How Gore's Massive Energy Consumption...

..... saves the world.....

If you don't like Mark Steyn and you love Al Bore.... this isn't for you....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/2...TEYN04.article

Bravo.

It is good to see this guy exposed for what he really is. A hypocrit.

Suddenly cool Al Gore looks like a good choice

Mercury News Editorial

Al Gore could become the only man to win an Oscar, a Nobel Prize and his party's presidential nomination within a span of 12 months.
He already has collected an Oscar for his global-warming documentary ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' (Actually, that's two Oscars, if you count best song.) He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by an admiring Norwegian lawmaker. But to have a shot at the trifecta -- California's presidential primary will be 11 months from tomorrow -- Gore will have to declare himself a candidate for president.
We hope he goes for it.
Gore has said repeatedly that he's happy doing what he's doing, while not irrevocably ruling out a run. Friends and former aides are hedging bets.
In coming months, we'll be seeing plenty of him. He'll be promoting his new book and orchestrating a seven-continent concert extravaganza to raise awareness of global warming. (On 7/7/07, the sun will never set on impresario Al Gore's empire.) But by fall, it may not be just the Earth that needs saving, but also the Democratic Party.
He wouldn't be the only good candidate; at this point, every Democrat in the race looks Lincolnesque compared with George W. Bush. And for all the time Gore has spent around Hollywood, he'll never be a great campaigner. Even Cameron Diaz can't loosen him up. When he's in front of a crowd, he still tends to sound patronizing.
But on the issues that most Americans and most in the valley care about -- the war, the fragile state of the Earth, the transforming power of technology -- Gore has been out front, resolute and right.
The man who has turned global warming from enviro-grumbling into a powerful cause is more popular now than seven years ago, when the majority of Americans thought they had elected him president.
Liberated from politics the past seven years, Gore has shown sides of himself that most Americans didn't see when he was in Bill Clinton's shadow and when he made that uninspiring run for president in 2000.
At this point, he may be the strongest, ablest Democratic candidate of his generation.
If, after what promises to be a long and tiring campaign summer, Hillary Rodham Clinton grates, Barack Obama falters, Joe Biden again stumbles, John Edwards fades and Bill Richardson crumbles -- not unlikely scenarios -- the nomination may be Gore's for the taking.
Gore has stood by long-held convictions. He came out early and strongly against the war. What was dismissed then as sour grapes is now praised as wisdom.
The first President Bush mocked him as ``ozone man.'' Now, corporations seek his counsel on global warming.
Liberated from Washington, Gore has expanded his reach from Silicon Valley, which he has frequented for years, to Hollywood, where he was able to translate his knowledge into a populist movement. He's on a first-name basis with Leonardo DiCaprio and Steve Jobs. He has served as an adviser to Google and board member of Apple. He's developed a Silicon Valley perspective not for the sake of cocktail chatter or campaign cash but out of a longstanding fascination with the Internet. (His alleged claim to have invented the Internet is a bum rap, but he was talking it up long before most members of Congress had even heard of e-mail.)
``An Inconvenient Truth'' has made environmental activism -- and Gore, in all his woodenness -- cool again. Thousands flock to his lectures on campuses. Rock stars go gaga over him.
But more important, international leaders, who turned against America when Bush scoffed at treaties and rejected diplomacy, respect and admire Gore.
However much he has achieved in the past seven years, President Gore could achieve what citizen Gore cannot. So bide your time, Al Gore, as Bobby Kennedy did in '68. The campaign is too long as it is. But don't waver when the moment comes.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/

Well, Gore's estate uses all those kilowatts for the electric fence. It's in Tennesse after all.

Yup... and his backyard is lined with those not so eco-freindly gas lamps.

Pollute Away Gore... you've got Carbon Credits in the bank!

Oh what a miracle it would be for Al to run for the Democrat Ticket for 2008! Then we could watch Hillary, Obama, and Al hack away at each other only to be trounced once again in the finals.

Please run Al!

I really don't think the republicans have a chance in hell at getting back into the Whitehouse come 2008 elections. Bush has done a good job of guaranteeing republicans won't be ruling the whitehouse for another decade or so.

EagleSmack

Do you think that if Gore wins a Nobel prize, two Oscars, and the nomination, there is anything that will keep him out of the whitehouse? If he does get a Nobel prize, he would be a shoo-in for the nomination.

Well, Oscars only count with the left coast. And if being president only requires being nominated for a Nobel prize, then the co-founder of the Crips Mr. Stanley "Tookie" Williams, should have ran in the last election. Unfortunately he can't run now because writing children's books doesn't quite absolve you of quadruple murders and get you unstrapped from the gurney.

The most likely thing that will keep the Goreacle out of office is himself. Unless maybe he can fake a good black accent like his "sistah" Hillary Clinton

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index...eblog/bs_hill/

But really....you would think that fear alone would stop him from whatever he is doing in that mansion of his if he believed one ounce of what he preaches to every body else.

Come on people....

Al Gore's personal lifestyle and energy consumption have absolutely nothing to do with whether the claims he puts forth in his documentary are true or not. Attack those if you think you have the data and analyses that show he's wrong. Attacking him personally is irrelevant to the case for or against global warming.

Yup, but it's fun showing just how big a hypocrite he is. Especially when he tells others to become more conscientious. Same with the "Governator". "You folks shouldn't drive SUVs, but it's okay for me to drive one of my 5 Hummers."

I don't believe anybody tried to make a case against Global Warming in this thread, but rather Al Gore's hypocrisy. Let's face it, when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility runs shallow.

Again point made - check point:

Personalizing, pontificating and politicizing the important topic of "global warming" if that is what is the best name we can come up with......

.... will not answer the problem.

If Gore and all the other celebrities continue to make this an "issue" against any government or political philosophy or corporate pirateering, they will only give us their shrill voices emanating from empty headedness. Much ado about nothing.

This is a scientific matter... the "global warming" should come from the scientific community getting together in studies, shared information and realization we are all affected if this is fact and not fiction.

I am reminded how the public bow and scrape before Angelina Jolie who travels to poverty ridden nations to adopt children - when just down the road in her own nation - there are children living the same abject poverty, malnourished and starving, parents dying of AIDs, and it ain't Darfur.... it's the USA.

If we continue to listen to narcissistic celebrities and political mavens, we will continue down the road of division and non-solution. Perhaps that is because nobody wishes to do the gutwork necessary...but would rather perform before the cameras and microphones.

ITN

A sound advice for the American administration over the past fifty years and it hasn't made an iota of difference to them....

Curiosity

Canada's own eco-nut David Suzuki has been grilled for using a tour bus to get the message out to Canadians....hypocrisy knows no limits...

Anything that engages people in thinking-about and talking-about what we're doing to our planet is good....

Even if it's from a guy who lives in a nation that lies and goes to war on a the basis of a lie...

There are many mansions in Nashville Tennessee and indeed many mansions in the U.S, and I'm sure we could find many mansions bigger than that of al Gore.

http://www.viviun.com/Real_Estate/America/Mansions/

Gore is said to be adding insulation and solar panels to make hs mansion more eco friendly but a 10,000 sq. foot mansion will never be that eco friendly, depending how many people live there.

Golly gee Juan....

Is Al going to do all his other residences? There are more...

His luxury place in San Francisco is mostly window (hopefully double-paned but in SFO who cares?).... he bought that one so his daughter could have a place to hang in while going to college....

Big Al is the bottom of the iceberg when it comes to abuse of power both energy power and political/celebrity power by the big names flying around the country in their private or rented personal jets.....I'm talking nations other than the U.S. Because we are exposed to their shrieks, it doesn't mean the rest of the world can kick back and wait for them to make it happen.... other nations are
as faulty in the pollution contribution as anything the U.S. puffs out.

If half of them practiced conservation it would at least be honest, but this isn't going to solve global warming as it is preached to the shivering hordes of normal folk waiting for the world to melt under their asphalt roads..

With celebrity, one becomes a target. With big celebrity, one becomes an even bigger target. Al Gore had this mansion before he started talking about global warming and since he made the documentary about global warming he has been attempting to "green-up" by adding solar panels and insulation. I my view, a normal sized family in a 10,000 sq. foot house is hedonism pure and simple. On the other hand, there is bound to be an abundance of sour grapes by people who wished they had done what Gore has done and jumped on the wagon instead of Gore. If I were Gore, I would dump that mamsion and build the most fuel efficient place possible....Maybe he will. It would be good business......

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...18/lkl.01.html

http://www.thestar.com/article/184521

Well, if he's been enviro-conscious since the 60s, one would have thought that by now, with his resources, he'd be one of the most conscientious people on the planet. But, instead he's just getting around to solar panels and replacing incandescent lamps????????? Same with the governor of the most environmentally conscious state in the US. Did these people misplace their resources for a while? Forgot about them?

Gore is just a well known blow hard....

Nobody seems to acknowledge on this topic of knowledgeable "greenies"....the name of Ralph Nader...
ho hum.... see how up to date we all are?

The guy has been living environment and pollution mitigation his whole life.... stakes his political ambitions on that issue....and he's lost in a dusty tsunami of "AlBoredom"....

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0721-01.htm

Bottom line:

Bush doesn't even believe in the climate crisis (or so he is told to say). Gore obviously wants to help the problem by getting the USA (the #1 polluter) to reduce GHG emissions.

Assuming Gore feels that americans care about the climate crisis and he decides to run for president, vote him in and see what he does.

I'm sure he'll improve the polluting and the deception that is going on now. Who knows, maybe he'll even improve the tarnished reputation the US has with most of the international community.

republicans= war + continued polluting + bad international relations

democrats= ???? (but how could it be as bad?)

RedGreen - any more adhominem for us....with links???

Oh please - compare primary residence of Bush and Gore and lifestyle.....

They are totally different humans and nobody is "selling" Bush to be an environmentalist either...

Gore would have been absolutely no better in office regarding care of the environment.

He is only latching on to the best available large number crowd which is safe to expound his phony self on..... he wrote a book.... therefore he is an expert? He probably had a dozen writers on the project and he is their front man....

I can't understand why people are hooked on this guy.... he's as much a politician as the next guy when it comes to selling his "wares"...

More Gore


Quote:
Al Gore's Remission of Sin
By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why amongst even the French -- the most secular culture on Earth -- only 25 percent claim to be atheists, and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.

This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London professor Dr. David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.

While I suspect that most global warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World." (Columbia University Press).

As Professor Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."

Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:

"Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists a perfect 21st Century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."

Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.

And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is -- a religion. The trouble with global warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science -- not religion.

And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks -- the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.

At the Academy Awards last month, their spokesman proudly announced that this year's show was "the first green Oscars." These vast consumers of energy -- in their 30,000-sqare-foot houses, their Gulfstream jets and even in their high-energy consumption film production process -- claimed green remission of sin by virtue of driving the last hundred yards to the Kodak Theatre in Priuses and by buying carbon credits.

Likewise, when Al Gore was revealed to be using high quantities of energy to heat and cool his large home, he claimed it was OK because he had purchased carbon offset credits. Substantively, these offsets are of dubious environmental value (see Daily Telegraph article: "Is Carbon Offsetting a Con"; BBC's "U.K. to Tackle Bogus Carbon Schemes"; Wall St. Journal's "The Political and Business Self-interest Behind Carbon Limits.")

But as, what the Catholic Church calls "indulgentia a culpa et a poena" (release from guilt and from punishment), paying carbon offset fees makes perfect religious sense. The Christian sinner pays the church for "a remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the church in the exercise of the powers of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

In the animistic church, any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners -- such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman.)

In the neo-animist church of global warming -- as in all religions -- the truth is acquired by faith -- not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans.

Townhall.com


_________________

Oh don't be too sure about that. That is what they said last election. Two years with a Dem controlled house.

Look at the Dem front runners... Hillary and Obama. Hillary is so polarizing even to women. Obama is a minority and that will play a role with a lot of the country. One will go up against either McCaine who is a moderate REP with a lot of Democrat views. Gulianni is America's Mayor and will forever be known for his courage during 9/11.

Mark my words... next election there will be a new GOP Pres.

Gore dump his mansion! This is a big laugh. I have not heard of any for sale sign up on his lawn yet.

Yes... millions of voters that can't stand him and who didn't vote for him the first time.

Do you think America gives two hoots about Oscars?!We like our movies but Hollywood types (and Gore is now one of them) aren't looked on with admiration. And the Nobel prize, although prestigious, will not gather votes. The Dem Party would not even want him.

I have an idea... Canada can adopt him and make him PM.