Tigermike 3,046 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The energy I use in a year can probably power 20 homes in the month of November. What a BS measure. I think you missed the key part of the article over the poorly written headline: I think you missed the fact that the poorly written headline was written that way for a reason. I think you missed the fact that "He was lauded for all the "green" improvements to the home, but now uses more energy than he did before the improvements and he uses about 35-40% more energy in one month than most people use all year." Irregardless of how the headline was written he is using more power this year than last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,509 Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 The energy I use in a year can probably power 20 homes in the month of November. What a BS measure. I think you missed the key part of the article over the poorly written headline: I think you missed the fact that the poorly written headline was written that way for a reason. I think you missed the fact that the portions I quoted are more damning and are the reason I posted it here. I could have lopped off the headline and the point would have been as strong as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,992 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The energy I use in a year can probably power 20 homes in the month of November. What a BS measure. I think you missed the key part of the article over the poorly written headline: I think you missed the fact that the poorly written headline was written that way for a reason. I think you missed the fact that the portions I quoted are more damning and are the reason I posted it here. I could have lopped off the headline and the point would have been as strong as ever. The "portions" you quoted are only damning if they are credible. The source you cite has a clear political agenda, no less than Moveon.org. They are arguably less credible than Moveon.org because on the face of their site they deny their agenda. Folks who go out of their way to conceal their agenda are dishonest from the get-go. This group wants to release a "damning" report that gets alot of attention. They have no interest in an honest, objective analysis of Gore's comparable energy use. They especially wanted misleading headlines like this: Energy Guzzled by Gore Home Could Power 232 Homes A lazy press willingly obliges. They claim his renovation efforts were complete last June. Gore claims it wasn't complete until last November: A spokesman for Mr Gore disputed the claims, saying his total utility bills had gone down by 40 per cent since the "green" refit, much of that down to the new heating system.Explaining the electricity consumption, she said the three-year renovation of the house wasn't finished until November so it was too early to draw a before-and-after comparison. She also stressed that the Gores participate in a local "green power switch" programme which allows them to buy electricity from renewable resources such as wind power and methane gas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ated)-roof.html They want "comparisons" that have the greatest impact, not necessarily the greatest accuracy. Even if you were to compare this past week of my energy use to a year ago, it wouldn't necessarily tell you much about my usage or habits. It's been a damn hot week this year-- much more than last. Did I use more energy this past week than last? I'm sure I did. What we know is that Gore bought an old house that he uses as a home, his offices, his wife's office and a place to hold events. It is obviously not comparable to a typical purely residential house, which this group conceals and you continue to ignore. He could have a smaller house, and he and Tipper could have their offices in this same structure and then what would the comparisons be? We know that Gore appears to have done everything possible to make this structure as energy efficient as it can be. We know if participates in a program to use renewable energy at an increased cost. What is the true outcome of those efforts? I don't know, you don't know and neither do these polemicists you keep casting your lot with. All that said, I don't even like Al Gore. But BS is BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Irregardless Sooooooooo not a word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,438 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I saw an interview recently where Barbra Walters asked Gore about this very thing (this was the same interview where Gore said anyone who doesn't think GLobal warming is caused by humans is equal to those who thing the moon landing was filmed in Arizona)... anyway...he said it was ok for him to have a house like that because he installed 4 solar panels (which equates to enough power to run a couple of lamps)...and he buys carbon credits now. Carbon credits the way to have "convictions" without having to actually abide by them. Carbon Offsets are "Indulgences for the wealthy psuedo-environmentalist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.