Home / AlGore
Showing posts with label AlGore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AlGore. Show all posts
Keith Olbermann claims Al Gore is unethical

Keith Olbermann claims Al Gore is unethical

From the Daily Beast:

The anchor, who divided his time at Current between feuding with his bosses and tweeting pictures of the sunset, responded to the network’s statement via Twitter, accusing Gore and Hyatt of not upholding their end of the bargain and vowing to sue. “In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out,” he wrote. . . .
If true, this is pretty amazing.

According to Mediaite, a source at Current TV said the formerCountdown host went through eight different car services while working at the network, complaining that the drivers "smelled" and "talked to him." . . . 
Revisiting the Half billion dollar loan Al Gore's car company got to build cars in Finland

Revisiting the Half billion dollar loan Al Gore's car company got to build cars in Finland

Remember this from 2009? Loans rejected by private lenders? Why is the federal government think that it can do a better job of figuring out where the best investments are? Why subsidize cars for the wealth? Why subsidize production in Finland and Britain? Giving money that no private lender would lend to a well connected Democrat? Shades of Solyndra? These just makes it seem as if this stimulus was just a way of funneling money to Democrats. From the WSJ:

A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.

The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.

The awards to Fisker and Tesla have prompted concern from companies that have had their bids for loans rejected, and criticism from groups that question why vehicles aimed at the wealthiest customers are getting loans subsidized by taxpayers.

"This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-tax group in Washington. "This is for people to put something in their driveway that is a conversation piece. It's status symbol thing." . . .


So how has it worked out?

Jim Cramer has this new discussion:

Cramer is bearish on Tesla Motors (TSLA), and he suggests selling if you own it. The California-based Tesla has a P/E ratio of -11.2, and a forward P/E ratio of -13.2, as of the September 12 close. Five-year annualized EPS growth forecast is 20.0%. Tesla pays no dividend yield. . . .


"Avoid the Stock"

The above link shows that this investment just makes no sense.

Something from the beginning of the year:

Tesla Motors is attempting to rapidly expand into the mainstream electric car market but we have concerns with its dependence on lithium. Lithium is believed to have the second smallest accessible metal supply in the world, which stands right above the “rare earth metals” category. Should Tesla be highly successful and sell thousands of its new Model S in conjunction with other large scale electric car competitors there is a real probability that the price of lithium batteries could sky rocket. Given that this is the most expensive part of an electric car this could destroy a profit margin that Tesla doesn’t even have yet. . . .

It’s unbelievable how competition has come out of the woodwork for the electric car space with big names like Ford (F), Toyota (TM), Nissan (NSANY.PK), and more in the line up. . . . If Toyota or other major names find the space unprofitable they can leave it and survive but this isn’t the case for Tesla Motors. Further, big auto names can afford to hang out in this space longer and may even attempt to financially bleed out Tesla Motors. The only hope Tesla Motors has in surviving currently against competition is to start running circles around them in terms of sales numbers. Otherwise it may get squashed like a fly if it stops to take a breather. . . .


Fisker is a privately held company so I can find this type of details on that investment.
Al Gore's horrible Science grades and standardized test scores

Al Gore's horrible Science grades and standardized test scores

Test scores don't tell us everything and they aren't perfect, but these are pretty weak and the weak scores are seen again and again.

In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a “D” in Natural Sciences.
Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118.
Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming.
For his college board achievement tests, Gore earned a 488 (out of 800) in physics, and a 519 (out of 800) in chemistry. Gore’s academic records were first obtained and reported on by reporters David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima at The Washington Post in March 2000. . . .
So much for Al Gore's predictions on Hurricanes

So much for Al Gore's predictions on Hurricanes

Al Gore claimed that hurricanes where caused by global warming. In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore claims:

Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.

The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile.

And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it. . . .


Now we get this news: "US escapes major hurricanes for 5th straight year"

The Atlantic hurricane season ends Tuesday, going down as one of the busiest on record but blissfully sparing the U.S. coastline a major hurricane for a fifth straight year.
While extreme tropical weather ravaged Haiti, Mexico and elsewhere, U.S. forecasters are wondering if the nation can make history and extend its luck into 2011. If so, it would be the first time ever that the U.S. escaped a major hurricane for six years.
"That would be a record I would like to break," said Dennis Feltgen, a spokesman for the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
All told, 19 named storms formed in the Atlantic, tying with the 1887 and 1995 seasons for third-highest on record. Twelve became hurricanes, tying with the 1969 season for the second-highest on record. . . .


See also this.
On second thought, Al Gore confesses that he shouldn't have supported Ethanol

On second thought, Al Gore confesses that he shouldn't have supported Ethanol

Thanks, Al, it would have been nice if you had admitted this when you were in a position to do something about it.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.
Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.
Credits for corn ethanol subsidies expire at the end of the year unless Congress moves to renew the $7.7 billion annual program. Opponents of the corn subsidies say that it removes valuable food products from the table because the U.S. ethanol industry drives up the price of corn. . . .
Two more sex scandal allegations against Gore

Two more sex scandal allegations against Gore

Given the National Enquirer got John Edwards, there might be some credibility give to this:

The ENQUIRER reports in an exclusive bombshell exclusive that police have investigated charges from TWO MORE WOMEN who claimed they were abused by former VP AL GORE!

The allegations come hot on the heels of an ongoing Portland, Ore., police investigation that reopened after The ENQUIRER exclusively revealed accusations by a licensed massage therapist who says Gore groped her in 2006.

The ENQUIRER recently uncovered shocking allegations, from two other massage therapists.

The first incident allegedly took place at a Beverly Hills luxury hotel when Gore, 62, was in Hollywood to attend the Oscars in 2007.

The second reportedly occurred a year later at a hotel in Tokyo. . . .
Al Gore Speaks out on Climate Gate

Al Gore Speaks out on Climate Gate

Gore gave this interview to the liberal Slate online publication:



Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?



A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it's sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. But the noise machine built by the climate deniers often seizes on what they can blow out of proportion, so they've thought this is a bigger deal than it is.



Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.



A: I think it's been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you're referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn't be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody's opinion that a particular study isn't any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is. These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it's completely unchanged. What we're seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our very eyes. It's been the size of the continental United States for the last 3 million years and now 40 percent is gone and the rest of it is going. The mountain glaciers are going. We've had record storms, droughts, fires, and floods. There is an air of unreality in debating these arcane points when the world is changing in such dramatic ways right in front of our eyes because of global warming.



Q: What's your view on the medieval warm period and the charge that the East Anglia e-mails suggest data was manipulated to "contain" that anomaly?



A: I haven't read those e-mails in detail, but the larger point is that there are cyclical changes in the climate and they are fairly well-understood, and all of them are included in the scientific consensus. When you look at what has happened over the last few decades the natural fluctuations point in the opposite direction of what has actually occurred. When they run the models and plug in the man-made pollution, the correspondence is exact. Beyond that, the scale of natural fluctuations has now been far exceeded by the impact of man-made global warming. . . . .




The most recent email is "more than 10 years old"? There are a lot of emails from as late as this year. One from this summer (Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM) where the AP writer Seth Borenstein is asking Michael Mann and others for help in criticizing a refereed journal article criticizing man-made global warming.



As to the claim that "The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our very eyes."



Arctic Ice Sheet since 2007

"the extent of arctic sea ice has been increasing for the last two years."

Note also: "Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking." -- Antarctica has 90 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent of its fresh water



Andrew Bolt has similar problems with Gore's comments: Climategate: Gore falsifies the record



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy





ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: Earlier this morning I sat down with former Vice President Al Gore to talk about climate change, his new book, "Our Choice," and Sarah Palin. Today, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, Palin is escalating her attack on the Copenhagen Summit. Palin calls it junk science, and writes that "The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse." I asked Al Gore to respond.



AL GORE: The global warming deniers persist in this era of unreality. After all, the entire North Polar ice cap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. 40 percent's already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade. What do they think is causing this? The mountain glaciers in every region of the world are melting, many of them at an accelerated rate, threatening drinking supplies, drinking water supplies, and agricultural water supplies. We have these record storms, droughts, floods, fires, and tree deaths in the American west. Climate refugees beginning now, expected to rise to the hundreds of millions unless we take action. These effects are taking place all over the world exactly as predicted by the scientists who have warned for years that if we continue putting 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every day, the accumulation is going to trap lots more heat, raise temperatures, and cause all of these consequences that are already beginning.




See above for why this is wrong to make it appear as if all the ice is melting.



MITCHELL: Well, one of the things that she has written recently on Facebook is that this is "Doomsday scare tactics, pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet."



GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. 150 years ago this year was the discovery that CO2 traps heat. That is a principle in physics. It is not a question of debate. It is like gravity. It exists.




OK, so? This is obviously overly simplistic. Lots of things impact temperatures (energy output from the sun, the earth's orbit, tilt of the axis) and Carbon Dioxide is just one of the greenhouse gases and it isn't even close to being the most important. Man makes only a few percent of greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases only account for a fraction of the variation in temperatures.



MITCHELL: As you know in "Our choice," there is a real partisan divide when it comes to people's attitudes. The Pew poll that you cite says 75 percent of college educated Democrats believe humans are responsible. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans. How do you figure that?



GORE: It may be partly because the tendency for many people to follow their perceived political leaders and the leadership of the modern Republican Party has really gotten into a global warming denier posture that I think has influenced some people. But it should not be a political issue. It really is a moral issue. It speaks to the responsibility of the present generation to take steps to safeguard those generations yet to come. Because this has now reached the level where if we were not to act, the consequences already beginning at a low level are predicted to reach catastrophic levels unless we take steps to prevent it from happening.



MITCHELL: There's been, according to the Pew Research, a 20% drop in the number of people in the last year. Since 2008, 71% believed that humans contributed to global warming and now it is only 51%. Do you attribute to that to the economic hard times and people focusing inward?



GORE: Well, I think that result dove tails with the first one that you cited because when you look inside that study, virtually 100% of those who changed their opinion were conservative Republicans.




But Pew actually wrote:



The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view - 75% today compared with 83% last year. . . .




Gore's interview on CNN is here.



CNN this morning where he again mentioned “private emails more than 10 years old” and a second time called the messages, “emails from long ago.”

Host John Roberts, to his credit, was quick to correct Gore saying that, “many are far more recent than that.” Gore did not respond.



Natural disasters are one of Gore’s favorite topics as he tries to equate their occurrence with global warming. He again brought up the topic this morning saying, “we've had these record storms, record droughts, floods, giant fires, unprecedented.” Many wonder why he continues to belabor this point when he has had to pull an incorrect slide from his presentation that tried to state this and recent data shows that in fact there has been no greater occurrence of weather related disasters.




Meanwhile Gore and Democrats have all sorts of nice things to say about Palin:



“Before Sarah Palin writes a book, she should try reading a few,” said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who followed up with a series of peer-reviewed reports on rising sea levels, air temperatures and ocean acidity.



Palin’s position is “worse than one of denial – it’s one of defeatism,” added Inslee, echoing earlier comments by former Vice-President Al Gore.



“Ex-Governor Palin is at it again, [she] somehow has discovered some kind of smoking gun,” added Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who compared Palin’s statements to her support of the discredited “death panel” charges over the summer.



“There is no there,” he added. “And the ex-governor’s state has [suffered] the greatest impact in terms of global warming of any state in the nation…It’s absolutely critical that we not allow the same sort of death panel, swift-boating to occur.” . . .




Palin's piece in the Washington Post is available here.
A 67 meter increase in ocean levels within 10 years? Only Al Gore could make such a claim.

A 67 meter increase in ocean levels within 10 years? Only Al Gore could make such a claim.

Does Gore get paid for these talks?

“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.

If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres, Gore said, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment. . . .
Gore misstates what British court decided on the errors in his movie

Gore misstates what British court decided on the errors in his movie

From the local Madison, Wisconsin newspaper.

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.
Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators. . . .


The movie could be shown, but the court required that a warning be first given to the children before they are shown the movie. The nine errors identified by the court:

These were identified in court as follows:

Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming.

Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct.

Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases.

Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years.

Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans.

Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up.

Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case.

Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice.

Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm.

Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age.

Finding: A scientific impossibility.

Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming.

Finding: No evidence to support the claim.

Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously.

Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia.

Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting.

Finding: It is, in fact, increasing.

Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people.

Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years.

Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand.

Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


This video gives a somewhat more benign view of the questioner's microphone being cut off.

"NYT Corrects Article Gore Cited in Congressional Testimony"

"NYT Corrects Article Gore Cited in Congressional Testimony"

On April 23rd the NY Times had this:

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995. . . . .


On May 2, 2009, had this correction.

The article cited a “backgrounder” that laid out the coalition’s public stance, published in the early 1990s and distributed widely to lawmakers and journalists. However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee’s conclusion. The later version was distributed publicly in 1998, but existed in some form as early as 1995, according to an online archive kept by Greenpeace. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was “the rate and magnitude of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ (warming) that will result.”


As this You Tube clip shows, Gore used the original article from the NY Times in his testimony.



The text of the relevant part of Gores statement includes this:

Sen. Warner made reference in his opening statement to the story on the front page of the New York Times this morning. Absolutely incredible. The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.” Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff’s fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money. . . .
Will the media pick up on this?: Look at the Apple board decisions made with Al Gore on the board

Will the media pick up on this?: Look at the Apple board decisions made with Al Gore on the board

First let me say that all four of these decisions are quite reasonable decisions, but who would have guessed that Al Gore would be on a board of directors that made these decisions? From AppleInsider:

The first proposal was advanced by the Teamsters union, which holds 2,569 shares of the company. It asks Apple to report all of the company's direct and indirect political contributions and expenditures, twice annually. Apple's directors say the proposal is "unnecessary and unproductive" and would reveal information on its private negotiations with trade associations to its competitors.

The second shareholder proposal was advanced by the AFL-CIO union, which holds 500 shares of Apple. It asks the board to adopt heath care reform principles outlined by the Institute of Medicine. Apple's directors say the measure will not benefit the company, its employees, or its shareholders, and that health care reform is a matter for the new US President and Congress to address.

A third proposal has been made by individual with less than 100 shares in Apple, but is cosponsored by the New York City Office of the Comptroller (with over two million shares) and Green Century Equity Fund (with another nearly 8,000 shares). It asks the company to deliver a report on sustainability including all corporate strategies related to climate change, the environmental impacts of toxics and recycling programs, and all employee and product safety issues. Apple's directors say the company already reports much of this information on social and environmental issues on its website, and that additional reporting obligations are unnecessary.

The last shareholder proposal is from the AFSCME Employees Pension Plan, a public health union which holds over 21,000 shares in Apple. It request the company issue a shareholders' advisory vote on executive compensation. Apple's directors say that setting executive compensation is the job of the board itself, and that limitations imposed by shareholder voting could have an adverse impact on the company's ability to recruit and retain top talent. . . .
"Al Gore Urges 'Civil Disobedience' Toward Coal Plants"

"Al Gore Urges 'Civil Disobedience' Toward Coal Plants"

Here is my question: should these protestors stop Al Gore's private jets from taking off? Here is the story:

Al Gore called Wednesday for "civil disobedience" to combat the construction of coal power plants without the ability to store carbon, Reuters reported.

The former vice president, whose efforts to raise awareness of global warming have made him the most prominent voice on that issue, made the comment during a session at the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative in Manhattan.

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore said, according to Reuters. . . . .
Al Gore in trouble again over not practicing what he preaches

Al Gore in trouble again over not practicing what he preaches

Hannity & Colmes has an interesting segment here. Gore tells those who come to the event to take bicycles to come to an event Gore was having, but Gore was coming in limos and had the air conditioning going the entire time while the cars were waiting outside the event. I personally don't care what Gore does with his energy use, but that is not what he is telling others to do.
Drew Johnson (a former intern of mine) does it again with Gore

Drew Johnson (a former intern of mine) does it again with Gore

So much for the claimed energy savings from all the green efforts that Al Gore engaged in for his home. You would think that the energy savings might even be exaggerated because Gore's life is so closely examined. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research report can be seen here:

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. . . .
Proof that Al Gore was right about Polar Bears

Proof that Al Gore was right about Polar Bears

People who have seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" will remember the animation of the poor polar bear who drowned having to swim up to 60 miles trying to find ice. Critics pointed out that the four polar bears that drowned in the "scientific study" had actually died from a storm. Now comes news of a polar bear who died after a long swim. Some of the points in the story are slightly different than in Gore's piece, but the basic point is the same as the polar bear did die after the swim. In this case, the polar bear swam 200 miles. The other difference is that the polar bear didn't drown, it was shot to death because people in Iceland thought that the bear posed a threat to people. One should also note that the ice cover at the top of the world has increased a lot over the last year. But Gore is correct that these long swims do endanger poler bears.

Some More Environmental Hypocrisy

This information was sent to me by Dan Gifford (including pictures) and he referred to this website that claimed to confirm what he wrote here.


House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.


House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.�

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of
the 'environmentalist ' Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas

It is the residence the of the President of the United States
George W. Bush.

Personally, I don't care how much energy either house uses nor how large the houses are, but it is interesting given how much Gore talks about this issue. Note also that this is only one of Gore's houses. He apparently owns several other houses.
Some Democrats talking about Al Gore as nominee

Some Democrats talking about Al Gore as nominee

John Fund writes in today's WSJ's Political Diary:

Despite the Obama momentum and recent landslides in many states, if Hillary were to win Texas, where there is a very large Hispanic vote, she would have won the four big electorate-rich states: New York, California, Florida, and Texas. That would be a strong case for many undecided Democratic superdelegates to support her notwithstanding Mr. Obama's strong showing.

What happens in a deadlocked convention? If neither candidate throws in the towel and neither can get a majority of delegates, one option is a brokered convention, where both candidates step aside for a compromise candidate. That's the way smoke-filled, dealmaking conventions used to work. One name keeps resurfacing as the ideal brokered candidate: Al Gore. Many Democratic pundits still believe the Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize winner would have the best chances against the GOP in November. His record is not nearly as far left as Senator Clinton's or Senator Obama's and he may stand a better chance of winning independent voters than either of them.

But a problem with this scenario, as one Democratic insider tells me, is that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are "mortal enemies." She would rather sleep on a bed of coals than hand the nomination to her husband's vice president, whom she constantly squabbled with in the White House. . . .
Leading Meteorologists Calls Al Gore's share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous"

Leading Meteorologists Calls Al Gore's share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous"

Futures Market predicts Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)