debunking a rather lame debunking

Byline: | Category: Uncategorized | Posted at: Tuesday, 27 February 2007

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.

Share this post:

138 Responses to “debunking a rather lame debunking”

  1. brittney Says:

    100!

    (Sorry, but I love doing that.)

  2. The Ace Says:

    ou make a positive claim, you back it up. You prove it’s true.

    Comcial.

    You mean like saying you are carbon nuetral?

    Game
    Set
    Mach

  3. The Ace Says:

    But I’m not the one putting forward the positive assertion…

    Uh, yes you are:
    told people to reduce their carbon footprint to 0, so as not to contribute to global warming. Well, since he hasn’t… oh, heh, wait, he has.

    Facts, those pesky things.

    If you want to prove that he is a hypocrite, because he is not carbon neutral the onus is on you to prove he is not actually offsetting his carbon usage

    He’s not.
    He can’t possibly be.
    Even the New York Times noted this:

    “These companies may be operating with the best will in the world, but they are doing so in settings where it’s not really clear you can monitor and enforce their projects over time,” said Steve Rayner, a senior professor at Oxford and a member of a group working on reducing greenhouse gases for the International Panel on Climate Change. “What these companies are allowing people to do is carry on with their current behavior with a clear conscience.”

    Oh, and here is how carbon offsets are defined by Wiki:

    carbon offset “is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.”
    The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming. The appeal of becoming “carbon neutral” has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one’s own fossil-fuel consumption. However, the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.

    You lose.

  4. The Ace Says:

    No, first you gather the facts, and show they support your statement. You have not done so.

    This is classic projection.
    You accept Gore’s statements uncritically.

  5. The Ace Says:

    You don’t get to uncritically accept the claim that Gore is a hypocrite until you have established it

    And you don’t get to say Gore is “carbon nuetral” until you have established it.

    Have you even read what you’ve posted here?

  6. Harry Eagar Says:

    Not so logical as you think, Longhair.

    If Gore can afford the (apparently trivial) cost of offsets, and if he really thinks the world is about to burn up, then he ought to be buying as many offsets as he can AND ALSO REDUCING HIS CARBON EMISSIONS.

    Because if he is carbon neutral and the other 6 billion of us are not IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE EARTH STILL BURNS UP.

    Therefore, he ought to live in a smaller house. In fact, in strict logic, he ought to live in a cave.

    Let’s put it in terms of being a German in the 1930s and ’40s. Was in enough that you personally didn’t murder any Jews? Well, no. Even Hitler didn’t personally murder any Jews.

    I didn’t believe in Gore’s stupid movie. Now it turns out he didn’t either. As Rodney King said, can’t we all just get along? It seems we are.

  7. Julian De faria Says:

    “Actually, turning down a hydroelectric dam is a real possibility since holding back waater for future use increases capacity.

    The windmills probably aren’t owned by the electric company, and the electric company probably simply refuses to buy electricity from the owners past the amount that its customers have offered to purchase. And yes, running windmills does cost money; the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t care what you think.”

    The ignorance of these comments is breathtaking, electricity retailers do not purchase electricity like a person obtains petrol, ‘filling up’ when more is needed. They will not, unless under the direst circumstances purchase energy on the spot market due to the incredible range of cost at any given time. The option taken by a prudent retailer is to hedge energy cost over the long term, this is achieved by entering into long term contracts with generators (of all types). Long haired weirdo should bear in mind that electricity cannot be stored and retrieved from the back when necessary. Where large usage affects overall energy supplies can be seen in the increase in air conditioning units in recent years whereby the need to match sharp peaks requires increasing long term contracts of electricity from all sources. If the demand is such (as occurs sometimes during the summer) that supply does not match demand then load shedding may occur and it will not matter whether you have paid for green energy or not, there is not a special line from a wind generation facility that gets turned on when you pay for green energy. Basically Al Gore’s use gets lumped in with all other uses with regard to long term projections and purchasing given these peak periods and whilst purchasing green energy is to be commended and allows for retailers to contract further with green energy sources the fact remains that purchasing green energy and reducing consumption are both key elements in becoming more environmentally friendly with respect to energy use.

  8. Roger Arango Says:

    Julian–you mean we DONT have a huge capacitor that stores excess electricity and releases it when needed? Who KNEW?

    On the point about “carbon neutrality,” I suppose it is conceptually possible to be carbon neutral via offsets (as, I think Mr. Longhair is arguing.) The devil, of course, is in the details about how the offsets work–and that isnt even addressing the issue that Gore is supposedly purchasing these offsets through his own company!). I don’t think anyone can say with any degree of certainly what the long term effects of offsets are–especially if they are used for reforestation schemes. Alternative power generation may be measurable. At this point in time, purchasing carbono offsets seems to more akin to buying indulgences.

    And please spare us all the lectures on critical thinking! Especially citing the second law of thermodynamics! Gag! Seems to me the bottom line is this: Al Gore is engaging in conspicuous consumption and even if he IS purchasing offsets, and even if offsets worked perfectly, his egregious consumption should not go unremarked.

  9. Longhairedweirdo Says:

    Julian:

    The ignorance of these comments is breathtaking, electricity retailers do not purchase electricity like a person obtains petrol, ‘filling up’ when more is needed.

    Irrelevant; they will not purchase more expensive energy from windmills and solar panels unless they are compensated for doing so. They will use the cheaper methods at their disposal.

    They might well buy wind and solar generated power when necessary to meet demand (thus buying more than their customers have obligated them to buy), but they will burn more coal, natural gas, etc., before going to wind and solar *unless people have obligated them to buy this more expensive energy*, or unless demand is so high that they have no choice but to take the financial hit.

    Now, if you have some facts that counter this, I, for one, would love to hear them. Argument by assertion just doesn’t fly.

  10. Longhairedweirdo Says:

    Poor Ace… trying so, so hard…

    (Y)ou make a positive claim, you back it up. You prove it’s true.

    Comcial.

    You mean like saying you are carbon nuetral?

    If you wish to ask Gore to prove that he is carbon neutral, I’m sure he will comply. There’s probably a press packet illustrating exactly what steps he’s taken to be carbon neutral.

    No, first you gather the facts, and show they support your statement. You have not done so.

    This is classic projection.
    You accept Gore’s statements uncritically.

    No, I do not accept your assertion that he is not. This is a key difference.

    The claim on the table is, Gore is a hypocrite for preaching carbon neutrality while using lots of energy.

    If we did not know about carbon offsets and non-carbon-emitting power generation, his usage would be damning evidence (NB: but our lack of knowledge would make that evidence point to the wrong result!) of hypocrisy because we would assume that these things *must* cause carbon emissions. But not only do we know about “green” generation and carbon offsets, we know that Gore claims to have purchased them.

    The unqualified claim that he is a hypocrite is thus a vile and despicable thing to those who care about the truth. People who care about the truth will not take such an accusation lightly; it must be proven.

    I have pointed out the holes in the argument claiming he is hypocritical. I have done so in a positive manner (“he is carbon neutral due to offsets) rather than in a speculative manner (“he claims to be carbon neutral due to offsets”) because the original, unproven statement (“he is a hypocrite”) has already been made in a positive manner.

    Was this a good idea? Obviously, it was… it gave me the perfect opening to illustrate the massive failure in critical thought that has occurred among those who claim that Gore is a hypocrite.

    If you want to believe that, you have to prove it (assuming you care about the truth, of course). You can’t prove that until you account for the possibility of carbon offsets. (His electric bill already shows that he buys renewable electricity.)

    Now, if I had advanced the original positive assertion that Al Gore was carbon neutral, rather than advancing that claim in the face of a positive assertion that he is a hypocrite, the burden of proof would be upon me. But I brought that up, not as my own proposition, but as a defense against the unproven claim that he is a hypocrite. The burden of proof always lies squarely with those who make the initial positive claim, not those who point out the holes in it.

    That is: you don’t get to claim he’s a hypocrite, and then try to shift the burden of proof to me to prove you wrong. If you’re making a responsible claim he’s a hypocrite, if you’ve engaged in critical thought on the issue, then you’re already supposed to have researched the carbon offsets, and found out the truth.

    Sorry, Ace, I’d say “thanks for playing” but it’d be insincere. There’s lots of web pages that go over the basic logical fallacies and they can explain the burden of proof in an argument to you. Try reading a few; it might do some good.

  11. Matternhorn Says:

    Interesting posts back and forth, pro and con. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned enough is what makes Gore’s bills so high?

    Could it be because he has staffed offices in his home for both him and his wife? Maybe security detail? If that’s the case, if we’re to make a somewhat fair comparison, we should take into accounting our own energy consumption at our offices(cubicles!) and then see how we stack up against the Gore household.

    Comparing the Gore household to the average citizen is ridiculous.

  12. holdfast Says:

    Even if one were to accept all of Longhairedweirdo’s assumptions and assertions about the Goracle’s “carbon neutrality” at face value, it still does not change the fact that Gore is an awful leader and a terrible spokesman for his cause. A real leader must act and must also be seen to be acting – and the ostentatious nature of Gore’s mansion makes that flat-out impossible. If the state of the world is really so dire, wouldn’t it make sense to move into a mere 4,000 sf home with conspicous power-saving refinements. God knows the guy can afford it and it is literally the least he can do to convince the masses of his sincerity. After all, leadership is at least 50% showmanship and acting – convincing others by doing – but Gore isn’t willing to make that sacrifice – so why should I have to sacrifice my mid-sized SUV?

    I’m not saying that the guy has to live in a shack, but burning that much gas to keep the poolhouse warm is insane. Sure he is purchasing his carbon credits, but at the end of the day using all that gas means that somewhere in the ‘States some utility is generating power by burning coal instead of the natural gas that might otherwise have generated that electricity but for the fact it was burned heating a pool house that Gore clearly doesn’t use to keep in shape.

  13. barbq ranch Says:

    If the wind blows, the wind generator will be running generating electricity. It is not as if they have one, high, price they sell the power for. Most of the expense of the wind farm is a fixed expense, it goes on day by day regardless of any power you sell. About the only additional cost of running it is the periodic maintenance (ie, lube and oil every so many running hours.) So, if someone doesn’t pay a high price for the electricity, they will sell it for a lower price, but still make more money than leaving it fallow. On the other hand, a lot of the cost of a coal plant is the coal, so it makes sense to only run it when there is demand.

    The only way Al G. paying more per kwh for electricity offsets carbon is if it encourages the construction of another windmill. Far better he puts uses his “carbon money” to up a solar array somewhere. Far Far better he uses less.

  14. Pink Pig Says:

    Re: the bloviating of Longhairedweirdo. Even if Gore were to corner the market in “carbon credits”, he would still be a massive violator by any rational standard. He is obviously a big-time hypocrite, and since you choose to defend and justify him, common sense indicates that you are also a hypocrite. If you wish to argue (as some do) that hypocrisy isn’t necessarily a bad thing, feel free, but I and many others will remain of the opinion that in this case it is indeed a bad thing. I’ve had it up to my throat with arrogant pompous intellectualoids like you. As long as you continue to make Gore the poster child of global warming activism, you will lose credibility, and whatever useful information might come from climate science will be lost in the aftermath. Get a clue.

  15. Rudolph Bogstein Says:

    all i can say is all of you people need to get a life, and if nothing else, accept that one’s man’s meat is another man’s poison….as for Al Gore’s energy consumption, instead of worrying about some possible misrepresentation on his part, look at what he is attempting to do,….oh right, that is what you are against!! so if that is the case, why not celebrate his consumption…oh right, you just hate THE MAN HIMSELF…..as for the concept of off setting ones uses, gee, why not?

    i will stick with what i thought the first time i saw your site….simply this, you folks are pathetic…

    by the way, how much energy, waste, and pollution are creation simply making this ridiculous blog site?

  16. bob Says:

    Rudolph,

    Whatever amount of “energy, waste, and pollution” was created making this “ridiculous” blog site, just increased thanks to the addition of your “ridiculous” comment.

  17. S. Weasel Says:

    […] Now, I have no objection to the wealthy, on principle. Even those who inherit wealth they had no hand in creating. I find it rather irritating that I’m not one of them, but I don’t advocate hunting them down like dogs or anything. In fact, I’d feel better about Al’s house if he’d inherited it; I could forgive him preserving a bit of extravagant family history in an extravagant way. But he apparently bought his manse in 2002, and added to it extensively since. Without making it conspicuously greener. […]

  18. Gunga Says:

    Bob – You have to love the Rudolphs of the world. How intellectually lazy/dishonest/mentally-challenged do you have to be to accept the dictum: “Do as I say, not as I do” as THE appropriate moral high water mark for our leaders today? The Rudolphs run around spewing hatred for you and every electron used by your server, while accusing you of hating Al Gore…as if hatred of the man is the only reason anyone would question his moral sleight of hand. Maybe you do hate him…I have no way of knowing that…but I suspect you have better things to do with your life than hate people you’ve probably never even met. But I’ll be right down with Rudolph on ridiculing your site…right after you start jet-hopping around the world claiming that the sky is falling because my lifestyle is killing mother earth. Meanwhile, the ice-caps on Mars are melting and no-one has even drafted a Bill requiring cafe standards for those stinking Mars Rovers that are obviously to blame!

  19. RGirl Says:

    Perhaps Al Gore can be seen as a hypocrite. Just as in retrospect, Thomas Jefferson, one of the people to draft the constitution can be seen as a hypocrite. He used slaves on his sprawling plantation even as he signed a resolution that “All men are created equal”. It took many years before the constitution was (rightly) ammended to apply to people of color. And more years before women could vote.
    Sometimes people who pave the way have to take the bullet for those who come later. Do you think the Global Warming issue will go away even if Gore’s detractors succeed in silencing him? You know that someone else will take up the cause. Is there anyone that could make the idea more pallatable for you that we need to change our use of fossil fuels? How about a president that champions a change by example, and by showing the benefits to his citizens, both immediate and long range?

  20. Longhairedweirdo Says:

    Pink Pig:

    Re: the bloviating of Longhairedweirdo. Even if Gore were to corner the market in “carbon credits”, he would still be a massive violator by any rational standard. He is obviously a big-time hypocrite, and since you choose to defend and justify him, common sense indicates that you are also a hypocrite.

    You know, this is *exactly* what’s ruining this country.

    You so much want to have a nasty name to hang on Al Gore that, once you think you can use hypocrite, you won’t look for the truth, you won’t care about the truth, you’ll just say it, over and over, hoping to score points for your team.

    Well, decent people care about the truth.

    Do I think Al Gore is wasteful? Do I wish he lived his life differently? Yes.

    But he is not a hypocrite. He hasn’t said “use as little electricity as you can”. He’s said “don’t be responsible for carbon emissions; you have a moral duty to prevent global warming, and being carbon neutral fights global warming.” That’s it. That’s all he’s said, and that’s the standard he’s living up to. The label of hypocrite can’t be truthfully applied to him.

    Those who are disappointed that they can’t honestly label him a hypocrite should be ashamed, because America is great *only* when we can put aside our differences, squabbles, and hatreds, and be Americans.

    Those who’d call him a hypocrite, even if it’s false… well, hatred is an ugly thing, but the willingness to lie to smear a man over a disagreement about public policy can’t be called anything less than hateful.

    Anyone want to think he’s not a very good environmentalist? Hey, he might not be. Even with all the excuses he makes, his house might be using a lot more electricity than it should, and there are limits to what carbon offsets can do. If we all use too much energy, eventually, we’re going to run into serious problems. If nothing else, too much electricity use means too much electrical infrastructure, which means too many targets for natural or man-made disasters. (At least until the day we can all go off-grid.)

    But he’s not preaching “be the world’s best environmentalist”. He’s saying “cause a neutral carbon footprint”. And no one has shown that he hasn’t done all he should to do exactly that.

  21. Allen Selvy Says:

    Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming
    Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 2, 2007 – 09:58.
    As NewsBusters reported here, here, and here, there are huge dollars to be made from global warming alarmism. However, conceivably no one is better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than Dr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the media will surely not share with Americans any time soon.

    Yet, if America’s press would take some time out of their busy schedules covering the earth-shattering details surrounding Anna Nicole Smith’s demise, they might find a deliciously inconvenient truth about the soon-to-be-Dr. Gore that is significantly more fascinating and diabolical than anything likely to emerge from that courtroom in Broward County, Florida.

    LINK

  22. Julian De faria Says:

    Long Haired Weirdo, do you really understand the issue I described, or indeed what conclusion you are arguing for. I am additionally confused by “Argument by assertion just doesn’t fly” what does this mean? Is this your catchprase?
    I assume that you are aware that exponents of strategies to alleviate the factors contributing to global warming propose both increased acceptance of green energy contracts by consumers and reduction of personal and business energy use. The reason why needs no assertion, as I wearily pointed out, electricity cannot be stored, the energy from current green energy sources is utilised. To properly understand the issue three points must be comprehended:
    1. The main issue for energy retailers with respect to providing power comes from dealing with peaks in electricity usage
    2. Increasing the supply of electricity requires capital and time intensive activity with additional constraints depending upon the generation activity required to increase the electricity supply (eg. Co-gen, wind etc).
    3. Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed
    The increase in residential and business development (installation of cooling technology, renovations, business development and expansion in the short run) leads to spikes in usage, as the short term availability of green energy is limited and electricity use is increasing (on a peak to peak basis) the available supply could not provide for peak usage spikes, hence production from large coal fired generators is required. To effectively plan in the long term, one, thinking rationally, would reduce electricity consumption, especially in peak periods and enter into contracts for green energy. Al Gore is well aware of this and it is silly to think that he is not. Additionally it is foolish to discount the cost of energy to the retailer, we live in the real world and no company can exist with gross margins crunched to minimum, to deal with this the reduction of electricity use in the peak period helps reduce the cost of supply and the purchase of green energy provides an incentive for future investment in green sources.

  23. Harry Eagar Says:

    Yes, I would have explained it a bit differently, but Julian understands why, if you think carbon emissions are a problem, you must reduce total emissions, not merely provide offsets.

    However, I do not wish to reduce total emissions, because many, many people in the world do not enjoy the benefits of electricity, and I want them to do that. They and their children will be healthier and happier. Unlike Gore, I am pro-health and pro-happiness for all.

    Rgirl asks: ‘Do you think the Global Warming issue will go away even if Gore’s detractors succeed in silencing him?’

    No chance of silencing him. Money talks. But, yes, the global warming issue will go away when everybody notices that it isn’t happening.

  24. Pink Pig Says:

    OK, Longhairedweirdo, let me respond to your rhetoric.

    > You know, this is *exactly* what’s ruining this country.

    Nothing is ruining this country. Free speech is an unmitigated good thing. Too bad that so many other places don’t have it.

    > You so much want to have a nasty name to hang on Al Gore that, once you think you can use hypocrite, you won’t look for the truth, you won’t care about the truth, you’ll just say it, over and over, hoping to score points for your team.

    I don’t have a team. I don’t have an agenda. I haven’t repeated myself “over and over”. You know nothing about me. I do indeed care about truth, and I don’t use words like “hypocrite” lightly. And Al Gore is _your_ problem, not _mine_.

    > But he is not a hypocrite. He hasn’t said “use as little electricity as you can”. He’s said “don’t be responsible for carbon emissions; you have a moral duty to prevent global warming, and being carbon neutral fights global warming.” That’s it. That’s all he’s said, and that’s the standard he’s living up to.

    Oh silly me. Here I thought that Gore was a proponent of the Kyoto treaty, but it turns out I must have some other guy in mind. All Gore is saying is that global warming can be solved by buying carbon credits from oneself. He may have a point. I must admit I haven’t heard any better idea.

    > Those who are disappointed that they can’t honestly label him a hypocrite should be ashamed, because America is great *only* when we can put aside our differences, squabbles, and hatreds, and be Americans.

    Wow. If you didn’t exist, the right wing would have to invent you. I take it that by “put aside our differences”, you mean that those of us who disagree with you should shut up and concede the debate to you. I haven’t noticed much openness to compromise from _your_ side.

    Well, taking potshots at this sort of fatuosity is too easy, and I have better things to do.

  25. John Says:

    So easy to attack the messenger. News flash: Al Gore’s not perfect. He might even be…*gasp*…a little bit of a hypocrite. Well then, all right-thinking, perfect people like should not only bash him, but ignore, belittle, and pay for junk science to slander his message.

    Because that’s how we roll. Go conservatives!

  26. Bob Krumm » more goring Says:

    […] Bill Hobbs already destroyed talking points myths numbers 2, 3, and 7. (Be sure to read his thorough deconstruction.) I already laid to rest number 4. […]

  27. Bob Krumm » gobbling up the news Says:

    […] Gore’s neighbors pay significantly less for power Al Gore buys “carbon credits” from self Gore wants equal time for self, but silence from opponents Gore’s green energy firm has polluted past Defenders’ claims don’t hold up to scrutiny […]

  28. itsme Says:

    Krumm said:

    >>>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.

  29. itsme Says:

    Don’t know why my post was cut off. Anyhoo…

    Krumm has a problem with his numbers above. They are based on the usage of single family homes. The DOE averages are based on the usage of households, which of course includes apartments and mobile homes.

    So go ahead and recompute and get back to us with some usable numbers.

  30. bob Says:

    Right . . . I forgot that Al Gore lives in a 10,000 sf mobile home.

    For single family homes in this area per sf electric usage is about seven-and-a-half kwh annually. Gore’s is almost 20. His gas usage is also similarly out of whack, corroborating my assertion that something is drastically wrong, energy efficiency-wise, with his home.

  31. Doesn\tMatter Says:

    LongHaired Weirdo –
    But he’s not preaching “be the world’s best environmentalist”. He’s saying “cause a neutral carbon footprint”. And no one has shown that he hasn’t done all he should to do exactly that.

    Wouldn’t conserving energy fall under the category of “all he should to do exactly that?” Likewise with using solar panels, low watt bulbs, et al?

    You say yourself that “Even with all the excuses he makes, his house might be using a lot more electricity than it should, and there are limits to what carbon offsets can do. If we all use too much energy, eventually, we’re going to run into serious problems.” You admit that even you wish Al Gore lived his life differently. So where then is the part that proves he is not a hypocrite? Where then is he teaching us to reduce our carbon footprints by anything more than words that he does not back up with his actions?

    What causes a carbon footprint?

    Car travel, air travel, electricity, home heating, appliances that are not energy efficient.

    So, by driving a hummer, Al Gore is not doing everything he can to reduce his carbon footprint. By hopping on a jet, he is not doing everything he can to reduce his carbon footprint. By the size of his power bill, he is not doing everything he can to reduce his carbon footprint. No one held a gun to his head and told him to be extravagant in his choice of home.

    Which thereby means, LongHaired Weirdo, that if Al Gore were truly doing everything he could to reduce his carbon footprint he would not only be “buying carbon credits,” but practicing conservation. (But I guess only us poor people have to do it that way.) And the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that he does not seem to be doing those things is that he is a hypocrite.

    This does not negate his message, but it does a thorough job of negating him.

  32. SKelley Says:

    I have been reading these posts and several things have struck me.

    First, based on these posts I would say that none here really knows the situation at the Gore mansion. There may very well be full time office staff etc. and perhaps it should not be treated as a simple residence. I don’t know what the situation is, do any of you?

    I am also struck by what a shame it is that Gore didn’t do everything he possibly could have to set an example. Does that make him a hypocrite? No! However, it does provide some people with fodder to discredit him. He should have gone overboard to prevent such criticism even if they are not warranted. If you approach and issue with the fervor that Gore uses with global warming and elevate it to the highest of moral imperatives you invite yourself to be held to a higher standard than everyone else. It does not matter if this is or is not fair; it is the way things are and Mr. Gore would have been well advised to take this into consideration. He really should have gone the extra steps to avoid this kind of critisism.

    One thing that has been mentioned several times in these posts in the support of the assertion that Mr. Gore is a hypocrite is his travel. This is not fair. In order to do the work of bringing attention to the issue, the travel is necessary. Sometimes, to make a lot you have to spend a lot. The net effect of the travel on carbon emissions we hope is negative as more people become aware of the seriousness of the problem and take measures to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Another striking feature of these posts is that those who are unwilling to accept the serious nature of global warming tend to use much harsher language and be less civil than those who accept it. The name-calling seems primarily to come from the naysayers.

    I have been concerned about global warming since long before I knew that Mr. Gore was championing the issue. My father was a scientist and many of my friends are scientists from a variety disciplines and they ALL tell me the problem is real, serious, and largely man made. These are not people ‘chasing dollars’ but people who are dedicated to wringing the truth out of what the data say.

    Regardless of what Al Gore does or doesn’t do we need to focus on solutions to the problems presented by excess carbon in the atmosphere, not trying to shoot the messenger.

  33. Green as Gore Says:

    I was quite amused by those defending Al Gore’s hedonistic use of energy at his estate; which happens to total 220,000 KwH/year.

    Mr. Gore’s bill is not abnormally high due to the use of “Green power” but simply because of the fact that he consumes 20 times as much power as an average sized American home. Even more enlightening is that this “Green Gore enclave” consumes 4 times the national average per household based on square footage, or simply put an average house the size of Mr. Gore’s use 1/4 as much energy. Did someone leave (all) the florescent lights on?

    Perhaps Al can feel good about buying expensive “Green power” that most Americans cannot afford but his environmental cause would be better served by cutting back on his porcine consumption of power. In fact Al is promoting his own corporation as he’s buying he green credits from it……

    E.g. lead by example, I don’t buy into “Do as I say, not do as I do”.

  34. Wayne Davies Says:

    We all know Al too well, he studied under the biggest liar for 8 years. I don’t know if he remembered ALL of Bill’s lies but you can bet he’ll stick with the ” I lied for the good of the country” one.

  35. Z Says:

    Wayne has anyone in the Bush administration ever lied?

  36. Amy Says:

    Having a big house should not be an excuse to consume more energy anyway. And buying “energy credits” as Gore does? It offends me.

    All these excuses do is emphasize that Gore, like all rich people, thinks that he should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to do, gluttonously consume any amount of anything that he wishes, and the rest of us should be making the sacrifices to solve the problem that he is doing 20x his share in creating. Uh, sorry, but no.

    I’m a liberal, but I’ve lived in other countries and I’m disgusted at what passes for “fact” in the liberal blogosphere in this country.

    There are some rich people who do walk the walk, but Al Gore (and John Edwards, by the way) are NOT among them.

  37. Amy Says:

    Skelley says: “I am also struck by what a shame it is that Gore didn’t do everything he possibly could have to set an example. Does that make him a hypocrite? No!”

    It most certainly DOES make him a hypocrite! He’s telling us all to do one thing, while he’s doing the exact opposite, and to a much greater degree! Sorta like a gay preacher who rails against homosexuality, don’t you think?

  38. Al Gore's hypocritical Global warming and others - SpawnPoint Says:

    […] 20 room, 8 bathroom mansion in a ritzy Nashville neighborhood. Here is a link for your pleasure. Bob Krumm » debunking a rather lame debunking Mars and Earth are experiencing similar patterns of warming and cooling. I guess the Martians need […]