An Inconvenient Truth

[Franklinnoble]

From Drudge:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:



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, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
[email protected]

Congratulations on the Oscar, Al. We'll just do as you say, not as you do, huh?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It is an interesting article. It wouldn't bother me so much that he was using more electricity than the average household, because otherwise the thrust of the article is that people shouldn't own a big house and everyone should live in a cabin. But I am bothered by the fact his consumption increased since the movie came out.

[larrymcg421]

I'd like to hear what an unbiased source had to say about Gore's energy use. Drudge and the TCPR certainly don't qualify.

[Bonegavel]

In X years when the scientific community switches gears again and thinks we are going into an ice age, if Gore is still alive he should be tied to an ant hill and drenched with Mrs Butterworth's and the only article in his possession is the DVD case of his movie stuffed in his mouth so he can't speak.

[NoMyths]

It's flat, I tell you! Flat!

[JPhillips]

How much energy did Sportsdigs use?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

From Drudge:



Congratulations on the Oscar, Al. We'll just do as you say, not as you do, huh?

You came out of hiding to post that?

[Ksyrup]

This type of "news" has been reported since Gore was running for President. I especially liked the aerial shot of his land which showed the mining and other raping of natural resources that was going on. Of course, I have no clue if any of it was true or not, but it was effective.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

In X years when the scientific community switches gears again and thinks we are going into an ice age, if Gore is still alive he should be tied to an ant hill and drenched with Mrs Butterworth's and the only article in his possession is the DVD case of his movie stuffed in his mouth so he can't speak.

Why procrastinate?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by KWhit

You came out of hiding to post that?

Yeah, at least when Shorty comes out of hiding, he occasionally posts a picture of a hot girl.

Thread did not deliver.

[Subby]

OH BURN, AL GORE!

BUUUUURRRRRNNNNNN!

[albionmoonlight]

I must admit to wondering, as everyone at the Oscars was applauding the movement to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, how many of them had limousines idling in the parking lot, waiting to take them away when the show ended.

And, to get to Franklin's original question: Yes, do as he says and not as he does. When someone has a good idea, we should follow that idea and not focus on their personal flaws.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

When someone has a good idea, we should ... not focus on their personal flaws.

Or their junk "science".

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or their junk "science".

I get all hot and bothered when Jon debunks scientific research.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I get all hot and bothered when Jon debunks scientific research.

Well, he's awesome. Awesome he is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I get all hot and bothered when Jon debunks scientific research.

Don't get too worked up. In this instance, it doesn't exactly take a whole lot of effort.

[Bee]

It takes a lot of power to run the entire internet in your basement.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't get too worked up. In this instance, it doesn't exactly take a whole lot of effort.

Sure it does. I mean, you've read through all the studies carefully, you've compared the differing claims, and through it all you've maintained an unbiased distance, because truly that seems to be the only way to arrive at a scientific conclusion. I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put in to arrive at your stance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Sure it does. I mean, you've read through all the studies carefully, you've compared the differing claims, and through it all you've maintained an unbiased distance, because truly that seems to be the only way to arrive at a scientific conclusion. I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put in to arrive at your stance.

NM, you're underestimating how useful a little common sense is when sifting through the mountain of material on the subject that's floating around the 'net.

The one thing Owl has managed to do is provide a great example of the law of unintended consequences. If he just doesn't invent the internet, then it becomes a lot tougher to find the information that exposes him as a damned fool. But it's sort of tough to put that genie back in the bottle now.

[Ksyrup]

If people were truly unbiased in conducting research, etc., then we'd never get answers to anything, since most people wouldn't be interested enough in the outcome to see it through to a proper conclusion.

[NoMyths]

Common sense isn't really one of the pillars of the scientific method, John. They're more into, you know, testable and repeatable research and all, and not just going from their gut.

Having looked at the research, I'm convinced that climate change is a result of mankind increasing carbon emissions to an unsustainable level. Going from my gut I reached the same conclusion, but having let people who know more about this stuff than I (or you) have a go has backed up my original hypothesis.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I don't follow politics or consider myself to side with any particular political party, so please don't consider this a knock on one particular group:

How is it that people are able to take a scientific issue and turn it into something political? Is it because of who's bringing up the issue? It is because of the reasons that they bring up the issue? Shit, argue the science all you want, but this just looks like another outlet for people to go "Republicans " or "Democrats ".

Is this political fighting just fun for people? Obviously, I just don't get it, and I'm sure I never will.

[NoMyths]

Well said, Pumpy. There is no serious debate on the part of the scientific community. It's not a political issue -- it's a scientific one.

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Common sense isn't really one of the pillars of the scientific method, John. They're more into, you know, testable and repeatable research and all, and not just going from their gut.

Having looked at the research, I'm convinced that climate change is a result of mankind increasing carbon emissions to an unsustainable level. Going from my gut I reached the same conclusion, but having let people who know more about this stuff than I (or you) have a go has backed up my original hypothesis.

Where is your scientific conclusion that the increase in global temperature is a bad thing?

[Toddzilla]

Gee, this is almost like getting angry at a President who avoided the draft that starts an unnecessary war and sends thousands of kids off to a foreign land to die....or is it....

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Where is your scientific conclusion that the increase in global temperature is a bad thing?

It's not merely my conclusion -- it's the conclusion of the vast majority of climatologists. When you look at what are considered current effects and consider the anticipated future effects, none of it adds up to anything good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Is this political fighting just fun for people? Obviously, I just don't get it, and I'm sure I never will.

Not particularly "fun", more like a tedious chore most of the time.

But it's either challenge it as often as possible or stand aside and allow silence to assist misinformation and/or outright lies to become (accepted as) "truth".

My "favorite" example is how Sen. McCarthy ends up so often referred to as a member of the HUAC. That piece of misinformation was repeated so often that it's now frequently accepted as "fact".

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

NM, you're underestimating how useful a little common sense is when sifting through the mountain of material on the subject that's floating around the 'net.

The one thing Owl has managed to do is provide a great example of the law of unintended consequences. If he just doesn't invent the internet, then it becomes a lot tougher to find the information that exposes him as a damned fool. But it's sort of tough to put that genie back in the bottle now.

Wow, I shouldn't have gone to grad school for all that time. I could've become an expert and offer my opinion just by sifting through the material on the net. I'm teaching this afternoon and I may just tell all my students to drop out and get high speed.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not particularly "fun", more like a tedious chore most of the time.

But it's either challenge it as often as possible or stand aside and allow silence to assist misinformation and/or outright lies to become (accepted as) "truth".

My "favorite" example is how Sen. McCarthy ends up so often referred to as a member of the HUAC. That piece of misinformation was repeated so often that it's now frequently accepted as "fact".

I do see your point here, but why global warming? The arguments I see are never "Al Gore is no scientist." It reads more like "Al Gore is a Democrat, so he doesn't know what he's talking about." It goes the other way, too. I've seen people support his views on global warming seemingly because of his political affiliation.

I think I'm missing something really basic here, and I haven't put my finger on it. Really, what does global warming have to do with politics?

[George]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I think I'm missing something really basic here, and I haven't put my finger on it. Really, what does global warming have to do with politics?

$$

[Bee]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's not merely my conclusion -- it's the conclusion of the vast majority of climatologists. When you look at what are considered current effects and consider the anticipated future effects, none of it adds up to anything good.

that's not completely true...all the land my family owns in West Virginia could become beachside property baby!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I think I'm missing something really basic here, and I haven't put my finger on it. Really, what does global warming have to do with politics?

I think you're being a bit naive in your world view, that's all. And I don't mean it as a slight at all. But the global warming debate has an effect on the kind of aid that's given to Third World countries, their development, our relationship with China, the amount of money that is spent in this country on environmental reform, which in turn, can be seen to have an adverse effect on industry, which can also in part be responsible for sending many jobs here overseas. And those are just the big picture issues, not to mention lots of other stuff. People who state that this is a scientific issue are being naive as well. It's not. It may be a scientific issue to determine whether or not global warming is occurring, but the funding to determine it is a political issue in and of itself. So they are not mutually exclusive.

Frankly, as someone who has a lump of coal sitting on their desk, I'd expect you'd know more about carbon dioxide emissions, Pumpy!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I think I'm missing something really basic here, and I haven't put my finger on it. Really, what does global warming have to do with politics?

raf105 probably didn't miss the mark by much really, although there's also some basic philosophical differences evident in various reactions to the subject as well. I think I'll leave you to spot those on your own, since it'd be hard for me to highlight the ones I have in mind without being, well, blatantly political.

FWIW, I'm not sure it's worth too much obsessing on this single topic about though. A large number of seemingly varied topics have a political element today, although as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, I'm convinced that what is often described as "political" is actually just significant differences in core beliefs/core values coming out with politics as a vehicle for them to do so.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Bee

that's not completely true...all the land my family owns in West Virginia could become beachside property baby!

See...if the rest of the state can cash in on the transition from coal-mining to resort hospitality, there's no telling what kind of economic boom is in store!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I think you're being a bit naive in your world view, that's all. And I don't mean it as a slight at all. But the global warming debate has an effect on the kind of aid that's given to Third World countries, their development, our relationship with China, the amount of money that is spent in this country on environmental reform, which in turn, can be seen to have an adverse effect on industry, which can also in part be responsible for sending many jobs here overseas. And those are just the big picture issues, not to mention lots of other stuff. People who state that this is a scientific issue are being naive as well. It's not. It may be a scientific issue to determine whether or not global warming is occurring, but the funding to determine it is a political issue in and of itself. So they are not mutually exclusive.

Frankly, as someone who has a lump of coal sitting on their desk, I'd expect you'd know more about carbon dioxide emissions, Pumpy!

I admit that I am naive about this. To be brutally honest, I have very, very little interest in these topics. I just continue to shake my head at the "political fightfightfight" stuff that goes on all the time, and I didn't understand how it applied to global warming. I understand that I probably come off sounding like a child here, but when it comes to issues like war and the government providing aid to people, the political fighting made sense to me without explanation. You've helped me understand how it relates to global warming, though, so now I know more than I did a half hour ago.

And I won't know much about this lump of coal on my desk until I burn it.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My "favorite" example is how Sen. McCarthy ends up so often referred to as a member of the HUAC. That piece of misinformation was repeated so often that it's now frequently accepted as "fact".

Speaking of repeated "facts", you yourself reference Al Gore's invention of the internet earlier in this thread. He never fucking said it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I don't follow politics or consider myself to side with any particular political party, so please don't consider this a knock on one particular group:

How is it that people are able to take a scientific issue and turn it into something political? Is it because of who's bringing up the issue? It is because of the reasons that they bring up the issue? Shit, argue the science all you want, but this just looks like another outlet for people to go "Republicans " or "Democrats ".

Is this political fighting just fun for people? Obviously, I just don't get it, and I'm sure I never will.

I think it's partially because Al Gore has inserted himself into it. If he is doing it for truly altruistic reasons, then fine. But, the cynic will say that he's doing it for some sort of gain - either political gain, ego (an Oscar, though it's hard to predict something like that...maybe), popularity in certain circles (Hollywood), gains for the Democratic Party in general, etc. Who knows what his real motivation is, or if it is a number of things. Simply because of who he is (a politician) there will be doubts that he can't avoid. His estate and personal energy use can't help (a little like John Edwards and his poverty plank...but by no means are they the only possible examples). Compare to folks like Ed Begley Jr., who talks the talk AND walks the walk, really following what he believes.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by miked

I'm teaching this afternoon and I may just tell all my students to drop out and get high on speed.

They do that anyway.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Speaking of repeated "facts", you yourself reference Al Gore's invention of the internet earlier in this thread. He never fucking said it.

Quoted for truth.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I just continue to shake my head at the "political fightfightfight" stuff that goes on all the time

I get sick of this myself, even though I graduated with a political science degree. The state of politics now just turned me completely off from it. When I started here, I fought about it some, now I usually let these threads go without comment. Why do I need something like this in my life to get uptight and upset about?

[gstelmack]

The problem is that any scientist that raises an objection to global warming is quickly shouted down. There ARE doubts, they just get shouted down. Here is the Discover interview I've mentioned a few times for example:

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-0...over-dialogue/

There are also more and more stories about how drastically a single volcanic eruption can affect the climate. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1121232204.htm for a recent example.

I think politics prevents any fully honest assessment, as there is a lot of money to be had, and a lot of countries that would like to knock down American industry a peg (see: Kyoto).

And as this initial article points out, there is plenty of hypocrisy in those saying "stop greenhouse gas emissions" while they drive around in limos and shuttle to and from conferences on large private jets...

[Subby]

Jesse Ewiak thinks Franky No Ballz starts too many political threads.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Speaking of repeated "facts", you yourself reference Al Gore's invention of the internet earlier in this thread. He never fucking said it.

Technically true, he only claimed to have "taken the initiative in creating the internet" ... never mind the fact that many of the components existed long before he ever took office.

"Invented" is, however, a handy shorthand useful for mocking him as the fool he has proven himself to be.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Invented" is, however, a handy shorthand useful for mocking him as the fool he has proven himself to be.

In Gore's defense, not everyone can live up to George W's high standard of non-foolishness. But it is a lot harder to point to where Al's foolishness has directly led to thousands of Americans and countless people in Iraq dying.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I admit that I am naive about this. To be brutally honest, I have very, very little interest in these topics. I just continue to shake my head at the "political fightfightfight" stuff that goes on all the time, and I didn't understand how it applied to global warming. I understand that I probably come off sounding like a child here, but when it comes to issues like war and the government providing aid to people, the political fighting made sense to me without explanation. You've helped me understand how it relates to global warming, though, so now I know more than I did a half hour ago.

And I won't know much about this lump of coal on my desk until I burn it.

Put it this way:

The anti-business/anti-progress crowd that opposes the stuff that makes our lives better (e.g., cars, planes, gasoline, etc.), are the one's at the forefront of this issue and they are in the democratic party almost without exception.

This, to me, is where the political aspect is coming from. That's not to say that there aren't some misguided Republicans that are buying into this hype, but by and large they are the folks in the Democratic party.

The Earth has been warming and cooling long before we were on the scene and it will continue to do so into eternity. The sun doesn't always give off the same amount of solar radiation. Volcanoes erupt and spew millions of tonnes of debris and caustic material in the air (far more than we ever have, btw). Vents in the sea spew toxic material into the ocean all the time.

The Earth was here a long time before us and it will be here a long time after us. We are a pimple on the Earth's ass and there really isn't anything we could do to disrupt that.

(not directed at you PT) If you think that driving your car is killing the planet, then why don't you stop driving? Stop flying. Stop breathing for christ's sake as you are spewing CO2 into the air and causing the planet to warm up.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I get sick of this myself, even though I graduated with a political science degree. The state of politics now just turned me completely off from it. When I started here, I fought about it some, now I usually let these threads go without comment. Why do I need something like this in my life to get uptight and upset about?

I'm with you. I also graduated with a political science degree and now consider myself wholly apolitical. And I mean in the same way that someone who is vegetarian doesn't eat meat, politics are just something I no longer "do." It's just not worth the headache.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I'm with you. I also graduated with a political science degree and now consider myself wholly apolitical. And I mean in the same way that someone who is vegetarian doesn't eat meat, politics are just something I no longer "do." It's just not worth the headache.

Both parties are wretched hives of scum and villainy. Unfortunately, this is the way our world works.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's not merely my conclusion -- it's the conclusion of the vast majority of climatologists. When you look at what are considered current effects and consider the anticipated future effects, none of it adds up to anything good.

Has anyone actually looked at what future effects might possibly be good? Other than LA falling into the ocean.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I must admit to wondering, as everyone at the Oscars was applauding the movement to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, how many of them had limousines idling in the parking lot, waiting to take them away when the show ended.

And, to get to Franklin's original question: Yes, do as he says and not as he does. When someone has a good idea, we should follow that idea and not focus on their personal flaws.

Come on though. You lead from the front. If you feel as passionately about the subject as he appears to, you should be willing to make sacrifices.

[NoMyths]

There is also a key piece of information (well, two actually) about Gore's energy use that is missing from the article and this discussion, which would pretty much quiet whatever controversy exists over his electric bill. However, I am not going to reveal either, because it's more amusing watching people who consider themselves well-informed about the issue dissemble. I will say that if the critics of the scientific concern over global warming would do half the research they pretend to have backing up their opinions, this thread would be half as long, and we'd still be making fun of Franklin, which is pretty much the best goal for any of these kinds of threads.

Seriously, though, how many times do the same people have to be wrong in the same ways before folks start to notice a pattern?