Wasn't it Balzac who said "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virture"?

WUPS! That's "virtue" I need to pay homage to my spellchecker. :-)

Al Gore has no rhythm, he can't find his instrument.

Bill Clinton on the other hand could play the saxophone; or is that sexophone (sp)?

I find it "Hillaryious" because “Clinton” is trying to "Gore" the "Bush".

But for the life of me, I "Kennedy" see why you would "Nixon" one of your opponents with an "Eisen-howitzer", when you can use a "Reaygun" instead.

Perhaps he needed someone to "Carter" away all his rubbish, and "Ford" it across the Potomac.

"Roses are svelte" but if you want to be a "Truman" you can find beautiful birds nestled between two "Bushes".

Al Gore is a lying piece of SHIT

For a candidate to be talking change, not doing things as usual, etc, Obama is sure using a lot of washington insiders.
As Rush asks, who is behind this guy.

This story has been debunked.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/gore_decrease_his_energy_usage.php#more

2006 energy usage - 221,000
2007 energy usage - 213,210

And according to Don Suber here:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/06/17/gore-zilla/

It isn't 232 homes, but 19.3

Facts, schmacts right Kate? But your not a journalist I know - no pesky fact checking for you!

These numbers are wrong. According to the TCPR's own numbers, Gore's energy consumption for the past two years is as follows:

2006: 221,000 kWh (which they claimed was 20 times the national average)
2007: 213,210 kWh (which they claim can power 232 homes for a month).

So by the TCPR's own numbers, Gore's energy usage actually decreased, not increased. Plus, the energy he used would only power 19.3 homes, not 232.

Well, there you go, Peter - the Tennessee Center for Policy Research stands corrected!

Gore only uses 20 times the average US household. That's information that deserves wider distribution, yes? You know, because when we're in a planetary emergency, it's the Gulfstream environmentalists we all turn to for guidance.

Peter,

Although I don't know what the difference between Gore's 2006 and 2007 consumption is, I checked out the electrical consumption of the average American home (US govt. energy agency website) and yes, Gore does use 20 times the ANNUAL average, which is the equivelent to 232 houses per month. Check your math before you start spiking your AGW football.

I guess that's uncorrected, then!

How void of any intelligence one must be to believe in this great scam "global warming", where is it you retards, bring it on. Do you morons who believe this even know how to wipe!

Then imagine 95% of all this dying in one go.
It did happen - 250 million years ago. It was the day the Earth nearly died.

NARRATOR: Gerald Dickens found that even small pieces of frozen methane released enormous quantities of gas rich in carbon 12. The experiment supported what he'd suspected: the increase in carbon 12 could be the fingerprint of a massive methane release. He found something else as well. It would only take a small increase in water temperatures to melt the methane and release the carbon.

GERALD DICKENS: To explain the amount of carbon 12 that, that we see in the geologic record we need to warm up the bottom water by somewhere in the order of about 5°C.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/dayearthdiedtrans.shtml

Doesn't Gore get unlimited credits/powers like any other creator of a videogame scenario?

I remember playing Command and Conquer many years ago - within a couple of months someone on the internet had a hack that would enable a player to have "ultimate power" over the playing environment. It was fun to noodle with for awhile, but after a bit it became boring to have supreme executive power. Who says computer/video games aren't dangerous things?

Tee-hee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
(Monty Python's King Arthur vs. Dennis from The Holy Grail - "Help, help, I'm being repressed!")

Shame on you folks its not the hero All Gores fault. But MAN BEAR PIG. http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/south-park/season-11/#clip23182

As for the HRC's

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/south-park/season-11/#clip10975

Oh, Kate and her band of Einsteins are so clever;

As though the Global Warming that one hundred Nobel Prize winners have certfied as fact would be disproven even if Al Gore's energy consumption increased a thousandfold.

What the hell has winning the Nobel in any catagory other than Climatology got to do with that person's credibility, vs scientists who actually work in the field?
Sort of like asking S. Hawking's opinion on cutting edge genetic research; interesting I'm sure, but its relevance?
Getting back to the actual argument, how much of climate change is caused by human activity (as opposed to all other factors) and how is destroying the Global Economy supposed to aid in remediation of damage already done, as if there's going to be any money available for new energy research or infrastructure following the market's collapse.

30 thousand plus ,scientists, say agw is not happening.

rpaid....except for Mother Thersa...every other Nobel Prize in the last 20 years has been pure,unadulturated political bulls*&t. And I'll put my 31,000 real scientists denying your winners anyday. HEY! I just thought. Maybe you can tell me what a documentary about "global warming" has to do with "world peace"?? I expect a reply pronto,Tonto.

"Peter D" and "rpald" are playing an odd little game.

They're not actually denying Al Gore's massive power consumption, they're simply attempting to distract us from considering the hypocrisy of it in light of the Great Climate Guru's pet cause.

Actually, I noticed the incongruity in the numbers too, but TECHNICALLY the number quoted is correct because they said "In the past year, Gore’s home burned through ... 232 average American households for a month."

So yes, it's technically correct ... but that's a rather dishonest way to phrase it! It almost looks like the author had an ulterior motive or something ....

Being 'green' uses more energy? That is a surprise. I saw a TV advertised that has a 'wattage counter' installed on it, so we can see how much energy our TV uses! Now, how much energy is used by this wattage counter? That is not mentioned, but it doesn't run on air and takes energy to produce it. Suckers are green?

Nobel's awarding Gore a Peace prize has turned that institution into a sham, their prizes are meaningless.
They lost it some time ago when they awarded Yasser Arafat a peace prize.

Mr. Fat Ass Gore is simply a true example of hypocrisy.

So would it be more acceptable to state that, Mr.Gore has reduced his electrical billings from an average of $16,533. to $16433. if in fact he was able to do this after his renovations?

Remember a month past, Celine Dion was in the news for using 6.5 million gallons of water on her estate. This was 250 times the average american use. I haven't checked any of these figures, but I note that nobody came to Celine's rescue here and stated that "NO, it's false, she only uses 6.4 million gallons each month"

and Celine and Al are in the same sort of business...

For shame Marc! Celine is a MUCH better entertainer than Algore. Not in the same league at all.

Al Gore is a southern preacher.He took lessons from Jimmy Swaggert(Elvises cousin),and a bunch more bible thumping charlatens who got rich preaching.If he believed in what he is saying he would be ready to be interviewed by the press and would debate doubters.He wont.He's the reason that Bill Clinton wasnt impeached.

We are hopeless optimists in believing that our leaders are true and just.

Let us not forget the many unfullfilled political promises made by these people to get to the positions of power. I think the disappointment in these leaders stems from the public expectation of setting an example to the issues that elevated these people to their current status.
In laymans terms; they don't practice what they preach.
Are we being realistic? Don't forget Gore is a politician.

Much of the confusion here came out of comparing Gore's energy use per year with a typical household's energy use per month.

As soon as I saw that, I knew that the writer was amateurish and was going for shock, not accuracy.

The earth has a fever, and the only cure

IS MORE COWBELL!

To all you naysayers, the point is that Al Gore is a hypocrite for the simple reason that he burns through *far* more energy than the average person, while simultaneously running around telling the the rest of the world that the planet is in a crisis of near-death which can only be fixed by reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.

Let's not forget as well that he quite happily enjoys flying on a private jet.

By far and away the worst kind of liberal is one who becomes wealthy (thanks to the evil right-wing capitalist system) and then decides that living the high-life isn't so bad after all.

Soros, Bono, Gore, Paul Martin, it's a long list in that bucket, and they are dangerous people who would happily suck money from the man on the street in order to fund their pet projects, while they live the life of fat cats.

These are arrogant evil people who believe they are the only ones entitled to freedom. They are no different than the fat cats in the communist era, who enjoyed their caviar while the rest of the population had to suffer under their political experiments.

They all make sick.

Al Gore is a disingenuous and supercilious twit

Nothing, but nothing, would bring sanity to the whole Kyoto thing faster and more effectively than a guilty of fruad charge against Al Gore.

A successful suit would also, IMO, bring the world's media to it's senses - fear-mongering is also a crime.

Even if a fraud charge was not successful, just having Gore, under oath, trying to defend his outlandish claims would allow the world to see the scam for what it is.

Lets see now...

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research lies when it says Al Gore is used more energy in 2007 than he did in 2006 when in fact he used less...Kate repeats this lie willy nilly...And the CONS dump on Al Gore because, well, they just don't like him...facts be damned.

He used less energy. TCPR lied when they said he didn't. But lying IOKIYAC.

What absolutely amazes me is how unsceptical people are on the AGW issue. Is it because its a leftwing political thing?

There is a reason that we dont like Al Gore.HE'S A LIAR!He has got RICH on this scam.All true believers of anything walk the walk as well as talking the talk.Gandi,Mother Teresa,the list goes on.How can anyone defend someone that has a message that if not followed,will result in the death of the earth,but charges $250,000 a pop to deliver it.If he believed in what he is preaching he would do it for FREE!He made a half million in one day by delivering it in Regina and Calgary! Of course,he had the expense of flying a personal jet to do it.

Peter, you're playing with numbers or you didn't read what the report said.
Quote from the report: "In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month."
19.3 home a month is the same as 232 homes per year, as the report stated. Do the math!

That's nothing.

Last year I ate as much food as 12 people eat in a month.

Al Gore's still a hypocrite, though.

"Celine and Al are in the same sort of business."

But at least she's not showing up in the news all the time virtuously proclaiming the importance of conserving and recycling water...

What exactly does Gore's politics and/or hypocrisy have to do with the validity of the science?

Even if Gore was the biggest liar on the planet, everything he references can be found in the primary literature where the war should be and is waged.

You want to know if Gore is a liar, look it up in the primary literature. If you want to know what atmospheric physicists are actually saying about CO2 and AGW, then ignore the political crap from both sides and go look it up in the literature.

Science information is open to everyone.

Attacking an individual or an organization, although it does make you feel good about yourself and your position, does nothing to add to the debate. Neither does quoting a single authority or pseudo-authority that just happens to support your position. Relying on information from authorities, including climatologists and historians, that do no research and no publishing is nothing more than a game of craps, sometimes you get factual information, sometimes not.

I could care less about Gore. I could care less about the politics. What I do care about is whether CO2 can influence warming, what the short term consequences (the long term consequences is that the Earth climate will re-balance) of that will be and possible methods of limiting negative outcomes.

So far, what I have seen is that the pro-AGW group does the data collection, the research and the publishing, the anti-AGW group does no research but does use public media and the same polemic tactics as creationists to push their point.

Where is the anti-AGW evidence for solar forcing being the primary source, for Milankoitch cycles or any other potential cause aside from CO2? I'd like to see some solid evidence for a driver other than CO2. All I have seen is anti-AGWers proclaiming that AGW due to CO2 is impossible so it can't be happening. That and a lot of straw man creations.

Oh .....My.....God!

Man Bear PIG.

Save your breath, Gary

Facts mean nothing to these guys.

The only thing they want to do is stand on their lawns like crotchety old men and shake their fists at a world that's passing them by.

The science is in on Global Warming. These guys deny it. Why?

Because their corporate masters told them to.

They're like abused dogs, hoping that if only they spout the right mantra - and hate the right person - their masters will refrain from beating them. Or maybe even let them sit at the master's table like a good little pup!

Fat chance!

"The science is in on Global Warming. These guys deny it. Why?

Because their corporate masters told them to."

Let me guess: you think 9/11 was an inside job.

No, actually, JJM, I don't think 9-11 was an inside job.

The belief that 9-11 was an inside job is an extremist fringe idea rather like the one you and your pals have that Global Warming is a fiction (like the weirdos who believe man never went to the moon, or that aliens are sending messages to their fillings, etc)

Global Warming is accepted by the great mainstream majority.

It's you and the rest here who are fringe wackos.

Gary Bohn, from a parallel universe writes:

"So far, what I have seen is that the pro-AGW group does the data collection, the research and the publishing, the anti-AGW group does no research but does use public media and the same polemic tactics as creationists to push their point."

Here's an example of a polemicist tactic: "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being honest and being effective."

Hmm.. "scary scenarios". A scenario is a possible outcome, but not a certain outcome. The comment implies that there are non-scary scenarios as well. "Simplified dramatic statements" - I read this as "remove nuance and detail, and emphasize the danger". "Little mention of any doubts" - I'd say this means suppress any thoughts you might have that are contrary to the program you are trying to push. Finally "the balance between being honest and being effective" - this sounds like it could have come from Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross", or any of the recently indicted executives in the sub-prime mortgage scandal.

But of course, it didn't. This statement was written by one Steven Schneider, who was the CHIEF AUTHOR - not a contributor, not a minor editor - of the 2007 IPCC report of climate change.

Mr. Schneider also goes to great length to impugn the motives of his critics, alleging that they are paid off by the oil industry, or sinister right-wing (love that oxymoron!) organizations, etc. Meanwhile, the AGW crowd is mute on Al Gore's involvement with the largest carbon trading firm on the planet, which means he will get personally rich if scams like Dion's carbon tax get implemented. Any where else, this would be a serious conflict of interest, but in the AGW world, and presumably Mr. Bohn's, this can be ignored. The fact that Mr. Gore (and Dr. Fruitfly) preach conservation and reduced lifestyles to us while having carbon footprints bigger than Godzilla's is also unimportant, because of the importance of the message they are preaching. Funny, that argument didn't work for the defrocked TV evangelists when they were caught raiding the till or fooling around with the help while preaching the gospel of Jesus.

Oh, and by the way, the same Steven Schneider was the author of a paper in the 1970's that warned of global cooling.

What I find funny is,just what are the Kyoto?AGW Kultists doing here at SDA anyways? I guess they don't believe in their own messiah's preachings,or they would be living in caves with no power for their computers! Are all these Kultists hypocrites??

For the pro-AGW group;

An effective tool for inducing social change is to lead by example.
Limiting ones CO2 output should be paramount in this time of Global crisis, and a reflection of the commitment there is to save the planet.

The science is settled, time for action!

Stop breathing NOW.

(you'll get a tax credit too)

I always wonder why all that frozen methane never got released during the Eemian when it was much warmer than today, or during the Holocene Optimum, just ten thousand years ago when the MILE THIKE glaciers melted and it was warmer in the Arctic by several degrees than today. Or during the vast bulk of the history of the planet when temperatures remained steady as a thermostat at much higher temps than we have today during the glaciated era that only started five million years ago? Why didn't the Earth die then?

They're like abused dogs, hoping that if only they spout the right mantra - and hate the right person - their masters will refrain from beating them. Or maybe even let them sit at the master's table like a good little pup!

I have to admit, he's got me nailed. No wonder that the warmies lose debate after debate.

There is one side that is focused on "hating the right people" and it is not the skeptic community.

You got it, Tim in Vermont!

There is one side "focused on hating the right people", as is evidenced by this thread whose only purpose is for you all to express bile towards Al Gore.

As though the power of all your collected hatred will overturn the widely accepted scientific evidence of Global Warming.

Run off now, Tim! Your masters might be throwing you another scrap from the table! Or some more marching orders with new lies to perpetuate and new people to hate! Godspeed!

Are you "rpal" or "rpaul"?

You seem to have more bile than any three other posters here.

I've said nothing about global warming so you have no idea where I stand on the issue.

It's the hypocrisy of Al that annoys me: I don't want to be hectored about my energy consumption by someone who clearly isn't concerned about their own.

Thanks for the laugh, JJM

I have more bile than other posters here when the entire point of this site is so Kate can feed you guys threads for you to express your bile against one entity or another?

Frankly, there's such a preponderance of racist hate expressed on this site that I sometimes wonder whether that isn't the real attraction for most of you.

So your whole concern is Al Gore's 'hypocrisy', is it, JJM? Of all the hypocrisy in this fallen world, Gores' is the one that really enrages you beyond all else, huh?

Global warming has nothing at all to do with it, right? The fact that the no-nothings here leap on any scrap published by a right wing rag that seems to conradict Gore's words because to their submental minds that discredits something which is accepted science for the rest of the world - that has nothing to do with why you're posting, right? You're simply enraged by Al Gore's hypocrisy.

Geez, at least the other posters here are logical in supporting their hand-me-down submental ideas, fed to them by their masters. You're all up in arms about a politician's energy bills - and that's it! Wow.