English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Prolific in his "The sky is falling" schpilkus, he has failed in documenting the genuine physics. He seeks to foster a growing emotional climate using YOU as his personal thought victims.

Al Gore cannot travel without tax-paid Secret Service. His invited coiffures, celebrities & courted dignitaries, and reporters (shall we say "entourage") are paid by us.

Personally, I consume about 1,000USD of energy per month. I know that some may consume more, and many much less.

So where can I find the true consumption of energy Al Gore expends (both private & tax paid) per month?

Can anyone find his call for "counter-global warming" and
AL Gore himself as a greater cause of ecological crime than the common man?

2007-05-31 07:46:43 · 13 answers · asked by warmspirited 3 in Environment Global Warming

13 answers

according to CNN just one of AL gores houses uses More energy in a month than the average median family uses in a year

2007-05-31 07:56:06 · answer #1 · answered by chris a 3 · 1 0

I'm not sure how completely credible this is, but here's something I've read about his house with the link below.

A description of Al Gore's home:
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 ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

2007-05-31 08:02:37 · answer #2 · answered by Katie 2 · 1 0

plenty as I haven't any appreciate for his worldwide warming schedule, i'm going to respond to your question the perfect i will whilst attempting to be fairly impartial. i've got heard, yet do not comprehend as a fact, that Al Gore has put in some form of image voltaic power gadget at his living house. If it somewhat is real, he's entitled to each little thing that it produces. whether it is not, he nevertheless has the properly suited to warmth or cool his place as temperatures dictate like something human beings. while he travels, like all different VIP he's entitled to the protection which could basically be afforded by potential of deepest transportation like a company jet. even nevertheless i'm below no circumstances prepared on the guy i will completely comprehend why he does not shuttle by potential of airlines. There are too many crazies obtainable basically waiting for the possibility to make a political/non secular assertion. His fleet of vehicles is yet another situation...curiously whilst he became into making a speech those days he left them working exterior, finished with air con. A preacher who blatantly betrays his teachings, that's what occurred, is in all probability not basically a hypocrite yet a fraud. basically my opinion.

2016-10-30 08:44:40 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Th energy intensity of the U.S. economy is about 2.5 KWh per dollar. That means, on average, for every dollar you earned, you were using, either directly or indirectly, 2.5KWh of energy. By indirect use I mean something like this example: Say you buy a table. The table does not emit any CO2, but energy was used to make it and the fact that you bought the table means you paid for that energy to be used, and that energy use caused CO2 to be emitted. And a $500 table is responsible for 5 times as much energy as a $100 table. So the richer you are, the more energy you use. Al Gore is rich, so he uses far more energy than most of us. And he buys the $500 table instead of the cheap $100 table. But he also pays money to companies that plant trees (or whatever), which is supposed to balance that out. The trouble I have with that is that it doesn't really reduce emissions. It just makes him feel better. The idea that $100 worth of tree seedlings planted counteracts $100,000 worth of economic activity, and the associated direct and indirect CO2 emission, is ludicrous in my mind. To really counteract the CO2 emissions caused by $100,000 dollars of economic activity would take $100,000 of payments. Unless we reduce the energy intensity of the economy as a whole, the ONLY way to reduce emissions is to become poor. But that is what the liberals want. They hate rich people.

2007-05-31 08:28:16 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1 1

Forget Al Gore. He has nothing to do with the science behind global warming. Whether he's trustworthy or not is irrelevant to whether global warming is real.

These guys are trustworthy:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

2007-05-31 11:10:02 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 0 1

Al Gore more than offsets all his carbon emissions. If he produced a billion tons of the stuff and offset it all then he's doing less damage then the person who emits just one ton but doesn't offset.

To take your line of questioning to the next logical step - Gore and his activities have absolutely nothing to do with the sceince of global warming or climate change; he's simply a messenger repeating the science of others.

Whether you like him or dislike him, agree or disagree with him, it doesn't change the science.

2007-05-31 08:40:23 · answer #6 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0 1

The issue of global warming did not begin with Gore. Can we please address the ISSUE of global warming?

I could provide a detailed list of the Bush Administrations shortcomings.

Why all the animosity toward the issue of global warming? Isn't it prudent to at least err on the side of caution? We do the same with the war on terrorism. Why not GW?

2007-05-31 08:49:36 · answer #7 · answered by Dollar D 2 · 0 0

While it's apparently true that Al Gore's mansion uses a lot of energy, Al Gore himself lives a carbon neutral lifestyle by doing things like purchasing carbon credits. Additionally, his contribution to the environment by bringing attention to global warming is huge.

2007-05-31 08:23:24 · answer #8 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0 2

AL GORE energy use and life is as wrong as GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS.

He charges an outrageous amount of money for conferences.

He presents global warming in a not rigorous enough, not scientific enough form.

But nevertheless people find it easy to kill the messenger because they don´t like the message

2007-05-31 08:07:28 · answer #9 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 1 1

I think I have solved "global warming." It is a result of all the energy Al Gore consumes since it is released as hot air!

2007-05-31 08:15:03 · answer #10 · answered by enicolls25 3 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers