According to CNN, Gore’s energy bill for his home last year was $30,000. Twenty times the national average. (No link yet.)
Is he a hypocrite?
Does this undercut the effect of his movie?
Should you compare the bill to other rich people with huge homes and estates?,Or do you think it a valid comparison to compare to average people. Compare it to Bushs ranch or Cheneys home and get back to me.
What bearing does Al Gore’s personal energy use have on the validity of the claims made in An Inconvenient Truth? If it turns out that he’s a dastardly energy-wasting scoundrel, does that make the need for action on global warming less urgent somehow?
What this is another right-wing smear intended to derail debate on a matter of substance into a gossip-sheet sideshow. We saw it with Bill Clinton during his Presidency, we saw it with Gore during the 2000 election, we saw it with Kerry and Dean during the 2004 election, we saw it with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama a couple of weeks ago.
Let’s ignore policy and focus on nit-picking character assassination! Wheee!
Yes, clearly it means there is no problem with global warming.
Here, by the way, is a link to a story on the issue:
Here’s a quote of information from the other side.
I think he ought to do more to reduce his usage in addition to being carbon neutral, but I’m not sure he should sell his family home or anything. Perhaps he ought to install solar panels.
Oh wait, he already is, according to the article.
It’s also interesting that the attack group claims to have gotten their information from the Nashville Electrical Service, but the company’s spokesperson claims to have never gotten a request from the attack group or to have furnished them with any information.
Everybody needs a hobby.
Is this an answer? I’m looking for debate here. Just to kick it off, have Bush or Cheney been trumpeting the cause of global warming? Is it your contention that rich people do not need to conserve energy? What does being rich have to do with it?
Please re-read the OP and respond to the specific questions.
Dick Cheney spends about $15,000 a month on electricity, about 10x what Al Gore does.
We just did this in GD a few days ago:
Is it morally justifiable flying around in a private jet telling people to cut CO2?
Do we really need to do it again so soon?
Perhaps it would be better to wait until someone publishes the definitive video of Mr. Gore’s late night Anthracite burning orgies.
Pochaco, Hentor, Quiditty,
This exactly the kind of knee-jerk response that gives Democrats a bad name. Where have I engaged in character assassination? I asked two questions, and rather than respond, you take shots, which is far less than at least two of you are capable of doing when framing an argument.
What bearing does Al Gore’s electric bill have on the need to combat global warming?
According to Al Gore’s office he does conserve energy. He’s a rich guy with a big house. He’s going to have bigger energy bills than you and me. That’s free enterprise. You got a problem with that?
I don’t see that as the same question at all. If Mr. Gore needs to cross the Atlantic in a timely manner, he needs to fly. He has no control over how much fuel a jet uses. He does have control over how much electricity he uses.
Is the Gore family’s energy bill greater, as much as, or less than that of well-off persons who have 10,000 square foot houses? No idea, as I don’t run in those circles. According to reports I’ve read, Gore’s property has a significant number of energy-using frivolities like gas lamps, which for me tends to put him on the ‘hypocrite’ end of the spectrum. His spokeperson has stated that Gore apparently purchases some sort of carbon credit to balance his household’s usage, but I’d personally prefer to see a bit more of the hair shirt, frankly.
The issue of whether that undermines his film is a separate issue, and I haven’t seen it so I have no idea how well he presents the known arguments for human effects on climate, which as I understand it are fairly solid in the peer-reviewed literature. All I can say on that subject is, although the OP didn’t say so, I hope that this is not in fact a question as to whether it undermines the larger case of human contributions to climate change. The answer is, it should not, as the issue simply does not hinge on whether Al Gore happens to think there is a human contribution to climate change or not.
The movie says we should use less fossil fuel. Gore’s house uses less fossil fuel than a house of comparable size. I saw nothing in the movie that suggested we should all live in teepees.
At the risk of violating the rules of the forum, screw you guys. Can any of you muster whatever it takes to actually answer the questions?
Not that it matters, but I voted for Gore. I think he’d make a fine president. I am trying to start a debate here, not engage in political mudslinging.
I think you should consider the source, take into account exactly how his energy was generated, etc.
I don’t think his energy bill is enough to label him a hypocrite.
It only undercuts the effect of this movie for folks who look no further than a CNN blurb about his energy bill for their information.
IMHO, I think we could all do better, Gore included.
I’m fairly sure there was no character assassination in my post. However, that is exactly what the subject of your OP is. I’d suggest that this kind of bullshit personal attack is what is giving conservatives a bad name.
The simple fact is that the tide is markedly turning on public, political and industrial recognition of the problem of global warming. This kind of bullshit is simply a last-ditch desperate attempt to forestall the inevitable. You won’t find me supporting it.
And the sort of ad hominem attack implied in your OP is what gives Republicans a bad name. Attack the man, not the policy … that’s SoP for the right.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore is a massive hypocrite and an utterly worthless human being. What bearing does that have on the issue of global warming?
And an H3 uses less fuel than a HumVee. Is it a good choice in vehicles, if CO2 emission is a global problem?
Fallacy of the false dichotomy.
The character assassination reference was to Pocacho.
Where have you seen a personal attack from me? Seriously. I asked two questions, for goodness’ sake.
I am not a conservative. Did you read the part where I said I voted for Gore? Can a supporter not question the part line? Criminy!
Still confused. Are you saying that simply reporting his energy bill is a personal attack?
I haven’t asked for support or non-support of anything. What I imagined, frankly, was a response to my questions. Apparently, it is a hot button issue. I had no idea. Really.
I don’t know. That is a different debate. I support Al Gore. I support his message. I want to know whether his message has been compromised. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Where do you see an *ad hominem *attack? How is it that a simple question becomes an argument? You guys need to chill the fuck out.
On preview, Omigod! ** An Arky **has actually responded to the questions substantively, and without rancor. See, I knew it could be done!