« All The News That's Fit to Print | Main | Some of My Best Friends »

Comments

Greg

You know these weak attempts to slander and defame anyone that is a Democrat are weak, and as usual easily debunked. In this case we are looking at a new effort to defame Al Gore. I wonder why, and why now? Could it be that they may be afraid of a Al Gore run for the presidency? Given the fact that history has come to prove him right on such issues as global warming and the War in Iraq, that could be the case. But like so many other attacks once they are examined with any kind of depth and analysis, they are easily debunked. But you know what is the funniest part of all this is? Instead of dealing with major issues, issues like the growing numbers of those living in poverty, the war in Iraq, the growing deficit, the treatment of our service men and women at places like Walter Reed Hospital, or perhaps the latest outburst of right wing queen and nut-case Ann Coulter. We have you reprinting the misstatements first drudged up by that bastion of great investigative reporting, Matt Drudge. But again this is your blog, and you have the right to pick the subject matter of your choice, and that is your right. I would only hope that what you decided to print could not be so easily debunked as the post I have debunked.

Just for the record, this story has already been debunked for the dishonest way it was reported. For those who have not seen this, here is pretty much how the debunking went:

Responding to Matt Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s offered the following response:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

" 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."

But this is what one should expect from Republicans and skeptics of global warming. Since they cannot mount a meaningful debate within the scientific community, they busy themselves with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses, which in turn they distort the truth.

David Strom

Peg, you already know Greg is delusional. If the analysis had show Bush is a bigger user of energy than Gore, he would be screaming it from the rooftops.

The basic point, though, is correct. We have the better of the deal, no doubt.

Our women are prettier too--you are a case in point!

Greg

Delusional?? I guess when one is unable to articulate a factual, empirical, or coherent response to what I have posted then we (in this case Mr. Storm) turn to attack. I am curious as to what have I posted that you can say is incorrect or even the slight bit delusional? I have made post about the deficit, global warming, the war in Iraq, Affirmative Action, and school choice to name just a few. I cannot recall to where anything I have said on these subjects hasn't been well thought out and factual. All I have done nothing is point out what I believe is the truth. In this case we have a story on Al Gore. The bill from Al Gore's home is correct, but that is not the whole story. I provided you with the whole story, but here Mr. Storm disregards all of this, then turns to calling me delusional. To make matters worse, he then goes on to assume to know exactly how I think and what I would say.

To Mr. Storm, I have made many of post on this blog, and I take it from your comment that you do not agree with them. That is fine, yet I would love for you to point out anywhere or anyplace in which I have posted something that is not factual or at least delusional. You might not come to the same conclusion that I have come to, but where have I ever posted anything that was not well sourced or false, or taking your words delusional? The fact is what I post is true, (at least I believe them to be true), but everyone has the chance to respond to what I have said with some facts that prove me wrong. Yet that is not the route you take, you take the low road to insult. You might not agree with me, but I have always asked if one has a different belief than I, please point me to a reliable source that we can both agree is factual and bias free. To this date, you and most of the others have not.

The basic point is this, I do not claim to know it all, I feel I am well read, try to make my arguments articulate and feel I can hold my own with most on many of these major issues I feel strongly about. I by all means am not, and have not always correct and I am sure I been wrong at times. All that I ask is for people to respond to what I have said in the same factual and articulate manner as to how I have posted. We all might learn something when we can debate as a level somewhat above the gutter.

Peg

Greg - if you think that someone using more than 20 times the energy annually of a "normal" American family (which already uses more energy than most around the planet) is hunkey dorey because that person purchases "carbon credits" - you truly are deluded!

This energy Ponzi scheme is a joke. IF Al Gore believes what he purports to believe, he'd be living more like GEORGE W. BUSH.

Ever hear "if you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk?"

End of story. Al Gore is selling snake oil, and you boys are buying Big Time.

Greg

So, let me see if I have this correct. If Al Gore's home is 40x the size of the "average" home, is his 20X the average energy use really 2X more energy efficient? Good question.

Here is another one. If his home in TN is also his home office, does that matter? Hmm, another good question.

How about this. If he uses 1/10 the energy that the average conservative commentator with similar income uses, will that cause them to shush? Of course not.

Did they or you even bother to look up this sort of data? Probably not.

Does it have anything whatsoever to do with whether the message Gore has been trying to get out is correct or not? Again no. Is it possible to have a civil debate on the science, without impugning motivations and personal integrity of those on the other side? It appears not.

The comments to this entry are closed.