate.
Does that mean Nixon supported human life?

In the end it's other people doing the good work. Gore is just paying them.As well as coordinating constructive projects & working his ass off to raise awareness on the subject. I'd suggest you read something about carbon offsets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets) before you start comparing something constructive to Watergate, the Holocaust or other insane gibberish.

Yes he's a rich **** with a rich **** agenda. But it doesn't make any sense to attack him when he's doing something right.

It doesn't make sense to wear a scarf without any pants on, but I'll do what I damn well please! :D

If Al Gore were anyone else I wouldn't care if he gave a speech on Global Warming while spraying aerosal everywhere smoking a cigar and farting, but since it's Al Gore I'm inclined to call him an idiot bastard.

He's in politics. That makes him the bane of life.

Hes probably in that fondue joint with the Dixie Chicks three nights a week,making believe he's a rock star.

carne come on, you're better than that

.

Oh really? o_O

Then let's review! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"An
ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:"argument to the person", "argument against the man") *consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument*. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include *the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;* and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.". (emphasis mine).

The arguement in this case is that Al Gore proves by his actions that he himself either clearly does not believe in Global Warming or else is rather dull of intellect for not thinking through the consequences of his actions. The question of whether this discredits Global Warming as a whole is a seperate issue since a thing can be quite true whether or not a hypocrite or conman believes in it but the fact that Al Gore clearly does not believe in what he says and what this might say about him as a candidate for any future office is a legitimate issue brought up by Mr. Gore's circumstances. (Were I as sincerely concerned about "Global Warming" as so many leftists on this Message Board *profess* to be I would also pause to ponder whether I would want such a person to be a part of my political movement should this prove true but I suppose we should make allowances for the possibility that their "concern" about Global Warming is more opportunistic than sincere, ne? :D ).

In this particular case "The Nazz"'s words, and I quote,



This would seem to be a fine example indicated by the words "the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer;"

Since I had in fact both quoted "The Nazz"'s words *and* provided a link to wiki to indicate what I was speaking of, I feel there is very little excuse for anyone who failed to accept the evidence. In the future you might want to keep in mind that just as light may both a wave and a particle so it is that a dishonest or thoughtless rhetorical appeal may violate more than one rule of debate.




Let us repeat, "An
ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:"argument to the person", "argument against the man") *consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument*."

I am beginning to feel that *some* leftists need to be told this more than once. :D :rolleyes:



Let us continue with our review: "It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."

Phrases like "hillariously[Sic!] bad liar" and false accusations of "character assassinaton" would seem to be a classic example of "criticizing or personally attacking an arguement's proponent in an attempt to discredit that arguement." In that context we owe Similization a debt of gratitude for showing us a clearcut case of the "ad hominem abusive" that allows us to compare and contrast with thebignazz's inadvertant(?) example of the ad hominem circumstantia. :)

Let us note that I do find it interesting that Similization would by implication consider "poisoning the well" to be somehow morally superior to an ad hominem attack - so much so that he would describe it as "an attempt to make someone look bad". I myself would have thought that either would make the guilty party look bad but apparently the Left is so enamoured of situational ethics that this a distinction that matters to them. :rolleyes:

BTW, isn't it interesting that no one among the environmentalists is willing to accept, let alone suggest, that Al Gore might be completely in the wrong? The hypocrisy of Mr. Gore by itself does not condemn the myth of Global Warming but the Left's easy and unquestioning acceptance of such hypocrisy, as well as their rabid defense of it, certainly calls their own sincerity as a whole about the matter into question. :p

Why is it a personal attack to point out that the person who the information comes from has been caught lying on many many many different occasions? If my wife lied to me all the time I'd call her a God damned liar and ignore her in the future. Also, the article that I linked to from the AP sites the power company itself and that disproves what the Tenn. group and Drudge said. Are you telling me the power company lies? Are you telling me they don't keep accurate records? As for the people saying "solar cells take energy to produce." Um tell me something we don't all know. But you're comparing the one time use of energy to the continual cost of produces heating fuel in refineries. So it causes pollution and uses energy to make. Then it causes pollution and energy to ship. Finally, it causes pollution and uses energy to use and you're trying to tell me that it's better than reusable solar energy? You clowns should be on the show "are you smarter than a fifth grader?" if you think you're fooling anyone with intellect on this matter. So the AP proves that drudge and you are wrong. By the way, All of the sudden this "lefties are crap" clown shows up and AC2 and Corny (one and the same) disappear...very interesting. Seriously, how many puppets foes this guy have? Negate the fact that both Al Gore and his wife run offices out of this home which would make him more similar to a small business rather than your average homeowner but you'll ignore that too. Any way you count it you're argument has been DESTROYED over and over. So if you don't mind we'll start attacking you for being a cheap hack ASAP. Any way you cut it, Al Gore is using more renewable energy thereby reducing the carbon footprint of his family. And claiming that he's stealing power from old ladies who can't ahve heat is just blatantly dishonest asshattery so knock it off. I know you're lying just as much as you do so can it. :rolleyes:

Inconveniant Truth:

You picked apart what I said, seperated all of the ideas into their rudimentary pieces rather than viewing them as a whole, and then critizied the use of "hypocrite" instead of "bastard" while managing to ignore the point I made.

If Al Gore really cared about Global Warming as much as he claims, he wouldn't be burning energy like a river of fire flowing from the gates of Hell.

Have you ever heard of the words "renewable sources" and "green energy?" If I burn a billion kilowatts a day from solar and hydroelectric energy am I causing more problems or helping the environment? Keep ignoring the fact that he uses green power and you'll keep looking like an arse. If he were burning coal in his backyard then I'd agree with you.

Something else I don't get about this whole faux outrage. Shouldn't the free marketers among us be applauding Gore? He's making a market argument for renewable energy. He's willing to pay more for it; in that sense, renewables are a luxury market, like yachts or organic food. And if people like Gore can grow the market, the prices will come down, and it will be accessible to more people--market forces at work, right? That it has a measurable social and environmental benefit is just a bonus.

carne come on, you're better than that

Not this week,my friend.

I was joking sarcastically,though I know personally members of the Dixie Chicks to frequent the Melting Pot restuarant there.

It wouldnt be so outlandish.

Anyway,without any real first-hand knowledge myself,I would still expect Mr.Gore to have made some changes in his energy consumption while at the same time trying to get the word out to everyone else.
He is very wealthy and you would think if this is part of his mission,he would have made a real effort to use alternative energy.

Maybe he has and I dont know. As long as everyone just attacks everyone else,we'll probably never know the truth about this,or anything.

So-regardless of what Mr.Gore does or says,regardless of what his detractors say and do, I have for many years now,done everything reasonable I can to reduce my consumption and waste
I'm not a wasteful person to start with. I'm very conservative. I want to save money by reducing waste primarily,but my regard for the environment is a very close second.

I dont believe global warming is the threat many would have you believe. I still think its part of a historical cycle.

But- that doesnt mean I feel comfortable with frivolous waste. I didnt live through the depression,but I have learned a lot from people that have.
I dont need to suffer or be deprived of something to appreciate it. I try to make the most of what I have and do. And I think I am successful at passing that value on to 3 children.

Maybe the planet will heat up regardless of what we do. But taking reasonable steps to conserve and reduce doesnt hurt.

Something else I don't get about this whole faux outrage. Shouldn't the free marketers among us be applauding Gore?

no, because he is clearly subverting the market to serve his own ends. markets are only good in so far as they support crazy rightwing bullshit.
duh.

Did we all get along 75 years ago before 24 hour a day/7 day a week news shows started telling us live when someone farted or may have percieved a slight from someone else?

Its fucking ridiculous.

yes-I resent Barabara Streisand telling housewives to hang laundry on the line when she herself consumes more than a small town. I dont like her to begin with,so she'd have to say or do something really positivel impressive to get me to agree with her.
I have no problem admitting that.

Last night I saw a show on the super volcano that is in Yellow Stone. If that goes off, the whole globe will warm up in about 15 minutes.
Last week,they told us about a good sized asteroid that will come very close or hit Earth in 20 or 30 years.

Are we pooling resources to see what we can do to deflect and asteroid or vent building volcanic pressure-or deal with either if they do,God forbid, deal us a death blow?

No-we're just worrying why someone says something-and speculating the real reasons the yare saying it,as if it really matters. Wasting time and money and intelligence.

And the real reason I am saying this is that I am going to be selling fine particulate filter masks for when the inevitable occurs.

The news,pundits,bloggers and bitchers all fucking suck- do nothing yappers that posture and speculate. Fuck you- if you shut your fucking mouths for a minute a day,the Earth's temp would drop 1/2 a degree and we'd all be saved.

And fucking Gore wouldnt get in the Whitehouse again. ;)

Last night I saw a show on the super volcano that is in Yellow Stone. If that goes off, the whole globe will warm up in about 15 minutes.

no it won't - it'll get colder

no it won't - it'll get colder

Why-it wont trap the greenhouse gases and pyroclastic storm?

I guess it will do whatever people with an agenda speculate it will do.


Do you see what I'm saying?

Why-it wont trap the greenhouse gases and pyroclastic storm?

I guess it will do whatever people with an agenda speculate it will do.


Do you see what I'm saying?

I think you'll get a nuclear winter sort of thing first because of all the particulate matter in the air. Unless, of course, you're in the area of the volcano, in which case it will get very hot, and then you won't care.

I think you'll get a nuclear winter sort of thing first because of all the particulate matter in the air. Unless, of course, you're in the area of the volcano, in which case it will get very hot, and then you won't care.

In the case of the volcano in Yellowstone- the "area" of the volcano was hundred of miles or more-I cant recal as I was interested,but fading fast after very little sleep.
It was scary either way.

So-nuclear winter or global warming-I guess its what suits your cause best.

Why-it wont trap the greenhouse gases and pyroclastic storm?

mainly it will block out the sun

Do you see what I'm saying?

yes - you don't know what you are talking about

In the case of the volcano in Yellowstone- the "area" of the volcano was hundred of miles or more-I cant recal as I was interested,but fading fast after very little sleep.
It was scary either way.

So-nuclear winter or global warming-I guess its what suits your cause best.

If it's the same one I saw, it was long on scary stuff and short on science--it attempted to be flashy with a limited budget, and failed.

Gore is just too much. You've all probably heard and dismissed the story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256042,00.html)that Gore was 'helped' around security at the Nashville, TN airport. Gore folks are saying that the violation was "inadvertent." Baloney. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the U.S. He ran for president. He has this whole global warming thing all figured out. He has an Oscar ... all this and he doesn't know that everybody ... and that means Oscar winners ... must go through airport security when boarding a commercial flight? Sorry ... I'm not buying it. What we have here is just another politician -- and, before you say anything, it's common to Democrats and Republicans -- trying to exercise their privileges. Glad he got caught.

mainly it will block out the sun



yes - you don't know what you are talking about

and you're fooling yourself if you think you know what you're talking about, punk.

Gore is just too much. You've all probably heard and dismissed the story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256042,00.html)that Gore was 'helped' around security at the Nashville, TN airport. Gore folks are saying that the violation was "inadvertent." Baloney. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the U.S. He ran for president. He has this whole global warming thing all figured out. He has an Oscar ... all this and he doesn't know that everybody ... and that means Oscar winners ... must go through airport security when boarding a commercial flight? Sorry ... I'm not buying it. What we have here is just another politician -- and, before you say anything, it's common to Democrats and Republicans -- trying to exercise their privileges. Glad he got caught.

I'll admit that at least he was flying commercial and not using some buddie's private jet.

I'll admit that at least he was flying commercial and not using some buddie's private jet.

I'll give him that much credit, too. Maybe he even turned off the lights before he left home.

So-nuclear winter or global warming-I guess its what suits your cause best.

Eh, it appears to erupt only every 800,000 years or so, and the last was in 640,000 BC. So, we've got hopefully 158,000 years to find a way around it.

Gore is just too much. You've all probably heard and dismissed the story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256042,00.html)that Gore was 'helped' around security at the Nashville, TN airport. Gore folks are saying that the violation was "inadvertent." Baloney. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the U.S. He ran for president. He has this whole global warming thing all figured out. He has an Oscar ... all this and he doesn't know that everybody ... and that means Oscar winners ... must go through airport security when boarding a commercial flight? Sorry ... I'm not buying it. What we have here is just another politician -- and, before you say anything, it's common to Democrats and Republicans -- trying to exercise their privileges. Glad he got caught.
I only have one issue with this post--it's the assumption that Gore was trying to get away with something. It's possible that he was recognized by the airline employee, and the employee was starstruck and did this of his own volition. Now, Gore took advantage of the situation, at the very least, but the article doesn't get into who initiated the situation, so far as I could tell, which means that saying "trying to exercise their privileges" might be a step too far.

All this clamoring to talk shit about Al Gore on a forum is soooo grade school playground. Ineffectual at best, and comical at worst. None of this is going to change opinions, or even put the slightest nick in his movement. Watching you guys is like watching someone trying to demolish a skyscraper with spitballs. You make me laugh harder than I have since I saw The 40 Year Old Virgin. ;)

I only have one issue with this post--it's the assumption that Gore was trying to get away with something. It's possible that he was recognized by the airline employee, and the employee was starstruck and did this of his own volition. Now, Gore took advantage of the situation, at the very least, but the article doesn't get into who initiated the situation, so far as I could tell, which means that saying "trying to exercise their privileges" might be a step too far.
It's all in the interpretation. My cynical outlook on life tells me that Mr Politician said, "Can you get me around security?" or maybe "Do you know who I am?" ( I had John Kerry ask me that when I wouldn't let him cut in line at a Boston restaurant. He got seated ahead of me, anyway) Then the poor, badgered airline employee helps Mr Politician, gets in trouble, and the politician gets away with only a little unfavorable press.

Now, if this had been an evangelist, that would have prompted all kinds of abuse from you, wouldn't it, Nazz?

It's all in the interpretation. My cynical outlook on life tells me that Mr Politician said, "Can you get me around security?" or maybe "Do you know who I am?" ( I had John Kerry ask me that when I wouldn't let him cut in line at a Boston restaurant. He got seated ahead of me, anyway) Then the poor, badgered airline employee helps Mr Politician, gets in trouble, and the politician gets away with only a little unfavorable press.

Now, if this had been an evangelist, that would have prompted all kinds of abuse from you, wouldn't it, Nazz?
Not really, not unless said evangelist was threating hellfire and damnation unless he got his way. Or unless we're talking about James Dobson (though I doubt he ever flies commercial). I'd like to think that I'd notice the same missing information in the article, though you never know. We all have our biases after all. ;)