The Inconvenient Truth...

So when we can't attack the subject then let's attack the messenger.

While I would applaud him even more if he lived in a modest house with all conservation techniques available, I find this reporting dishonest, instead of talking about the subject of the movie we talk about the person. It's sad, but expected, and will once again avoid the real debate here in US

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 27 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]397409[/snapback]</div>

But he's been buying green credits for three months now. Doesn't that mean something?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Feb 27 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]397414[/snapback]</div>

The exact same tactic Libs use to attack conservatives making some moral stance. What's good for the goose baby. Hypocisy flows both ways.

 

Now why would a chap like Gore not put PV and solar water heating on the roof? A geothermal heat pump would be a nice addition. He should have all of these things if he's on board with his own program. It would appear that Gore's been a bit slow to act though he may actually be doing something about it.

If he isn't "walking the walk" he should be criticized. 'W' is roundly trashed all the time. Most of the time it's warranted, I think. Gore shouldn't be exempt from the same scrutiny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 27 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]397418[/snapback]</div>

I shouldn't have said dishonest, but rather avoiding the main point of the movie, his belief and attacking something much smaller and simpler. This because Al Gore isn't saying normal people out of the good in their heart should change their heating systems. That's far to slow and modest. What he is calling for are changing laws and regulations that will change how we as a society work.
It's sort of like the tax system. There are things I think we should change (bush's tax cut that we as a family benefit from as an example). I will vote for reverting this tax break but that doesn't stop me personally from planning my taxes as well as I can and make use of this cut. The difference is that we as a society need to change.

Now agreed Gore should be doing more at home, and hopefully this will make him change. That will not change the ammount to CO2 we produce though. What's needed is a society change and to do that we need to change are rules and regulations. Yesterday would be a good day to start!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 27 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]397409[/snapback]</div>

Firstly, for the record, I admire Al Gore for all the money and exposure he has gained from the current AGW schemes at our expense. For a man who has less personality and charisma than the wax figure talking Presidents once featured at Walt Disney World he has hit a home run with this one.

The Democrats, true to fashion, mimic the old Russian Oligarchic societal structure. Never mind how we live ("Pay not attention to that man behind the curtain!"), just live and labor for the "good" of the state and the world. While I have no issues with tremendous individual wealth, when one receives the same message from these "leaders" of how YOU must live the simple life to save the world, well, it gets pretty thin.

It is amusing to read time and time again how many devoted fans of Al Gore on this board shower him with blind and blubbering servitude. Please purchase another copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" and don't forget to get your copy of "Soylent Green" while you’re at it...

Rick
#4 2006

 

I do not know. I expect that house functions a lot more like a place of business (ie., offices, guests) than the houses of most americans.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html

The report describes the Gores' home as a mansion, but Kreider refers to it as a "residence." She did not immediately know how many rooms the residence had, but described the second building on the property as a swimming pool house, adjacent to an outdoor pool.

Kreider said the 60- to 70-year-old house is undergoing renovations to add solar panels to reduce consumption off the power grid, and energy-efficient windows have been installed. The home also uses "compact" fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technology, the Gores drive hybrids and participate in two programs that indirectly reduce carbon emissions.

One is through the local power company — the massive Tennessee Valley Authority — which runs the Green Power Switch program that uses some renewable energy like wind and solar power. The second is through a so-called carbon credit program, in which the Gores pay money to invest in a third party to reduce one ton of carbon emissions for every ton of carbon the Gores emit.

Asked to explain how the Gores use the amount of electricity they do, Kreider said they have a large family and often host guests. Both Al and Tipper Gore also have home offices. And she noted that much of Al Gore's time is spent trying to bring about awareness to the problem of global warming, which as a byproduct uses carbon-emitting power.

And more response at
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/
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 ( http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/ ), installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

And of course, this story is also a great way to bump the IPCC recommendations to the UN (released today) right off the news. Thanks again Matt Drudge.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

No one, apparently, is disputing the figures quoted in the article. However, as the source (The Tennessee Center for Policy Research) is an organization that also opposes raising the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 because it would "harm the working poor", I am at least a little skeptical of their claim of being dedicated to "clear and unbiased research."

 

This is ridiculous. The man isn't 100% conservation perfect, but he is doing a LOT more to be CO2 neutral than almost anybody. He buys credits to compensate his plane usage, he is installing solar panels, etc. Why are we so hung up on trying to play 'got you' with him. He is wealthy and as a wealthy man he chooses to use a lot of energy and he can afford to buy CO2 offsets for his energy usage. Meanwhile, he is devoting his time doing something he believes in to try to better the world. If you don't like his personality or his money, I don't care, but to attack him as being 'hypocritical' by choosing to blow out of proportion some numbers and downplaying his credits is just an attempt to either 1. personally denounce him (since he probably never did anything personal to one of us, that is unlikely), or 2. denounce his message through association (i.e. the faux news logic). I watched 10 minutes of faux news yesterday on this topic and watched hannity, colmes, three guests, including permanent resident guest "Queen of nonsensical reasoning and hyperbole" Ann Coulter, bash Al Gore and his message and the Oscars with one brave woman I have never seen before who had to defend everything. One of the guys (Hannity??) said something to the effect that he doesn't want anybody telling him not to drive his SUV he loves so much, and then they all went on to try to make the environmental movement as a false front to a communistic socialistic anti-capitalist movement as the sole reason to the global warming hype. Ann Coulter kept trying to make the case that Al Gore wants a world where the rich get to be rich and everyone else gets to serve the rich and live straw huts and the he is trying to destroy the middle class, and on and on and on.....

 

I don't think people who attack Al Gore have seen "An Inconveinant Truth" or they would realize he has been on the forefront of energy conservation for some time now. I just watched the film last night and was very impressed. Here is a guy who could be making speeches for tens of thousands of dollars an hour, and instead he is doing something that will really help the environment.

And to think a lot of you here complaining about him are Prius owners! Sheesh!

Dave

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Feb 27 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]397447[/snapback]</div>

And they're not even a legitimate organization according to state law.
Dept. of Revenue says conservative think tank ‘not a legitimate group’
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?news_id=54656

For a deconstruction of the Center's right wing ties, see
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson...ea_b_42171.html

 

He's in the process of installing solar panels on his house.

 

Actually, as I read on a blog elsewhere, I'm sure this press release was sitting on a shelf ready to go. It's payback for his winning an oscar and raising awareness of global warming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Feb, 04:47 PM) [snapback]397447[/snapback]</div>

Not to hijack the thread, but I believe the minimum wage should be at least $25.00/hr. This would ensure every working American would make approximately $50,000/year, hardly a king's ransom in today's economy. $5.15/hr and even $7.25/hr is ridiculous. No one can even come close to living or supporting a family on such a wage.

With a minimum wage of $25.00/hr all poverty would be wiped out. Everyone would be able to afford decent health insurance, a later model automobile for dependable transportation, and even a modest house.

Unreal anyone or any group would oppose any raise in the minimum wage for the obvious reasons stated above.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb, 03:11 PM) [snapback]397497[/snapback]</div>

Well, I share your underlying sentiment, but such a policy would quickly lead to inflation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 27 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]397497[/snapback]</div>

Rick, you did hijack this thread, why not start a new one?

Dave