Al might believe he is doing the right thing but he does not pratice it. I
think it will make him very rich. Not that there is anything wrong with
that. Just that he is doing it the way that rubs me up. He is a high energy
user and will never change. He contributes to climate change more than
anyone I know. A true greeny would not want to be associated with such a
person.

I don't know anything about his personal energy usage other than what
the Right says about it, and I've learned not to trust anything they
say (cf. the new verb "to Swiftboat someone") unless it's confirmed
somewhere else.

I do believe that personal habits alone will never be the solution to
any kind of environmental problem. If I cut back my energy usage by
half, someone else will be more than willing to burn my share. It
requires a coordinated, global energy policy. To the extent that Gore
helps achieve such a policy through his public activities, it will
more than make up for his personal usage, in my opinion.

that. Just that he is doing it the way that rubs me up. He is a high energy
user and will never change. He contributes to climate change more than
anyone I know. A true greeny would not want to be associated with such a
person.

I don't know anything about his personal energy usage other than what
the Right says about it, and I've learned not to trust anything they
say (cf. the new verb "to Swiftboat someone") unless it's confirmed
somewhere else.


I just did some googling on this and came up with the following
article:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/gov...ore_energy.htm

You have to read both pages to get the full picture; then you can
decide for yourself whether he's a hypocrite.

Personally, I'd like to see his energy usage compared with other folks
of comparable wealth, not with that of the average American.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:19:42 -0000, qzectb wrote:


that. Just that he is doing it the way that rubs me up. He is a high energy
user and will never change. He contributes to climate change more than
anyone I know. A true greeny would not want to be associated with such a
person.

I don't know anything about his personal energy usage other than what
the Right says about it, and I've learned not to trust anything they
say (cf. the new verb "to Swiftboat someone") unless it's confirmed
somewhere else.


I just did some googling on this and came up with the following
article:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/gov...ore_energy.htm

You have to read both pages to get the full picture; then you can
decide for yourself whether he's a hypocrite.

Personally, I'd like to see his energy usage compared with other folks
of comparable wealth, not with that of the average American.





It's okay for him. Check the snopes site for comments.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

qzectb wrote in news:1192252380.965157.87110
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

I don't know anything about his personal energy usage other than what
the Right says about it, and I've learned not to trust anything they
say (cf. the new verb "to Swiftboat someone") unless it's confirmed
somewhere else.

"Swiftboat" (verb): To tell the truth about a deranged, extremely
hypocritical individual with a hugely inflated self image.

qzectb wrote in news:1192249862.444895.284080
@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:


Even if he'd done original research, there is no prize for
atmospheric and climate science. The closest thing so far
was the people who got the chemistry prize for their work
on stratospheric ozone depletion.

Rush Limbaugh had called ozone depletion "alarmist pseudoscience" too,
just like he does AGW now. In the former case, he specifically
offered the following "proofs":

1) CFCs are heavier than air (true), therefore they could never get to
the stratosphere to deplete ozone (absolutely, utterly false); and

2) The ocean emits far more chlorine into the atmosphere than CFCs do
(true); therefore CFCs can't possibly be the major source of chlorine
in the stratosphere (absolutely, utterly false).

Anyone who gets their "science" from Rush Limbaugh should think twice
about parroting it, because he's proven with his own record that his
opinions on science are worthless.

Mostly agreed.

Ironically, Rush Limbaugh was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
He would have been at least as worthy a recipient as Algore...

somewhere else.

"Swiftboat" (verb): To tell the truth about a deranged, extremely
hypocritical individual with a hugely inflated self image.

Anybody who actually sifts fact from distortion knows that the most of
what the Swiftboaters claimed about Kerry was ultimately discredited
by witnesses who were closer to the scene.

"Swiftboat" (verb): To tell the truth about a deranged, extremely
hypocritical individual with a hugely inflated self image.

Anybody who actually sifts fact from distortion knows that the most of
what the Swiftboaters claimed about Kerry was ultimately discredited
by witnesses who were closer to the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_V...of_allegations

"qzectb" wrote in message
ps.com...


"Swiftboat" (verb): To tell the truth about a deranged, extremely
hypocritical individual with a hugely inflated self image.

Anybody who actually sifts fact from distortion knows that the most of
what the Swiftboaters claimed about Kerry was ultimately discredited
by witnesses who were closer to the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_V...of_allegations


Different people have different memories of events.

Eyewitness accounts vary.

Remember Kitty Genovese?

38 witnesses, who never called police, when questioned gave over 20 descriptions of the
perp.

And don't forget the Kerry side had memory problems as well.

On Oct 13, 11:54 am, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"qzectb" wrote in message

ps.com...



"Swiftboat" (verb): To tell the truth about a deranged, extremely
hypocritical individual with a hugely inflated self image.

Anybody who actually sifts fact from distortion knows that the most of
what the Swiftboaters claimed about Kerry was ultimately discredited
by witnesses who were closer to the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_V...uth#Truth_of_a...

Different people have different memories of events.

Eyewitness accounts vary.

Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear to me that deliberately dishonest
smears are an established tactic in Karl Rove's GOP. Look at what the
Bush campaign did to McCain in the 2000 campaign. Any time these
allegations have been independently investigated, they've been
revealed as distortions or even outright fabrications.



Remember Kitty Genovese?

38 witnesses, who never called police, when questioned gave over 20 descriptions of the
perp.

This is not even close to relevant, given the respective facts and
allegations of the two cases. One was a one-time event witnessed by
people who just happened to be nearby. The other consisted of smears
by people who represented themselves as have been around Kerry closely
enough, and long enough, to dispute the facts behind his Purple Heart,
among many other things.


And don't forget the Kerry side had memory problems as well.

Such as? I don't recall Kerry smearing a political opponent based on
"memories" of something the opponent did almost four decades earlier.

"qzectb" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 13, 11:54 am, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"qzectb" wrote in message

ps.com...



"Swiftboat" (verb): To tell the truth about a deranged, extremely
hypocritical individual with a hugely inflated self image.

Anybody who actually sifts fact from distortion knows that the most of
what the Swiftboaters claimed about Kerry was ultimately discredited
by witnesses who were closer to the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_V...uth#Truth_of_a...

Different people have different memories of events.

Eyewitness accounts vary.

Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear to me that deliberately dishonest
smears are an established tactic in Karl Rove's GOP. Look at what the
Bush campaign did to McCain in the 2000 campaign. Any time these
allegations have been independently investigated, they've been
revealed as distortions or even outright fabrications.


It is pretty clear that you are biased and refuse to take a good look at what was said.


Remember Kitty Genovese?

38 witnesses, who never called police, when questioned gave over 20 descriptions of
the
perp.

This is not even close to relevant, given the respective facts and
allegations of the two cases. One was a one-time event witnessed by
people who just happened to be nearby. The other consisted of smears
by people who represented themselves as have been around Kerry closely
enough, and long enough, to dispute the facts behind his Purple Heart,
among many other things.

Very close to relevant - eyewitnesses can be wrong.



And don't forget the Kerry side had memory problems as well.

Such as? I don't recall Kerry smearing a political opponent based on
"memories" of something the opponent did almost four decades earlier.




In regard to the swiftboats, Kerry placed himself on a boat on a certain day, during a
certain action, when he wasn't there. He was later in command of that boat - was that a
lie are a mistaken memory?

One of the eyewitnesses that supported Kerry place himself in the same situation as Kerry
above - was that a lie are a mistaken memory?


Kerry's trip to Cambodia, near Cambodia, near whatever and running guns to the Khmer
Rouge?

Lies and mistakes cut both ways.