February 27, 2007

Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who's the greenest of them all?


Hey, Armageddon Happens.

"An alarmist correspondent recently wrote to a daily paper foretelling the collapse of the earth by reason of the constant drawing out of her vital fluid in the shape of -- oil! According to the writer, the interior of the earth is liquid oil, and if this is drawn out the outside crust must give way. Each country should pass a law constituting it a criminal offence to draw a drop of liquid oil out of the earth. In his imagination he sees cities and towns engulfed in vast chasms, and mountains shifted from their bases, while millions of human beings, old, young, rich, and poor, each with their different lamps, are marching on to destruction, sitting by their funeral pyre, the burning lamp, while smoke, fire, darkness, horror, confusion, cover the face of all things. " -- How Will the World End? by Herbert C. Fyfe. From Pearson's Magazine, July 1900

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Al's house:

"Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).... The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh -- more than 20 times the national average... Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.... Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year." (Tennessee Center for Policy Research)

George's house:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example.... This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford." (Common Dreams)

"But... but...." says the Gore machine, "We buy offsets to make ourselves effectively carbon-neutral --"

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
Here we have the new religion of "Save the Earth Not the People" reverting to an ancient religious practice of "buying indulgences" in which the wealthy could assure their ascent into heaven no matter what their sins through cash payments to the Catholic Church (or in this case the Earth Church).

Indulgences occur when the [Catholic] Church, acting by virtue of its authority, applies existing merit from the Church's treasury to an individual. The individual gains the indulgence by participating in certain activities, most often the recitation of prayers. By decree of Pope Pius V in 1567, following the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to attach the receipt of an indulgence to any financial act, including the giving of alms.

The 1567 decision by the Catholic Church took the money out of the sin equation. It is a shame that the much younger Church of the Earth has yet to have this "Reformation" but then again it is a church much younger than Islam and we're still waiting on that Reformation.

Besides, new churches need funding and there is so much money to be made in this new and improved eco-scam.

It starts at the top. No more "eco-tourism" for the rich. No more private jets to the Super Bowl. No more jet-setting across the country for high-priced speaking engagements. Either this is a crisis that will destroy all of mankind if it isn't fixed now or it's just another way for the world aristocracy to purge themselves of a false sense of noblesse oblige. If it's the former, then the private jet-set are spoiled beyond belief for acting in such an ecologically injurious manner — if it isn't then they're peddlers of snake oil and fear.

Then again are these modern day anti-carbon crusaders not merely some secular avenging angels jetting far above us to the Eco-Armageddon, their flaming swords and hooting mouths uttering the chilling screams of Gaia-Uber-Alles? Are they not, as they will remind you ad infinitum, the New Saints for our New Age, oh so holy but yet oh so secular?

Should we not genuflect before them? Should we poor sinners not worship their "sacrifice" and tap our poor shoeless feet to their "Onward Eco-Soldiers" anthems such as the immortal, 'I Need To Wake Up' as performed by the ever-dulcet Melissa Etheridge; an anthem to which one might, if drugged into insensibility by whiffing the rectitudinous aroma of recycling, possibly dance. For dance we must once the puppet strings of these New Saints are stapled into our shoulders for, as ever, our own good and for, please weep, the good of The Children.

Many in the last few days have been at pains to point out THE HYPOCRISY! of private jets, mega-mansions, international rock concerts that save the planet by polluting it, and the myriad other sins against the Holy Gaia (Blessed be Her Name, amen). But if you do, pace please, you do not have the long view of a future Waterworld worse than the movie of the same name because there shall be no Kevin Costner in it. Your mortal sin is only that you have not quaffed from the shroom cup and had "the vision."

Our New Saints have had this vision. It has been extracted from their Book of Climate Revelations like crystal meth from cold pills, and we should not gainsay it simply because their generation absorbed enough pyschoactive chemicals over the decades to gobstop a pod of blue whales. What if they did? What if all this is some bizarre vision; some acid-flashforward? Is it any less a vision for having "consensus science" behind it.

I say that we should honor their shared hallucinations, that we should not take away one iota of a scintilla of a jot of their monumental self-esteem. After all, the rich, famous and deranged have feelings too. Besides, we no longer institutionalize people who "see dead planets." We just check them into rehab for the afternoon.

We should not, say I, condemn these self-appointed and cross-annointed latter-day saviors of our poor Planet.

We should instead worship and envy them their daily martyrdom of living on a planet with people who "just don't get it!"

We should confess unto them that we are but the poorer un-sanctified humans who could not afford huge mansions and private jets.

It is our own fault that we are "left behind;" condemned to dwell in the carbon clouds of burned jet fuel to forever languish in the hellish roiling clouds of soot and pollution that mark the landscapes of America from sea to turbid sludgefilled sea.

Meanwhile, high overhead, the Goreacle and his heavenly host jet to their global rock concerts up where the champagne is always chilled and the chocolate cookies always warmed.

They are truly the Chosen and they are off into their own private Rapture.

God speed, say I. The best we can hope for here on the plains of eco-sin is a recumbent bicycle etched and rusted by the unceasing acid rain, and an invitiation to cold coffee at a modest ranch house in Crawford.

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

Posted by Vanderleun at February 27, 2007 8:42 AM | TrackBack
Save to del.icio.us


"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.


Posted by: Don Bosch (evaneco.com) at February 27, 2007 12:01 PM

Excellent insight!

Thanks! Support the troops! Send them a dead rat and tell them that this is what they can expect from the Bush administration, the VA and the American Digest if and when they return from Irag.

I understand that the above politically-incorrect paragraph might be edited or expunged because you can't accept differences of opinion.

A Bush-Hating, Raped-And-Sobbing-Uncontrollably-Cheney-Fantasy-Havin', Supporter-Of-Troops,

Bloodstomper Barbie

Posted by: bloodstomper at February 27, 2007 12:10 PM

Yea verily, do as I say,peasant, not as I do...

...and he's buy-hi-ying a stay-air-way...to hevv-uh-hun.

One law for me, and another for thee...

Can you spell "Hypocracy?"

Posted by: doug in colorado at February 27, 2007 12:42 PM

How do I know it's all shuck and jive? When I start reading things like this: "Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat's flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6)."

Posted by: Mike Anderson at February 27, 2007 1:00 PM

Pay no attention to that man behind the carbon offsets!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 27, 2007 1:13 PM

Rather than to indulgences, which are widely misunderstood, a better analogy would be to the cash payment of $300 as a "commutation fee" that those who could afford it could pay to the Union government to avoid conscription during the Civil War. Those wealthy enough could do that; an alternative was to have a substitute serve instead. (Many enlistments were of short duration, even as short as for three months.)

Posted by: ELC at February 27, 2007 1:26 PM

Gore has been very successful in getting awareness of global warming into the mainstream by writing a best selling book and helping to produce one of the highest grossing documentaries of all time. A generation of high school kids will watch "An Inconvenient Truth," and many, many of them will end up voting to do something about global warming.

Al Gore could build a gigantic lite brite portrait of himself powered by burning logs from the Amazon, and it wouldn't put a dent into the reserve of good work he has done on environmentalist issues. It's easy to poke fun at anyone who tries to lead on issues like this that involve making unpopular choices, but c'mon, it's obvious Gore does way more good through his leadership, than he does harm by his personal energy consumption. This isn't a difficult point for anyone to understand, is it?

Posted by: JerryL at February 27, 2007 1:53 PM

"...and it wouldn't put a dent into the reserve of good work he has done on environmentalist issues."

Wow. Has he got cred. Too bad his science is no good.

We still can't prove how much contribution humans make to climate change or why.

Climate alarmists still can't explain how our current trends appear to fit in with natural warming and cooling periods the earth has gone through since long before we started recording and worrying about such things.

The fact that the alarmists shout anyone who disagrees with them down with the words 'scientific consensus' shows how stupid they really are.

In a consensus you get everyone to agree. When a scientist does disagree they shout them down so they can preserve their consensus. That's not really how it's supposed to work.

That is not science. It's a cult.

Real science would involve open discussion of the evidence, posing theories and testing them. We are constantly updating our vision of the world in most areas of science.

The environmental alarmists want to close the book on this exploration and shout down debate. They belong in the same category with the folks that refused to believe the earth goes around the sun.

They want to charge anyone who disagrees with being unscientific, yet it is they who want to close the door on scientific method, and say they have the answer they want.

Posted by: tom at February 27, 2007 2:55 PM

"It's obvious Gore does way more good through his leadership, than he does harm by his personal energy consumption."

Commenters can point out, 'Do as I say, not as I do' from now until the end of time. The 'Jerry L's and 'Barbie's decided long ago to look the other way. Their fealty to Gore demonstrates their moral superiority, and, like Gore, no painful sacrifice on their part is required. (It's the rest of you that need to straighten out, dammit.)

Posted by: Mister Snitch! at February 27, 2007 3:15 PM

We've surely got trouble!
Right here in River City!
With a capital T, and that rhymes with G
And that stands for Global Warming, fool!

Posted by: wen at February 27, 2007 3:24 PM

Has anyone checked to see if Gore is growing weed in the basement? Sounds like grounds for a search to me.

Posted by: Orca at February 27, 2007 3:28 PM

the problem with the supposed "good leadership" on global warming that Gore is supposed to have, is that all the costs are on ordinary people. Not on him and his ilk. When he and the others of his ilk start living with the resources that the rest of us live with, then he gets to to preach. He isn't Jesus wandering the Galilean countryside with nothing of his own. Or Budda, leaving wealth to preach in the Deer Park. Or Martin Luther king sitting in the Birmingham jail. Or Ghandi living humbly. Gore, like all these celebrity people hasn't got any skin in this argument. Besides, all the resources that this unproved argument of human enduced global warming, is just going to take away resources from other enviromental problems, that REALLY exist. Habitat loss, pollution, disiese, hunger, etc.

Posted by: Mark sullivan at February 27, 2007 4:30 PM
...it's obvious Gore does way more good through his leadership...
No. Leadership requires you to do the things that you want others to do. Telling people to do things that you do not wish to do yourself is acting like an autocrat. Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at February 27, 2007 4:34 PM

No, it isn't obvious that anything Gore is doing is of any value and any good. His actual behavior In fact it suggests that he doesn't really believe what he is saying. It is just as plausible that he is in it for the money and the attention.

Posted by: ATM at February 27, 2007 4:36 PM

I see the resident Gore apologist has made an appearance.

"it's obvious Gore does way more good through his leadership"

What "good" would that be exactly?

" generation of high school kids will watch "An Inconvenient Truth," and many, many of them will end up voting to do something about global warming"

Mind telling us where you got your crystal ball?

" than he does harm by his personal energy consumption. This isn't a difficult point for anyone to understand, is it?"

This is an assertion you could in no way support with any sort of evidence or factual data. Which of course is why you're saying it.

But, it's nice to know you think it ok that Gore, through the force of the state, would limit our choices and freedoms, with you cheering him on course, while he can live outside of those boundaries. And you think it's ok.
Can you not see this point?

Posted by: The Ace at February 27, 2007 4:41 PM

It's questionable as to whether "leadership" on this issue is an unmitigated good.

But if one believes global warming truly is a moral issue, how does one explain Gore's actions? How does he?

Posted by: jsmith at February 27, 2007 6:04 PM

Gore has done so much good, blah blah blah. If a religious leader were to be caught with a computer full of child porn, how sympathetic would you be to arguments like, "It's okay because he's done so much to help victims of child abuse"? If you publicly state that your cause is a matter of morality (religion, basically) then you open yourself up to charges of hypocrisy.

Posted by: PookyBear at February 27, 2007 6:05 PM

JerryL: I read a little book sometime ago. It's called the Emperor's Gardener. It's about France's Sun King Louis something. France was in a famine, those peasants who dared poach a deer or two from the King's forest were executed. The Gardener toiled all his life to develope better crops to help the peasants. When the King had a baby, the peasants whom the gardener helped scraped and saved the meagre food they had to send them to the King. Did the King appreciate it?

JerryL, you have a peasant mentality. The king on high can do whatever he wants, the poor peasants should understand and indulge him because he is the king. Poor JerryL, we live in a democracy. Our leader should lead by example, not by doing things that the rest of the poor masses are not supposed to do. If Gore wants to indulge himself, do it, but don't lecture us. Gore does way more good if he leads by example. In this case, he can't even lead himself because he knows what he says are craps. What kind of leadership is that?

Posted by: ic at February 27, 2007 6:55 PM

So the Goracle - arrogant, rich dolt that he is - has the dough to pay a "carbon tax" to continue living the high life while demanding that the peasants live in squalor for the sake of Mother Earth. What inspirational leadership!

And it is squalor we are talking about. Remember the ban on DDT, and the resulting surge in deaths due to malaria worldwide? Remember how the environmentalists fought tooth-and-nail against its re-introduction?

One wonders how many more lives will be lost thanks to the efforts of the GW jihadists and their wacky "science".

Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at February 27, 2007 7:18 PM

Funny how the left always can justify their own double standards but never excuses those on the right. Letting Gore "buy" his way out of practicing what he preaches about the environment is the same as counting Mitt Romney's great-grandfather's polygamy as more egregious than Bill Clinton's adulteries.

And it makes perfect sense, if you are a leftie and believe that politically correct ends justify ANY means. After all, holding Mitt accountable for his ancestor's sins will hurt a Republican, which is always morally defensible no matter how dishonest. And Bill supported abortion, and so is praiseworthy regardless his actual distain for, and abuse of, women.

Drink the Kool-Aid and take the convenient reality pill. Soon you too will count the owner of the reasonably sized geothermal house in Texas as an environmental rapist while the man with the mansion is a savior. So simple, if you're a commitable fruitcake.

Posted by: askmom at February 27, 2007 8:49 PM

Oh Great Goracle (All praise be to Thee), I pray fervently.
Abide with me in my 65 degree house.
Illuminate my soul as I read by the light of my 20 watt bulb.
Warm me with thy good cheer as I bask in my cold shower.
Be the wind at my back as I dutifully bike 20 miles to work.
I have been thy good servant and done all, nay even more, than you have asked of me.
Surely I will be rewarded with your blessings from on high as you pass over in your glorious Green Jet.
Oh Goracle (All praise be to Thee) use your mighty powers to insure that all we little people will be forced to contribute to the great cause of saving Earth so we may all, each and every one, suffer equally in this most worthy cause.
All this I ask in the name of the Great Goracle, saviour of our globe from the evil CO2.

Posted by: Jimmy J. at February 27, 2007 8:52 PM

Carbon offsets are the road to sumptuary laws.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at February 28, 2007 5:03 AM

ATM: "No, it isn't obvious that anything Gore is doing is of any value and any good. His actual behavior In fact it suggests that he doesn't really believe what he is saying." I agree completely. If the Goracle really believed that it's necessary for us to start living differently than we have been, he would be doing so already. I have yet to see any evidence offered anywhere that he has changed his lifestyle one iota. Indeed, the way people are rushing to excuse his continuing behavior indicates that nobody thinks he has made any changes whatever to his lifestyle to save the planet. It is quite reasonable to conclude, therefore, that he believes nothing of what he is telling us.

He reminds me of the population-bomb folks who used to say There Are Too Many People In The World. What they meant was There Are Too Many Other People (Not Counting Me, Of Course).

Posted by: ELC at February 28, 2007 6:15 AM

As the hypocrisy of Gore is now trumpeting throughout the land he wishes to protect, perhaps we can get some insight on the 'carbon footprint' of other politico-celebrity wanna-bes. How much energy does Barbara Streisand consume? or George Soros? Make sure you count all their mansions and jet usage.

To me, the louder the GlWa crowd screams, the more they're trying to cover-up their own behavior, ignorance, and blindness to science.

Posted by: BWP at February 28, 2007 8:05 AM

Hey I'd like to vote for global warming, where can I do that?

I own lake front property in Northwest Minnesota and a 4-5 month lake season would be a huge improvement to the current 2 months.

I'm a huge supporter of global warming. Just wish we humans could actually have any significant impact...ice ages are real bummers.

Posted by: phil at February 28, 2007 9:26 AM

It is possible the whole climate change thing started with agriculture. Note that our unusually stable climate pretty much coincides with agriculture.

It seems our agricultural activity is also acting to counter the cumulative effects of three astronomical cycles, these being; the tilt of the Earth, how far from the Sun the Earth is when the Northern Hemisphere Winter starts, and how far away from the Sun the Earth gets. All three tending towards the cold end of things, and this starting around 6500 BC. In other words, if not for our activities we'd be in an ice age by now. And it's going to be many thousands of years until trends go back the other way.

The implications are clear, we need to produce greenhouse gases to avoid freezing. We stop producing those gases the natural trends would take over and we would be facing a frigid doom. So burn that leaf pile! Eat those bean burritos! Drive a gas-guzzler and keep the Earth warm!

Posted by: Alan Kellogg at February 28, 2007 12:37 PM

My point is simple: I'm saying let's REALLY determine ONCE AND FOR ALL whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite.

The cool thing about this particular controversy is that we're talking about the affect that one person has on the physical world (their "footprint") which means that we can actually come up with a quantifiable measure of one's deeds and then compare it to their words and professed beliefs. It's not very often that we get to figure out whether someone's a hypocrite through hard data!

And yes, when you look at Gore's personal energy use when he travels and at his estate, then, it sure looks like he's a hypocrite, no argument there. For most people, measuring personal energy use and whatnot is the end of the story, but not in Gore's case. Al Gore has spent years and years leading and educating millions of people on environmental issues, especially global warming. This has had a considerable, and I would argue, measurable impact on the culture and the planet.

My argument is that if you're serious about measuring Al Gore's "footprint," then you have to consider Gore's effect as a very successful public figure. I think that some of you carbon analysts here could easily come up with a formula for converting Gore's contribution as a leader and educator into a figure that can be factored into the comparison of his words and deeds.

And when you do that, you'll see that Gore is objectively, once and for all, not a hypocrite.

To recap, when you compare Gore's sum total of deeds done towards solving the problem of global warming vs. his personal contribution towards the problem of global warming through energy use etc., the scale tips decisively in favor of Gore's behavior matching his beliefs. Show me numbers otherwise, if you got 'em.

Posted by: JerryL at February 28, 2007 2:18 PM

Your first assumption about the issue is that global warming is something that can be solved by doing what Gore says. Yes, yes, I know, many people actually do believe that. And I say to them, "Go for it. Go green, keep your thermostat low, buy a Prius, take cold showers, get a solar panel on your roof, and lower your carbon footprint as much as you think will solve the problem."

However, there are many, many people who believe that the case for AGW (Anthopogenic Global Warming) has not been definitively made. I know, you've read all about the consensus in the MSM and you've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and you're convinced. What we skeptics object to is that Al wants to use the power of the government to make all the "little people" live a life of extreme energy conservation while he and his Hollywood chums go on using fossil fuels to their hearts' content. Oh yeah it's OKAY for them to do it because they "care" enough to warn the "little people." Also they have enough excess cash laying around to buy "carbon credits," which many are comparing to the old practice of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to wealthy people to absolve them of their sins.

Those of us who are skeptics believe we should be absolutely certain that CO2 is, in fact, the main culprit before we use the command power of the government to start ordering people around. And, I might mention, if the government is going to be ordering the "little people" around, how about some equality of conservation? Let's have the government tell Al to live in an energy efficient 2000 square foot rambler and take commercial flights.

What the Goracle and many other proponents of AGW are not saying or maybe they don't understand is this: If CO2 is really causing the warming, (And that has NOT been conclusively proven!) the effort required to slow CO2 emissions and simultaneously maintain some semblance of our present standard of living is going to require 25 - 50 years of major construction of nuclear and hydro-electric plants in conjunction with switching to some kind of alternative fuels for transportation. It isn't something that can be done quickly. And it is going to cost TRILLIONS! Shouldn't we be more certain of the science before we embark on that project?

Posted by: Jimmy J. at February 28, 2007 5:16 PM

"To recap, when you compare Gore's sum total of deeds done towards solving the problem of global warming vs. his personal contribution towards the problem of global warming through energy use etc., the scale tips decisively in favor of Gore's behavior matching his beliefs."-Posted by JerryL at February 28, 2007 2:18 PM

So... All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Posted by: elgeneralisimo at February 28, 2007 5:17 PM

JerryL: "To recap, when you compare Gore's sum total of deeds done towards solving the problem of global warming vs. his personal contribution towards the problem of global warming through energy use etc., the scale tips decisively in favor of Gore's behavior matching his beliefs. Show me numbers otherwise, if you got 'em."

You seem to be confusing issues: one issue is whether the effects of the Goracle's publicizing activities re: GW outweigh the effects of his personal lifestyle re: GW; another issue is the Goracle's preachin' 'n' teachin' to the hoi polloi that they have to change their lifestyles to save the planet. (If that ain't what he's doing, I'll retract.)

The former issue is simply irrelevant to the charge of the Goracle's hypocrisy. By bringing it up, you're doing nothing more than trying to change the subject by sleight of hand, so to speak. The latter issue is where the charge of hypocrisy hits home, for it's almost beyond dispute (in fact, I haven't noticed even that you dispute it) that the Goracle has simply not done in his own lifestyle what he is telling the rest of us we need to do to keep our children from drowning and/or baking. IOW, his attitude is "Do as I say, not as I do." And that's about as succinct a description of hypocrisy as one could want.

You want numbers? Here are numbers: if the Goracle really believed what he's spewing, wouldn't he cut back from three mansions to two or (O, the agony) even one?

Posted by: ELC at March 1, 2007 8:48 AM

I've protected 120 acres of virgin forest from development for the last 10 years, through personal ownership of that land. By JerryL's silly formula, then, I am liken unto a God! My personal carbon footprint is negative, so I speaketh with the most absolute and greatest possible moral authority!

Therefore verily I say unto you, JerryL, that Algore is a heathen and a heretic, and I cast him out of Greenie, Inc. and into the dark coldness of eternal carbonlessness!

And I've got my eye on you too, JerryL - so watch it!

Posted by: Joe at March 1, 2007 11:50 AM

Thus Spake Gorasthustra

Posted by: G. Weightman at March 1, 2007 6:10 PM

Gore was a joke when he a Vice-President, and a bigger joke now as an "environmentalist". He's just sucking on the moonbats tit for meaning and $$$$.

Posted by: Realist 0314 at March 2, 2007 4:57 AM

So if Al Gore stopped 10 attempted rapes, would he be allowed to commit a rape? After all, 10 rapes prevented vs. the rape he commits makes him, on balance, a positive contributor.

Posted by: rtl at March 2, 2007 8:52 PM


Posted by: JUNE at April 7, 2007 1:18 AM

My mother, an ardent Republican, sent me the info on the two houses and I have to say I was shocked to find out it was true. One can argue about all the consciousness Gore has raised about the issue of global warming (whether one believes it's a problem or not) but it is in actions that the rubber meets the road. I have always considered myself one of Gore's supporters but this news is truly disheartening.
Of course, the cynic in me says that Bush had spin people encouraging him to build his eco-house, but whatever the case, he built it. Gore should really take a lesson from this. The bottom line is that we ALL need to reduce our energy use.

Posted by: dnsnyc at July 28, 2007 5:24 PM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Remember personal info?