Al Gore

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

After intitially reading this thread I wasn't gonna post, this is merely a repeat of a previous post here.

However, I came back because the above thoughts expressed by various members struck me as quite odd. People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money? It's all OK cuz he can afford to pay for offsets?

So I guess the USA, being the richest nation, is likewise allowed to have higher consumption/emissions than poorer countries?

Better get a memo on this out to the rest of the world, they seem confused and assert exactly the opposite.

Oh, and you might add in your memo since tons of USA scientists are researching global warming and raising awareness, the benefit more than outweighs the cost (of our emissions).

Fern

Do you even know what a carbon offset is? By paying for more trees to be planted, and things of that nature he pays to have what carbon is emitted by the energy he consumes completely eliminated. That means in an average year, zero carbon is contributed to the atmosphere thanks to Al Gore. (well, i bet they miss some here and there... but you get the idea). So, while he is consuming more energy then your average joe, his impact to the environment is SMALLER. Who cares how he's doing it? Is this a shock to you that people with lots of money consume more things then people with no money? He's using his own money to make our whole world a better place and you have a problem with this? It's not hypocricy, its the height of practicing what you preach.

So, by your logic.. yes. IF the US, as the biggest and richest country in the world, were to somehow create enough areas to completely consume all the carbon that we emit, it is pretty safe to assume that the rest of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.

I feel like this thread is drowning in a sea of ignorance about the basic subject matter it is based on.

Do you really believe that line of crap about carbon offsets?
The man burned about 10,000-15,000 gallons of Jet A in a 36 hour period a couple of months back criss crossing the continent. How many tree's need to be planted to offset that?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
They cant help it, it has been beat into their heads so much the past 6 years that anytime any criticism comes up on the left, pull the bush card.

The powers that be have trained them well.

They are what most people call Sheeple.

Excuse me, if you are going to use the phrase "sheeple" that I started using on here please use in the correct context.

I started using sheeple in place of neocons since I was told to no longer call the folks on the religious radical right that term anymore. I was also told to not use RRR as well so it has been sheeple ever since.

Since the Republican Religious Radical Right Neocons lost the election the resident ones in here have been attempting to hijack my term for them to call the Democrat supporters sheeple now.

Can't you come up with your own terminology?

Sheeple has been around a lot longer than that. Sorry if you got this idea you were the first, you werent.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

They cant help it, it has been beat into their heads so much the past 6 years that anytime any criticism comes up on the left, pull the bush card.

The powers that be have trained them well. They are what most people call Sheeple.

wow, this guy has really shown us the light..we just need to quit being brainwashed..
the only reason that bush comes up in this thread is because most of the people who complain about gore are bush supporters. Not to mention that the whole anti-gore thing IS a republican/sheeple issue. He is a lightning rod for conservative talking heads. If people want to criticize gore they can do it in his political record because currently none of the politicians have that great of an environmental record. I don't personally like gore ,but I like him a whole lot more than bush. no one beat this opinion into my head..i've disagreed with bush from day one and my family never had a political affiliation to democrats or republicans, they simply didnt pay attention to politics.

Wrong the only reason Bush comes up in this thread is because your internal programming from the years of brainwashing causes you to spit it out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
wow, this guy has really shown us the light..we just need to quit being brainwashed..
the only reason that bush comes up in this thread is because most of the people who complain about gore are bush supporters. Not to mention that the whole anti-gore thing IS a republican/sheeple issue. He is a lightning rod for conservative talking heads. If people want to criticize gore they can do it in his political record because currently none of the politicians have that great of an environmental record. I don't personally like gore ,but I like him a whole lot more than bush. no one beat this opinion into my head..i've disagreed with bush from day one and my family never had a political affiliation to democrats or republicans, they simply didnt pay attention to politics.

Wrong the only reason Bush comes up in this thread is because your internal programming from the years of brainwashing causes you to spit it out.

Bahahahahaha Look at the Republicans falling all over themselves :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Do you really believe that line of crap about carbon offsets?
The man burned about 10,000-15,000 gallons of Jet A in a 36 hour period a couple of months back criss crossing the continent. How many tree's need to be planted to offset that?

About 1/10th of one acre. (An acre absorbs about 2.6 tons of CO2 per year, and a gallon of jet fuel puts out about 20lbs.)

Of course that's yearly absorption of CO2...so really, far less then that. Why? What were you expecting?

(note: by showing Genx this I am not endorsing the retarded argument that the miniscule amount fossil fuels that Gore burns while going around the country trying to change things makes him a hypocrite, as all the fuel he could possibly burn in his lifetime is a drop in the bucket as compared to the changes that his speaking, etc might make)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

About 1/10th of one acre. (An acre absorbs about 2.6 tons of CO2 per year, and a gallon of jet fuel puts out about 20lbs.)

Just curious here....

Googling around reveals a gallon of jet weighs about 6 lbs.

You seem to be saying that burning something that weighs 6 lbs results in 20 lbs of waste.

Clearly I'm no chemistry major, not clear to how get up to 20 lbs. Can you explain?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Burning a gallon of jet fuel produces 21.095 lbs of CO2 according to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, Instructions for Form EIA 1605B, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix B.

When stuff burns it chemically combines with oxygen from the air, so you're going to be (if I remember chemistry right.. its been awhile) for each atom of carbon, nailing on 2 oxygen atoms, which is why you're going to be able to end up with 20lbs of waste from 6 lbs of fuel.

EDIT: oh, not trying to be a smartass there. that's just where the figure came from.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
They cant help it, it has been beat into their heads so much the past 6 years that anytime any criticism comes up on the left, pull the bush card.

The powers that be have trained them well.

They are what most people call Sheeple.

Excuse me, if you are going to use the phrase "sheeple" that I started using on here please use in the correct context.

I started using sheeple in place of neocons since I was told to no longer call the folks on the religious radical right that term anymore. I was also told to not use RRR as well so it has been sheeple ever since.

Since the Republican Religious Radical Right Neocons lost the election the resident ones in here have been attempting to hijack my term for them to call the Democrat supporters sheeple now.

Can't you come up with your own terminology?

If I remember correctly ( and I knwo I do ) Limbaugh was using that term when he was in Sacramento in the 80's.

So in addition to being a loon you're a plagiarist?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And don't forget Reagan who pulled down the solar stuff on the White House that Carter put up.

Still trying to derail the topic I see, unfortunately, it's not working...

Let me see, some absurd nincompoop posts something about how much electricity Gore's house uses and a bunch of right winged fruitcakes, who voted for Bush and his disastrous war, and who have not properly committed Seppuku as a result, now start coming all over themselves with slavering glee, and into the absurd circle-jerk joke I decide to demonstrate, by reflection, the incredible stupidity being slurped up by such idiots, and now all of a sudden you want to make the issue about me? Hehe, good luck with that.

That would about sum it up aptly. :thumbsup:

/thread

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: charrison
SO why then did Gores people say they were looking into buying green energy from the power company as recently as december? IF they were burying carbon credits, that would have been the answer and subject would have been closed.

Then, I guess the subject is closed. Thanks for settling that for us.

Gore Responds To Drudge?s Latest Hysterics

The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLD: CONSUMPTION [/i]INCREASE[/i] AFTER 'TRUTH'

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.

Through these programs, the Gore is actually paying about twice as much for the power he uses as he would without them.

 

[Corbett]

Carbon offsets are a joke Harvey.

It only proves that the rich can do whatever they want, and shell out some extra cash because they feel bad about it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Carbon offsets are a joke Harvey.

It only proves that the rich can do whatever they want, and shell out some extra cash because they feel bad about it.

Why are they a joke? The world is not going to stop producing C02 instantaneously. Carbon offset credits work with overall limits to help distrbute the carbon load between those who can more easily reduce their CO2 production and those who cannot move as quickly to do so by giving the heavier producers a viable alternative to ignoring the problem. They're not intended to be more than a short term means to ease the transition.

As long as you're going to make blanket statements, it would help to back them up with real facts an links.

Regardless of how effective they are, as long as the world is producing CO2, and offset programs exist, the facts that Gore is participating in it fully and that he is purchasing 100% green power from his local utility, just go to the point that he's using the available to reduce his personal carbon footprint, as opposed to doing nothing.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
So if the argument is that Gore is a hypocrite for pushing for energy conservation and not following through with it, does this mean that supporters of the war in Iraq that aren't joining up to serve are hypocrites as well?

Just thought I'd ask again....

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
Carbon offsets are a joke Harvey.

It only proves that the rich can do whatever they want, and shell out some extra cash because they feel bad about it.

Why are they a joke? The world is not going to stop producing C02 instantaneously. Carbon offset credits work with overall limits to help distrbute the carbon load between those who can more easily reduce their CO2 production and those who cannot move as quickly to do so by giving the heavier producers a viable alternative to ignoring the problem. They're not intended to be more than a short term means to ease the transition.

As long as you're going to make blanket statements, it would help to back them up with real facts an links.

Regardless of how effective they are, as long as the world is producing CO2, and offset programs exist, the facts that Gore is participating in it fully and that he is purchasing 100% green power from his local utility, just go to the point that he's using the available to reduce his personal carbon footprint, as opposed to doing nothing.

So then I guess it is safe to say that George W Bush is doing a GREAT job because even though our troops are dieing in Iraq, he is saving hundreds of thousands of lives both in American and Iraq! He is offsetting death!

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
Carbon offsets are a joke Harvey.

It only proves that the rich can do whatever they want, and shell out some extra cash because they feel bad about it.

Why are they a joke? The world is not going to stop producing C02 instantaneously. Carbon offset credits work with overall limits to help distrbute the carbon load between those who can more easily reduce their CO2 production and those who cannot move as quickly to do so by giving the heavier producers a viable alternative to ignoring the problem. They're not intended to be more than a short term means to ease the transition.

As long as you're going to make blanket statements, it would help to back them up with real facts an links.

Regardless of how effective they are, as long as the world is producing CO2, and offset programs exist, the facts that Gore is participating in it fully and that he is purchasing 100% green power from his local utility, just go to the point that he's using the available to reduce his personal carbon footprint, as opposed to doing nothing.

So then I guess it is safe to say that George W Bush is doing a GREAT job because even though our troops are dieing in Iraq, he is saving hundreds of thousands of lives both in American and Iraq! He is offsetting death!

Prove it. The fact is that his actions caused more death than if he had just left Iraq alone.

You = marginalized.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
Carbon offsets are a joke Harvey.

It only proves that the rich can do whatever they want, and shell out some extra cash because they feel bad about it.

Why are they a joke? The world is not going to stop producing C02 instantaneously. Carbon offset credits work with overall limits to help distrbute the carbon load between those who can more easily reduce their CO2 production and those who cannot move as quickly to do so by giving the heavier producers a viable alternative to ignoring the problem. They're not intended to be more than a short term means to ease the transition.

As long as you're going to make blanket statements, it would help to back them up with real facts an links.

Regardless of how effective they are, as long as the world is producing CO2, and offset programs exist, the facts that Gore is participating in it fully and that he is purchasing 100% green power from his local utility, just go to the point that he's using the available to reduce his personal carbon footprint, as opposed to doing nothing.

So then I guess it is safe to say that George W Bush is doing a GREAT job because even though our troops are dieing in Iraq, he is saving hundreds of thousands of lives both in American and Iraq! He is offsetting death!

Prove it. The fact is that his actions caused more death than if he had just left Iraq alone.

You = marginalized.

No, no, no! You forget that we'd be fighting them here if it weren't for the invasion and us already fighting them there. There would be 100,000s of dead US citizens in that case.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

About 1/10th of one acre. (An acre absorbs about 2.6 tons of CO2 per year, and a gallon of jet fuel puts out about 20lbs.)

Just curious here....

Googling around reveals a gallon of jet weighs about 6 lbs.

You seem to be saying that burning something that weighs 6 lbs results in 20 lbs of waste.

Clearly I'm no chemistry major, not clear to how get up to 20 lbs. Can you explain?

Fern

Yes, clearly you are not a chemistry major, and niether am I, but I still can remember high school chemistry, and for every 12.012g of carbon you burn you get 44.12g of CO2 (yeah, see those 2 oxygens added, thats where the weight is comming from, right out of the air). Also, for every 2.016g of hydrogen you get 18.016g of H2O, so the weight of greenhouse gases produced by combustion FAR exceeds the weight of the combusted fuels.

 

[BoberFett]

Gore can go fck himself. Good for him, he's rich. He can buy carbon credits to offset his extravagant lifestyle. Those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouths apparently have to simply do without a modern lifestyle. Piss off, Gore.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Do you really believe that line of crap about carbon offsets?
The man burned about 10,000-15,000 gallons of Jet A in a 36 hour period a couple of months back criss crossing the continent. How many tree's need to be planted to offset that?

About 1/10th of one acre. (An acre absorbs about 2.6 tons of CO2 per year, and a gallon of jet fuel puts out about 20lbs.)

Of course that's yearly absorption of CO2...so really, far less then that. Why? What were you expecting?

(note: by showing Genx this I am not endorsing the retarded argument that the miniscule amount fossil fuels that Gore burns while going around the country trying to change things makes him a hypocrite, as all the fuel he could possibly burn in his lifetime is a drop in the bucket as compared to the changes that his speaking, etc might make)

You think burning 10-15,000 gallons of fuel in 36 hours is miniscule? How many gallons of gasoline do you burn in an entire year? Please dont complain when us avg folk drive SUVs mmkay?

 

[Siddhartha]

How much energy does a typical 20 room mansion with 8 bath rooms located in Nashville use in one year?

How many people are living in Gore's house?

How long has this house been in the family?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Haha did anyone catch Colbert's thing about this tonight? I nearly fell over laughing!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
Al Gore
Topic Summary: Is a hypocrit

Take anything from Drudge with a boatload of salt. Then, ignore it.

Instead of recognizing the success of Gore's impact by bringing the threat of global warming to high public profile, and his personal leadership in bringing the advantages of working toward a carbon neutral society, uninformed pissant do nothing right wing loudmouths find it more entertaining to flame anyone who is actually doing something constructive about the problem.

I can't wait to see how they go after him if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

So what is the point of your post? Are you disputing the amount of energy that Al Gore consumes? Are you defending an obvious hypocrite? You guys love to go after the religious right when one of them is caught doing something that goes against their Christian values, how is this any different?

So, you're saying that it's not possible that Schweitzer is lying about these claims? Craig234 posted an article that pretty much covers these bogus accusations, and buries the argument before it *should* even begin. I'll re-link:

just because your right wing nutjob says it, doesn't make it so

Is the AP good enough for you, or are they too right wing for you? Utility bills are public information.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070228/D8NIGG3O0.html

 

[2Xtreme21]

NTDZ:

First sentence in that article: "Al Gore, a leading voice against global warming, is being criticized by a conservative group that claims his Nashville mansion uses too much electricity." The article then describes what the conservative group is claiming. Good job. :thumbsup:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
NTDZ:

First sentence in that article: "Al Gore, a leading voice against global warming, is being criticized by a conservative group that claims his Nashville mansion uses too much electricity." The article then describes what the conservative group is claiming. Good job. :thumbsup:

Maybe you should try reading more than the first sentence....From the article -

"The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year."

"Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home."

Good job. :thumbsup:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
NTDZ:

First sentence in that article: "Al Gore, a leading voice against global warming, is being criticized by a conservative group that claims his Nashville mansion uses too much electricity." The article then describes what the conservative group is claiming. Good job. :thumbsup:

You have figured out by now that utility bills are public information, right? He does use however many times more than the average household, that's a fact thats undisputed by anyone. Go to CNN.com and watch the video they have on there about it.