I find it bizzare that all these Republicans are pissed off at Gore for having a big house and therefore using more energy then average. He's rich, in large part because he's a very sucessfull buisnessman. Are you suggesting that sucessfull buisnessmen should not be allowed to have big houses, because they are likely to use more energy?
Not to mention the creepy right-wing group that's apparently been going through Gore's garbage to find his energy bills.
Is this really the level we've sunk to?
How much energy Gore uses is absolutly irrelevent. It's just an attempt to try and confuse the issue by an ad hominum attack on the messanger by people who know they can't argue with the message. And it's such a stupid, stupid thing to try to attack someone with; are they going to count how much toilet paper he uses next? Or should I go and look at your energy bill and judge your worth as a human being based on how many energystar appliances you own?
Really? That is very interesting considering he is the main spokesperson for the GW movement. So I should just listen to him and not question why he does not do what he says we should, he just buys his way out of doing anything. Maybe that is ok with you but it is most certainly not ok with me. Please tell me what message is being confused. Would it be the one that Gore talks a good game but does nothing to follow though or would it be the one that Gore buys his way out of responsibly? Please tell me. Let's see, Gore=major mouthpiece for GW. Gore=doesn't walk the walk. Seems pretty damn clear cut to me. Don't preach to me when you don't do what you preach nothing to confuse. Nice try though. Keep defending a man that care NOTHING for the environment.
Would it be the one that Gore talks a good game but does nothing to follow though or would it be the one that Gore buys his way out of responsibly? Please tell me. Let's see, Gore=major mouthpiece for GW. Gore=doesn't walk the walk. .
Keep defending a man that care NOTHING for the environment
Let's see...
"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."
Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
Nothing? Seems to me he's devoted a good part of his life bringing the issue to the attention of Americans.
Within one week we have now seen 5 seperate threads on the exact same topic of attacking Gore by the exact same poster:roll: why am I not surprised? Not only are they the same topic but even the titles are practically identical, Gore is a hypocrite.Gore runs a personal business out of his home. This means that he has a large rate of consumption that the average homeowner does not have. Also, the larger a house the larger surface area there is perpetuate heat loss. There are many variables involved in assessing the amount of energy used by a home, but it all boils down to one thing - how much have you done to reduce your consumption. I would be willing to bet a ton that Gore has done as much as he can without putting himself out of business to minimize his consumption of energy.
That's all irrelevant to the GW debate though, because - as it has already been pointed out - the skeptics cannot seem to debate the science, and resort to drastic and pathetic Ad Hominem attacks.
Good point; we should all live in caves because even the effort to lean trees together to provide shelter causes us to respire CO2.Consider how much energy was used to produce all the furnishings in his house. The energy needed to produce the dishwashers, fridges, telephones, paints, timber, ceramics. Etc. So far many people have looked at Gore's electricity consumption. But has anyone factored in all of the energy required to build his house?
I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with the processes of photosynthesis, or if you're just playing dumb.Secondly we all assume that by planting trees that somehow Al Gore is offsetting his carbon emissions by carbon sinks (trees). This assumes that trees are net carbon sinks throughout their life span. I've yet to see evidence to support this.
Haha, well I'll admit I didn't finish your post before deciding to respond. (The trees not being carbon sinks was quite amusing) I'm going to leave my response to the first part just because it's that much funnier.If you really care about the environment and really have any clue about CO2 and the carbon life forms that we are. You know that the only way to reduce green house gases is to live in a cave, and consume very little at all.
I find it bizzare that all these Republicans are pissed off at Gore for having a big house and therefore using more energy then average.
How much energy Gore uses is absolutly irrelevent. It's just an attempt to try and confuse the issue by an ad hominum attack on the messanger by people who know they can't argue with the message. And it's such a stupid, stupid thing to try to attack someone with; are they going to count how much toilet paper he uses next? Or should I go and look at your energy bill and judge your worth as a human being based on how many energystar appliances you own?
Gore runs a personal business out of his home. This means that he has a large rate of consumption that the average homeowner does not have.
Also, the larger a house the larger surface area there is perpetuate heat loss.
The "conservatives" don't have anything, they can't refute the science,
Gore runs a personal business out of his home. This means that he has a large rate of consumption that the average homeowner does not have.
Also, the larger a house the larger surface area there is perpetuate heat loss. There are many variables involved in assessing the amount of energy used by a home, but it all boils down to one thing - how much have you done to reduce your consumption. I would be willing to bet a ton that Gore has done as much as he can without putting himself out of business to minimize his consumption of energy.
That's all irrelevant to the GW debate though, because - as it has already been pointed out - the skeptics cannot seem to debate the science, and resort to drastic and pathetic Ad Hominem attacks
chanda said: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."
Sauwan said:Gore runs a personal business out of his home. This means that he has a large rate of consumption that the average homeowner does not have.
I have no problem with the fact that GW is happening what I have a problem with is someone that does not walk the walk but will preach to me.
From Urban Legends:
"In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or lifestyle change.
"First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly -- like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible -- all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself.
"Second, he preaches activism -- voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.
"Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does -- offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.
"So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn't one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets -- and you might even be right -- but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he's a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham."
Al Gore's Energy Usage Exceeds U.S. Average [p. 2]
Most emissions from homes are from the fossil fuels burned to generate electricity and heat. By using energy more efficiently at home, you can reduce your emissions and lower your energy bills by more than 30%.
Almost one third of the carbon dioxide produced in the United States comes from our cars, trucks and airplanes. Here are some simple, practical things you can do to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide you produce while on the move.
And you have proof of this??
Good point; we should all live in caves because even the effort to lean trees together to provide shelter causes us to respire CO2.
I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with the processes of photosynthesis, or if you're just playing dumb.
Haha, well I'll admit I didn't finish your post before deciding to respond. (The trees not being carbon sinks was quite amusing) I'm going to leave my response to the first part just because it's that much funnier.
For those of us who DO know about CO2 and the environment, we know that a large majority of the CO2 output from humans is from fossil fuel burning power plants. This is easily remedied by creating Nuclear facilities - however in the short term it's good to reduce your power consumption. This blatant non-sequitur that any CO2 that is output is bad therefore we should live in caves is laughable. The earth is largely resilient, and we just need to understand when we cross a line.
Well I apologize. If you are able to find that research again I would be interested in reading it. I couldn't find anything with a few minutes of googling.Actually my reference to trees, was NET intake of CO2. I saw some research somewhere that when trees are young or sapplings that the produce more CO2 than they sequester, due to cellular respiration. It is only once the trees have matured that you get a NET intake of CO2. SO yes I am very fimiliar with CO2, as my I have a degree in biology.
I think people are afraid of the word "Nuclear" altogether. I think it would be really interesting to see Gore actually press for more Nuclear power plants. If he was against those, I would see some hypocrisy.I agree with you about nuclear power plants, but my reference to living in caves is designed for people that are so scared of CO2 emissions yet at the same time won't even attempt to ponder nuclear power.
So why does he have four large homes? Does he NEED four homes?
There is absolutely NO reason, NONE for him to have a privet jet,
So Al's carbon credit scam makes his friend a pretty penny.
Again what a shock Al Gore is a co-founder of the company. So he buys credits from himself, no conflict of interest there...The man is a scam artist and is making money off his save the environment crusade.
Interesting information.
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?