digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall today!
Check out the Digg Townhall live from the Digg stage at the DNC at 1:30PST/4:30EST

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at tennesseepolicy.org

Al Gore's personal electricity consumption 'up 10%'...

tennesseepolicy.org — Mr. Global Warming's electricity consumption is up 10%. Al when will you practice what you preach?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ender7074, on 06/17/2008, -341/+396Just goes to show that hes in it for the money and not for any noble reason. Pure scum.
    • RonnyIsRondo, on 06/18/2008, -48/+151Come on guys hes got a Power Point presentation and everything.
      • fanas, on 06/18/2008, -12/+43and by power point, you mean keynote ...
      • so1980, on 06/18/2008, -12/+1{insert Power pun here}
      • inigomntoya, on 06/18/2008, -6/+6AND a man lift. Come on. What kind of person invests in a man lift if he is only in it for the money..
      • jawagas, on 06/18/2008, -4/+3ya buddy, don't upset the macies by making that confusion.
    • feshmania, on 06/18/2008, -21/+56this is all a evil ploy to stop Al Gore by manbearpig.

      we all must do our part.
      • joeanon, on 06/18/2008, -12/+3Tennessee Center for Policy Research is just a GOP puppet organization releasing whatever they say as 'the truth'.

        The Tennessee Dept. of Revenue has actually termed the TCPR as "not a legitimate organization."

        By propagating lies you are helping Exxon and OPEC rob your nation blind.
        • VoxRatio, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Stay on point, that was a joke son. Your alarmism was out of context. But we like your style, you'll fit right in here.. Tell you what.. Repost it in another thread for some major diggs.
        • spookyttws, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah the whole, replying to a high comment just to have the change your comment is read by someone really doesn't work when the comment your replying to is a joke. And a mildly funny one at that.
    • CryRightardCry, on 06/18/2008, -69/+20Yeah, think of millions he's making ever time some right wing dumbass whines about him.

      I swear, you people just get dumber and dumber.
      Do you ***** all over your house? No *****, you don't.
      So should you ***** all over the earth?
      Think carefully. Use that tiny brain.
      Now, did you answer "Yes, I enjoy polluted water, air and food and toxic waste in my yard"?
      If you did, you are a typical rightard and deserve everything you bring upon yourself with these moronic arguments that pollution doesn't pollute.
      • orangefly, on 06/18/2008, -8/+14who pissed in your cheerios....???....
      • Duositex, on 06/18/2008, -4/+19Yes because conservative republicans love toxic waste and pollution. Especially in their sprawling thousand-acre ranches.
      • frankingeneral, on 06/18/2008, -4/+20I'm a liberal. I am pro-environment. But I do know a hypocrite when I see one.

        Between this, and his Gulf Stream Jet just imagine how monsterous his carbon footprint is. He's clearly a hypocrite.
        • zombies187, on 06/18/2008, -1/+6Who would listen to him if he lived in a tree?
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -7/+1Even if he were, that wouldn't change the truth of his message -- which is what the right wing is attacking here with their dishonest attack on him. So, regardless of whether you are liberal and pro-environment, you are also a fool.
        • Taquoshi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Thank you.
      • TheInfamousOne, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Where should I ***** then?
      • BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -6/+1Well put, sir. You are my kind of liberal. Added as friend.
      • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -2/+0spread the word man.. your friends don't seem to get it.
      • Taquoshi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1So erudite. Dugg down for potty mouth.
    • indoracer, on 06/18/2008, -41/+69What this article does not talk about is how much of the energy he uses comes from renewable resources. Gore does claim to have offset his carbon footprint. How many of us are carbon neutral?
      • nmessick, on 06/18/2008, -22/+17that whole thing is such a load of bull... its an excuse so people can feel good about being green. Do you understand how that whole system works? There was just a broadcast on dateline NBC about how many of those programs offer an offset by closing down a polluting factory in China, then that same company then uses the funds to build another polluting factory and offer it up for carbon offset money as well. Its a scam.

        Also, few people actually get power from a green source. They just volentarily pay more to buy green power on a different location on the grid.
      • inigomntoya, on 06/18/2008, -12/+43He is buying the credits from a company he owns! Its like the editor of Time Magazine putting himself on the cover of Time and telling everyone how popular he is.
        • ExitMoose, on 06/18/2008, -4/+6That's not what it's like at all. It's more like the owner of Pepsi buying Pepsi products to serve at his party. Sure, it's better for his own bottom line than buying Coke, but that doesn't mean there's no drinks served at the party.

          The point is that Gore doesn't get all the money back. It's the money he doesn't get back that does the real work. Can you really blame him for eliminating the middleman, assuming the outcome is the same?
        • inigomntoya, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2The outcome is NOT the same. You make a valid point if the people come to Pepsi Dude's party and look at the drinks and think "Wow, this guy is high class - serving Pepsi at a party instead of that DREADFUL Brut"
          But they don't.
          Al Gore is improving his image by offsetting his lifestyle with carbon credits which are cheaper and more easily attained than the average Joe.
          He.Is.A.Charlatan.
      • Tomchei, on 06/18/2008, -6/+7He's taking power off the grid. That's how they are able to measure it.

        17,768 kWh per month is 13.2 times what I use and his house isn't 13x the size of mine nor is it in an extreme environment that warrants that type of power.

        *****, I'd give him credit if he were building a spaceship in the basement but even the Doc in The Thing didn't use that much power.
        • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3His house is also a major office where some of his aides and employees work.
        • oscenester, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Go Gore! Sounds like he's got a lil "green" project going on in the basement ;] more power to him.
        • DaHuuuuuudge, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3This begs the question though...what IS he doing with all that power?
        • Taquoshi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Tomchei, Are you referring to Dr. Who and his Tardis?
      • smurfsahoy, on 06/19/2008, -5/+6Thats a ***** argument, and the fact that he has tricked so many people with it is half the reason why he is scum in the first place. He preaches to us that we should reduce power usage, do everything we can to save the world by reducing carbon. He is doing neither. He is using vast amounts of unnecessary energy, and then he is putting a half-assed effort into reducing carbon output.

        To put it in a way everyone can understand, let's set some numbers to it. Let's say he spends 1 million on energy every year, producing 1000 tons of carbon. And he spends 100,000 on trees to offset the energy. If he cut his obnoxious energy consumption in half, which he could easily do, then he could use halve the carbon output to 500. Then he could spend the money he saved on planting more trees, which would offset another 5000 tons of carbon.

        So right now, in this example, he is producing zero carbon. With any perfectly reasonable effort put into reducing his own personal energy usage orgy, he could cut it in half, though, and change that zero to a NET GIFT to the world of 5500 tons of carbon offsets. Thus, by only canceling himself out, and not lifting a finger to do what he expects us to do, I consider him to be wasting those 5500, or whatever it is in real life.
    • DeviateSeptum, on 06/18/2008, -48/+94Even if he were in it for the money (and I don't agree with you), calling him "pure scum" is way over-the-top. Get some perspective.
      • didiman, on 06/18/2008, -39/+58Gore is an alarmist, opportunist, and hypocrite...sounds like scum to me.
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -12/+1That's the scum in your brain that you are hearing.
        • kinseyincanada, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2jesus christ the man is trying to make the world a better place, and you call him scum because he uses more energy than the average person.
        • Dewhead, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2You are a fool if you believe he is trying to make the world a better place. He is using junk science to manipulate the masses for his own personal gain.
      • rheaume, on 06/18/2008, -21/+4"Get some perspective"

        Thats a little too nice, how about some AIDS?
      • Duositex, on 06/18/2008, -13/+6What's so special about A.G. that takes away freedom of speech?
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -23/+45Sensationalizing junk science and then preying on people's fears for profit seems like scum to me. Its pretty clear what his motivations are now even if they weren't that way to start with.
        • comrade693, on 06/18/2008, -18/+16Junk science? Ah, so you are saying that anthropogenic warming isn't happening eh?
        • BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -14/+10The only way that you could think that the extensive scientific evidence involved here is "junk", is if you were a callous, right-wing scumbag.
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -9/+13Labeling as "junk science" valid science endorsed by virtually ever climate scientist in the world, except those on Exxon's payroll, doesn't make it junk science, it just makes you a piece of *****.
        • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4Gee I wonder if climatologists get more money for funding research if they endorse global warming... I wonder what happens if they don't endorse it. Do they still get funding?
        • eltrev, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2"junk science"? You mean like evolution?

          I'll just come out and say it plain - you people are ***** *****.
        • smurfsahoy, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5Evolution is proven millions of times a day beyond a reasonable doubt as bacteria divide constantly all around us, mutating faster than you can blink, dying off, slowly adapting. We have fossil evidence. We have inter-species resemblances (finches and turtles, etc.). We have DNA evidence more recently. Etc. etc.

          For global warming, we have... zero evidence. Yes, sure, the globe is warming (kind of - there was a 40 year straight period this century when it consistently got colder). That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about evidence that humans are to blame for all of it (or any measurable particular fraction of it), or that pretty much any of the terrible consequences that have supposed to have occurred have actually happened. Sea levels have not actually risen by any serious measurements (perhaps because inland antarctica is getting a thicker ice layer - but that's just my favorite guess. The important thing is that it isnt happening, for whatever reason). Storms have actually become less frequent over the course of this century, if anything. Etc.

          Most reputable climatologists agree that the globe is warming, and most agree that humans have something to do with it, and most probably even agree that bad stuff is going to happen as a result. The problem is that only ONE of those actually has any data to support it. I don't care how many scientists support a theory - if there isn't data, it's not hard science. It's a model. That's why we build accelerators in physics, etc. Unvalidated theories aren't considered good enough for policy decisions in almost any branch of science, period. Why does climatology get an exception? Well, because the media is pumping fear into everybody about it, but I've yet to hear an actual reason thus far from anybody.
        • anothrnbdy, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Scientists all generally agree that the Earth is warming. What they do not agree on is whether or not this effect is man made or not.
        • Dewhead, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Hmmm. There seems to be debate about whether it is warming or not as well. At any rate, I am all for voluntary personal measures such as recycling, buying "green" stuff and so on. If someone believes in global warming then they can change their own behavior. But it smacks of facism to advocate that the government mandate and control certain behaviors of individuals who do not believe in this theory.
    • Gabberwok, on 06/18/2008, -42/+105Considering how many people he's convinced to be more responsible, he could drill for oil in his own backyard and set it all on fire and still have made a positive impact on the environment.
      • so1980, on 06/18/2008, -6/+17sad, but probably true.
      • pbeternal99, on 06/18/2008, -18/+28It's easy to preach to people and tell them how to live but its much harder to change yourself. This guys still flies around in private jets and his home consumes more energy than a small town. He should lead more by example.
        • york2600, on 06/18/2008, -13/+22There are hippy environmentalists all over the country trying to lead by example. Do you ever hear about them? No they're sitting in straw houses eating food they grew in their back yard powering the lights with solar panels. You can't get out there any talk to people about issues without having an environmental impact. It's just not possible. Yes Al Gore probably have a larger carbon footprint than many people in the US, but if he decided to stop educating people he would not be doing the world a favor.
        • katiekatekate, on 06/18/2008, -4/+21I can concede the point that the man needs to get on a plane now and then. And because he's so controversial, I'll even let the private jet thing slide for security reasons. But please explain how using 20-times the normal amount of electricity (232 homes for a month = 19.33 homes for a year) for his own personal residence aids in educating the masses about being environmentally conscious. While I am not 100% convinced to either side on the global warming issue, I take no offense to the hippies who are sitting in their solar-powered huts. I take offense to hypocrisy.
        • FalconJones, on 06/18/2008, -4/+6>consumes more energy than a small town.

          umm....I don't think you have the facts to support that claim?
        • zombies187, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5And live in a tree! Then the republicans would respect hes words. Oh wait...that would seem ten times as insane as anyone in mainstream poitical thought.
        • donte, on 06/18/2008, -1/+12@york2600
          Last I checked, there are standard commercial flights which could take him to exact same places -- you know, flights that hold more than 7 or 8 people. Consider it carpooling, but with a plane. There's ways for him to travel which will not result in yet more carbon emissions. But no, he prefers to fly by private jet. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless of how you try to rationalize it.
        • Antiproton, on 06/18/2008, -8/+3@donte Him and his secret service detail? And the droves of other people he has around him on a daily basis?

          Here's a brain wave for you people: Al Gore is not an average Joe. He's more important than the entire population of this ridiculous thread. Al Gore jumping on a Delta shuttle to Tulsa is just as impractical as if the Rolling Stones tried to do the same thing.
        • donte, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3@antiproton
          He doesn't *need* a whole entourage. Sure, have his (pretty much unnecessary) body guards to accompany him -- that's 2-3 extra seats. Does he need a small army of assistants following him everywhere? No. But he sacrifices his chance to put his money where his mouth is for the convenience of flying his entire office around in a private jet. It's not impractical, he just feels that he's above doing it so this whole "well I get a pass because I'm so terribly important" sets in. We all make non-green choices out of convenience, not necessity and what he's doing is no different. Pick up some first class seats and have your body guards drive off anyone who is going to harass you on the flight. But hey, why show how easy it is to live completely green when you can just pull the elitist card instead.
      • didiman, on 06/18/2008, -24/+29Gore's mouth is the leading cause of pollution.
      • vault, on 06/18/2008, -23/+22He did brainwash legions of Kool-Aid drinking Goracle worshippers with An Inconvenient Lie who have now taken to the internet so yeah, I guess he deserves some credit for the massive fraud.
      • friday1970, on 06/18/2008, -5/+6So, gabbewok, "do as I say, not as I do" is a good policy for you to follow?
        • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1He's just practicing for when his precious socialism becomes a reality.
        • Gabberwok, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1He's trying to save the environment - not running for Jesus.

          Comparing him to the typical US citizen, yeah, he probably still uses more energy. Comparing him to the typical US citizen in his income bracket? I'm betting he's more responsible. The comparison with Bush's ranch is a weak comparison, since Bush doesn't really live there.
      • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -3/+1in the case of al gore talking about global warming yes.
      • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -4/+0Still no excuse for being such a flagrant energy hog. The argument is non-sequitur. The environment won't be bettered by counting carbon points. He still needs to be responsible.
      • smurfsahoy, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Convincing people to do stuff that is not necessary out of fear is not helping the environment. It is, however, costing our economy a ton of valuable resources by choosing inefficient options constantly.
      • EdwardsNH, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1That priest has done so much good, who cares if he's diddled a few boys...
    • Betrayal, on 06/18/2008, -14/+71Don't forget John Travolta. Preaching the same ***** but having around 5 private jets.

      Oh and lets not even start with Bono.

      All these politicians and celebrities do one thing: Enjoy their limitless possibilities, preaching water while drinking wine and we the middle-class have to pay for everything.
      • cloudedice, on 06/18/2008, -16/+4I fail to see how the number of jets a man owns determines his worth. Besides, he can only fly one at a time.
        • planksconstant, on 06/18/2008, -4/+10he still owns five ***** jets that he flies around by himself producing ***** tons of CO2.
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -8/+21Damn straight. I put them all into the same group. One big pack of assholes who refuse to practice what they preach.
        • mcquitty, on 06/18/2008, -0/+10And I call that "An Inconvenient Truth"
      • joeanon, on 06/18/2008, -10/+5Tennessee Center for Policy Research is just a GOP puppet organization releasing whatever they say as 'the truth'.

        The Tennessee Dept. of Revenue has actually termed the TCPR as "not a legitimate organization."

        By propagating lies you are helping Exxon and OPEC rob your nation blind.
        • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Guess I was wrong son, better luck next time..
      • zztopping, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0amen brother!
    • ennwarenn, on 06/18/2008, -49/+67He uses renewable energy you assholes..

      http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/carbon ...

      What the hell is this? Who is organizing your little smear team?
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -22/+26Yes and this is the energy thats coming into his home thats not renewable. And what is this you ask? This is the truth coming out. Bitter pill for you Gore people to swallow but the truth hurts.
        • trotskyist, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5And you know that how?
          Many energy companies (including my own) have an option to use exclusively renewable energy. For example, all of the energy in my house comes from wind power. Before you say anything, yes, I do agree that it's completely retarded that someone should have to pay extra for renewable energy, but the option does exist.
        • bezshai, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2trotskyisttrotskyist, so what if he is getting his power from renewable energy sources that are run by the power company. That is still many homes worth of power that he is using which could otherwise be used by other homes instead of those other homes using power from non-renewable sources. It only makes sense to say "but his energy is from renewable sources" if the power company has an infinite capacity (or at least the capacity to meet every user's power needs) of renewable energy. When all power is generated from renewable sources, then Al Gore can use all the energy he wants and I won't consider it to by hypocritical!

          Sorry, that wasn't stated the best, but I think my point still comes through.
      • Fragger404, on 06/18/2008, -4/+4Yeah, he does use alot of renewable energy, but the numbers in the article are from public records from the Nashville Electric Service, and little to none of their power is renewable.
      • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5HE SELLS CARBON OFFSETS IDIOT! He buys them from his own company!!

        He's a ***** FRAUD!
        • ExitMoose, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3As I wrote above, that's no different from the owner of Pepsi buying Pepsi for his party. Just because he owns the company doesn't mean there aren't any drinks on the table.

          He's just cutting out the middleman.
      • eltrev, on 06/19/2008, -4/+3You can't battle the conserva-trolls with logic, they are immune.

        Hmmm - maybe they are pissed that he is a good businessman - what's wrong with buying carbon credits from your own company? How the ***** does that make him a "fraud". Conservatives are supposed to bow down to capitalism, oh, except when it's convenient to trash someone for it.

        • bezshai, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2I am all for capitalism, but I am also all for stepping back and taking a look at the fact that Gore owns a company that sells carbon credits at the same time that he is out telling the world that we are doomed unless we cut back on our carbon usage OR buy carbon credits to offset our usage. I refuse to simply sit back and take someone at their word when they stand to make a profit from me doing what they say I should do.

          Note: I am not a big believer in global warming, but the thought of starting a business dealing with carbon offsets has crossed my mind many times. It doesn't matter if I believe in the science, it matters to me, as a Capitalist, that someone is willing to give me money because they believe the science.
        • SuperVepr308, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1The mere idea that a "carbon credit" has any actual value in this world sends me into gales of laughter. ***** carbon credit? What a crock of *****. People sell worthless realty shares too. Do you call them "good businessmen" as well?
      • smurfsahoy, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Using renewable energy is not necessarily good for the environment. That same energy could be being used by other people down the street, if he wasn't using it. Instead, those people are using coal. Thus, the exact same amount of renewable energy vs. non renewable is being used in the world. Unless he built his own wind plant for his home or something that wouldn't have existed before, then his energy is just as environmentally friendly or unfriendly as anybody else's energy. The source is immaterial when considering individual users. It's just a cheap debate gimmick, which makes him even MORE scummy, not less.
    • bensone1, on 06/18/2008, -18/+37at least he does use solar panels on his house

      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_ge ...
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -14/+16Ahhh so that excuses everything right?
        • trotskyist, on 06/18/2008, -3/+4You all bitch at him for not using renewable energy.
          Information comes out showing that he does in fact use renewable energy.
          You all continue to bitch.

          Seriously, find a new hobby.
        • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1oh so he uses solar power now does he that bastard.
      • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Now he does. Those are brand shiny new. Seems the heat of all the critisism is making him an honest man. Doesn't excuse the fact that he wasn't before.
    • kosser, on 06/18/2008, -29/+23global warming is hoax just to get people convinced into accepting restrictions and taxation in the name of saving the planet. it's just "an inconvenient truth" this guy is not any type of authority in this matter. Believe in scientists not this clown.
      • enki25, on 06/18/2008, -6/+7Scientists disagree with you, clown.
      • BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -4/+4The vast majority of scientists, who are actually qualified to have an science-based opinion on this subject, agree with Gore. The ones who do disagree, are either on the payroll of companies such as Exxon Mobil or have degrees in Creationism from Rev. Jim-Bob's Bible University. What's your point?
      • kosser, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2there is a lot of money in this global warming crisis. i dont expect you to know anything past what the tv tells you and and the laughable al gore. this was the coldest spring ive had in California in the longest time, but hey according to global warming it should have been the hottest in record. but wait, if everyone has figured it out and carbon is the issue, even though NATO's own scientists have said humans amount for only 6% of the carbon output, and carbon never goes down but only up, why is the weather leveling off? im sure you are down w/ obama and his carbon credit slave system or maybe you are just completely blind and don't know anything that is going on.
    • Mitchl, on 06/18/2008, -15/+12It seems amazingly wasteful how much energy his house uses, except when you realize that his consumption of cake is also up 10% for the year, and it takes energy to keep the ovens on.
    • minorthreat, on 06/18/2008, -7/+16no I bet he's just growing weed
    • More4, on 06/18/2008, -14/+28"The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization" ... and I'm the King of England!
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -19/+10Funny. If this was a Bush bashing article you libs would be digging it to the moon. Cant handle when the truth about your asshat heroes comes out can ya?
        • ozydingo, on 06/18/2008, -3/+8I'm not taking sides here, but when has "can't handle the truth when it's against YOUR side, can you!?" ever been a good argument or even a worthwhile use of anyone's time to write or read?
        • joeanon, on 06/18/2008, -2/+8How can you dare to compare Al Gore electric usage to Bush lying to nation, torturing people and locking them up with due process. Bush overstepped all that is great with this country to fulfill his crazy cowboy war monger dreams. Your a traitor to your nation to blindly overlook the difference between a utility bill and a war criminal. Fool

          Tennessee Center for Policy Research is funding by Exxon, they are total BS. How would they magically get Al Gore utility records anyway.. THINK PEOPLE THINK.

        • cowonwaffle, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1"...torturing people and locking them up with due process."
          Locking them up with due process sure is tragic.
        • eltrev, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2"Truth"? Bwa-ha-ha-HAHAHAHAHA
    • Slimem88, on 06/18/2008, -14/+19How is this showing that he's in it for the money? Because he's running a business from his home? Would you feel better had his home and business be separate? I suppose we could then find an argument that his business is making an impact upon the earth ... you know, excavation, utilities, permits, etc. He's combined his home and business into one in order to reduce the impact he has. And you sit comfortably at your keyboard and hit the keys of ***** in order to demean his actions. I'd like to stand and clap for you ... but you're really not worth it.
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -5/+9Hes creating a state of mild panic to have legislation inacted to implement all of these "carbon" policies that are based on junk science. Once inacted, he stands ready to "help" people trade their "carbon credits" for a small fee.... which goes into his pocket. That simple enough for ya?
      • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1see the part where any sane person would have to pause in that comment is at the point where your say "junk science" otherwise what you contend might be sensible.
        • Sidzilla, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1The courts in England found it to be too full of ***** to be taught in their schools. He took real science, saw it wasn't convincing enough, and took the liberty of making stuff up. That is junk science. The cause to end man's impact on global warming would be much further along if Gore hadn't given his critics so much ammunition to use against him by lying about things, using way too much energy for his personal use, and in general being so easily discredited. It's like getting an endorsement from AlQaeda for the next election.
      • bobartig, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1But I still don't get how he uses so much electricity. Does he have 10 refrigerators, or does he run his dryer 24x7? Does he have a rack full of servers in his basement doing climate calculations for the local university? I mean what is it?

        Does he have a lot of surveillance/security equipment for protection? I'm not critical of his usage, I just don't get it. I want to understand where its going.
    • foofightrs777, on 06/18/2008, -14/+61TCPR is an anti-environmental right-wing hit squad. Some information from some of the better, rational, and , non-PR firm posts in this thread:

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200703020001
      # Martin D. Kennedy, another TCPR scholar, runs the blog TennEconomics. On November 29, 2006, Kennedy wrote: "We don't know if fossil fuels lead to warming and if so, how damaging it is." On February 13, Kennedy linked, without comment, to a Drudge Report flash titled "President of Czech Republic Calls Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity..."
      # Vanderbilt University student Douglas Kurdziel, a TCPR research fellow, blogged sarcastically about Gore's lectures on global warming on the website of the Vanderbilt Torch, "Vanderbilt's Conservative and Libertarian Commentary Magazine." He wrote: "On September 28, all of humanity inched one step closer to complete annihilation... Al Gore spoke to hundreds of United Nations diplomats and staff about climate change. Although it may seem like it sometimes, this is in fact not the reason for the impending obliteration of life on Earth."
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Feel free to check my calculations, but I think that 213,210 is less than 221,000. Honest folks who report this but want to criticize Gore might write something like: "Gore doesn't reduce his energy consumption very much." But the TCPR aren't honest folks. Here's what their report said:

      Gore's personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite "energy-efficient" home renovations


      And that's using the numbers from the TCPR. Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the real numbers are rather different:

      In fact, over the past year the Gores' utility bills have dropped 40 percent, thanks largely to the house's spanking new geothermal heating and cooling system, which has reduced the Gores' natural gas bill by 90 percent in the past year. ...

      Kreider pointed out that the renovations weren't complete until November, so it's a bit early to be attempting before-and-after comparisons. In addition, the Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service's Green Power Switch Program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas from landfills (the house's 33 solar panels only supply 4 percent of its power needs, per Kreider.) So any energy they burn won't be burning them a bigger carbon footprint.

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/gore_decre ...

      ------------------------------------------------------------

      Furthermore, as even this horribly biased and patently dishonest article states, they JUST installed a geothermal and solar system to power their home. What hypocrites they are to pay out of pocket for clean and renewable power for their home!
      • Sidzilla, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2Citing Gore's personal spokeswoman when trying to discredit his detractors is like a playground game of monkey in the middle. It would be so simple for Gore to publish copies of his bills with any personal information redacted and show the nation what he uses in energy each month. The excuse that 'he's rich so he uses more' is like me saying 'I'm fat so I eat more'. As far as carbon credits, I think they are as big a scam as everything else that Al Gore does. I am going to start a savings account so that my bank robbery won't be noticed by anyone. Real life doesn't work like that. Plant a tree so you can rape the environment? Only an idiot would buy in to that.
    • Jareth86, on 06/18/2008, -11/+21He's in it for the money? What money is there in telling people to be environmentally responsible? Do you people even think before you write anymore?
      • jaydub, on 06/18/2008, -6/+12Um, not sure if you've noticed or not, but Being Green is now Big Business, from CFLs to E85 and hybrid cars. And lets not forget the whole Carbon Credit boondoggle. I'm not saying that much of this stuff isn't actually beneficial, just that there's a LOT of money (to be made and spent) in the whole "green" movement right now.

        Oh yeah, and let's not forget all the money Gore makes from his public appearances (more from one talk than most of us probably make in a whole year, plus expenses), book sales, movie royalties, etc, etc. So yeah, he makes a lot of money off of just telling folks about this stuff.
        • Jareth86, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2I'm pretty sure he could make ***** tons more money other ways, yet he chose this. I seriously doubt he's in it for the money...
        • subliminalurge, on 06/18/2008, -6/+5"I'm pretty sure he could make ***** tons more money other ways, yet he chose this. I seriously doubt he's in it for the money.."

          Pretty gullible there, ain't ya?
        • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1in it for the money in the green movement? the reason environmental responsibility has not moved into the mainstream even now really is because of its expense and the fact that oil companies now have us by the balls. green reduces profits for the auto industry. If the green movement were actually happening we would all have solar powered hydrolysis cars and sadly that is not the case. If Gore were in it for the money he would keep his mouth shut and take the money/perks I'm sure big oil would readily provide him with.
        • thaistick, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Green/renewable energy NEEDS to be big business to make it work on a large scale. And who cares how much money Gore makes, the more the better as far as I'm concerned, I respect him all the more for it.

          So, ya see, you have no point, mr. pointless.
        • kinseyincanada, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1all the money from his book sales and movie were donated to his charity.
      • eggsovereasy, on 06/18/2008, -4/+8He owns a company that sells carbon credits...
      • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Being green does seem to be the new consumerism, but people like Gore are encouraging people to actually research and fact-check stuff before they jump into every green fad. Most of the big figures in the green movement aren't endorsing ethanol as a way to replace all the gas in the country, or even use it to replace half. They argue for it as it is a better use for surplus corn than letting it rot and release methane, a greenhouse gas twenty times worse than carbon dioxide by volume. Granted, this is just waste management as it takes 2 calories of oil to grow a calorie of corn. Nixon-era subsidies encourage corn farmers to overproduce, leading to a constant surplus of corn, which is why it is so cheap and why it is in everything.
      • usingpond, on 06/18/2008, -5/+6Seriously. Is he supposed to ride a ***** camel everywhere? Jesus Christ. I guess people feel better because it distracts them from the issue.
        • solid12345, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Why does he need to fly everywhere? We have a thing called webcams nowadays.
        • Sidzilla, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4No, he is supposed to drive around in a fuel efficient vehicle, turn up his thermostat in the summer and bake and down in the winter so he freezes, fly in coach class because it is more efficient to pack 300 passengers on a plane than to fly a private jet across the Atlantic, kind of like what he is asking everyone else to do.
    • JettaMan, on 06/18/2008, -10/+3I wish my Power Point Presentations could win me an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. What kind of racket does Gore have going anyway? He must be in tight with a lot of global government people.
      • Jareth86, on 06/18/2008, -4/+5...You voted for Paul, didn't you.
        • RJGONZO, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2Most of the smart people did.
        • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2"Most of the smart people did."

          hahaha


          I would vote kucinich before ron paul and but even I knew the importance of not wasting my vote in this election. Sorry you can hate the system but you should still play the game.

          anyways actually Ron Paul is probably better then most conservatives when it comes to the environment.
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3The truth is that global government people are Marxists and non capitalists. PERIOD. That is there angle on the whole global warming issue.
        • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1Marxists are non capitalists wow I would have never guessed.

          get educated foo.
    • OptimusKong, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3It is pretty ***** hot down here in Tennessee. I bet the 10% is just his air conditioning.
      • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I believe it. Air conditioning is a drug that's near impossible to give up once you start it.
    • squaredUP, on 06/18/2008, -9/+8"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to." -- I forget who said it but it seems fitting.
    • bluezinc, on 06/18/2008, -14/+14How petty are you?

      a) his power comes from renewable sources like solar power.

      b) so what? if he was pouring diesel on baby seals it wouldn't make what he has to say any less valid.

      I don't know about you guys, but I think he's right to go around talking about global warming considering the time to do something about it is almost past and still not many people in power are doing what is needed.
      • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -2/+2Interesting point: The guy who said, "They all laughed at Colombus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" was a scam artist trying to sell a fraudulent milage boost widget. I'm not saying Al Gore is selling junk science, because global warming makes sense and has earned a scientific consensus. I just thought it fit with your sentiment.
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1The guy who said that is Carl Sagan, and you're an ignoramus.
      • tony23, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3"if he was pouring diesel on baby seals it wouldn't make what he has to say any less valid."

        Funny how hypocrisy is OK when it comes from the left, but not OK when it comes from the right.

        It's just like the Evangelical zealots who won't condemn their own leader's hypocrisy - and the followers are just as oblivious to their own hypocritical zealotry.
        • bluezinc, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Excuse me, I am not "the left". I am me. Liberals, progressives, hippies, whatever are not all characterized by one single person with one single viewpoint.

          Now, if you had said, "Funny how hypocrisy is OK when it comes from Bluezinc, but not OK when it comes from whoever-the-*****." THEN it would be a much more valid statement.
      • SuperVepr308, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I don't agree with anything you said but "pouring diesel on baby seals" is one of the funniest phrases I have heard this week. Well done!
    • mpauley, on 06/18/2008, -5/+6ender7074: You are such a spam whore. Get a life and stop replying to everybody's comments just to feel smug. Yeesh.
    • joeanon, on 06/18/2008, -8/+10Tennessee Center for Policy Research is just a GOP puppet organization releasing whatever they say as 'truth'.

      The Tennessee Dept. of Revenue has actually termed the TCPR as "not a legitimate organization."

      By propagating lies you are helping Exxon and OPEC rob your nation blind.
    • rpgmaker, on 06/18/2008, -9/+6Maybe he isn't practicing what he preach but remember that he is a rich man, his electricity consumption is much higher than ours. The sad thing about this is that the conservative media use this to fuel their argument that global warming is a silly issue or not an issue at all.
      • JettaMan, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Well it is a silly issue. You think 0.6 C change in 100 years means anything? We're almost out of hydrocarbons anyway. The whole movement is in place to gain more centralized, UN control. That's all. If Gore really believed it he would be living in a mud hut and riding around on a bike. He doesn't believe his own hype.
      • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2The US military is more expensive/more advanced than every country's military in the world combined, so your UN control theory is moot. We do what we want and we sure as hell don't listen to the UN. hopefully this unilateralism will change under Barack.
      • Pillage, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1why does he have to use more electricity then regular people? No one forced him to get a huge house, or a private jet. He should live in a modest home that uses less oil and electricity.
    • NeilM, on 06/18/2008, -4/+4Are you stupid?
    • agentzero141970, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Don't you all think from building materials and all the power tools need energy to operate to install all of those energy saving appliances? I would believe this story even more if it showed the results after the installation, and a full month of pure 'running the home'
      • agentzero141970, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Plus get your facts straight he only used a bit above the average of 10,656 kWh this past month. This article smears the truth.
    • moomza, on 06/19/2008, -3/+4You are calling Al Gore "pure scum" when there is true scum in the white house? You relativity is waaay off.

      And - TCPR, a right wing organization, it putting a hit on Al Gore, and the majority of these commenters are eating this ***** up like a gang of *****. Has the collective IQ on Digg drastically dropped, or has Digg finally been over run by conserva-trolls? But, I guess those two scenarios one in the same.
    • michaelb1, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2It doesn't matter how much electricity he uses. It's all from renewable sourced you idiots.

      That's the beauty of solar/wind/geothermal energy. It's unlimited.
    • heucuva, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Does anyone see the bigger picture here other than me?

      It seems that Nashville (where Gore has his mansion) is mostly powered by a few Diesel generators. It's also too far away from the Watts Bar and Sequoyah TVA power plants to gain much from those (they are mostly powering Chattanooga and Knoxville).

      What's the entire nation been throwing a fit about over the last few months? The cost of oil/gas/Diesel has been rapidly increasing. So, by proxy, Gore's energy bill would have increased notably, even if he had maintained the exact same usage. Compare the cost of gasoline to that of a year ago; how much of an increase was that? 10%?

      People would rather flail and kvetch about what they see on the Internet and are told by the MSM before they think about the real facts and figures -- two plus two makes five.
      • SuperVepr308, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I used to live up there. What they should do is fire up Oak Ridge and there would be plenty of power.
    • RockStarMVP, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Thats politics for you
  • iceperson, on 06/17/2008, -79/+372Reminds me of the comparison of gore and bush's energy consumption.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
    • beabis, on 06/18/2008, -9/+60When I saw the snopes link was expecting a hoax. But it's true.
      • SpinningHead, on 06/19/2008, -5/+5Sure, but you dont have to like Gore to like his policies. Look at his policy positions vs what Bush has done to the environment across the country.
        • brycelb, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8Would you take marital advice from a guy that cheats on his wife?
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1"Would you take marital advice from a guy that cheats on his wife?"

          Just because someone doesn't practice what they preach doesn't make them automatically wrong, when ever you feel it's convenient.

          Al Gore still has the capacity to say that we have an impact in climate change despite not living like a nomadic monk.
    • cquinnd, on 06/18/2008, -8/+36http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.a ...
      • inajeep, on 06/18/2008, -17/+19* Snopes doesn't allow text copy * so as from my memory.

        It's misleading, Gores house is 4x the size of the average home size, it's a residence and business office so Gore doesn't have to maintain an office too. Or maybe he does.. Who knows? He pays the premium amount which means that some of the electricity provided is from green sources. How they determine that sounds more like a scam from the electricity dept than anything though. It really doesn't use any more or less than similar sized houses in the area.
        • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -8/+18More and more excuses. Just come out and say what you mean. Its ok when Gore does it. Thats all you people believe so stand by it.
        • ElderBieler, on 06/18/2008, -2/+11Are you seriously making up excuses for him?

          I just don't get the left. It's so easy for you to draw conclusions and indict those on the right when infractions occur, but when it's one of your own you come up with ideas, possibilities, and "who knows" statements all in a self-delusional attempt to protect your fellow hippies.

          I love it.
        • jpop, on 06/18/2008, -1/+104 times larger than a regular house and 20 times the electricity useage of a regular house?
    • Jashobeam5, on 06/18/2008, -9/+51Yep, Bush's home is an eco-dream compared to Gore's. Facts on Bush's home quoted from Snopes:

      The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

      Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

      A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from the roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home.
      • br0ck, on 06/18/2008, -4/+6A year ago, Gore was installing a geo-thermal heating system, so I'd imagine it's installed by now. From bensone1's link above: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_ge ...
        • ssn697, on 06/18/2008, -3/+15It was installed in November. That means he would have used MORE energy, without the 2 month reprieve.

          My big question is why did the leader of the global warming/ we must conserve movement take until November of last year to do anything personally? Did he not believe his own story, or was he just above it all? He has had YEARS to do something, and didn't until his personal usage stats came out.

          Sure reeks of convenient political move to me.
      • greenroom628, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2on the flip side, it can also be looked at as bush taking his home as far off the energy map as someone can, while doing nothing to stem raising oil prices, because why? so he can watch us all suffer in his energy efficient home while he rolls around in his money, naked, while covered in oil? it makes him look like a bigger ***** than i thought...

        ew... i just had a nasty visual.
    • JettaMan, on 06/18/2008, -11/+39There's are hypocrisies on the left that aren't exposed by the mainstream media. It's hard to tell sometimes because what they *don't report* (i.e. what they leave out) is the hardest to identify. It doesn't jump out and poke you in the eye. Glad someone put this together. Manbearpig has a lot of 'splainin to do.
      • ElderBieler, on 06/18/2008, -1/+18Seriously.

        While both sides have their villians the left is notorious for celebs taking up an altruistic and noble cause only to benefit from it on the backend. It's all al product for them. While Tony at the tire shop sells tires, these Hollywood elite (and that's what Al Gore is) sells these 'enlightened' products.

        Al Gore's enviromentalism now 30% off
        Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson closing out the inventory on exaggerated racism
        Sean Penn's private jets now equaling the carbon footrprint of 3000 drivers annualy

        Screw the self righteous left.

    • Jareth86, on 06/18/2008, -20/+10How the hell do you fairly compare a ranch to a mansion in terms of energy consumption? What about the actual Bush Compound I wonder?
      • eggsovereasy, on 06/18/2008, -4/+16So it is OK for Al Gore to drive a Hummer?
        • subliminalurge, on 06/18/2008, -1/+6Awesome! My SUV is now A-OK!

          After all, how the hell do you fairly compare a Dodge Durango to a Toyota Prius in terms of gas consumption.

          I wasn't planning to trade vehicles anyway, but still, in some small way it is nice that all of the Gore fanboys have let me off the hook today!
        • Jareth86, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4I did a search for "al gore" and "hummer" but couldn't find any images of this phantom car, nor any references to it, with the exception of random right wing Limbaugh-parroting blogs. Source?
        • notanidiot, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2People who are in danger of being killed require vehicles that can stop bullets.
    • Trini2daBone, on 06/18/2008, -18/+6I guess those are true facts, but considering he is only their for 2-3 weeks a year, i don't know if it is a fair comparison. They should look at the energy consumption of the white house, i think that might be a little more accurate.
      • Taquoshi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I believe Bush is in residence at the Texas White House more frequently than that, plus, I do believe he lived there before he became President and will return there at the end of his term.

        As for the White House, uh, it's a national historic landmark and has been for many years. Bush has no control over that building whereas he does have a say about his ranch home. The energy use and systems at the White House were in place before he was elected and will presumably remain after he leaves office, so I would respectfully disagree with the White House being a fair comparison.
    • sonofagun357, on 06/18/2008, -7/+7Which reminds me of this Hannity's America clip


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2y0nV5l2XI
    • monoa, on 06/18/2008, -13/+22"Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month"

      Using figures FTA:

      Gore - 17768 * 12 = 213216 kWh per year
      Average person - 11040 kWh per year
      Therefore Gore's energy use could power *19* average homes per *year*, not 232 per *month*.

      Straight away the article loses credibility. Next we do some digging and find out the Energy Information Administration lists average residential consumption in 2006 at 6,307 kWh per month - not the 920 that this article claims.

      The article is *****.

      Now we do a little research and find articles that show a very different picture:
      http://current.com/items/88793568_al_gore_s_home_1 ...
      http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI ...

      This shows that the home's energy consumption is *less* than average per square foot and it is *all from renewable sources*. Also, his natural gas usage has dropped 93% due to use of a new geothermal pump.

      So, this article is in fact just more lies from the right wing propaganda factory. Everyone in this thread is so eager to believe anything that smears Gore that they will swallow any story without the least bit of critical thought. Pathetic.

      Finally, regardless of how much energy Gore uses, it makes no difference to the reality of AGW and the need for everyone to change their lifestyles to reduce the unsustainable production of GHGs.
      • monoa, on 06/18/2008, -3/+5Correction: the site that reported average home use at 6,307 kWh per month was wrong. The average is ~10,000kWh per year
        http://altentoday.com/2008/home-energy-consumption

        Nevertheless, the article is still factually inaccurate and has no credibility.
        • VladII, on 06/19/2008, -6/+7Good job proving yourself wrong by ***** up your own math to prove the article wrong.
        • monoa, on 06/19/2008, -5/+7If you didn't have ***** for brains, you'd see that my math using the figures FTA is unaffected by that mistake. Nor does it alter the fact that the article is full of lies and disinformation. Nor does it affect the reality that all of Gore's energy comes from renewable sources.

          I can admit when I introduce an error and then correct it. Can you?
        • Sidzilla, on 06/19/2008, -4/+8Monoa, take your pocket calculator out. Divide 232 by 12 (for the months of the year) and you get 19.3333. The article didn't say that it would power 232 homes for a year, it said for a month. It used the larger number for dramatic effect, but the number is the same as yours. Arguing that it is inaccurate is arguing that you can't do common math.
        • monoa, on 06/19/2008, -2/+6No, you're wrong. Let's do it a different way.

          Gore annual energy = 213,210
          Gore monthly energy = 17,768
          Joe Sixpack annual = 11,040
          Joe Sixpack monthly = 920

          Therefore the number of Joe Sixpack houses run by Gore's energy = 17768 / 920 = 19

          ...NOT 232! The article is *******.

          What were you saying about ability to do common math?
        • zdyn, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Reiterating what everyone else has said, the title and article say "enough to power 232 average American households for a month".

          FOR A MONTH. Not per month. So please...stop.
        • biotch, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3lol VladII you dumbass
      • feoren, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8They said that the energy his house uses in 1 year could power 232 homes for 1 month, or 232/12 = 19.3 homes per year, the same number you got. They just phrase it in a deceptive way because they're cockfaces who have no concept of journalistic integrity. It's like saying "The energy your house GUZZLED in the past year could power TWELVE U.S. homes for a month!!" No *****?
        • monoa, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2You're right. Good catch.

          And before another idiot comes along and thinks my math is wrong - it's not. I just caught by the dishonest wording of the article - which adds more proof that it is ***** from politically-motivated, right wing *****.
      • Naieve, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Only uses 19 times more then the average person.

        How self sacrificing....
      • notanidiot, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Yeah, once I saw them compare Gore kwh's per year compared to average Americans kwh per month, I could smell an agenda. And it doesn't really surprise me that when you get your electricity from solar panels, you would naturally feel free to use as much as you like.
    • biotch, on 06/18/2008, -5/+12I dont understand what the problem is here... he can use as much energy as he wants when he installs renewable energy sources. If its from renewable energy sources it wont contribute to global warming at all.
      • michaelb1, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5I made this same point somewhere else in this thread but people are hung up on the fact that Al Gore uses more power then them.
        They don't want to accept that it is clean, unlimited renewable power.
        Total douchebags.
      • geogeer, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Except for the fact that there is a finite amount of renewable energy. So if he uses it then somebody else has to produce CO2 for their energy needs.
        • regeya, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3"Except for the fact that there is a finite amount of renewable energy."

          Uhhhhh......okay?
        • geogeer, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3"Uhhhhh......okay?"

          The dam can only produce so many kW of electricity every day. If Al uses it all that means somebody else has to burn something to generate the electricity. If there was unlimited renewable energy why the heck would we be burning fossil fuels - because we have nothing better to do?
        • biotch, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2geogeer...
          He uses geothermal and solar energy. If you use that energy, it simply gets replenished the next day.
          Most people dont use solar energy now because it is expensive to install and most people cant take the initial hit.
          Saying it is limited is akin to saying the sun is limited. Technically yeah its true..... in a few billion years it will run out. There is plenty of energy being offered by the sun on the surface of the earth.
          There is 1kw/h produced by every square meter on the surface of the earth. Current solar panels range from about 11%-40% efficient. At the lower end (where things are far more consumer price friendly). The average home has more than enough roof space to power 2 or more average homes (average defined as 3 bdrm) multiple homes with solar alone. Solar farms in sunny areas could take care of many more. Renewable energy is not so limited that it requires us to use fossil fuels. It is simply very expensive to install but more cost effective in the long run.
        • notanidiot, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I don't imagine you have much left to say, eh geogeer?
      • andyd273, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Except that his electric bill was almost this high before he had the solar cell/geo thermal/new windows/cfl's installed.
        I think the real funny part is that his house wasn't using any of the self sustaining renewable stuff (except that the power on the grid came from hydro, which does not count), and then he got caught, and then had all that stuff installed.
        Then, when he gets all the green stuff installed, his electric usage off the grid goes up 10%...
        Boy, am I glad that he put in solar panels, because otherwise it might have gone up 30%.
    • ASiegel, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4And the question to ask: taking this all at face value, should we prefer someone who is energy/money savvy in their private life but an extreme polluter and wastrel with money in public life; or someone is not as efficient as possible in their private lives but is energy aware and responsible with the public's money in public life? I am pretty sure what is the sensible answer.

      Now, in fact, this data is incredibly messed up on multiple levels. For one thing, in addition to his office:

      1. Gore was being energy efficient in terms of trying to rehab an old building, rather than tear it down. There are limits to extent to how one can be energy efficient compared to a clean-sheet construction of a new structure (Bush's ranch).

      2. Re the data on Gore's home, in addition to the office work, this ignore the fact that there was massive construction / renovation work that has been going on in the house. Hmmm ... how often have you had someone come in to repair something in the house who, without your realizing it, left doors open in cold weather when they went to get tools from the truck, left lights on, etc?
    • ASiegel, on 06/19/2008, -3/+0Continued:

      I had a small (SMALL!) renovation done. Returned from a late work evening, around 11 pm, to the house set at 76 degrees, with the back door open, temperature
    • blackbookdesign, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1HYDROGEN MADE WITH SOLARCELLS! That should be Gore's move to prove it all!
    • Math, on 06/19/2008, -6/+6A pretty stupid comparison. It's comparing Gore's house, with Bush's holiday house, which he isn't using most of the time.

      Also Bush takes plane trips regularly, with a whole 747 just for a few people. How much energy is used right there.
      • ACiDGRiM, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4But ALL presidents do that. Even Clinton. Just look at Nancey Pelosey, She wanted close to that just because she was speaker of the house
      • kigcoopa84, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3Al Gore has a private plane too. Sometimes he flies across country with only him and his pilots. do so research idiot
    • siszam, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2Bush knows this country is headed to hell in a hand basket thanks to his mismanagement. That's why he has more than one retreat to hideout in then the feces hit the fan.
  • thehemi, on 06/17/2008, -175/+168Man made global warming does not exist. Al Gore knows this. His blind followers do not.
    • krellor, on 06/18/2008, -8/+69Not being an expert on the subject I really don't know. I rely on the findings of others to make my opinion. However, whether or not our pollution is causing global warming is immaterial to me. I know that our pollution is causing other, more tangible problems for us and the earth as a whole, and that should be reason enough to reduce our emissions and other forms of pollution. From smog causing health problems in people in large cities to changing ph levels in streams killing fish, our pollution is bad. Global warming shouldn't be a necessary reason to stop when we have so many other proven ones to choose from.
      • ender7074, on 06/18/2008, -8/+13I agree completely. The problem is that people like Gore dont want to just end pollution, they want control. If Gore was really concerned about the environment, there are a thousand other things he could be doing to help. Instead he uses the media to create panic and then cashes in on the new regulations and government restrictions. Its nothing new and not necessarily limited to Democrats. Hes just the big ***** doing it right now.
        • Boomkin, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3Sadly, the only way to reduce pollution is through control, gov't interference (regulations/tax incentives). There will always be people who just don't give a ***** — it's not enough to assume that everyone will care what the world is like in several decades. And the invisible hand certainly doesn't care either.
      • jebudas, on 06/18/2008, -3/+8@krellor,
        Thank you for being rational, it's like a breath of fresh air.
      • CrazyRedHatter, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4That is easily one of the most rational and well thought out responses I've read on Digg in quite a long time. It's so easy to become apathetic to the argument with so many zealots on each side, thanks for keeping things in perspective! One can only hope there are several million more people like you!
      • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Good point. Consider that a ridiculous amount of kids in the LA inner city have asthma from auto smog, thanks to all the boats and semi-trucks around. Also, consider the rising rates of autism. There are too many new cases for it to only be better diagnosis (not enough of a fall in diagnosis of mentally retarded children, and those who used to be called weird aren't usually classified as autistic, but rather Asperger's Syndrome), and it's not vaccines because the rates didn't go down when thimerisol was removed. Clearly, there is something in the air, the water, the food, and/or the products we buy.
      • unclejessie, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0So uhh....global warming shouldn't be a necessary reason to stop with so many others out there? Tell me then why all this crap is being shoved down our throats in the name of global warming. Is it just a clever marketing phrase? Obviously with over 50 diggs some folks like what you said but I wonder if they actually took a few seconds to stop and comprehend the last bit.
    • rtoo, on 06/18/2008, -19/+14Yeah pollution is harmless huh? why don't you go wrap your lips around grandmas winnebago and breathe in REAL deep.

      Give your head a shake loser
      • shauncorleone, on 06/18/2008, -7/+17Pollution and man-made global warming are two entirely different issues. The argument is that the earth's climate has cycles that are so complex that they are virtually not affected by man. Perhaps it is you who should be wrappign your lips around something. Might I suggest something sawed off.
        • Duositex, on 06/18/2008, -5/+6Ouch. People are downright nasty on digg.
        • zeex, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1entirely different? how so? doesn't one causes the other? (and I mean pollution causing MAN-MADE global warming) well at least pollution is also man-made...that's something these two concepts have in common...

          why do you say that this climate stuff is so complex that can't be "virtually affected by man"?

          is this your way of thinking?: "oh dammit! the weather guy is always wrong, no one can guess if it will rain in 4 days!! this weather stuff must be some really complex sh*t man...if we can't get it right, how could we mess it up?, right? am I right? oh am I right?"

          maybe you're right....but...PROVE IT!!! I bet you can't show some scientific peer-reviewed articles proving your point! (there are some...but I bet you don't even bother to search for them...) prove it man.
        • awtripp, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1normal person + anonymity + audience = total *****.
        • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I don't get it. Complicated things are REALLY easy to mess up. If it weren't the case, people wouldn't hire mechanics but instead screw around inside their cars' engines as it would be impossible to make it worse.

          It's true that simple things can be messed up, but the consequences are more direct and obvious. The big thing with global warming is that it isn't obvious that pumping out carbon dioxide into the air causes temperatures around the equator to rise, and that the rise in temperatures leads to rising sea levels, increased activity by disease-carrying insects (and thus more disease), more flooding in wet areas, and more drought in dry areas. There are multitude other changes that can be extrapolated, such as trees dying off because they lack enough genetic diversity to survive a change in climate because they don't reproduce fast enough, leading to more adaptable shrubs and grasses taking over. It's stunning how many things can happen from one small change in a complex system.
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0You obviously have never heard of Chaos Theory and its keynote of the sensitivity of complex systems: "The argument is that the earth's climate has cycles that are so complex that they are virtually not affected by man". You have it exactly backwards: complex chaotic systems are fragile.
        • shauncorleone, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1The funny thing is that I didn't argue one way or the other here. I simply pointed out that this guy says "Oh you don't think pollution is a problem?!?!?!?!" Of course pollution is an issue, and it leads to plenty of things.
          AN argument (not MY argument) is that man-made global warming is not possible with our current lifestyles, because the earth's climate goes in natural cycles and we cannot noticeably affect it due to patterns that regulate themselves. If this was MY argument, I would have provided a lot more material to back it up. Actually, I wouldn't have bothered because nobody on Digg is ever wrong anyway, so it's a waste of typing.
          Refuting the statement of "we have pollution so that means we have man-made global warming" is easier than turning on the coffeemaker in the morning.
          Christ, how retarded are people to see when somebody is taking a solid stance on an issue versus when they're simply stating one of the existing stances.
    • unebaguettesvp, on 06/18/2008, -17/+15"Man made global warming does not exist."

      really? have you done research on the subject? are you a scientist? do you dismiss the research other scientists have done? i would like to see links to published science articles in peer reviewed journals that you have done.

      as a scientist, i find it very frustrating that non-scientists pick and choose reproduceable data to agree with. if you are a scientist, please accept my apology for prejudging you. i just don't see how you can make blanket statements like that without research to back it up.

      and no, i am not one of gore's blind followers. like others have said before, he is a hypocrite.
      • JustinCase18, on 06/18/2008, -6/+14The problem with the global warming argument is

        A) We heard the same arguments for the Ice Age back in the late 60's, early 70's when Earth Day was first proposed.

        B) Most of the arguments for global warming have been debunked. (By the scientists quoted on some of these reports. The conclusions were written by non-scientists. Those scientists are currently involved in a lawsuit to disassociate themselves with a "Scam.")

        C) Many of the solutions to the problem involve fines (or taxes) and don't actually address the problem. It's become a big money maker rather than a problem solver. The Kyoto agreement is the best example, the biggest polluting countries weren't even involved (because they couldn't pay the fines). Why should the United States effectively pay an income tax to the United Nations (which they are already financing) if another country's pollution creates the conditions under which the fine is levied.)

        It's like the argument "It's for the children". When you throw down a blanket argument that paints anyone who argues against it as "evil", you really need to consider whether the facts supporting the argument are there.
        • marx2k, on 06/18/2008, -2/+0U.S. finances U.N? Think again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the ...

          The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

          After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

          U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

          Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.
        • unebaguettesvp, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1"A) We heard the same arguments for the Ice Age back in the late 60's, early 70's when Earth Day was first proposed."

          this statement doesn't apply. the first reference on this wikipedia page talks about how there was much more concern about warming rather than cooling.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#cite_n ...

          "B) Most of the arguments for global warming have been debunked. (By the scientists quoted on some of these reports. The conclusions were written by non-scientists. Those scientists are currently involved in a lawsuit to disassociate themselves with a "Scam.")"

          where are you getting this information? i'm not being sarcastic. i have heard this before and i tried searching it. i really would like to know who those scientists are, what they said before and what they are saying now. please provide me a link. thanks.

          "C) Many of the solutions to the problem involve fines (or taxes) and don't actually address the problem. It's become a big money maker rather than a problem solver. The Kyoto agreement is the best example, the biggest polluting countries weren't even involved (because they couldn't pay the fines). Why should the United States effectively pay an income tax to the United Nations (which they are already financing) if another country's pollution creates the conditions under which the fine is levied.)"

          this has nothing to do with the science behind climate change.

          "It's like the argument "It's for the children". When you throw down a blanket argument that paints anyone who argues against it as "evil", you really need to consider whether the facts supporting the argument are there."

          i never said anyone was evil. i wanted some research to back up the statement "Man made global warming does not exist." if you have that information, please post it. thanks.
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1You're wrong on every point, as even 5 minutes of research, rather than regurgitating Exxon talking points, would reveal.
      • Apophis574, on 06/18/2008, -4/+7Want to show me the REAL data that supports the theory of man made global warming? Cause I'd sure be interested if you could find it, Mr. Scientist.
        • unebaguettesvp, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1well, if you're studying at a university/college, you can search through the journals yourself. most schools have subscriptions to them.

          if you're not, google has a search option specific to these peer reviewed journals. go here:
          http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+ ...

          outside of that, you're on your own. i have my own research to do.
        • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -2/+2You're a liar, Apophis754, because you have been provided with the real data many many times, but you simply ignore it or wave it away.
        • Apophis574, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2So you can't find it huh?
      • Pillage, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Who funds your research?
    • ndepalma, on 06/18/2008, -2/+5I wouldn't be so confident. You may regret your beliefs later... or you may not. We'll all have to see as we let OTHERS do the research.
      • Knabber, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, let OTHERS do research for you. Let them also pick your politicians, the food you eat, and the clothes you wear. Don't bother having a mind of your own. Don't bother at least checking into high level facts vs fiction. Because, at the end of the day, Americans are proving everyday how sheep-like they can be by comments like yours.



    • danc4498, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3I support global warming cause my cooling bill in the summer is nothing compared to my heating bill in the winter!
    • Murdats, on 06/18/2008, -4/+9yes those stupid research scientists blindly believing something.

      now we just need to let those with agendas and ignorance show us the truth.
    • stoanhart, on 06/18/2008, -3/+5To those burying thehemi, I urge you to read the book "State of Fear"

      It's not pro- or anti-global warming, it's simply a fictional story based on real information. The author spent many years pouring over scientific journals and collecting information from all of the top climate specialists as research for the book.

      What was his conclusion? Nobody knows jack *****. Everybody's got an agenda, our understanding of the environment miniscule, and our effects on it are simply not understood.

      I was a gloabl warming "believer" before I read the book; now, I'm not so sure. I will still err on the side of caution and reduce my pollution wherever I can; better safe than sorry, I suppose, but I don't need to swallow all of the media hype to be environmentally conscious.
      • enki25, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1Woah, some dude with no science background wrote a book? Holy *****, why the ***** are we even paying scientists to do research, we can just read fictional books!
        • thehemi, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0When scientists clearly don't agree with each other, who's right and who's wrong? I guess it all depends on your political lines.
        • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Dude, it was written by the same guy who wrote Jurassic Park. He predicted the dinosaurs would return, and behold, John McCain is running for president.
        • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Michael Crichton also believed nanobots read "Prey" would take over the world which has yet to happen. He is a conservative fiction writer that has a knack for writing page turning thrillers.
        • Pillage, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Woah, some dude with no science background made a slide show? Holy *****, why the ***** are we even paying scientists to do research, we can just watch a slide show!
      • XTX7X, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1I have read the book. Pull your head out of your ass- Michael Crichton is a fiction author, not a scientist. The data he used was selective and inconclusive, and in complete contradiction to the views of the world's scientific academies - including our own, as well as other respective scientific organizations (AAAS).


        • thehemi, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Is Al Gore a scientist? Or... a politician?
        • Pillage, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Crichton is an MD and got his degree from Harvard. He also did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, and he was Visiting Writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

          Does this make him an expert on global warming? No. But I would say that he has a pedigree that would allow him to understand the science behind it.
        • shauncorleone, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2@Pillage: Yeah but he can't hold a candle to a random commenter on Digg. They have all the answers!
      • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1State of Fear is science ***** FICTION, you moron.

        "The author spent many years pouring over scientific journals and collecting information from all of the top climate specialists as research for the book."

        The author is a lying ass Luddite. But you would believe him over the /actual/ scientists whom he claims he talked to.
        • shauncorleone, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1He said it was fiction, you ***** moron.
      • ianam, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2"it's not pro- or anti-global warming"

        That makes you a transparent liar right there.
      • cphoover, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1"
        "it's not pro- or anti-global warming"

        That makes you a transparent liar right there.
        "

        my thought exactly
    • enki25, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Virtually every climate scientist in the world disagrees with you. Who cares about Al Gore? How do his actions influence whether or not our environment is in jeopardy? Trust the people who are doing research in the field, not some conservative think tank that gets a payoff if we continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate.
    • XTX7X, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1I have read the book. Pull your head out of your ass- Michael Crichton is a fiction author, not a scientist. The data he used was selective and inconclusive, and in complete contradiction to the views of the world's scientific academies - including our own, as well as other respective scientific organizations (AAAS).


    • BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -4/+2Did Rush tell you this? Or maybe Alex Jones? Which right-wing *****-nut was it?
  • mattalice, on 06/17/2008, -186/+181This will NEVER be publicized in the general news media. They want the global warming fraud and they need their green jesus to preach it.
    • rentmitchum, on 06/18/2008, -11/+27lol.. green jesus. If Gore was a super-hero he'd be Green Jesus.
    • DiggLive, on 06/18/2008, -3/+23I saw this story on Fox News this morning.
      • georgemason01, on 06/18/2008, -2/+8So there are actually real people who watch Fox News...interesting...
    • jphillips1, on 06/18/2008, -5/+4False. Drudge has it up... And he runs the news cycle these days.
    • FnordBob, on 06/18/2008, -1/+7...and you have proof that it is a fraud?
    • fuzzmeister, on 06/18/2008, -6/+9You can't dismiss the notion of man-made global warming out of hand just because you don't like the man who has taken it up as his cause. Look at some real scientific papers (not analyses of the papers, the papers themselves). The science is there.
      • truthhurts28, on 06/18/2008, -5/+5Yes, and with the number of papers that say it is real, there are just as many that say it isnt real. We can all draw our own opinions and believe what we want to.
        • alach11, on 06/18/2008, -2/+5The vast majority of scientists in the climate field acknowledge the existence man made global warming... who's papers are you reading?
        • TheTSArt, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3"The vast majority of scientists in the climate field acknowledge the existence man made global warming... "

          And we know when the vast majority of scientists say something it's always right... Funny!!
        • truthhurts28, on 06/18/2008, -5/+1Who the hell is the vast majority?
          The vast majority in here acknowledge you are a bitch!
          So it must be true then huh?
        • enri, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2...

          There. I just wrote that global warming isn't real on a few dozen sheets of paper. Clearly the climatologists are wrong now. Look at how many papers we have compared to theirs.
        • Ymeg, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I want one credible peer review journal that does not support global warming.
        • Ymeg, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I mean an article from a...
    • Jareth86, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Why? There's no money in it; or is this an evil ploy by the weather channel to increase its ratings?
      • TheTSArt, on 06/18/2008, -5/+4There's a ton of money in the green movement, and more importantly, control over people's lives.
        • leftyslament, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4Right, and there's no money in oil or anything, and no one on earth is currently controlled by oil-rich dictators in the middle east or anything. So oil companies would have absolutely no incentive to hire scientists to make up reports that contradict the standard, accepted, scientifically validated evidence that global warming not only exists but is caused by humans.

          Sorry to bust your bubble champ, but I think there's just a TAD more money and power to be had/maintained in the oil industry than in its biggest enemy, the "green movement".
        • Jareth86, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Ah, so that's their game! This is all just some arbitrary quest to control peoples lives, regardless of what they are controlling. They want to tell you to use less gas, because then they get to tell you to do stuff!
          It was so obvious, thank you for setting us straight.
    • Dugout21, on 06/18/2008, -8/+3how do you know this is real and not like the ridiculous slander that has been brought up against Obama?
      • truthhurts28, on 06/18/2008, -3/+6Because the Obama ***** is real as well.
    • BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -10/+9The Global Warming is not a fraud. It's a simple fact. Get your ***** head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass, you right-wing ostrich.
    • silvermana22, on 06/18/2008, -4/+3Please don't link climate change to a single man. Al Gore might be playing this for money, but climate change is supported by data.

      How can people say climate change is a fraud? The science community, the most objective arena there is, has proof with data. If this is so wrong... then why don't you PROVE climate change is not real and publish a paper for us to read. The scientific community is open for anyone to participate... yet all these people who say global warming is a fraud don't publish their research. Oh wait... that's because they have no proof to say to it is a fraud except Fox News.
    • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I don't think the media would endorse global warming just to raise sales. If it's false, than it could be an alarmist story to raise ratings, but that'd be short sighted of them. There's a cycle in the beginning where it influences people's purchases to get items that are better for the environment and more energy efficient, but the items are often better made than the bargain-basement consumerist items they used to pitch. Rather than getting people to buy a washer that used tons of soap, tons of water, and tons of electricity, which would then break in five years, they're now getting people to buy better designs. Now the companies sell less. And then the consumer, considering the energy which goes into new items, instead holds off on purchases, returning us to a mindset similar to pre-WWII, not for economic reasons but instead ecological reasons. Companies worked long and hard to convince people that they need to buy new things all the time, so I find it odd to encourage people to go back on this unless it was a legitimate news story.
      • geogeer, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2In the end it always comes back to economic reasons.
    • AdrenalineJunky, on 06/18/2008, -4/+5Actually this is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'd expect to see reported by our "news" media.

      Because seriousy, why does this matter? How is this relevant at all?

      What part of Al Gore's message requires that he eschew a life of consuming electricity? By this sort of logic, anyone who fights against poverty should first give up all their own wealth to the poor.

      Whatever your personal grudge against Al Gore may be, he has just as much right to continue living his life any way he can afford. As far as "leading by example" goes, what matters is how many energy saving measures he implements to reduce his energy consumption below what it otherwise would be.

      Where is Al Gore telling you to give up your entire lifestyles? The message is that, within your current lifestyle, you should try to conserve energy.

      There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy here folks, as much as some of you really would like to see Al Gore reduced to riding a bike to get the groceries and jumping on a bus to get across country. With that sort of thinking you might as well hope for the world's richest people to start getting their food at soup kitchens.

      There is nothing about energy c