As we all know well, Gore has been campaigning very much on the global warming topic, and I see in this forum other topics on this subject, I haven't seen anyone touch on this part of it yet.
Gore made his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", and after all the campaigning (which is still going on today), gave a speech at the Oscars for his movie that won a minor award telling all Americans to 'cut home energy use'.
But, "utility bills obtained from public records indicated that Mr Gore's 20-room house and swimming pool in Nashville used nearly 221,000 kWh in 2006, compared with a yearly average of 10,656."
Raw Story
Mr. Gore and his wife use more than 20 average Americans put together in one year.

So the question for debate:
Is Gore a hypocrite on the whole topic he has been campaigning furiously about?
If yes, explain why.
If no, tell why he is an exception from the national average and explain.

He is a hypocrite because you are a Republican and it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, anything to trivialize an important topic like global warming is all that matters. It's important for you to read the thread on hypocrite to understand what a hypocrite really is. It's clear you don't know. He owns a 20 room house, does the average American own a 20 room house? No. That is why he needs more energy, he has a bigger house. This thread is an argument ad hominen. What is Gore's message about global warming? That it is a problem that we need to address. He recommends we ask our representatives about where they stand on the issue of global warming and to elect officials that are going to do something about it. The average American can do little about global warming. Buy more efficient light bulbs. Buy more efficient appliances. Beyond that, there isn't much they can do. Does Gore's house have solar energy, efficient appliances, efficient light bulbs? You don't even know that. All you know is that he owns a big house, has a big energy bill and thus he is a hypocrite. You are using a typical Republican tactic of attacking the person instead of the idea. A more relevant question would be, do you know what you are talking about? And it's clear that you do not know.

Nice way to try and skew the numbers there. Goes uses 20 times the average american family although his home is not 20 times the size of an average american home.

Al Gore is a hypocrite because his lifestyle contradicts what he goes around the world preaching about, using less energy and fossil fuels. If he truly believed what he preached he would sell his mansion and buy a modest 5 bedroom home that would be adequate for his family.

First, you are saying that I made an ad hominem attack. You are the one attacking me, after all I did was report the facts and truth, even if it may be inconvenient to you. The facts are, Gore says one thing about 'ALL Americans must cut down on energy use at home', then at his house uses 221,000 kWh per year. If you say one thing then do the exact opposite, you are a hypocrite.
If you didn't notice I DID NOT make the argument that the whole global warming concept is wrong. I simply asked for the people to debate whether the largest sponsor and campaigner of the issue is a hypocrite for his actions. It's pretty simple to think of how if he has a large house, yes, it automatically equals a big energy bill. But guess what?
If you turn off the lights to the room he or his wife is in, cut down the A/C, only heat the pool when you need it, get a regular gate, he could use SO much less energy than he does.
And your attack of "attacking the person instead of the idea", I'm not doing an ad hominem attack. That is to try to disprove the idea by attacking the person. I'm not trying to disprove global warming or a crisis we may face, I just created a topic asking if one person really should be saying so much when he only talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

Oh and, as I just showed you, you can actually debate without having to personally attack someone. Keep that stuff to flame rooms, I'm trying to do a civil debate here.

Is Gore a hypocrite on the whole topic he has been campaigning furiously about?
If yes, explain why.
If no, tell why he is an exception from the national average and explain.

Of course not. This whole line of criticism has been debunked:

Read It and Weep

Gore's farm does use more than the national average of household electricity, but there's more to the story than this.

First off, what is the national average on farm electrical usage? This needs to be compared rather than simply households. Edit add: Came across this cool farm energy usage calculator.

Second off, Gore buys green electricity, thus supporting the idea of green energy (hydro, wind, solar, and etc. and so forth). Any household can do this too, as long as it falls within the budget. That is his primary message regarding what we as individuals can do about global warming. So, in effect, Gore should be given an award for promoting green energy by example, the best teaching method of them all.

Thirdly, the slant of the criticism negates it. Not only were the numbers inflated to increase impact, the criticism was poorly written because it did not take into account the facts of the matter. And so, it goes into the dubious annuls of urban legend where it belongs. (That's a nice way of saying it's a stinking lie.)

Al Gore is not a hypocrite.

Why stop there? He should live in a grasshut eating grubworms and grasshoppers. Instead of wearing clothes that need to be manufactured using energy he should weave his clothes. And instead of driving a car all over the country to give this speech, or riding in nuclear submarines to investigate the polar ice caps he should trek it on foot or ride a donkey. Let's talk about the real issue Sleeper, do you think global warming is a problem that our government should address? Yes or No?

That is not what this thread is about and would be off topic.

Besides our government cannot do anything about increased solar activity, and natural cycles of the earth.

The whole solar issue has been debunked and in reality skeptics that hold to this used a flawed graph from 1991 to represent the argument in which is even contained in the IPCC reports. There is incredibly accurate debates on this subject at most any science orientated forum on the net in which basically this tool if you will is a product of nothing more then a giant global warming denial tank which is funneled of course by big oil. Lastly the sun would to have been warming since the boom in CO2 started, but hey that little point always seems to get lost even on the fact the sun has not been doing this.

What's funny is in the 40's through 70's the whole world was scared of 'global cooling', and that the whole world was going to drop huge degrees and farming would go down, making a world-wide food shortage.
It's so ridiculous it's not even funny.
Here's an article of Newsweek on so-called Global Cooling here
I won't deny, humans and our emissions do have an effect on the environment and atmosphere. But it's only a portion!
The Earth's temperature fluctuates... ever heard of the Ice Age?
There wasn't humans around to cause that then now was there?

But that whole thing is off topic, my question is whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite.

Yes but the global warming debate is based on the idea that human activity is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I mean if you want to go out on a limb the moon is slowly going away from the earth so maybe that’s why the planet is heating up at a rate the ties into growing levels of CO2 but you are right this thread is about gore and his status of being a democrat what I mean a global warming supporter or something. I mean science has been wrong before on why water evaporated so I guess its not to be believed why science states water evaporates currently.

Why did the Earth cool between 1940 and 1975? How could Al use enough energy to effect global temperatures?

One liner and all...

Source?

The question should really be, "Tell me why Al Gore is a hypocrite?" You aren't interested in knowing if you think he is or not, you already made your mind up.

So you admit that humans and our emissions have an effect on the environment. But you say it's only a portion. That statement makes no sense. A portion of what? We are not talking about a pie here.

The argument is that our increasing usage of fossil fuels has made it more difficult for the sun's rays to escape our atmosphere, increasing the temperature of our climate. If you agree that this problem is created by man, then why not make the changes necessary to avoid global warming? Why the personal attack on Al Gore? Do you think we should increase our emissions standards? Do you think we should find alternative sources of energy? Or are you just concerned with Al Gore's political affiliation? If that's the case, why bother with this false thread? Start a new thread entitled, "I hate Democrats" and just have you and your Republican party members post why you hate them and stop pretending to care about a debate about our environment. Stick to your mudslinging small minded topics and let the rest of us free thinkers worry about the big issues.

I'm certain we talked about this in another thread...

No, I don't think Al Gore is a hypocrite. But I doubt that I can convince those who think otherwise, if that's what they want to think. AuthorMusician gave some good reasons why he should not be considered a hypocrite but hey, whatever 'floats your boat'...

This whole world is filled with hypocrites. I'll bet you could mention virtually any leader in this country or most others, and it would become apparent that at some point that individual's behavior has at times appeared to be or has actually been at variance with his/her espoused values. What comes to mind for me are all those patriotic souls who are gung ho to have the troops fight in Iraq ostensibly for "our" freedom while they managed to avoid service overseas or altogether in the previous bad war (whose name will not be named here for the sake of relevancy).

Now, if Al Gore were espousing, say, the precepts of Catholic Holy Orders (i.e., poverty, chastity and obedience), he could well be called a hypocrite for making six or seven figures per year and living in some pretty fancy digs and not submitting to the authority of Rome. But he wasn't. And he has been making use of alternative energy sources as has already been pointed out in this thread.

If he were preaching the sanctity of marriage while going out with call girls on the side and watching porn, he would be a hypocrite. If he were heading a task force charged with protecting underage individuals from sexual predators, while sending IM's to young pages asking them if they were horny or what they were wearing, he would be a hypocrite.

If Al Gore wrote something called The Book of Virtues and then proceeded to squander $8 million at the casino gambling tables, he might be called a hypocrite.

But Al Gore is not a hypocrite.

You said I asked myself what my opinion was on him?
Uh, no. I started a debate topic on whether he is or not in anyone's opinion. I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to participate in a thread, just because I started it. I may have made my mind up, but I asked for everyone else's opinions.

Yes, i said that humans and our emissions have an effect on the global climate fluctuations.
But as I said, it is a portion. Since you brought it up, why not use a pie.
Say we have a pie... of who's fault it is about global warming.
I do not know the percentages, I'm using an example so don't try to attack me with facts here. If you find the facts, let me know.
Now.
Maybe it's 50% Nature causing fluctuation and 50% humans
Or 90% Nature and 10% humans
If you look it at in a sensible way, it does make sense.

Let me just get this straight with you.
If a Republican, Democrat, Green, Communist, WHOEVER is doing what Gore was/is doing, I would say they were a hypocrite.
Honestly, look at this whole thing without party affiliation.
If a top Republican candidate did this, i would say he was a hypocrite.
Stop the ad hominem attacks on me. They're getting quite old on how you won't even argue whether or not you believe he is a hypocrite, but instead making a total side discussion and personally attacking me.

And again for the 2nd or 3rd time.
This isn't a thread on what we should do or if its real. it's if Gore is a hypocrite on what he says then does.
Plus, I don't hate Democrats. I don't even dislike them. i may disagree with some of their ideas, but I also disagree with a number of Republican ideas. But hey, if you want to bring party affiliation and blame it upon my views, be my guest. Your the one doing the mudslinging on me.

Is Gore a hypocrite on the whole topic he has been campaigning furiously about?

Yes. He buys carbon indulgences from a company he owns and chairs. Every time somebody buys carbon indulgences, Gore banks a tidy profit. A very Convenient Lie, indeed. I'd elaborate, but Time Magazine, The Economist (here and here), and WND have the topic covered. Krauthammer's column is particularly insightful: carbon indulgences merely allow the rich to continue polluting extravagantly while subjecting the poor to the economic consequences. But, it's a reliable business model-- "fools and their money are soon parted".

Edited to add: For what it's worth, I happen to agree that pollution is wrong, energy conservation is good, and off-grid energy is good, too. I recharge batteries in solar chargers, use only low-energy lighting, and am exploring my options for wind turbines and solar panels with grid feedback. I don't need to be proselytized by some false religion like athropogenic cosmothermosism preaching the outlandish apocalyptic prophecies of an hysterical charlatan with delusions of creating the Internet. Pardon my rant.

No, I don't forgive the rant, I dismiss it as irrelevant to the questions posed. Granted, these are slanted questions posed by a person who has his admitted to having his mind made up, not an honest query on what people think and what they base their thinking upon. Actually, the thread is based on an Internet letter that went out after the Oscar awards and has been debunked soundly, so the questions are based on false premises.

As with other criticisms of Al Gore, they are dishonest criticisms. It's fascinating how some people are like this, full of emotion and void of logic. Back in the 2000 election season, I referred to these types as having AlGoraphobia, an irrational fear of the Vice President. Now it's an irrational fear of the former VP, and of a slide show, and of an Oscar award to a documentary about the man and his slide show.

Nobody has demonstrated that Al Gore is a hypocrite. Sure, his farm uses more electricity than the typical home, as do all farms use more electricity than the typical home. Farming is not hypocritical. Nor is making money in a free marketplace.

The debate is not about carbon neutrality, although that would be a good subject to start. No, the debate is less than this. It is about personal opinion and what people base those opinions upon.

So far, nobody has any reason to think that Al Gore is a hypocrite. As such, holding an opinion without reason is unreasonable. It is prejudice.

That this thread has exposed prejudice is of some value.

Gore's defense against accusations of hypocrisy is that he buys offsets. In my rant, I linked to 5 pages from 4 sources detailing Gore's hypocrisy, including one entitled "Limosine Liberal Hypocrisy" in Time Magazine, two in The Economist (here and here) describing how Gore's carbon indugences don't actually offset his excesses, a column in WND describing how Gore effectively pays his offsets to himself while profiting from the offsets he sells, and the link directly to the carbon offset brokerage here which Gore owns, chairs, and patronizes. To me, these seem to directly address the question, "Is Gore a hypocrite on the whole topic he has been campaigning furiously about?"

No, actually, this thread was based on the BBC article here entitled "Gore accused of energy hypocrisy", which mentions no e-mail, only public records:

What are Time Magazine, The Economist, and the BBC, chopped liver? How about PETA, whose spokespeople have also called Gore a hypocrite for pretending to care about greenhouse gasses when he knows and ignores that "raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined"? What about the environmentalists at Off-Grid.net who call Gore a hypocrite while being among the most outspoken supporters of the energy plans he suggests?It doesn't take a wingnut to recognize a hypocrite.

Right on all counts (except I know of some farms that use less electricity, but that's a minor point). These are not inherently hypocritical activities, but in Gore's case, they are conflicts of interest with his environmental message, resulting in hypocrisy. Another VP, Dick Cheney's chairmanship of Haliburton followed shortly by a mammoth no-bid contract obviously passes the sniff test, then? The point is that Gore not only doesn't practice what he preaches, but he has an obvious ulterior motive which he fails to disclose in his Keynote presentation-- he makes money off of people who pay the indulgences he advocates. One of the most common behaviors of hypocrites is the willingness to profit off of what they preach without bothering to practice it.

Um, yes it is. Gore's dishonest plan for carbon neutrality is at the center of the argument that he is a hypocrite, and at the center of his defense against that argument.

Except Time, The Economist, WND, PETA, Off-Grid.net, the BBC, and most reasonable people who recognize a fraud when they see one. Go on ignoring the man behind the curtain if you will, but I see him clearly.

Yes, generally speaking. Thank goodness I've immunized myself from such an accusation by detailing and citing plenty of good reasons that remain unaddressed, so far.

I agree wholeheartedly. Now, would you like to actually cite any sources or more clearly explain the reasons why you don't believe the factual presentations in the articles I linked, or is your entire argument based on labelling me an "AlGoraphobe"? I cite diverse factual and editorial sources supporting my conclusions, while others go no further than calling names and making baseless claims. Yep, prejudice is quite evident in this thread.

I swear, the right will do just about anything to discredit Gore. It smacks of desperation, and is really quite pathetic.

Anyway, Gore is not a hypocrite. I’d venture to say he has done more personally for the environment than anyone on these forums. As for the whole “he uses more energy at home” blather,

Has anyone here bothered to do as much?

The environmental impact of traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power can be significant. Although no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution. In fact, a green power investment of $8 per month on your electric bill is equivalent to not driving your car for four months. Nashville Electric Service

Oh, BTW, a little factoid: Dick Cheney’s electric bill in 2001 was $186,000/yr. And guess who pays it? You and me.

And yet they still use 20 times the energy of an average Tennessee family. He also profits from a dirty, polluting, ground-water-contaminating zinc mine that was named among the "dirtiest / worst" facilities in the nation. But that's OK, because he wrote a letter asking them to clean up their act.


Why not just use less energy, though? Unless getting rich off of "carbon offsets" (that they sell to themselves) is the real goal? Reminds me of when Barbra Streisand was telling people to hang their clothes out to dry to save energy, then was asked whether she did so ... (on edit - found the link, which I thought was funny, since on her tour Babs' contract demanded a washer/dryer backstage, along with 120 clean towels, no mention of 'line drying' or clothespins)

Offsets are just investments into a mutual fund of sorts, and really don't do anything to reduce one's 'carbon footprint.' Better just to reduce your energy usage, and why one needs a 20-room mansion is beyond me.

As for "Dick Cheney's electric bill," I trust that the next Democratic VP won't live in Number One Observatory Circle? Maybe a nice condo in Georgetown or something? Please.

K', why not be honest with criticism?

Al Gore's FARM does NOT use 20 times the national average of FARMS. Maybe 18 times more than households, if anyone dared to check my link on the debunking of this crap.

That's what's honest.

Stop lying. It does not do anything but make the AlGoraphobics look like, well, less than healthy individuals.

Think I get it though. The Right Wing has a passel of hypocrites, and a ton-load of users&abusers.

So someone on the Left Wing has to pay.

Hey, attack Al Gore! He's not running for President, is he. He's just got a freaking slide show, and it's driving y'all nuts.

Heh, it's pretty darn good though. The inventor of the NREN idea (National Research and Education Network, circa 1980's) has taken this tech and shoved it down the FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY'S THROAT.

All that's left is bitching about how he runs his life.

So freaking sad, and sorry, and boring. Ho hum, gud bye . . . noise in the nightime of fossil fuel degeneration.

I'd sell out if I were you.

Can I buy Gore bashing off sets so you don't think bad of me AM?

You know I tried to find out what Al Gore is raising or growing on his 'farm', but can't. But I did call my uncle in Jackson ,MS who does own a small farm and asked what his power bills run. On his farm he has 6 horses, 4 cows, a dozen or so chickens and a couple pigs. Surprisingly he uses little extra power on his farm animals. He said his electric bill was $360 to $410 per month(this includes his 5 bedroom home).

When I was looking at houses here in Fla, some were out in the boonies and were actually called farms cause the were on a bunch of land and had a farm like building behind the home. If this is what you are talking about classifying as a farm to cut Gore slack well excuse me while I take a ride on the lol express.

Please tell us AM, what kind of farm does Al Gore have cause I sure as heck can't find out.

Edit to add:

By the way in your 'read it and weep" link. There is no excuse making for it being a farm and spending more energy on massive farm operations. Just excuse making for a hypocrite limousine liberal.

I'm remaining neutral, here's why:

Gore buys carbon credit to offset his pollution. The topic prompt convieniently left that bit out. Sorry I don't have a source for that, I'm too lazy but google news search carbon credit gore and you'll see- its become common information lately.

Carbon credit works like this: you pay a company money and they reduce CO2 emmissions for every bit that you use them. That sounds like a responsible use of one's wealth to me, but here's why I'm nuetral: me nuh know if that things a scam, like recylcing where on paper, it seems noble, but in actuality no pollution is ever really brought down. I also don't know if Gore knows whether its a scam or not. If it is and he knows it is, then yeah, hes a hypocrite. Any other scenario and he sounds like a responsile member of the wealthy community to me.

But you know what's hypocritical- supporting a republican party that so blatantly allows wealthy big businesses to skirt pollution law -- and then chastising Gore for his hypocrisy in doing the same.

EPA: Environmental PROTECTION agency. Under Bush, the middle name has been the hypocrisy.

This reminds me of the stereotypical liberal hippy talking about energy consumption and complaining about how SUV's use to much gas... then I see their car and it's some old broken down grey smoke spouting thing that can bearly make it up the next hill. There's a ton of hypocrites and they are everywhere. I think Al Gore is trying to do a good thing by representing a "greener" world but IMO he's just another rich politician that will lie to progress his agenda and make as much money as possible despite what he preaches. Of course you have to make the "token" donations so it's not so obvious.

Since he's so rich, why not just go completely solar? No emissions, no pollution, pure solar power. Im an open advocate to cut emissions but frankly can't afford solar panels to produce electricity for my home.

Yes we have the technology to make your home, even a large house almost completely self sufficient, it just costs a lot of money.

I don't think bad of anyone. I'm simply pointing out the illogical criticism of Gore, something that has been going on for a long time.

I linked to a farm energy consumption calculator for those who wish to speculate what Al Gore uses the electricity for, and I can understand why it's so hard to find out what the Gore farm raises, being that the Net is full of garbage without honest analysis on this issue. If I were close enough, I could check county records probably and come up with a good idea. Or I could just visit the farm and find out.

However, here are some articulate people on what might be going on, along with other logical takes on the situation:

It's a blog, but an articulate one

I do know that the Gore farm once grew tobacco. That's in the documentary, so I imagine the farm raises cash crops rather than something like pigs. And as one person in the above blog analyzed, the energy use of his home is about average per square foot for the area in which it sets.

I also think the take on carbon neutrality is good: If you can't buy green energy directly from the utility company, then fund green energy for someone else. But that's not what this debate is about: It's about whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite for using electricity instead of alternatives, which would be what?

What is the alternative to using electricity in today's world?

Come to think of it, there is none that doesn't go back to the age of kerosene lamps and wood-fired stoves. Al Gore does not suggest we do that, so he isn't a hypocrite. He lives in the electrical age just like everyone else, advocates for green energy, and by gosh supports such a notion.

And as the contributors to the above blog have so well articulated, Al Gore does not suggest that we all lower our lifestyles to save energy. He does suggest that we can do the same things more efficiently.

What does Al Gore use the electricity for? Well, that's become irrelevant. But as joked about in the blog, its probably not to grow pot in the basement or to kill babies. I doubt he intentionally runs juice to ground just for the happy time of making out the utility bill check. I could speculate on what the electricity does: lighting, air conditioning, crop drying, water pumping, charging up lead/acid batteries for lawn equipment, running greenhouses, cooking, my goodness, there are quite a few uses for electricity in the electrical age. Perhaps he heats the place with electricity, opting to not burn natural gas. I do know a little about how natural gas is handled and can see this take on things.

Some people think Al Gore is a hypocrite because he uses too much electricity, by their estimations. Let's say that they are correct in their estimations. This begs a question:

What motivates Al Gore to use too much electricity? This begs another question:

What would be the proper level of Al Gore's electricity usage?

And a third begging question: How do you know?

The Gores paid more than $500 per month in electrical bills for the pool house. What, pray tell, do they grow out there? Are the Gores doing a little hydroponic indoor farming, some of Tennessee's #1 cash crop maybe?

No one would be attacking Al Gore if he weren't so sanctimonious, preachy and, as the topic notes, hypocritical. He opens himself to criticism, so spare me the questioning of my motivation in pointing out the obvious. When he tells me the sea level is going to rise by 20 feet, and even the UN says it's only 3 feet, when he tells me to buy carbon offsets, and conveniently is chairing a fund that sells them, it goes on and on. I question the motivation.

I also notice that you haven't replied to any of Seamus' links, preferring to tell me that I'm "so freaking sad" instead...any reason why?


Actually, as an officer of Generation Investment Management, Al Gore is given carbon offsets as an employee benefit. Whether it's a scam, and the fact that you or I could not buy them and deduct them from our personal income, remains to be determined. But the sanctimony of being given free "carbon offsets" and then telling me that it's OK to burn $6 grand heating one's pool is not lost on me. I think that Gore has every right to burn energy and live the lifestyle of a rich Tennessee landed gentry that he is. I applaud him for making his home more green. That doesn't change the fact that he's a hypocrite.

That farm energy consumption calculator is for active farms that are a means for a living or running a farming business. What a pitiful excuse that is.

So you concede that you don't know what kind of 'farm' Gore has. I think it's just a big house on a lot of land.

Oh and using a blog for a source... I think I need to take another trip on the lol express.

“In 2007, Gore came under criticism from the conservative think tank Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which the Tennessee Department of Revenue does not consider to be "a legitimate group". [17][18] The organization issued a report which said that during August 2006 Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours at his house — more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.[19]

Drew Johnson, the president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, said in releasing the figures:

For someone in his position not to take steps to reduce his own energy consumption is disingenuous. As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk (the) walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use.

There have been a number of responses to this claim. TIME stated that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research claimed to have gotten "its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information." [21] TIME further quoted Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for Gore, as saying that the source of the energy is green energy.[21] WKRN-TV reported that the Gore family obtains their power from the Nashville Electric Service's "renewable energy initiative", The Green Power Switch program [22] which depends upon "wind, solar, and methane gas." [23] The Detroit Free Press further noted that "Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That’s a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.The green power Gore purchased is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES’s Web site." [20] The figure of 108 blocks of green power per month corresponds[22] to 16,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month, Al Gore's average monthly use for 2005.
Keith Olbermann at MSNBC reported that the Gore home includes offices for both Gore and his wife and 'special security measures' making it unrepresentative of what the average US home consumes. Additionally, the green power purchased by the Gores increased the cost of their electricity by "$5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."[24]
Kreider suggested in TIME that the attacks on Gore's energy use were political in nature and stated:

Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger.”

Link from wiki

I would like to change my vote to "no" because Al Gore is having solar panels installed and those cost a lot of money, so if he is a hypocrite he spends a lot of money to cover it up. The only reason they are not already installed is because of outdated zoning laws that are soon to be changed.

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43477

Vampiel,

Thanks for the article link that sheds better light on the subject. Taking this along with CW's claim about how much it costs to heat a pool, it made me think about the two different kinds of solar panels that can be put up, zoning laws allowing.

Heating pools with solar is one of the very first uses of solar panels, along with supplementing the hot water heater for showers and the such. Then came the direct-to-electricity conversion, which can also be incorporated into roof shingles, thus making the panels almost unnoticeable. When I look out upon the sea of roofs that make up Colorado Springs to the east, I wonder how many kWHs would be generated out there. Quite a few I bet, as it's almost always sunny.

Anyway, looks like Gore has been working to upgrade his house for quite some time. I don't think that's the action of a hypocrite, and I admire your (Vampiel's) ability to change opinions.

Perhaps what Gore does with his house will be featured in some upscale remodelling rag, thereby inspiring others to remodel for green energy. Wouldn't that be ironic, the press he's getting about being a hypocrite working for his ultimate goal.

In the spirit of revising opinions, I'll drop the farm argument. Apparently, that's not where the complaints of hypocrisy come from. It's the Nashville home. Okay, so the farm energy usage is irrelevant.

Oh, the pool thing also reminded me of a coworker who had one in Texas and was relocating to Colorado. Seems the water bill shot through the roof as some neighbor decided to fill his pool from my coworker's tap. Those darn things are expensive to maintain.

This thread died way to fast. I am still attempting to understand how Gore is a hypocrite in relation to being supporting the global warming message with his position. Clearly this extends simply past that but I would like to know as to why. I mean can we not pick on Gore so much, he had a presidency stolen from him, that does not happen everyday you know. I am glad that someone with some clout besides cheney is using it actually for some good in the world. Now I will not say Gore is close to being perfectly green, but in context to what politically is even close to the standard he is carrying, and moreover for what its worth what other politicians are using there position to even highlight such? I mean we have the green party but for what its worth America is truly at this point wired into the two party system, with a growing independent party that could be harnessed if an independent had more money, but for the most part independents typically lean into party platforms a little to much to do much more then guarantee and election for either of the two evils. The maintenance and fitness of platforms of course being crucial to survival so independents get crushed out by this.

Back to the topic, what exactly makes Gore a hypocrite again?

Do I think Al Gore is a hypocrite? That's a pretty harsh label to put on a man who thinks he's doing a good thing for his country/world. I actually think that he's quite remarkable to bounce back like he has and still remain "out there" for comment. IMO Al Gore believes what he says and one really can't fault him for that! The global warming message he sends certainly won't ruin our time on earth but the other side of the coin certainly could, if he's right, and we continue unchecked down "the yellow brick road".

I lost interest because no one responded to the copious evidence in post #18, so I am forced to assume everyone must have agreed with me.

Is there part of post #18 or the articles to which it links that leaves this question unanswered?

Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back Seamus. Perhaps there just wasn’t much interest in the thread period. From looking at the vote totals – 11 yes, 16 no, 2 neutral – it doesn’t seem as if a majority, much less everyone, agreed with you.

In my opinion, the whole hypocrisy gig is about at the end of it's tour. Bring on a new band.

Oh and BTW: take a close look at Vampiel's post, no. 29.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=210763

What about post#28, that one did not get much reply either. So maybe a politician is able to slip between the partisan cracks and do some wrong possibly and get away with it. Now don’t get me wrong, Gore is no great man of environmental protection all things considered, but on that note who do you really compare him to politically? Personally I have had rather large verbal fights with people who desired to dump antifreeze in some bushes, and I doubt for Gore to be so concentrated or devoted as myself to the issue, but for what its worth what he has done for the environment by simply using his position is far more then a great deal of politicians have. Save for Nixon, he started the EPA, I can thank him for that.

Well, it was 12-12 before the vote switching and hanging chads started-- it's the Electoral College that really counts, anyway.

C'mon, BoF, it's just humor.

Edited to add...


True enough. So, it looks like one of the sources cited in post 18 might be a little shaky, but that's no smoking gun. Gore still lives like a fat cat and wants the rest of us to live like strays, to the point that PETA and Off-grid.net have turned on him, and The Economist explains why carbon offsets don't work. Most of post 18 remains unaddressed, but nobody's forcing anyone to reply. I was just explaining why I lost interest.

Okay, I understand why interest was lost. I think it's because the arguments were lost regarding Al Gore's electricity bill. Then the side issue about carbon credits went off to another thread. I think that happened because it's a side issue.

In the end, Al Gore cannot be shown as a hypocrite, and he has the ear of a Democratic Congress. Guess this means that green energy advances another step. Is the smart money heading that way or staying with the gas and oil industry? That's probably a more interesting question than whether Al Gore spends too much on electricity.

It's also a question for yet another thread.

The explanation given for the Gore families energy use is that the energy comes from green sources, he buys off-sets, etc. For the sake of discussion I am going to assume this is all done as a honest attempt to make up for the heavy energy uses at his home.

The problem is, energy, be it from green or other sources is not infinite, and green sources are still quite limited. So, if the Gore family uses significantly more amount of energy than the average family, that does impact others.

First, it means there is less green energy available for others interested in using it, and second it means that more energy in general is needed, which means more pollutants are burned to produced the non-green energy needed to make up for green energy production short falls.

No matter how you slice it, if you are using more energy it is effecting the environment. You can take steps to mitigate that effect (which Vice President Gore seems to have done so to some degree) but unless you reduce usage and create enough new green energy generation systems to make up for your own energy uses you are still impacting the planet and your community.

I have worked out several home ideas where I could live completely "off the grid", consuming 0 energy from the public utility (and even making a few dollars each month selling excessive produced energy back to the utility). The problem is, I do not have nearly enough money to build this house. Vice President Gore however is a man of significant means. He could build a house that was lavish, but consumed 0 energy from the grid if he chose to.

I would love to be in the financial position to live "off the grid" so I find it hard to understand why people who have the means choose not to do so (though I do respect their right to make that choice).

Again, I see no response to Post 18, where PETA, Off-grid.net, Charles Krauthammer, The Economist and others all conclusively prove Gore a "hypocrite" based on his message, and their arguments remain unaddressed by anyone who disagrees, beyond asserting "no, he's not" without any evidence or explanation of exactly where these diverse sources went wrong.

If Gore's response to being called a hypocrite for his lavish lifestyle was that he uses carbon offsets, then it's definitely not a side issue that his carbon credits are part of his message, and part of what makes him a hypocrite, considering he's profiting from them and apparently gets them for free as a perk anyway. The question in this thread was never "Does Gore's energy bill as reported in some e-mail make him a hypocrite." The question is:

Is Gore a hypocrite on the whole topic he has been campaigning furiously about?

The answer to that is a definite yes, and carbon offsetting is one of the primary reasons why, so it's not a side issue in this topic, regardless of whether another topic is focusing on offsets apart from Gore. Post 18 is still there listing a host of other reasons waiting patiently to be rebutted, and plenty of sources to be picked apart, if anyone cares to.

No one has challenged PETA's claim that Gore is a hypocrite. No one has challenged Off-Grid.net's assertion that Gore is a hypocrite. No one has challenged either of The Economist's two articles describing how carbon offsets make Gore a hypocrite. No one has explained how Gore wasn't hypocritical by failing to disclose he was profiting from carbon indulgences when it was a clear conflict of interest with his message. No one has satisfactorally defended how it's okay for Gore to buy carbon offsets from himself, which seems to defeat their purpose. No one has confronted the issue of Gore's wasteful use of jet transportation when he could have easily travelled more efficiently.

No one has used much reason, with the possible exception of the accusation of inaccurate energy bill numbers, to defend Gore from these very reasonable accusations of hypocrisy. These sources already take into account that Gore is installing some wind and solar power generators and using efficient lighting-- Off-Grid.net declared him a hypocrite anyway, and they're among the most vocal proponents of green power.

So, pardon me if I find it a little difficult to believe that the reason intrest was lost was "because the arguments were lost regarding Al Gore's electricity bill". It's obviously because no one has bothered rebutting the mountain of evidence of Gore's hypocrisy directly relevant to the topic question. I'm not the only one who noticed. carlitoswhey was the first to point it out in post 26:

Heh, upon going over the redundant links, looks like they are mostly op-ed pieces. The Economist links are not articles but blog-like things with links to other blogs. Sleeper got on the LOL Express over my admitted use of a blog, but at least I called it for what it is, not something better.

Charles Krauthammer has found Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy, as if that's a surprise. He sees limousine liberal hypocrisy in his morning corn flakes. He's paid to do so, and quite well I imagine.

So since these are opinion pieces, my equally as valid argument is that in my opinion, Al Gore is not a hypocrite. This really does come down to that simple little thing, doesn't it.

Here's why:

Nobody has expressed what the proper level of Al Gore's energy usage should be. Should it be the national average, the Tennessee average, the Nashville average, the average of his neighborhood or his block? I would vote for neighborhood. And I'd go with the energy per square foot idea somebody came up with earlier.

It's pretty darn hard for anyone to be carbon-neutral in a carbon-based economy, and by gosh, this includes Al Gore. Some people think this is enough to shut everybody up about global warming and getting away from a carbon-based economy. Others, including myself, don't.

There's nothing wrong with making money, even for liberals (however that's defined). And, criticizing Gore for chairing a company from which he can buy carbon credits ignores how economics work. For example, say I own a stock brokerage firm, and say I buy stocks using my firm. Where does the money go? Certainly not into the firm, other than the brokerage fees. The money goes to the holders of the stocks. Now I own the stocks and can go long with them, eventually to sell out and make a profit, or not. It is a market after all.

I did notice that Gore's company only goes long. That means having a great deal of faith in the investments, and so it can be argued that Al Gore has a great deal of faith in green energy. Few, if any, stock brokers disallow shorting the market.

How have I mislabelled it? The opinion pieces I have cited are from credible sources and cite evidence and explain reasons supporting their conclusions. They can be systematically quoted and picked apart-- yet they seem to be summarily dismissed, instead.

And Al Gore is paid even better to predict apocalyptic global warming catastrophes arising from the inefficient manufacture of his morning corn flakes. Interesting how you later defend Gore profiting from carbon offsets, while slamming Krauthammer for being a professional writer. If we have to ignore all professional writers because they earn paychecks, we'll have to limit ourselves to the rantings of the unemployed. This is clearly "attacking the man" and avoiding analysis of his ideas.

The links do express opinions, but they are supported by copious evidence and detailed reasoning currently ignored. Anyone would be well within their rights to disagree without directly confronting any evidence or reasoning, but it wouldn't make for a very convincing argument, IMO.

Great! We're starting to get somewhere. I've been suggesting a different baseline-- Gore should be prepared to live under the same conditions he's telling everyone else to live under: avoiding jet travel, avoiding excessive lifestyles that inherently generate excessive CO2, etc. This is the "proper level of energy use" we've been promoting all along. Although my own world view would let the wealthy freely dispose of their own property as they see fit, we're discussing Al Gore's perspective here. If Al Gore doesn't mind rich people burning tons of jet fuel and otherwise damaging the environment for business reasons, he shouldn't be telling the rest of us to "do as I say, not as I do" unless he's prepared to answer hypocrisy allegations. If he's going to give a blanket pass to rich people like himself, while only expecting the middle class and lower class to make any significant sacrifices to the global warming gods (as those links describe), then he's a charlatan. If his answer to his exesses is that rich people can achieve carbon neutrality by paying others to make most of the sacrifices, then there's also something hypocritical there, too, especially considering the questionable zero-sum economics of carbon indulgences.

Great. Does he admit that? Does he let people off the hook for polluting just because it's hard not to? Nope. If his message were "human cabon emissions are contributing to global warming, but there's not much we can be expected to do about it", then I wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that you and I are willing to go easier on rich people is beside the point; if Gore gives himself more leniency than he's giving others, he just might be a hypocrite. (Cue Jeff Foxworthy)

Fine. What about PETA and off-grid.net, who are in complete agreement with global warming theories, and still conclude that he's a hypocrite. This isn't entirely some fantastical vast right-wing conspiracy; leaders on Gore's side of the global warming argument call him a hypocrite for misleading his listeners, or talking the talk without walking the walk. What about them?

Unless, of course, you're Charles Krauthammer, when your views can be summarily dismissed just because you earn a paycheck?

I don't personally object to that in the abstract; however, Gore profits from the brokerage fees and his stake in the brokerage, as well as his controlling interest in "stocks" (companies retrofiting for green energy) being sold by the brokerage-- and here's the important part-- without prominently disclosing any of it in his speeches. To continue the stock brokerage metaphor, such unethical non-disclosure would come dangerously close to violating key Sarbanes-Oxley provisions.

It's also interesting to hear that The Economist apparently "ignores how economics work" while explaining how carbon offsets ignore how economics work; I think I'll stick with The Economist's evaluation of carbon indulgence economics, at least until a better one emerges.

Any evaluation of the evidence or reasoning cited in the other sources?