If Al Gore's such an environmentalist, why does the electric co. say he consumes 20X more electricity than avg

Question

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21274242.shtml

When he's not flying around the world in his private jet, he's whooping it up in his 10K square foot mansion. Something stinks, and it's not my flatulence...

Answer 1

because, he's better than us.

well, not really. but he & his cohorts such as hillary (aka the wicked b*tch from the east) like to think they are, so they belittle our small "sins" while thier's go almost unnoticed.

sucks, i know.

Answer 2

Because most politicians know the whole issue is a scam.  Of all the countries that signed Kyoto, only two are on target to meet its targets.  The Chinese think it is garbage.  They are planning on building 500 coal fired power plants over the next 10 years to expand their needs.

Al Gore is clearly playing politics.  Look who much he features himself in the movie.

When most people study the facts on both side realize it is a scam.  Check out this article with the headline "Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate" found here http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

So when politicians here both sides of the debate they know how misleading the graphs that show the "damming evidence" is.  Take for instance the graph where he shows temperatures were constant for 1000 years and shot up during the twentieth century.  Do you want to believe that graph, or the physical evidence that shows the earth was so warm during the times of the Vikings that they colonized Greenland.  http://www.archaeology.org/online/featur...  

Then here is the graph were he shows the correlation between co2 and temperatures, and fails to mention that temperatures cause co2 to change and not the other way round.  There have been theoretical explanations to answer this, but no study, or hard facts.  The United Nations IPCC does not account for this.

So if he is willing to deceive us with that, why should anyone trust him?

Answer 3

Well, I would reather spend the weekend in Al Gore's place adding solar panels to his roof, than I would smelling your hydrogen sulfide and looking at your radioactive face.

Answer 4

Why does anyone care? So Al Gore's a big hypocrite. Whoopty-flipping-do. So is every other rich politician windbag out there. Why is everyone acting like this is something new? It has no bearing on whether or not what he is saying is true in the slightest.

Answer 5

Al Gore. Spare me. Friends, while I rather enjoy the ad-hominem attacks as a humorous commentary, let's stay focused on the meaning of the factual stuff -if there IS any meaning. Whether or not AG himself needs a separate coal fired power plant to support his lifestyle has no bearing on the question of whether his disaster scenarios have any COMPELLING factual basis.

In a nutshell (and I use that term accordingly) the problem is that WE (meaning myself and the other tortured souls who answer Yahoo questions) are, for the most part, NOT EXPERTS. There may be one or two who really are, but if so, I think, based on what I have read, that they should be employed in developing better stealth technology. J'ever READ what the bona-fide scientific people write -their research papers and the like? Except for the precious few with an appreciation for public attention, most of them write for the other experts -not the likes of you and me.

What this means is that the great unwashed masses (you and I) must rely on skilled interpreters who can translate what these people say into English that you and I can actually read. And that's where the rub comes in, because its tough to know what prejudices this elite corps brings to the material.

Which leaves us with our common sense. Setting aside devine intervention, what we all "know" is that, one day, its all gonna go away -sun's going NOVA and we're all toast. That's the end of it. Any questions?

And what we also know (pretty much) is that the earth has been through cycles of warm and cold stretching over eons of time, and is likely to continue to go through these cycles. We also have some pretty good evidence that collisions with BIG rocks from space may have really changed things in a big way over a short period of time. Whether we've correctly correlated the geologic record with such encounters is something that experts fuss about, but the notion that this has happened and might happen again is easy to comprehend and accept.

And all of that pertains to vast processes which are unlikely to be changed very much because you used too much charcoal in the barby last night, right? Right.

What Gore and his team of doom-sayers are trying to tell us in their intemperate way is that human activity may act as the last straw -that little extra push that sends earth into a new geological and meteorlogical age that's gonna be awfully uncomfortable. There is a logical appeal here, because, as with everything, there must be a "tipping point," some action, some event, without which what happened would not have happened. Makes sense, as far as it goes.

The problem is that we ain't the only ones around here, and our contribution -taken in the context of everything else- is not very much. So, who is to say whether the "tipping point" is the gaseous result of that galic and hot pepper pizza I ate last night, or some tiny jet of lava that spewed from a big volcanic blast?

That's not an excuse -not a free pass- that let's us go nutz because no matter what we do, it matters little. Fact is : it ALL matters. The problem I have with big Al and his traveling disaster show is the notion that somehow he and his people have figured it all out! I doubt it. I can't think of anyone, ever, who figured it all out. Can you? Of course not.

On the other hand, we can look around us and come to some conclusions about how we want to take care of what we have. Rather than taking the position that we better listen to Al, why not think about how what you do supports, challenges or destroys life as YOU would like it to be? You need Al for this? Rock and roll concerts, maybe?  It is completely unremarkable to me that the faddish love of the "environment" comes on the heels of much argument about abortion, family planning, "right to life" and similar modern ideas. None of this -NONE of it- would even be discussed if human life was sacred.

What underlies the mind-set that regards mother earth as something scared, and yet her human inhabitants as disposable, is a terribly twisted hubris in which people mistake interest and enthusiastic pursuit of some ideology for actual knowledge and wisdom. And they ask me why I drink. Is it really any different in substance from ANY radicalized view of the world?

If there is any benefit at all to AG's campaign, it is that observers may very astutely note the taint of hypocrisy -and THEN see the same in themselves.

So, pick up yer gum wrappers and live as gently as you can. One day, its all over for all of it, with or without AG. That said, we might be better off to live respectfully not because of something bad that will happen if we don't, but simply because it is good to live as though you cared for what you have.

Answer 6

because he's another bullsh!tting hypocrite. also, minnesota used to be covered with glaciers. so obviously, the world has warmed up since then. I fail to see why a half a degree further warming is such a catastrophe, since it has been proven beyond a doubt that the earth was both much hotter and much colder historically than today. just more scaremongering, the ozone hole doesn't work anymore so they have to come up with something else

Answer 7

you are silly

what has the guys private life or life style to do with what he is trying to do for the environment

,What are you doing ,???

are you raising millions of dollars to do some  good

ok how much have you raised so far ????

i have been working for the environment for 30 years ,lately for a department of ecology in Mexico ,i tell farmers sustainable ways of behaving ,and have made gardens all over the place, i talk to a lot of kids and tell them not to smoke ,or take drugs ,be good and not drink alcohol etc

does this means according to your reasoning that i cannot do any of that and if i do ------my work becomes invalid .

you are just jallous that the guy is rich

and Al Gore is not using his jet enough

if i had one i would be up and down to Europe,Africa ,India etc as well,

to spread the Global message ,not just in the USA

or are you suggesting that people who want to help the planet must first become poor like Jesus .

Poor people have no impact they are part of the problem ,and so is ignorence and indifference.

Answer 8

just a side note. his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was a carbon neutral movie. a first one to be so. It means that the amount of green house gases that were released in the production (through polution and stuff) was made up for my planting trees,

here:

This is the first carbon-neutral documentary. NativeEnergy, which works with individuals and organizations to help them compensate for their contributions to global warming, calculated the "carbon footprint" from producing the film, including all travel, office, and accommodations related emissions. The company then offset emissions through renewable energy credits or "green tags from new renewable energy projects. Paramount Classics and Participant will split the cost of these tags; the funds will go towards helping build new Native American, Alaskan Native Village, and farmer-owned renewable energy projects, creating sustainable economies for communities in need and diversifying our energy supply. As Participant founder Jeff Skoll explains: "It would be ironic, not to mention wrong, if we added to the global warming that Al Gore warns about in his film. Plus, these renewable energy projects offer options that will decrease our demand for fossil fuels and otherwise would likely not happen without these kinds of investments." Participant, NativeEnergy and Warner Bros. partnered in a similar way on Stephen Gaghan's film, Syriana (2005), where 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the production were translated into investments into renewable energy. This follows on from the first "carbon neutral" film The Day After Tomorrow (2004), which director Roland Emmerich paid for out of his own pocket.

Answer 9

Hey, it takes energy to save the planet.