Global Warming - Do as I say, not as I do

[XtremeJibber2001]

Nobel prize? I think not!

Another example of why pundits of Global Warming should proceed cautiously ... thousands of people stand to benefit from this "issue".

In other news, yesterday on CNN Nancy Pelosi was in the news because she wants a "large jet" to fly her and her entourage and family members.

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe
Updated 12/7/2006 5:45 PM ET

Correction: In this column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Wow ... the normal pro-GW people are eerily silent, does this surprise you?

[JerseyGuy]

Wow ... the normal pro-GW people are eerily silent, does this surprise you?

Hey, you're right! Man-made global warming must not exist, after all!

Oh, that wasn't your point?

OK, Cut-n-Paste Boy. Since you're copying from right-wing Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer's op-ed on Al Gore, permit me to copy some responses from the same source:

Gore may be flawed, but message is sincere
Thomas Crowley - Durham, N.C.

Peter Schweizer makes a convincing case that Al Gore (left, Getty Images) isn't consistent in practicing what he preaches. Gore, therefore, joins most of the rest of the human race in being, well, human. But Gore has made adjustments and no doubt will make more in the future ("Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe," The Forum, Aug. 10).

As many can attest, people can't drop everything immediately when they want to change their behavior. The entire tone of Gore's statements in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, and his comments at its end, struck me as being very understanding and tolerant of the slowness in human responses to changing behavior. But that does not mean one should not try.

The fact that Gore has been able to muster the strength to give more than 1,000 talks on global warming worldwide impresses me and shows he is a very dedicated and sincere person on the subject.

Schweizer seems to think that he can kill the message by disparaging the messenger. But global warming is here whether Schweizer likes it or not.

As he contemplates Gore's imperfections, Schweizer would do well to remember that pride is often considered the worst character defect of all — and that people shouldn't "criticize the speck in their neighbor's eye before first removing the plank in their own."

Hypocritical, too
Don McAdam - Atlanta

Thanks for Peter Schweizer's commentary that exposed former vice president Al Gore's hypocrisy as he says much and does little to curb his personal impact on our environment.

Unfortunately, the piece didn't make me feel much better; for I, too, am an environmental hypocrite.

I like to think I'm doing my part, but truth be told, there is much I could and should be doing. It's easy and financially sensible to remain in my current lifestyle.

Schweizer, however, seems to illogically assert that climate change might not be that dire because Gore doesn't appear to fully embrace his own call for living in a carbon-neutral lifestyle. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is real and man-made and that its effects will be catastrophic.

Because people generally make decisions based on their financial interests, Congress should act to create incentives so that we're more likely to live in a way that is environmentally responsible.

Gores' green commitment
Kalee Kreider, communications director, Office of Al Gore and Tipper Gore - Nashville

The op-ed attacking former vice president Al Gore's environmental record was extremely misleading.

Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero.

He has long since switched to a hybrid car and was already in the process of adding solar photovoltaic units to his home before the commentary was published.

In addition, the Gores have donated 100% of all the profits from his movie and book to the fight against global-warming pollution.

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.

Rather than vilifying a person who is trying to make a difference, wouldn't it be more fruitful for Schweizer to join the effort to solve the climate crisis?

Hey, cutting and pasting is so much fun!

By the way, if you're interested in other, political-neutral works by Mr. Schweizer, may I suggest the following fine reading:

Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over Communism

The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy

Give me a Picture of Dubya, a Bottle of Lotion, and a Few Minutes of Alone Time, And I'm a Happy Man: A Profile in Courage

[Bubba]

"Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero."

In other words, he owns three large houses that (allegedly) use lots more energy than others use, he owns a hybrid vehicle (but does he, as a former VP travel all over with it or does he ride in armored limos) and he's contributing money so others might change their lifestyle. Sounds like the supporters of the civil war in the north who bought their way out of the draft by paying the necessary fee.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Wow ... the normal pro-GW people are eerily silent, does this surprise you?

Hey, you're right! Man-made global warming must not exist, after all!
Oh, that wasn't your point?

You're right, that's not my point. My point is Gore is in this for the monetary/notoriety benefit more then anything else, I'm sorry you fail to see this.

OK, Cut-n-Paste Boy. Since you're copying from right-wing Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer's op-ed on Al Gore, permit me to copy some responses from the same source:

Would you prefer I don't cut-and-paste? I figured you'd prefer to see where I got my information and where I found it. In the future, I'll keep sources private if that makes your panties any less in a bunch!

Also, if you haven't noticed, more often then not, all sources are biased. Had Gore spoke out and say this right-winger was incorrect in his statement, then I'd say it was biased. However, since the information in the article is true, I fail to see what's biased?

Peter Schweizer makes a convincing case that Al Gore (left, Getty Images) isn't consistent in practicing what he preaches. Gore, therefore, joins most of the rest of the human race in being, well, human. But Gore has made adjustments and no doubt will make more in the future ("Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe," The Forum, Aug. 10).

Right ... he tells everyone the sky will fall in 10 years, but it's absolutely necessary he has his own private airplane for a book tour, well because he's human. JerseyGuy, I didn't know you had a private airplane that you have to use ... how do you survive without it? After all, your human.

As many can attest, people can't drop everything immediately when they want to change their behavior. The entire tone of Gore's statements in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, and his comments at its end, struck me as being very understanding and tolerant of the slowness in human responses to changing behavior. But that does not mean one should not try.

Geeezzz ... is this author smoking some herb? Wah wah wah, he's sincere. Please, he has a private airplane for a book tour, is this author trying to state that this is hard for Gore to deal without? I do OK traveling without my own jet, what makes him so different? After all, I didn't say I live a "carbon-neutral lifestlye" so maybe I should have a private jet?

The fact that Gore has been able to muster the strength to give more than 1,000 talks on global warming worldwide impresses me and shows he is a very dedicated and sincere person on the subject.

And he does it by doing all the things he says need to be reduced! He bleeeeeeds hypocrisy.

Schweizer seems to think that he can kill the message by disparaging the messenger. But global warming is here whether Schweizer likes it or not.

I'm pretty sure Gore discredited himself all on his own.

As he contemplates Gore's imperfections, Schweizer would do well to remember that pride is often considered the worst character defect of all — and that people shouldn't "criticize the speck in their neighbor's eye before first removing the plank in their own."

Imperfections? Is this author as blind as JerseyGuy? He's a hypocrite. Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's a duck ... lets not be "wishy-washy" about this.

Notice, JerseyGuy, that this author merely defends Gore saying "Well, his message sure does sound pretty, and sure the whole World will be fcuked in 10 years, but Gore can't live without his own airplane and you 'Mr. Bad Right-Wing information provider' need to know that!"

Thanks for Peter Schweizer's commentary that exposed former vice president Al Gore's hypocrisy as he says much and does little to curb his personal impact on our environment.

Unfortunately, the piece didn't make me feel much better; for I, too, am an environmental hypocrite.

I like to think I'm doing my part, but truth be told, there is much I could and should be doing. It's easy and financially sensible to remain in my current lifestyle.

Well that's too damn bad, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Schweizer, however, seems to illogically assert that climate change might not be that dire because Gore doesn't appear to fully embrace his own call for living in a carbon-neutral lifestyle. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is real and man-made and that its effects will be catastrophic.

Actually, Schweizer is merely throwing the sh*t flag. No where in the article does he claim global warming isn't occurring.

Because people generally make decisions based on their financial interests, Congress should act to create incentives so that we're more likely to live in a way that is environmentally responsible.

OK, that's fine, lets do it. No one's saying there shouldn't be tax breaks. Oops, there already are some, but we need more!

The op-ed attacking former vice president Al Gore's environmental record was extremely misleading.

Attacking? Are you serious? Have you seen Gore talking about Bush? Now that's an attack. Schweizer is pointing out the facts, nothing more, nothing less.

Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

Unfortunately, he falls short in this commitment, hence the hypocrisy pointed out by Schweizer.

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero.

So ... are you saying it's OK to be flown on a private jet just because? It's OK to choose a poor energy source because it's cheaper? It's OK to own money in an Oil company when you're telling everyone that oil is bad and must be stopped?

He has long since switched to a hybrid car and was already in the process of adding solar photovoltaic units to his home before the commentary was published.

Meanwhile, he's flown in a private plane, had numerous homes in which he doesn't live full-time which use up finite resources instead of using environmentally friendly wind-power.

In addition, the Gores have donated 100% of all the profits from his movie and book to the fight against global-warming pollution.

All this at the sacrifice of who knows how much carbon he introduced into the atmosphere. He's essentially reduced the time until the "apocalypse" from 10 years to 9.999998 years!

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.

He hasn't confirmed this ...???

Rather than vilifying a person who is trying to make a difference, wouldn't it be more fruitful for Schweizer to join the effort to solve the climate crisis?

Yea, exactly! Don't ask questions, just do it!

By the way, if you're interested in other, political-neutral works by Mr. Schweizer, may I suggest the following fine reading:

I don't like Schweizer and I don't like anyone who is a big koolaid drinker. That being said, I posted the article only to point out the hypocrisy because Gore himself has said the alleged is true. There was nothing biased about these facts and that's why I posted it.

I have to be honest, I didn't expect you to defend Gore. I'm also sorry to say, this is the worst defense of a hypocrite I've ever seen!

"Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero."

In other words, he owns three large houses that (allegedly) use lots more energy than others use, he owns a hybrid vehicle (but does he, as a former VP travel all over with it or does he ride in armored limos) and he's contributing money so others might change their lifestyle. Sounds like the supporters of the civil war in the north who bought their way out of the draft by paying the necessary fee.

You've said it much more eloquently and concise then I have.

[JerseyGuy]

So your point... is that Gore's simply doing all of this for the publicity.

And since you claim that "thousands of people stand to benefit from this 'issue'"... what? What they say should be ignored?

By that "logic", thousands of people stood to "benefit" from the fight against the tobacco companies. And child labor. And prostitution. And the trafficking of illegal aliens. My God, stop the do-gooders before they do more good... becuase they might get a job or a grant or a foundation or an interview on CNN out of the deal. Selfish bastards!

As for the rest of your line-by-line response... seriously, what is wrong with you? Were you weaned too early? Dad didn't play enough "catch" with you in your formative years? (Go ahead, start whining about my "negative personal attacks" instead of addressing the topic at hand. I'll be happy to do both, actually.)

I said nothing to defend Gore. All I did was post some responses to the op-ed column from the same source. Equal time, and take those responses as you will.

But, c'mon now...

You're honestly comparing yourself to Gore -- that since YOU don't have a private jet to get around Philly, HE shouldn't have a private jet to fly around the world on a book tour? What the hell are you talking about?

Schweizer doesn't claim that global warming isn't occurring? His reference to Gore's view as an "apocalyptic vision" aside, and his repeated references to his "radical" theology in the final paragraph aside, and his key leadership role in an institute that's received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exxon-Mobil aside, and the fact that USA Today actually had to re-run this old article with a correction aside, and the numerous other deliberate errors and omissions aside (Gore's personal carbon offest are above and beyond what Paramount Classics pays; Gore has never owned or controlled stock in Occidental -- his DAD did, years ago; Gore IS adding photovoltaic panels to his homes, and on, and on)...

Well, JibJab, if you honestly don't understand why this man wrote this piece attacking this man on this topic in the first place, I can't help you.

And if you can't get your mind around the concept of attacking the messenger when the message itself is difficult to rebut... well, I can't help you there, either. Hell, I doubt that anyone can.

[XtremeJibber2001]

So your point... is that Gore's simply doing all of this for the publicity.

And since you claim that "thousands of people stand to benefit from this 'issue'"... what? What they say should be ignored?

To your first point, yes I think so.

As for your second point, no. I think we should hear what they have to say and make adjustments as we see fit. The first thing that needs to happen is the gov't should introduce tax breaks for those that live a "green" lifestyle. That means breaks on hybrids (already in place), breaks on other efficient cars, individuals that use solar panels, etc ... these breaks should also be available for corporations that go green too.

By that "logic", thousands of people stood to "benefit" from the fight against the tobacco companies. And child labor. And prostitution. And the trafficking of illegal aliens. My God, stop the do-gooders before they do more good... becuase they might get a job or a grant or a foundation or an interview on CNN out of the deal. Selfish bastards!

You're right. But what % error is there with child labor or tobacco-induced cancer? Tobacco does does cancer 100%, child labor is not acceptable in our society 100%, illegal immigration is illegal 100%, what margin of error is there with global warming? Much less then 100% I can assure you. I think you're making a very poor comparison.

As for the rest of your line-by-line response... seriously, what is wrong with you? Were you weaned too early? Dad didn't play enough "catch" with you in your formative years? (Go ahead, start whining about my "negative personal attacks" instead of addressing the topic at hand. I'll be happy to do both, actually.)

Nope. I'll just leave it at that ... you've provided little content, merely a personal attack.

I said nothing to defend Gore. All I did was post some responses to the op-ed column from the same source. Equal time, and take those responses as you will.

Well are you for what he's doing or against? From your stance, you appear to be on the defensive.

But, c'mon now...

You're honestly comparing yourself to Gore -- that since YOU don't have a private jet to get around Philly, HE shouldn't have a private jet to fly around the world on a book tour? What the hell are you talking about?

No, the author of the post you put on here states that Gore is merely Human like all of us ... in other words, why can't he fly on a jet like we do, after all he's only human, right (not to mention the single most advocate of Global Warming)? Oh, that's right, he MUST have a plane ... for whatever reason that apparently you feel is fit, fcuk the Earth!

Schweizer doesn't claim that global warming isn't occurring? His reference to Gore's view as an "apocalyptic vision" aside, and his repeated references to his "radical" theology in the final paragraph aside, and his key leadership role in an institute that's received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exxon-Mobil aside, and the fact that USA Today actually had to re-run this old article with a correction aside, and the numerous other deliberate errors and omissions aside (Gore's personal carbon offest are above and beyond what Paramount Classics pays; Gore has never owned or controlled stock in Occidental -- his DAD did, years ago; Gore IS adding photovoltaic panels to his homes, and on, and on)...

Gore's views are an "apocalyptic vision". Have you seen the movie? Manhattan underwater in < 100 years. That's not apocalyptic?

The things Schweizer states in the article about Gore are true, are they not? Leave it at that. I don't give a sh*t who Schweizer is and what he represents, I posted it for the facts he lays out.

Gore inherited his fathers estate (eg stock), hence he owned directly or indirectly shares of Occidental.

Well, JibJab, if you honestly don't understand why this man wrote this piece attacking this man on this topic in the first place, I can't help you.

And if you can't get your mind around the concept of attacking the messenger when the message itself is difficult to rebut... well, I can't help you there, either. Hell, I doubt that anyone can.

The facts are the facts. Doesn't matter who they came from because Gore admitted they're accurate.

Gore is a hypocrite.

[JerseyGuy]

Wow. I'm not even sure we're speaking the same language.

Until recently, you said that you still weren't convinced of mankind's impact on global warming. Have you now changed your mind? Again? If not, why on Earth would you suggest that the goverment give tax breaks for so-called greenhouse-gas reducing activities?

And regarding my little mini-historical analysis... My point is that, while we may NOW be fully "against" child labor or cancer-causing tobacco as a society, that wasn't ALWAYS the case, now was it? In fact, powerful interests used to protect those who used child labor, and those who benefitted from the tobacco leaf, and used to attack -- vehemently -- those who would dare to keep children out of factories (Communists! Socialists! Anti-American Anti-Business Types!) or those who had the audacity to assert that cigarettes kiil people (Alarmists! Anti-Farmers! Big Government-Types Who Think They Know Better Than You!) Sound familiar?

The "comparison" is only "poor" is your idea of a "firm grasp of history" means what you read on foxnews.com during a lunch break last week.

And -- by the way -- several of the things Schweitzer states in the article are most certainly NOT true, and they've all already been detailed elsewhere in this thread.

Oh, and one more thing... yes, you're right. "f*** The Earth", clearly, is Al Gore's motto. Sigh...

[XtremeJibber2001]

Wow. I'm not even sure we're speaking the same language.

Until recently, you said that you still weren't convinced of mankind's impact on global warming. Have you now changed your mind? Again? If not, why on Earth would you suggest that the goverment give tax breaks for so-called greenhouse-gas reducing activities?

.... because it's good for the planet and I think it's good to improve the environment in which we live.

And regarding my little mini-historical analysis... My point is that, while we may NOW be fully "against" child labor or cancer-causing tobacco as a society, that wasn't ALWAYS the case, now was it? In fact, powerful interests used to protect those who used child labor, and those who benefitted from the tobacco leaf, and used to attack -- vehemently -- those who would dare to keep children out of factories (Communists! Socialists! Anti-American Anti-Business Types!) or those who had the audacity to assert that cigarettes kiil people (Alarmists! Anti-Farmers! Big Government-Types Who Think They Know Better Than You!) Sound familiar?

So you're saying if Al Gore was against child labor, but had ten year olds mowing his lawn it would be ok? That's what Al Gore is doing, he wants to improve the planet and reduce Global Warming, but his activities lead me to think otherwise. Actions speak louder then words, I think you'd agree.

The "comparison" is only "poor" is your idea of a "firm grasp of history" means what you read on foxnews.com during a lunch break last week.

Luckily, history doesn't really apply that significantly when discussing Gore being a hypocrite. Again, another personal attack with no substance to add to the discussion. I say it a million times more until it gets through that thick skull of yours, I don't watch Fox.

And -- by the way -- several of the things Schweitzer states in the article are most certainly NOT true, and they've all already been detailed elsewhere in this thread.

I know one thing that wasn't true and it's include in my original post. Feel free to highlight in bold the "untrue" segments and repost the article.

Oh, and one more thing... yes, you're right. "f*** The Earth", clearly, is Al Gore's motto. Sigh...

Can you provide a better explanation for why he had a personal jet fly him around the World while he was promoting conservation of energy and the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere? You can't see the irony?

He says the World will be fcuked in 10 years if changes aren't made, but one of the changes he suggests, he throws out the window ... clear hypocrisy. Feel free to share your explanation, I'd love to hear it.

[JerseyGuy]

I'm speechless. Well, about as close to speechless as I ever get.

Still, I'll try one last time to respond in a coherent manner -- even if coherence means as much to JibJab as does space travel to a duck -- and then I'm giving up on this thread.

1. I'm glad to hear that you think that Big Government should encourage us to do good things by giving tax breaks for reducing CO2, despite the fact that you aren't convinced that mankind's CO2 output has anything to do with global warming.

I feel the same way. Except for the, you know, the Earth-may-still-be-flat part.

2. Your lawn-mowing comparison's a little off. See, you're assuming that, in order to campaign against child labor, Al Gore would HAVE to hire ten-year-olds to mow his lawn. He wouldn't have to.

But in order to travel around the world to campaign against global warming, he HAS to participate in actitivites that add CO2 to the atmosphere -- flying, driving, sailing, etc. He has no choice because the altrenative technology doesn't yet exist. So he flies in jets and drives in cars and then he and his company attempts to offset the CO2 emissions by purchasing matching credits to fund alternative energy development elsewhere.

What, instead, should he do? Stay at home and hope that the problem solves itself? (And all the Gore-haters in the room said, "Amen!") Or should he go out and release more CO2 on a short-term basis in order to convince everyone to release less CO2 on a long-term basis?

You know, it's kinda like war, in a way. Fight 'em over there so you don't have to fight 'em over here. Engage in heightened pain, suffering and bloodshed for a short period of time in a contained arena in order to preserve long-term safety on a global scale. Wage war in order to win peace.

Hmm. That's not working out too well, either. Maybe we can buy Gore a nice new Schwinn...

Or maybe those tax breaks will help.

3. "I say it a million times more until it gets through that thick skull of yours, I don't watch Fox."

... which is especially funny when you realize that I specifically mentioned "foxnews.com", NOT Fox News (TV), and you've posted articles on this board from foxnews.com repeatedly.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good zinger. "Thick skull"! Good one! Despite the fact that I'm, like a hundred times smarter than you are, and you apparently don't read too well. Still, nice try.

4. OK, the parts of the original article that are untrue:

"And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)"

WRONG. Gore offsets his own personal CO2 productions, IN ADDITION to what Paramount Classics pays.

"So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum?"

WRONG. He dumped his father's stock six YEARS ago. And he never owned any himself.

"But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths. "

SIN OF OMISSION. Schweizer conveniently neglects to mention that the Gores have been installing a massive array of photovoltaic panels on at least one of their homes. Of course, what Schweizer is only focusing on here is the extra cost of purchasing "wind credits" -- one of the actions Bubba compared to rich Northerners buying their way out of wartime duty in the Civil War.

AND, of course, there's the zinc mine issue, on which USA Today has already called Schweizer to the carpet.

Look, JibJab. You don't like Gore and still aren't convinced that manmade global warming is real. I'm not a huge Gore fan, but I admire him more than you do, and I do believe that manmade global warming is real. We're going to agree to disagree on this one.

All I'm saying is that, in this polarized world in which we live, you HAVE to examine "articles" like this one with a sharper and perhaps more cynical eye. Schweizer's agenda here dovetails neatly with the rest of his own professional and political career, and you have to keep that in mind when you read stuff like this... just as we can't take everything the Michael Moores of the world say without a very large grain of salt.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I'm speechless. Well, about as close to speechless as I ever get.

I always have something to say , but I'm sure you know that, haha.

Still, I'll try one last time to respond in a coherent manner -- even if coherence means as much to JibJab as does space travel to a duck -- and then I'm giving up on this thread.

1. I'm glad to hear that you think that Big Government should encourage us to do good things by giving tax breaks for reducing CO2, despite the fact that you aren't convinced that mankind's CO2 output has anything to do with global warming.

I feel the same way. Except for the, you know, the Earth-may-still-be-flat part.

Correct.

2. Your lawn-mowing comparison's a little off. See, you're assuming that, in order to campaign against child labor, Al Gore would HAVE to hire ten-year-olds to mow his lawn. He wouldn't have to.

But in order to travel around the world to campaign against global warming, he HAS to participate in actitivites that add CO2 to the atmosphere -- flying, driving, sailing, etc. He has no choice because the altrenative technology doesn't yet exist. So he flies in jets and drives in cars and then he and his company attempts to offset the CO2 emissions by purchasing matching credits to fund alternative energy development elsewhere.

Sure he has a choice, he could fly commercial, this would remove the additional jet in the sky that's not needed.

What, instead, should he do? Stay at home and hope that the problem solves itself? (And all the Gore-haters in the room said, "Amen!") Or should he go out and release more CO2 on a short-term basis in order to convince everyone to release less CO2 on a long-term basis?

He should fly commercially, why put another plane in the sky and increase CO2 for one person? It would be much more environmentally friendly to fly commercially.

You know, it's kinda like war, in a way. Fight 'em over there so you don't have to fight 'em over here. Engage in heightened pain, suffering and bloodshed for a short period of time in a contained arena in order to preserve long-term safety on a global scale. Wage war in order to win peace.

Poor comparison, it's nothing like war.

If it is like war and you're equating ones carbon footprint and connect it to future deaths from Global Warming, then you could say Gore is killing 1.2 people (just an example) every 500 miles he flies in a private jet versus flying commercially with the rest of us where his footprint only kills .006 people because the carbon footprint is shared amongst the 200 passengers on the standard 757.

3. "I say it a million times more until it gets through that thick skull of yours, I don't watch Fox."

... which is especially funny when you realize that I specifically mentioned "foxnews.com", NOT Fox News (TV), and you've posted articles on this board from foxnews.com repeatedly.

I believe I posted one and only one, if you can post more, feel free, but my primary source over the years is CNN and others can confirm this.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good zinger. "Thick skull"! Good one! Despite the fact that I'm, like a hundred times smarter than you are, and you apparently don't read too well. Still, nice try.

Another personal attack. A difference in opinion is in no way correlated with intelligence, unless you've read research that concludes otherwise.

4. OK, the parts of the original article that are untrue:

"And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)"

WRONG. Gore offsets his own personal CO2 productions, IN ADDITION to what Paramount Classics pays.

I don't have my CPA (yet), but how can Gore get an energy credit for a plane he's not paying for? Care to point to the tax code that points to "Tax Credits for Items You Didn't Pay For, but Want The Tax Break/Energy Credit Anyway"?

"So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum?"

WRONG. He dumped his father's stock six YEARS ago. And he never owned any himself.

I spent limited time searching, but can't find where it states he sold all his father's stock six years ago, can you post the link you found?

Otherwise, if this is true, the dividend on OXY is substantial ... while the stock didn't see profound growth since 98 (Gore's fathers death), his fathers estate undoubtedly grew substantially from the dividend over the next three years. What did Gore do with the payouts?

"But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths. "

SIN OF OMISSION. Schweizer conveniently neglects to mention that the Gores have been installing a massive array of photovoltaic panels on at least one of their homes. Of course, what Schweizer is only focusing on here is the extra cost of purchasing "wind credits" -- one of the actions Bubba compared to rich Northerners buying their way out of wartime duty in the Civil War.

AND, of course, there's the zinc mine issue, on which USA Today has already called Schweizer to the carpet.

Schweizer was correct on the mine issue, but as noted by USA Today, this is no longer the case, but up to 2003, Gore did recieve royalties and probably pocketed them ... he could have used them to place photovoltaic panels on ALL his homes. However, I can't find an article that confirms Al Gore is installing photovoltaic panels on any of his home, much less one, can you post the link?

Look, JibJab. You don't like Gore and still aren't convinced that manmade global warming is real. I'm not a huge Gore fan, but I admire him more than you do, and I do believe that manmade global warming is real. We're going to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't like Gore's political views and I don't like hypocrites.

You're correct that I'm not convinced that GW is man made, heck even the "scientific" community said they are only "90%" sure (who knows what "scientific" methodology they used to come up with that number). I admire him for bringing attention to a Global issue, but I don't admire him for the misrepresentation of data and his bleeding hypocrisy.

All I'm saying is that, in this polarized world in which we live, you HAVE to examine "articles" like this one with a sharper and perhaps more cynical eye. Schweizer's agenda here dovetails neatly with the rest of his own professional and political career, and you have to keep that in mind when you read stuff like this... just as we can't take everything the Michael Moores of the world say without a very large grain of salt.

You're right, I gave the article the "hairy eye ball". Other sources I found confirmed what Schweizer had published (including Gore's own admission) and I couldn't find articles that disprove what he said ... above I've asked you to post some links that point out the "untrue" parts of Schweizer's post.