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

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



Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article sounds pretty biased and like it has an agenda.

I'm sure Gore has taken steps to reduce his energy use in his own home to a level lower than it would be without those steps.

It's not about being the lowest, it's about doing your part to lower your use. Afterall, many people in the world live without electricity at all so I guess I'm a hypocrite too for using my energy efficient light bulbs when I should just be sitting in the dark

Thanks for posting the article though, it's also entertaining to watch the conservatives beat the straw man.

good lordy!! and i thought my elec bill was way too much!! lol

never really liked al gore, something about him just doesn't add up.

thanks for posting!

lol, but he won on the OSCARS didn't he?? lol, and as Ellen said, everyone voted for you, but....lol

quote:

Originally posted by LMFPchick:
good lordy!! and i thought my elec bill was way too much!! lol

never really liked al gore, something about him just doesn't add up.

thanks for posting!

lol I thought my bill was too high!

He`s quite a character. He oozes hypocracy.

It's not hypocrity. Please explain to me what makes him a hypocrite. He never said that everyone should have an energy use lower than the national average, if he did I could see that being hypocritcal, but he hasnt' said that.

This article is a CLASSIC informal fallacy. In logic it is what would be refered to as a fallacy of relevance- specifically a "tu quoque" fallacy.

For those who are not well versed in the rhetoric of logic, I'll break it down. Al Gore makes the argument that Global Warming is a problem that can have catastrophic consequences and so something needs to be done about it- like reducing energy use in our homes. The right wing conservatives attack his argument in various ways- this article being the example in question. Now a "tu quoque" fallacy is when an arguer (the author) attempts to make the first arguer (Gore)appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith- in other words, the arguer makes a personal attack instead of attacking the actual arguement (that Global Warming is a problem and we need to do something about it).Generally, it takes the form of "how dare you argue that I should stop doing X when you do/have done X yourself".

This article is really a great example, thanks for posting it!

Global warming...Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.


Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.


Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.


The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?


It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.


It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?


How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.


The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.


The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.


Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.


Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.


What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?


Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"


Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?


In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.


There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.


Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.


Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.


Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.


During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.


Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?


Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

As for Al, he is a hypocrite. He has been one ever since I can remember. Not just on this issue. IF he`s changed electricity sources and his bill is still this high, he`s got one serious problem. He`s rarely at home. His children are no longer home. It`s just him and Tipper. So, I guess he`s not practicing what he`s been preaching. But I`m not surprised. That`s to be expected from Al.

quote:

Originally posted by LISAJUNKIEE:
lol, but he won on the OSCARS didn't he?? lol, and as Ellen said, everyone voted for you, but....lol

Right on LJ! That was awesome! Al Gore ROCKS! i don't believe any of the Republican "Spin". We have to do something about this before it is too late!

Apparently, Al Gore ownes the company that he buys Carbon Credits from and they don`t sell Carbon credits to anyone else.

Pretty convenient.

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE UD!!! YOU'RE ELIZABETH FROM THE VIEW!!!!!!! ROSIE CAN'T KNOCK ANY SENSE INTO HER EITHER. LOL!!!!!!!

There are a lot of politicians who OOZE hypocricy. lol.

That's the reason their politicians.

But yeah, Gore needs to get a clue. I do believe that there is such a thing as global warming. However, politicians need to learn not to preach to others about the lives they don't live themselves. That's for certain. I find it funny that some of the same people who talk about issues such as "fuel economy" are also getting into big SUV's each day which only get about 6 miles to the gallon.

Boy does America need another revolution. We come over to this country because of taxation without representation, and now America is turning into the same things we didn't want when this country was founded to begin with.

Our Government really is corrupt. Period. Democrats and Republicans. Lawyers. Judges. Throw them in a barrel, pour gasoline on them, and torch them all...

quote:

Originally posted by Unique Dog:
Apparently, Al Gore ownes the company that he buys Carbon Credits from and they don`t sell Carbon credits to anyone else.

Pretty convenient.

Again with the personal attacks on the messanger. Really why waste your time to even comment on Gore?

I can tell you right now that NO ONE is perfect, not even you. But a person's flaws doesn't mean that their argument is not sound.

quote:

Originally posted by Unique Dog:
Global warming...Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

First, I'm not sure what evidence you are basing your UN is anti-american arguement on, and second, I have no idea what the UN-American sentiments have to do with the fact that the global temperature has increased in the past century. You also seem to forget that the UN is made up of larely capitalist countries and that the UN encourages developing countries around the world to get into capatalism to improve their economies.

quote:

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

What statistics do you have on this? If you want to sell your argument you'd better have facts and not just conspiracy theories.

And again, you'd have to prove how anti-capatalists have made the global temperature rise and glaciers melt, etc. because I'm not following that giant leap you make there.

quote:

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The sun is warmer... okay, and what evidence do you have of that because I sure haven't ever heard anything like that before.

But just out of curiosity, what conspiracy theories have you dreamed up as to why the international scientific community has chosen to ignore this little fact of a warmer sun that the oh so much more intelligence Unique Dog can clearly see has led to global warming, not man.

quote:

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

This argument is so illogical I can't even put it in words.

Just because global warming is melting ice caps on earth does not mean that global warming is the only cause of melting ice anywhere in the universe.

Global warming CAN melt glaciers on earth while a completely different set of factors lead to the same outcome on Mars.

Just because ice melts on Mars, does not mean that global warming does not exist on EARTH.

quote:

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

So what? It was warmer 60 million years ago than it is right now.

The temperature of the earth in the 1930s has nothing to do with the fact that humans are currently producing greenhouse gases, such as C02 that have molecular structures that allow them to absorb more engery than other molecules, and thus contribute to global warming.

quote:

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

Clearly you did not bother to understand the argument of these scientists. So let me try to explain it to you now.

We currently live in an epoch (that's a geologic measure of time) that is marked by long cooling and warming periods (so we have periods of ice ages and then periods of warming etc.). During this epoch, we have had a major ice age about ever 10,000-15,000 years. The last one we had was about 11,000 years ago, so that makes scientists say that judging by the past record, it would not be surprising if we saw another ice age sometime in the next couple of thousand years.

However, this has nothing to do with the fact that human produced greenhouse gases are currently contributing to the rise of the global temperature.

Do you see now how science can show that global warming IS occuring while also predicing an ice age? It's kind of like the weather man saying "the temperature is hot today and it will probably get warmer all week, but it's a pretty safe bet that by december it will cool off". They are telling you the current conditiosn and immediate future, as well as prediciting the more distant future.

quote:

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

*sigh* If that is not frightening to you, it's because you dont' understand what the data means. Just as a person who has never seen a gun before and doesn't know what it is does not fear it because they dont understand what it can do. Well, let me tell you what that gun can do and why you SHOULD fear it.

First, that one degree difference, is an AVERAGE of the entire year. That means that you may have SEVERE rises in heat in the summer as well as SEVERE decreases in the winter, but still average out to only one degree.

You can have DEVESTATING consequences (such as drougt, famine, increased weather problems such as hurricanes and tornadoes, more snow and severe conditions in the winter etc.) with only one degree increase.

I can't even put it all here, but I suggest you get a firm understanding of what that one degree difference means before you say you dont' fear it.

quote:

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

I agree that graphs and statistics can be misleading. There have been warming trends in the past, as I mentioned earlier, we live in an epoch where it is not uncommon.

But what makes the scientific community concerned about THIS warming trend is that it IS directly linked to human activities and the production of greenhouse gases. It is not a "natural" increase but a man-made one. In any case, whether it was natural or not does not change the fact that it can have devestating consequences.

quote:

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

So this is the "if they dont' have to do it, I ain't gunna" argument?

Kyoto realizes that China and India are industrializing economies and inorder to lift their people out of poverty and join the capatalist, industrialized nations (which you seem to think the UN is against), they have to be allowed to industrialized unrestrained. Once they are industrialized, THEN they can think about cutting back C02 emmissions, but in the mean time, the developed countries that made up Kyoto are valuing human life over the environment for right now.

In any case, the exemption of China and India has NOTHING to do with the fact that globabl warming is happening.

I just don't see where you are drawing the conclusion that their exemption means it is not happening.

quote:

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

The world's dominant capitalist economies that signed Kyoto have not been harmed in any way by doing so. Building energy efficient fatories is not a direct attack on capitalism, asking people to carpool is not a direct attack on capitalism and I have no idea WHERE ON EARTH you are getting the idea that it is.

The economies of the developed world are INFORMATION ECONOMIES. They are POST-INDUSTRIAL. That means that the economy in the US and other developed countries grows REGARDLESS OF ENERGY USE.

quote:

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

This is a legitimate concern. However money is flowing from BOTH sides of the issue- those trying to disprove it (like scientists hired by oil or coal companies etc.) and those trying to prove it (environmentalists etc.).

What it comes down to though is can we ignore scientific evidence because it was funded by a grant? I'm sure you'd agree that plenty of LEGITIMATE discoveries have been made even with scientists being paid from grants. I mean we can't ignore new medicines simply because the scientists were paid to make them.

It's something you have to keep in mind, but I dont' think the money issue in itself is enough to completely dismiss the issue.

quote:

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

Activists by nature are beligerent. Activists thatt believe global warming is NOT happening are just as forceful as those who believe globabl warming is happening.

Again though, I don't think you can dismiss the argument simply because a few extremists (activists) behave in a way you dont' like. There are PLENTY of people who believe global warming is a problem who are not activists.

quote:

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

It's a good question, I haven't seen this graph so I have no idea why. Perhaps you can post a picture of the two graphs, or a link to them?

quote:

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

I've never heard that quote. Could you post where you got it?

quote:

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

I've heard no such evidence that it has gotten thicker, I'd love to see such evidence if you actually have it.

As far as why, there could be lots of reasons, but you'd have to ask an expert.

quote:

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

I'm not sure I've heard that the US has the most accurate temperature measuring, what source do you have for that claim? And where are you getting these numbers if you dont' mind me asking? I'd also like to know if the temperatures given are medians or means and if the UN report was also in centigrade of if they put the US increase in US measures (Farenheit). What methods were used for the data collection?

In any case, the amount of the increas aside, clearly there HAS been an increase, even if you go with your "most accurate" US recording.

So how can you deny that the earth is warming when you yourself just posted that it has risen, at least, 0.3 degrees?

quote:

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

If they've never been measured by man then how do you know they are growing?

quote:

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Again, I'd like to know your source.

The west antartic, what about the rest of the antartic? What about the north pole? What about glaciers in the rest of the world? What about the molecular structure of CO2 and how it absorbs heat energy in it's double bonds? What about the temperature rising (according to you) 0.3 degrees C in the past 100 years?

You have to look at the WHOLE picture, not just a little piece of evidence.

quote:

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

And? You seem to be missing the point. Even if sea levels rose before, that does not mean that humans can not cause global warming now. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, just because something happened before, doesn't mean it won't cause consequences that we should be concerned about now.

Afterall, tornadoes have happened millions of times before. Does that mean we should not worry about them now? No.

Just because sea levels rose before, doesn't mean that them doing so NOW will not be destructive.

quote:

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

The interior, and what about the coast? Again you seem to only see the part of the picture that you want to see.

quote:

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

So what? Just because the earth warmed before doesn't mean that it isnt' warming NOW.

quote:

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

You're taking pieces of the puzzle and extrapolating from them that the whole puzzle must be okay. It doesn't work like that, you have to look at ALL THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER.

quote:

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

What does that PROVE?

If NPR refuses to interview a professor who wont' say that the grass is green, does that mean that the grass is NOT green?

quote:

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

They are not afraid of additional information, it's just that once you feel something is PROVEN you dont' want to WASTE money proving it again.

Just because scientists say no further research is necessary to prove that penicilin kills bacteria does NOT mean that penicilin does not work, nor does it mean that they are afraid of additional information about penicilin.

quote:

As for Al, he is a hypocrite. He has been one ever since I can remember. Not just on this issue. IF he`s changed electricity sources and his bill is still this high, he`s got one serious problem. He`s rarely at home. His children are no longer home. It`s just him and Tipper. So, I guess he`s not practicing what he`s been preaching. But I`m not surprised. That`s to be expected from Al.

As far as Gore, I could really care less. Everyone I've ever met in my entire life has done or said something hypocritical. You yourself said at the beginning of your post that you were skeptical about global warming, yet later in the SAME POST you said that the "most accurate" US measuring found that earth had risen 0.3 degrees centigrade- if the earth's temperature rose, then that is global (the earth part) warming (temperature rising). So you too could be considered a hypocrite.

The whole "hypocrite" thing is just so ridiculous to me becasue EVERYONE is. It's like pointing your finger and going "human!"

Global warming theory is not a proven fact by any means. It is a consensus. I work with Scientists everyday of my life and I know that science is not based on a consensus and global warming is just that.

According to the report that I have read, simultaneous warming of the Earth and Mars by the sun suggest that recent climate change may not be caused by man. As proof, the report cites a NASA report that says the polar ice caps are also melting on Mars. Uh-oh...time to pass a climate treaty for Mars. Those Martians obviously need to cut back on their driving and install solar panels. But remember .. only advanced industrial nations on Mars will be affected. Developing nations will be exempt.

And there's more...scientists at the Danish National Space Center think global warming is caused by cosmic rays from exploded stars, not man. Are they right? Who knows. But the point is that there are reasonable people who disagree about global warming. This is something the media hides from the public. Anybody who dares to speak out against the global warming movement is derided as a Holocaust denier and a member of the Flat Earth Society.

But back to that Mars thing....perhaps Al Gore could move there and run up the light bill.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Unique Dog,

How the f*ck did global warming become a republican/democrat thing??? WTF?? Look at all the weather disasters that have happened and continue to happen! Geez....the concern is our well being, our country, our next generation.
Lets try and fix this!