I know you’re probably as tired of the Gore hypocrisy news as I am, but it has so many angles yet to be explored.
Compare these two stories about Al Gore:
Headline:
Gore says media miss climate message
Journalists have leaned toward balance at expense of consensus data, he says
An excerpt:
A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.
. . . “I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,” Gore said. “There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say ‘rejected,’ perhaps it’s the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.
Second story:
“Lately, Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore’s words, ‘undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.’”
. . . He goes on to assert that, “In this case, when 98% of the scientists in a given field share one view and 2% disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented in a format in which each appears equally credible.”
The first quotation is from an article in today’s Tennessean newspaper about a speech he gave Tuesday February 27, 2007 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The second is an excerpt from an article in the Investor’s Business Daily published August 25 . . . 1992!
For well over a decade Al Gore has been consistent on one thing. The former Tennessean reporter has consistently claimed that the media’s skeptical bias and quest for balance has cost the world valuable time needed to avert an impending global warming catastrophe.
Again, Gore is quoted in the early 90s article:
We must act boldly, decisively, comprehensively, and quickly, even before we know every last detail about the crisis.”
That was fifteen years ago when, in addition to censorship, Al Gore demanded “bold,” “decisive,” and “immediate” action. Yesterday he made essentially the same claim, calling global warming, “the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”
The fact that his message of imminent doom is unchanged over the last decade-and-a-half leads us to conclude one of two diametrically opposed beliefs: Either the climate situation has worsened and we are in even greater need of action, or “immediate” isn’t nearly as immediate as we have been led to believe.
Al Gore’s nonchalant personal energy consumption supports only one of those conclusions.
Finally, a related postscript: when you hear some politicians argue for a return to the “Fairness” Doctrine, keep in mind that some of those same politicians argue also against equal time for some opposing views.
(Note: A big ht to Synyx who unearthed this timely article from eons ago. Be sure to also read what he had to say.)
UPDATE:
James Taranto of the WSJ’s Opinion Journal is one of my daily must reads. Agree or disagree, he has a way of summarizing the news pithily.
Today he juxtaposed this post with Bill Hobbs’ excellent coverage of the Gore carbon offset plan, and came up with this.
So, let’s sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of “fairness” to his partisan and ideological allies.
Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren’t the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias?
Read the whole thing.
Comments (9)
Dirty money laundering.
UPDATE:
Martin Kennedy has a different name for the carbon offsets:
Of all the coverage, including the response from the Gore camp, I was most intrigued by this whole “carbon offsets” defense. What the heck is it? I had strong suspicions that is was something that sounded good but had little or dubious substance. Well it turns out that Mr. Gore is quite the entrepreneur. I actually find myself in admiration, like I’d admire a brilliant bank heist.
Comments (1)
In the comments section of an earlier post:
Jim Treacher is having trouble with his diet and wants to know where he can buy some of those “carb offsets”.
Comments (1)
If you live in Baltimore, Nashville, or Pittsburgh you may not be able to see the remainder of American Idol. That’s because your local cable monopoly, Comcast, and Sinclair Broadcasting are unable to come to terms.
A source familiar with the negotiations said yesterday that Sinclair is prepared to cut off its programming to Comcast systems at 2 a.m. tomorrow because talks between the two sides have stalled. Negotiations are expected to continue today.
Pulling the stations would mean viewers . . . would not be able to watch popular shows such as American Idol, 24 and Gilmore Girls on their cable systems.
This just adds even more evidence to the assertion that cable companies should have to compete.
(ht:KW)
Comments Off
Not to belabor the Al Gore coverage–especially since I think that his political career has just jumped the shark. . .
John Rodgers in the Nashville City Paper mentions that Tennessee Democrats are optimistic about former Vice President Al Gore’s chances to win the state and the presidency in 2008.
Really?
Gore is a polarizing figure, however, according to a recent poll conducted by Middle Tennessee State University.
The poll found Gore to have a 43 percent disapproval rating compared to a 42 percent approval figure.
The respondents, however, thought more kindly of Gore’s efforts on curbing global warming. Nearly half of the poll’s respondents, 48 percent, think Gore should get a Nobel Prize for his work on the environment.
I wonder how much those numbers may have just changed since this recent poll.
And on another note:
Both Nashville papers gave Al Gore prominent coverage today. Both are right back on Gore’s message. Neither story mentions the brouhaha that has erupted over his personal energy consumption.
Rather than viewing this as evidence of a leftist media conspiracy, I think that it’s really an example of how quickly the news changes, and how slow the print media is to catch up.
John Rodgers’ story was precipitated by the Oscar award. He asked Tennessee Dems, “What do you think now of Gore’s chances in ’08?” The news of the award Sunday night meant that the story had to be developed on Monday to be printed Tuesday. That the basis for the answers were shifting even as Rodgers asked his questions didn’t alter the inevitability of the story’s printing. (See UPDATE below)
Beverly Keel’s story was another not-so-timely article. Keel (she’s the Tennessean’s entertainment correspondent, btw) was already set to cover Al Gore’s first local appearance after the Oscars. However since, “Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event,” she was left with a dry recitation of the facts of the lecture.
The relevance of the information in both of these stories is already more than 24 hours out of date. Still they printed both stories without coverage of the more recent, and more newsworthy, (newsworthy because it’s man bites dog–or environmentalist gobbles earth’s resources) additional details. Newspapers have got to find a way to catch up.
RELATED:
The Tennessean announces a plan to stay relevant in 24/7 world.
UPDATE:
I finally got to see the print edition of the City Paper and they do mention the Gore home story. It’s in a sidebar piece next to John Rodgers’ story. You can read it here. So kudos to the City Paper for telling the updated story.
As for a followup to the Tennessean story . . . stand by for an update.
Comments Off
Since the Tennessee Center for Policy Research broke the story about Al Gore’s energy consumption Monday afternoon, a predictable pattern of counter-stories followed: the TCPR is illegitimate, the information is a lie, it doesn’t matter because the underlying story of global warming is still real, his energy consumption isn’t really that bad . . .
It’s on this latter point that I can lend some background. An example of that line of thinking is this from The Anonymous Liberal:
The press release claimed that Al Gore’s home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. . . . The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it’s an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives–the East South Central–has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that’s misleading in and of itself.Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it’s clear that Gore’s energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. . .
But is that true?
The Krumms are fortunate enough to live in a relatively nice section of West Nashville, just like Al Gore. We moved in to our house in late 2002, just like Al Gore. We then began a major renovation of our home, just like Al Gore. We also have a large home, although it’s only about half the size of Al Gore’s. So let’s do some math.
Rather than taking the TCPR at its word about the Gores’ energy consumption, lets rely instead upon documentation provided by Nashville Electric Service just today. It shows that in the last twelve months he consumed 194,250 KWH of energy, ranging from a high of 22,619 KWH in August to a low of 12,098 in December. That compares with our annual energy consumption of 35,215 KWH. Accounting for home size, the five members of the Krumm household consumed 7.34 KWH per square foot over the last twelve months. During the same period, Mr. and Mrs. Gore used 19.43 KWH per square foot–nearly three times our family’s energy consumption.
Okay, so maybe he has electric heat. We should then compare gas bills to get a complete picture.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to his gas bills, but since the TCPR has proved itself worthy with its accurate portrayal of the electrical data, let’s just take their numbers.
They claim (via Drudge) that the Gore household used $6,432 worth of gas in 2006, ranging from a monthly high of $990 to a low of $170. By contrast our gas bill was only $1,137 last year, with a monthly range from $33 to $205.
Again, accounting for size, in 2006 the Krumms spent 24 cents per square foot to heat our home and water, and to cook our meals. The Gores spent nearly triple that amount: 64 cents per square foot.
But wait there’s more. That’s just the main house. When you add in the Gore’s pool and pool house ($6,528 last year) they paid $1.30 per square foot for gas–more than five times what we spent during the same period just a few blocks away.
I mentioned the renovations that both the Krumm and Gore houses recently underwent. Mary Mancini called the Gore’s home improvements “modest.” Umm . . . from someone (in the construction industry, btw) who lives in the neighborhood and daily ran by his house, let me just tell you that there was nothing modest about the renovations to the Gore household.
According to public records the Gores have pulled 13 construction permits since buying their home in June of 2002. Firms pulling the permits include: a swimming pool company, an audio-visual installer, and a number of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing firms.
We pulled ten permits during the same period. But even that’s misleading, because while we pulled all of our permits through the city of Nashville, since the Gore’s live in Belle Meade, they only pulled sub-permits through Nashville. Their construction and demolition permits would have been generated in Belle Meade, making their total number of permits even larger. I say all this to say that the Gore’s home renovations were NOT modest.
Still, in spite of the fact that the entire Gore home was under renovation for over a year, they didn’t apparently incorporate significant energy-saving ideas into the design–at least not until now. The result is that they spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars on home improvements but still have a house that will consume a million dollars worth of energy over the length of a thirty year mortgage–a cost which is three to five times higher than what it should be, even accounting for the size of his large home.
I think that you have to go back to the forged 60 Minutes documents to find another example of a story that broke so quickly and so thoroughly, but was so viciously denied–against all evidence–by partisans who refused to believe the facts.
And the facts are this. Four and a half years ago Al Gore bought a large home and made it larger, but did very little to reduce his own energy consumption. Instead, he spent the same time telling you how to reduce yours.
UPDATE:
See this to read more about Al Gore’s one consistency: he is consistently for censorship. And another hypocrisy: he advocates censorship for only one side.
2nd UPDATE:
The Anonymous Liberal commented below with this:
The Department of Energy lists the average nationwide energy consumption per household as 10,656 kwh and the average consumption per squarefoot as 13.7 kwh. But for the East South Central region (Tennesse, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi), the average is 15,447 kwh per household and 19.83 kwh per square foot. As you state in your post, Gore’s consumption is 19.43 kwh per square foot, less than the average.
Well, if you do the math that means 10,656 KWH divided by 13.7 KWH per sf means that the average household is 778 square feet. Using the numbers for the East South Central region, 19.83 KWH per sf into 15,447 KWH means that the average household is 779 sf.
Huh? Clearly, those numbers are wrong, but that hasn’t stopped them from being spread around by the innumerati.
Better numbers come from the 2006 Buildings Energy Data Book which shows that the average American single family home is 2,047 square feet. Dividing that into the 15,447 KWH of average annual usage in the South East Region, and we find that the average energy user in this area annually consumes 7.55 KWH per square foot of home–not the 19.83 KWH that Anonymous Liberal erroneously claims.
Be sure to also visit here for a thorough debunking of a HuffPo Talking Points Memo that feebly attempts to rebut this analysis.
Comments (138)
The guys at the Huffington Post have countered Drew Johnson’s reporting about Al Gore’s inconveniently large utility bills by reciting a familiar refrain about the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:
Who are these people? Well , a quick check of Alexa reveals their web site gets no traffic. Are they legitimate?
Where have we heard that charge of illegitimacy before? And why does it matter who Drew Johnson’s parents are?
Comments Off
Speaking about the state GOP, a senior Tennessee Republican told me just last week that “we’ve about run the course with social issues.”
If this proposed Tennessee resolution goes anywhere, it will prove right my friend’s prediction–to the detriment of his party.
A Tennessee State Senate member has filed a resolution asking the Tennessee Department of Education to address a few basic questions about life, the universe and all that:
“Is the universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?”
“Since the universe, including human beings, is created by a supreme being (a creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?
“Since it cannot be determined whether the universe, including human beings, is created by a supreme being (a creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?”
State Sen. Raymond Finney (R-Maryville), a retired physician, is asking the Senate to endorse his questions to the Department of Education, and for the department to come back with a response by January 15, 2008.
This is the kind of silly stuff that legislators come up with to occupy their time when the public coffers are full due to a roaring economy. However, if Alan Greenspan’s prediction of a recession comes true, we’re going to wish that the Tennessee General Assembly had instead spent 2007 trying to develop a state budget that remains solvent without a tax increase even during an economic downturn.
Otherwise, Tennessee Republicans may prove true reverse evolution, which is the theory that man can devolve back into apes. Or at least they’re going to look like monkeys come next November when they try to tell us that this was why we had to have a Republican senate majority for the first time in 140 years.
UPDATE:
The Appalachian Scribe adds a valuable postscript to this story:
I am the against academic fraud that is running rampant in the schools. Conservatives can generally be counted on to expose and fight it, except when it comes to science. For some reason, many Conservative Christians feel the need to have their beliefs taught in science classes, either as outright Creationism or the more covert Intelligent Design. The problem is that neither of these beliefs are science. Teaching them as such represents academic fraud, and quite frankly seems to me to be a sign of weak faith, as if kids will become atheists if they even hear of Charles Darwin.
Public schools are doing a poor enough job at their main task: teaching. Why should we depend upon them to get right the unnecessary additional task of indoctrination–be it political or religious.
UPDATE:
Be sure to read Say Uncle’s interview of the sponsor of this resolution.
Comments Off
By now, you’ve probably heard that former Vice President Al Gore’s 10,000 square foot Lynnwood Boulevard home consumes more energy in a month than most Nashville homes use in a year.
However, what you might not know is that the large white West Nashville home owned by the former U.S. Senator was newly renovated to include a closed loop geothermal field in order to take advantage of the non-polluting, renewable, and clean source of heating and cooling that is contained deep within the earth.
Oh wait, I’ve confused my former Tennessee Senators. It’s not the one who just won a convenient award for his global warming warning, but another one who just left office.
UPDATE:
Iowa Voice has a roundup of commentary on this story here.
Also, be sure to check out the hyperventilating response at the Huffington Post here.
And guess who else is green. Yes, the evil Chimpy McBuSHITler has not just geothermal on his Crawford ranch, but a cistern that collects rainwater instead of depleting the already strained Edwards Aquifer.
Comments (41)
Seriously. Can Hillary Clinton, wither her very high negatives, win in 2008?
Yes, she’s the best known candidate on either side, but does that work to her advantage or disadvantage?
Dick Morris opined that Hillary demands that she not be criticized, “otherwise, it’s off with their heads.”
Frankly, I don’t think that Hillary is behaving any differently than most other candidates. She meets criticisms with a demand for an apology–including insistence on giving back the money in question. However, what is different between Sen. Clinton and other candidates is that the media actually covers her every word–even the vapid ones demanding acts of contrition from others who are simply playing politics.
I think that those few voters who are truly undecided on the subject of Ms. Clinton will be turned off by her demands for apologies over perceived sleights even as she gives no quarter to her opponents. It will only add to her ice princess caricature.
No, my guess is that both parties will nominate contenders who are more “real” than regal. And that they especially won’t nominate the next in line to a dynasty. In other words: for the first time in nearly three decades I predict that there will be neither a Bush nor a Clinton on either ticket.
UPDATE:
Roger Simon thinks that David Geffen (the event which precipitated Dick Morris’ column was Geffen’s recent harsh comments about Hillary) criticized Ms. Clinton because, “Geffen doesn’t think Hillary can win.”
(ht:GR)
Comments (1)
