In another classic example of liberals telling Americans to “Do As I Say, Not As I Do,” Dr. Global Warming Himself, aka Al Gore, has been identified by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as talking a good game about energy conservation while not walking the walk.
In a press release published Monday just hours after the conclusion of the Academy Awards, the “independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization” reported (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge): “Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.”
The release marvelously continued:
“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)."
Lest we not forget that in his celluloid tribute to junk science, “the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.”
As a frame of reference, “[t]he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.”
By contrast, in 2006, Dr. Global Warming “devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”
The release elaborated:
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. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Yet, the really delicious hypocrisy was still to come: “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.”
Isn’t that just ducky? This charlatan goes around the world telling people that they need to conserve energy to save the planet, and his consumption increased by almost 14 percent.
What a crock! As a result, the press release aptly concluded:
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In the immortal words of Our Gang’s Farina, you said a mouthful.
UPDATE (Ken Shepherd | 2/27/2007, 09:12 EST): The Anchoress has a good critique at her site, where she notes that President Bush's Crawford ranch is and has been eco-friendlier than Gore's mansion for years, although the press rarely if ever give the president credit for that.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.













Comments Policy
Exactly how is he accomplishi
February 26, 2007 - 23:26 ET by AtheistRepublicanExactly how is he accomplishing all this power consumption? I can't imagine, maybe several plasma screen TVs blazing 24 hours a day?
Large scale growing operati
February 27, 2007 - 02:24 ET by FairlightLarge scale cannabis growing operations using hydroponics are often detected from abnormally high electricity consumption.
Hydro
February 27, 2007 - 02:35 ET by mastersofdeceitUnless he's tapping in directly into a pole nearby. As I know someone who was wont to do. ; ) (no not me!)
Wouldn't suprise me a bit.
It's those electrified fences
February 1, 2008 - 12:04 ET by RJ...around his entire fortress, er, estate.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon
He really does use a whole
February 27, 2007 - 06:57 ET by motherbeltHe really does use a whole year's worth. My last bill shows that we used 18,600 KWH last year. That's around 1500 a month. And I must admit, we are not fanatical about conserving. I use my clothes dryer all the time, the heat-dry cycle in my diswasher, etc. And we have a comfortable 2400 sq-ft. house. I can't even imagine what you have to do to use that much energy. The house must be HUGE!
Al Gore environmental disaster
February 27, 2007 - 09:57 ET by TheTruthLiberalism can not survive in truth!
Al Gore’s carbon foot is ‘HUGE’ like a crater! Just imagine if everyone was as environmentally unfriendly as Al Gore. The hypocrisy of these liberals simply knows no bounds. LIBERALS. . . Do as I say, not as I do!
Hil•lar•ism (Noun)
"I want to take those profits."
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Rush just reported Pres. Bush' ranch is geothermal heated
February 27, 2007 - 14:53 ET by SportPoliticsRush just reported Pres. Bush' ranch in Crawford is geothermal heated. LOL
Bush has a long ago built heat exchanger that warms and air conditions his Texas ranch. The water used (from a rain catch bin ) is recirculated to sometanks and cleaned and waters the lawn and such to "blend the house into the surroundings".
roflmao - The Al Gore lib is beaten by President Bush - ONCE AGAIN !
lol - I guess the news has hidden Bush' enviro friendly heat and cooling at his ranch, for some time. Rush said there was one article in the USAToday or something in 2000 or 2001.
wiki : [ The house was built by members of a religious community from nearby Elm Mott, Texas and wasn't completed until after his inauguration.
The passive-solar house is positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet (100 m) deep in the ground. A 40,000 US gallon (151 m³) underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home. ]
AL GORE YOU'RE A HYPOCRIT.
Man it's unbelievable, again. Could youimagine how many times the news would have brought up Al Gore's geothermal energy friendly home ?
Hi Sp, I just heard the same
February 27, 2007 - 14:58 ET by bigtimerHi Sp,
I just heard the same thing...
...and to think the media has known this since earlier 2000.... too funny.
Bush is walking the walk, Gore is well...talkin' the talk.
I don't think it's fair for
February 1, 2008 - 11:58 ET by GordmanI don't think it's fair for him, why do you people always remember about Al Gore hypocrisy? Let the man do his job, it's not easy to have such a mission. I try to keep up with new warnings and I just bought a new set of Whirlpool parts for a lower level of energy pollution. I am doing the best I can to participate actively to this campaign. Stop pointing on Al Gore, he is just trying to make a difference, so start focusing on what you can do, not on what he can't.
And that's just ONE of his
February 26, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnd that's just ONE of his homes...I think I've read he has at least one more. Not to mention all the air travel, limo services, entourage transportation, etc.
He really is nothing more than a hypocrite.
**Edit** Was curious about what my energy consumption is per month. Last month my household used 2437 kWh...and that was the highest I have had in the past 12 months. Since my meter was put in during the construction of my house in Feb 2003, I have used 51527 kWh or an average of 1073.5 kWh/month...so I'm a little above average for most American households...I still don't use nearly as much as he does, and I have two kids at home.
I really don't care how much energy Al Gore uses, just as long as he shuts the hell up about everyone else's energy use. He has absolutely no room to talk nor a shred of credibility until he becomes the model of energy efficiency and minimal energy use...and I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
What are the chances that GMA
February 26, 2007 - 23:45 ET by Clear thinkerWhat are the chances that GMA will cover this in the morning?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
About as good as the chance
February 26, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAbout as good as the chances of the NYT covering Iran's meddling in Iraq...but that's another thread...
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
I suppose he would have the r
February 27, 2007 - 04:54 ET by Andrew H.I suppose he would have the rest of us stop working in any smokestack industry, stop any new power plants from being built and put us all on bicycles... the socialist creedo is to enrich the few at the top of the pile at the expense of the great unwashed masses.
That's all there is to it.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
I suppose he would have the
February 27, 2007 - 07:24 ET by motherbeltI suppose he would have the rest of us stop working in any smokestack
industry, stop any new power plants from being built and put us all on
bicycles--Andrew H
Of course he would; just don't expect HIM to change.. as one of the "priveleged few" he is exempt from sacrifice. Well, it would be interesting to see his reaction (a la Kennedy) if someone wanted to install a "wind farm" where it could be seen from his palatial mansion...
Hey, he could go "solar"....they would probably have to cover 10 square miles in solar panels just to supply his house.
Andrew, re: bicycles. Not a
February 27, 2007 - 11:22 ET by MikeBAndrew, re: bicycles. Not an acceptable solution. Bicycles are manufactured items. The manufacturing process causes various types of pollution, including the emission of carbon dioxide. We, the peasantry will have to start walking everywhere. We will also have to start going naked, as items of apparell are either made of natural fibers, which require cultivation, which results in CO2 emissions, or they are made of synthetic fibers, which are made from petro-chemicals - evil Big Oil. (More pollution) I suppose that we, the peasantry, will also have to revert to a hunter-gather existence. Either that, or learn to photosynthesize. On the other hand, Algore and his Church of Global Warming could STFU, and let us get on with our lives.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB...I'm not so sure. We h
February 27, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Clear thinkerMikeB...
I'm not so sure. We have a local coffee shop run by lefty hippies close to where I live. Outside their shop are two bicycles made completely out of Grape Vine.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Yes he does have a second hou
February 27, 2007 - 16:38 ET by dscottYes he does have a second house, one 10k sq ft the other 4k sq ft. Boy, I was apparently begin generous when I noted on previous threads that Al Gore used 7 to 10 times the average American based on square footage. He uses 20 times just on one house???? Geeez Louise. What an energy pig. No wonder he has to go on all those speaking engagements, he's got to pay those huge electric bills.
I now have to wonder how much water he uses on the landscaping. What a hypocrit! A classic case of "Projection" if there ever was one.
W has a model energy and water conservation home? Talk about irony...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Al said last night when quest
February 27, 2007 - 00:01 ET by nicksmith112Al said last night when questioned that he is "carbon neutral"...HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE......LOL!!!!!
What a crock of shit!!!!
He is a modern day Whimpie (see Popeye...lol) something about a cheeseburger and Tuesday...lol!!!
Al said last night when que
February 27, 2007 - 07:31 ET by motherbeltAl said last night when questioned that he is "carbon neutral"--nicksmith
C'mon, did he really say that with a straight face? How the heck do you offset 20,000 KWH of electricity a month? An entire state would have to stop exhaling to accomplish that! LOL!
Buying offsets
February 27, 2007 - 08:27 ET by ecnirPHe claims to buy offsets. It's a total crock. Pollute all you want as long as you buy offsets. As pointed out in the article covered last week in here, the carbon-trading scheme is imploding, and you can now buy-off a metric ton of pollution for a couple of bucks. This man's getting more full of himself all the time...you can tell.
You're exactly right, ecnirP.
February 27, 2007 - 14:52 ET by GalvanicYou're exactly right, ecnirP. The rich families like the Gores are willing to pay a tax to use as much fossil-fueled energy as they please, as long as the rest of us a stuck with saving the world from Global Warming. Private jets, giant homes, GHG-heavy automobiles ---- as long as you're 'carbon neutral,' it doesn't matter how much GHG one produces.
By the way, does anyone know how much one carbon credit costs these days? I don't recall, but I remember reading last week either here on NB or elsewhere, that it's tied to supply (by the developing nations) and demand (of the First World nations), and since the Kyoto GHG limits were set higher than most countries produce today, there are so many carbon credits available that their purchase is relatively cheap.
"I'd gladly pay you Tu
February 27, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Tim the Enchanter"I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"
...J. Wellington Wimpy
My lovely wife is watching E!
February 27, 2007 - 00:13 ET by Chicago RepublicanMy lovely wife is watching E!News and of course, I must be in Abu Ghraib because I just watched Gore accept his Oscar on their recap. He said "This isn't a political issue, its a moral issue." No, Al, the moral issue is how hypocritical you are.
**************
Support the Spread of Open Society and Capitalism around the World. Do it for the Children.
the leftist/liberal simpletons never learn
February 27, 2007 - 00:25 ET by spiderdanAre any of you legitimate Americans remotely surprised by this latest illustration of liberal hypocrisy? How many of those pancaked faced "celebs" left the fawning charade (Academy Awards for the morons trying to understand the unmistakeable point herein) left in stretch limos, only to attended lavish parties, burning millions of kilowatts (not to mention equal amounts of calories and narcotics) in the process, but demanding their servants and others "beneath" them (that would be all you sniveling liberal/leftists groupies wandering around out there) hike or bike to work.
Or, perhaps in a momentary spate of reason, these elitists might allow you peasants to ride on the mass transit the middle class is forced to subsidize.
How many of those clapping and chortling at Algore's pathetic figure rode the LA mass transit to the party?
If you liberal idiots need me to answer that for you, don't be glum when you're handed what's left of your brain -- so you can see for yourself just what a waste of flesh it has been occupying that hollow space between your ears.
does anyone seriously questio
February 27, 2007 - 00:29 ET by pmohbuckdoes anyone seriously question his commitment to "global warming" ... if anything, it just seems like an effective way to gain attention and step further away from the sore loser image that has plagued him since his defeat in 2000.
there are so many followers out there that will follow just about anyone with charismatic qualities ... regardless of how looney, extreme or "out there" they seem to be.
"at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising his/her rights" - me
Believe it or not, there are
February 27, 2007 - 00:39 ET by tracheostomyBelieve it or not, there are still a few libs in my city that refer to him as "their president."
-PJ
"I'm not a theologist. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary filmmaker." -James Cameron
Lost souls.
February 27, 2007 - 14:55 ET by GalvanicLost souls.
there are so many followers
February 27, 2007 - 08:49 ET by motherbeltthere are so many followers out there that will follow just about anyone with charismatic qualities..
A Gore? "charismatic qualities??? LMAO!
Algore
February 27, 2007 - 00:43 ET by Gordon SchumwayI know! I know!
He's using all of that power to make donuts in the basement... and he's eating most of them. Good thing Algore's on the TVA nuclear power grid.
Gordo
Melmac
Hmmm. So some fly-by-night ag
February 27, 2007 - 01:10 ET by bushwasrightHmmm. So some fly-by-night agency issues a press release and its accepted as gospel? You know why his bills are so high?
"Electric bills obtained by The Tennessean, however, showed that Gore is paying a premium on his bills to be part of the “green power” program. Gore purchased 108 blocks of “green power” for at least each of the last three months, according to a summary of bills from Nashville Electric Service. That’s a total of $432 a month spent to pay extra for solar or other renewable energy sources."
http://www.tennessea...
I'll never understand why ya'll are constantly so upset about some guy who's actually trying to make a positive difference in the world. Regardless of if you don't believe in global warming or not (no offence, but I'll take the advice of 99.9% of the world's scientists over you irrational ill-informed moutbreathers) but what's wrong with trying to conserve our use of fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are a FINITE resource AND the less we use them, the less we'll have to rely on insaniac arab sheiks who're using their profits to fuel hatred of America. But please continue living in the dark ages and go ahead hating Al Gore, hating the planet and helping the arab world hate America.
BWR
February 27, 2007 - 01:26 ET by Noel SheppardBWR,
What makes you think conservatives aren't in favor of energy conservation?
I quite imagine that my family of four uses far less energy than the average similar-sized unit in the nation probably including your own. We have all energy efficient appliances. I have a solar-powered pool. My wife takes public transportation to work. My office is three miles from my house.
Care to compare notes on this subject before you accuse me or anyone else here of supporting the Arabs and ignoring energy conservation without any evidence to support such allegations?
While you're considering your response, I further guarantee that my entire family uses significantly less energy than pompous Al or any of the Hollywoodans shedding tears of joy for him last evening at the Oscars.
Alas, I imagine that seems somewhat irrelevant to someone as holier-than-thou as you. ns
And replacing our coal and
February 27, 2007 - 01:42 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnd replacing our coal and oil-fired power plants with nuclear energy will do more for the environment than everyone owning hybrid or electric cars.
Ironically, the Left is by and large, against nuclear power.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean Gene
February 27, 2007 - 01:51 ET by Noel SheppardMG,
Of course. Yet, these holier-than-thou types were the same ones protesting nuclear powered facilities in the '70s and '80s. Just imagine how much less fossil fuel would be using today if the left never would have gone hysterical over Three Mile Island.
The hypocrisy is so absurd. Yet, these folks think they're the ones on the right side of this issue. ns
I've written a couple paper
February 27, 2007 - 02:21 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI've written a couple papers dealing with nuclear power. Off the top of my head here are some interesting things:
Three Mile Island was all hype. Studies have show that no radioactive materials escaped the plant, and there has been no affect on the environment or the surrounding population. Chernobyl was a different story, but even the predictions were more severe than reality has shown. People voluntarily live in the "exclusion zone" surrounding the Chernobyl plant without any health problems, and the environment is doing better than the experts expected. With over 12,000 years of accumulated reactor time we've had two accidents...one (Chernobyl) was a bona-fide disaster (directly killing 30 people), the other (Three Mile Island) a pretty bad scare where people took the correct actions and averted disaster. More people die in a week from the affects of coal-fired pollution than have died in over 40 years of nuclear power.
Another ironic fact is that while nuclear power plants have ZERO emissions, coal-fired plants (the U.S.A.'s biggest source of power) spew tons of uranium and thorium (both radioactive) in addition to other dangerous chemicals (many of them carcinogens) into the air we breathe every year.
People need to read Alex Gabbard and Bernard Cohen.
It is stupid for the U.S. to not convert to nuclear power as much as possible. Reactor design has come a long way. No human inputs are required to prevent accidents. Contemporary reactors shut themselves down if things go awry.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
I don't want to take this o
February 27, 2007 - 08:58 ET by WhichWingI don't want to take this off topic, but....if we decide to go nuclear power for the majority of our power, will we then stop fighting other countries for attempting the same thing? I'd hate to end up as hypocritical as Gore.
WhichWing, you and Max Cleland ought to get together...
February 27, 2007 - 09:04 ET by acaiguanaWhichWing, you and Max Cleland ought to get together...
And play with hand grenades.
Just a thought.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
WhichWing,Do you REALLY belie
February 27, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Darth DutchWhichWing,
Do you REALLY believe that countries like Iran solely want nuclear technology just so they can power their nation? That they don't want it for nuclear weapons?
Dutch
Do you REALLY believe that
February 27, 2007 - 13:27 ET by WhichWingDo you REALLY believe that we solely want nuclear technology just so we can power our nation? (here it comes, paint me liberal because I looked at the flip side of the coin)
Why not answer his question f
February 27, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Clear thinkerWhy not answer his question first, then ask yours?
Hmmm, I smell something!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I will say that I agree tha
February 27, 2007 - 13:45 ET by WhichWingI will say that I agree that Iran most likely wants to use nuclear technology for more than just power. I don't know who else falls into the category "countries like Iran" so that's all I can say.
I've earned an answer from you now, correct?
Do you really believe we do
February 27, 2007 - 13:45 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDo you really believe we don't?
Do you think the United States wants to bomb everyone into oblivion? Nuclear power does not HAVE to result in weapons-grade fissile material.
Iran is a different story. You don't set up gas centerfuge cascades on the scale that Iran has (and is continuing to do) to make reactor fuel.
Educate yourself on nuclear technology.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Since you can look up at th
February 27, 2007 - 13:50 ET by WhichWingSince you can look up at the time of my last response, I'll assume I don't need to respond to this.
And don't be so quick to assume that someone isn't educated about a particular subject.
I had to assume because of
February 27, 2007 - 13:55 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI had to assume because of the idiotic reasoning you used.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Way to not answer the questio
February 27, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Darth DutchWay to not answer the question.
To answer yours, we absolutely want nuclear technology for nuclear weapons. But have we used a nuclear weapon against our enemies after having had the technology for decades? No. Has Iran vowed to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. Yes. If you can't see the difference in our handling of the power we have versus the avowed promises of a regime out to destroy Israel and the West and see that as reason enough to not let them have the technology, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh, and your point is moot anyway. There is no "flip side" of the coin. The United States DOESN'T produce nuclear energy for powering our nation (like it should) so your faux argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Dutch
Oh, and your point is moot
February 27, 2007 - 13:58 ET by WhichWingOh, and your point is moot anyway. There is no "flip side" of the
coin. The United States DOESN'T produce nuclear energy for powering
our nation (like it should) so your faux argument doesn't have a leg to
stand on.
I find that statement ironic. Considering the rampant use of the word 'hypocritical' in this thread, and that I ended my original statement with "I'd hate to end up as hypocritical as Gore."
WhichWing...dont blame us. We
February 27, 2007 - 14:20 ET by bassndudeWhichWing...dont blame us. We are all for nukes on every street, for lights, heat, air all of the electric needs. Thank your greenie neeines out there that we dont use nukes for power. Texas has a few, Nebraska has some, Arkansas and some others. The Al Gore types scream about alternative energy, and when it is avaliable, they scream that you cant do that cause it is nuclear.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
WhichWing...dont blame us. We
February 27, 2007 - 14:21 ET by bassndudeoops
One of the greatest threats t
February 27, 2007 - 14:40 ET by NL207One of the greatest threats to our security is the drawing of moral equivalence between the Islamic Theocracy governing Iran and the representative republic that governs the United States conducted by amoral fools like yourself. Our system of government is based on a supreme law embodied in the constitution of the Unted States of America. Iran's system of government is based entirely on clerical interpretation of the Koran and Hadith. This is akin to the US using the Bible as its foundational governing document. You and others like you would not accept such a government, so why do you insist that we should treat exactly such a governmnet in a foreign country as moral equivalent to our republic?
Unfortunately, DutrchDutch took your bait. I will do no such thing.
Your analogy comparing the Nuclear programs of Iran and the United States is completely invalid in the first instance for these reasons:
First, the US nuclear program owes its roots to WWII, when nuclear weapons and their long term effects were completely unknown and a desparate, worldwide struggle against anti-semitic fascism was underway. The US nuclear program then fell into dormancy until it became clear that Soviet spies had stolen the secrets of their making and Stalin's brutal regime was feverishly building a nuclear weapons stockpile. The ensuing cold war created a gobal stockpile of nuclear weapons that most of us wish did not exists. Now we face another sruggle against another rabidly anti-semitic fascist regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which also harbors a world apocalyptic vision and is feversihly working to build nuclear weapons.
Second, the civilian and military nuclear programs of the United States are completely divorced from one another, due to the nature of the technologies used. All US military nuclear material originated in one of about 7 nuclear reactors operated by the United States government explicitly for this purpose. Any generation of electricty by these plants is entirely incidental to their operation. They are NOT light water moderated reactors which all of our commercial plants are. The reactor being constructed by Iran in Arak is a heavy water reactor. This isn't the sort of plant one uses for optimum electricity production. The Russians have previously supplied Iran with a light water design suitable fo electricty production. Conclusion: Iran's statements that its program is aimed solely at domestic electricity production is a lie.
Here is the critical difference: The United States has always conducted its nuclear weapons programs entirely in the open. In fact, they have been too open, so open that under Bil Clinton's negligent management in the 1990's and Harry truman's negligent oversight of teh late 1940's, Chinese and Soviet spies respectively were able to steal the secrets held by these programs right out from under our noses. Since the end of WWII, it has been stated US policy to prevent both the spread and actual use of such weapons. Iran, on the other hand, is operating clandestine nuclear program while stating one of its national objectives as wiping Israel off the map.
It astound me that myopic liberals like yoursefl continue to equivocate with these hate ridden theocrats.
PLEASE STOP CALLING ME A LI
February 27, 2007 - 14:49 ET by WhichWingPLEASE STOP CALLING ME A LIBERAL. Thats my first request.
My second request is this...reread my posts. You seem to have put an awful lot of words into my mouth.
I read your posts.Your positi
February 27, 2007 - 15:17 ET by NL207I read your posts.
Your position defines you as a liberal on this issue.
The substance of your posts was the drawing of a moral equivalence with respect to nuclear progrms between the Islamic Theocracy of Iran and the Representative Republic of the United States of America. Only liberals and other sorts of more extreme leftists and anti-Americans agree with such reasoning. Liberal is a polite word for you. You could be a socialist or an outright communist as well. They all share your position. Conservatives do not. Therefore you are not a conservative. Even moderates, such as Joseph Liebermann or John McCain, do not share this position. Therefore you are also not one of them.
This very loud squeal indicates to me that my post has skewered your argument.
I was thinking NL207
February 27, 2007 - 15:34 ET by SportPoliticsI was thinking NL207 fence sitter should complain to the UN,or have them rewrite some of their founding documents,which dealt with nuclear power plant sales and signing onto non-proliferration.
I suppose it's easy to claim the USA is the hypocrit, but then of course the entire whine about the Iraq war is moot. Is it what we say, or what the UN has dictated is international in the 193 nation consensus ?
Yeah, the giant consensus.
Do these complainers think the UN said Iran should go right ahead ? I guess so, and it's the USA who is saying "No! " ?
Just once I'd like to see one of these morons whine about Saudi Arabia's objections. But of course, they would never object,would they ...
lol- man it's hard to believe. There's not only BDS, but there's AmericaDS as well.
So disagreeing with someone
February 27, 2007 - 15:42 ET by WhichWingSo disagreeing with someone on one topic then groups them into an entirely different ideology? My original post, which I requested you reread, and you insist that you did, made absolutely no mention of Iran, republics, or theocracies.
You seem to be in attack mode. Or is that the only mode you know? Can we not have a rational discussion? Or do we all have to agree on everything all the time? If that's the case, why bother posting at all? We could just start a petition instead. Just sign your name, and keep your opinion to yourself, right?
We could have a rational discussion if only you were rational.
February 27, 2007 - 16:09 ET by acaiguanaWe could have a rational discussion if only you were rational.
From what I've seen, you are neither rational nor accomodating to the site.
So, having a discussion of intellectual caliber with unarmed people is quite boring. That's why you are having a hard time here. You bring nothing but your natural talents to the arena. That makes you unarmed among the posters here. We'd like to see some cites; less use of code words; and more honesty in your appraoch.
When you start out the day spewing 4-5 posts all over the site all saying the same thing and then call that 'brilliant'.
Well...
It leaves one scratching their head.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I get the impression that y
February 27, 2007 - 16:19 ET by WhichWingI get the impression that you would eat your own children if you thought it would serve your agenda. I, on the other hand, am not willing to go that far. If that means that I'm no longer a conservative, then so be it.
I haven't labeled you. You either are or not? I dunno.
February 27, 2007 - 16:23 ET by acaiguanaI haven't labeled you. You either are or not? I dunno.
I said you were rude. That's all.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA...I am the one that calle
February 27, 2007 - 16:29 ET by Clear thinkerACA...
I am the one that called him a liberal.
Somewhere I admitted that a couple of hours ago on one of these threads, so don't let him try and pin it on you. This is my fault, but I'm not apologizing.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Your first post is irrational
February 27, 2007 - 17:04 ET by NL207Your first post is irrational. It wrongly asserts that American opposition to foreign nuclear programs includes or is based upon medical and utility usage of nuclear energy. American policy explicitly opposes the proliferation of Nuclear weapons. America has no position on the use of nuclear power except as such usage can be perverted into weapons production. "will we then stiop fighting other countries for attempting the same thing" This implies we are fightining [opposing] the use of nuclear power for electricity.
Your second post defined your position on the question of nuclear weapons proliferation: We have them so why should not Iran have them? i.e., is not opposing Iranian aquisition of nuclear weapons hypocrisy since America possesses such weapons? Go back and reread that post for yourself. "Do you REALLY believe ..."
No, you go back and read it
February 28, 2007 - 00:12 ET by WhichWingNo, you go back and read it. EVERYONE, stop putting words in my mouth. Such as this gem: "We have them so why should not Iran have them." I said it before, and I'll say it again. I made no mention of IRAN.
i.e., is not opposing Iranian aquisition of nuclear weapons hypocrisy since America possesses such weapons?
I did not say that, but I will agree with it. Here we are talking about Gore being a hypocrite, yet you refuse to believe that our policy on nuclear weapons is hypocritical. Go ahead, explain to me, O Wise One, how our policy is not hypocritical. As far as I know, we are the only nation that has attacked another nation with a nuclear weapon. Now, I don't want to get into whether using those nuclear weapons was the best option, and in the end the most humane, because that arguement certainly CAN be made. You don't want Gore telling you not to use so much electricity when he himself is using an enormous amount. Just as SOME nations don't want the US telling them not to develop nuclear weapons while sitting on them themselves. Talk about double standards.
Please attempt to keep your hatred to a minumum.
"I will say that I agree
February 28, 2007 - 00:25 ET by NL207"I will say that I agree that Iran most likely wants to use nuclear technology for more than just power. I don't know who else falls into the category "countries like Iran" so that's all I can say."
From a post by WhichWing Feb 27, 12:45 PM.
Now..... as you were saying, you did not mention Iran?
Scroll back a little farthe
February 28, 2007 - 00:45 ET by WhichWingScroll back a little farther, that was in response to another post. My original post did not mention Iran. And as you can see from that quote, I conceded to the point.
A complete waste of time ....
February 28, 2007 - 01:00 ET by NL207A complete waste of time ....
Are you this intellectualy dishonest about everything you do?
This is absurd, or you are
February 28, 2007 - 01:09 ET by WhichWingThis is absurd, or you are absurd. You are the one taking my comments and twisting them into something they aren't. I answered every post addressed to me, and as I just said, I conceded to the point about Iran. How is that dishonest???
which:
February 28, 2007 - 01:33 ET by tumbler_2007You don't have to get snippy.
No, you go back and read it
February 28, 2007 - 00:12 ET by WhichWingDoubled up.
WhichWing the Leftist
February 28, 2007 - 00:20 ET by UnsaneOkay. I'll honor your request, Leftist.
Why aren't Leftists PROUD to be Leftists?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Actually, until leftists like
February 27, 2007 - 18:38 ET by Del DolemonteActually, until leftists like yourself succeeded in shutting down the construction of nuclear plants some 30 years ago, the US was well on its way to having nuclear power supply a good chunk of its energy needs. New Jersey and South Carolina generate almost half of their energy needs via nuclear.
And even today, the ultra-liberal state of Vermont gets 72% of its energy from nuclear power, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
But sadly, to the east, Public Service Company of New Hampshire was forced into bankruptcy by the ultra-left Clamshell Alliance in the 1970s. Before the loonies did their work, PSNH had been one of the most financially solid power companies for nearly a century.
The STNP
February 28, 2007 - 00:22 ET by UnsaneThe United States does not use nuclear power for peaceful purposes? The citizens of Bay City, TX, would be surprised to hear that, as would people in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and other south TX cities and towns that benefit from the South Texas Nuclear Project.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I was in 4th grade, living wi
February 27, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Hero SquadI was in 4th grade, living within that 10 mile radius of TMI when the "meltdown" occurred. Of course, I had no idea what was really going on, but it was a wild day. Parents came into the classroom throughout the day yanking their kids out of class. We kids thought it was clever and funny after lunch to lie on the ground and play dead when the teacher returned. She thought it was not so much funny. Later that year, as a 5th grader I did a report on nuclear power for science class, obviously curious after the incident, and came away realizing that if its managed properly (like so many other things we have in life), it is an efficient, environmentally friendly energy source. But hype and hysteria killed it.
If Iran was a non-radical terror supporting state, I could support it's plan to explore nuclear power as an energy source. But it'd be naive to think that a leader hell-bent on wiping Israel and America off the map has limited his intentions to just this. We are correct in taking steps to keep this from happening.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
cleaning coal exhaust
February 27, 2007 - 16:19 ET by CarpareusMean Gene- Is there a practical way to scrub coal exhaust to the point that it is relatively clean?
JM
Carpareus - yes, they scrub coal exhaust all over the place.
February 27, 2007 - 16:26 ET by acaiguanaCarpareus - yes, they scrub coal exhaust all over the place.
What comes out of the stacks is cleaner than the original atmosphere.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
burning coal is FUN!
February 27, 2007 - 16:43 ET by CarpareusIncluding the "tons of uranium and thorium (both radioactive) in addition to other dangerous chemicals (many of them carcinogens) into the air we breathe every year" (thanks Mean Gene)? I ask because I thought that the scrubbing technology existed, although from personal experience I know how dirty (but fun 8D) burning coal can be. It took hardly anytime at all by burning coal in my heavy duty woodstove to disolve the rebar inside (that was used to "hold" wood) back in '97 in Hoodsport, WA.
"Those Whoe Know History are Doomed to Repeat it" Henry Kaiser
Read Alex Gabbard's article
February 27, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveRead Alex Gabbard's article on coal combustion.
A good resource on nuclear energy is Bernard Cohen's book full text here.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
The majority of the "f
February 27, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThe majority of the "fly ash" is collected in scrubbers and never gets into the air. It makes burning coal much cleaner than without scrubbers. However, the fly ash has to be stored somewhere, usually it is in piles. I'm not certain if there is anything the fly ash can be processed into. I know that a big make-up of fly ash is glass, but other than that, I'm not sure if there is any other commercial benefits to processing fly ash. There could possibly be several products derived from fly ash, but is it economically feasable? Scrubbers are expensive, and anything that comes out in the future that does a better job than modern scrubbers will be even more expensive.
A single coal plant can produce hundreds of tons of waste each year, where as modern nuclear reactors produce somewhere around a cubic meter of waste in a year. We have Yucca Mountain in Nevada which has been proven to be suitable for long term storage of nuclear waste...ironically France which has around 80% of their power provided by nuclear power has no long-term storage for their nuclear waste.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Yucca mountain track record
February 27, 2007 - 16:50 ET by CarpareusHas Yucca mountain been in operation long enough to truly be known to be safe? Otherwise with proper reactor design as well as security concerns (on site, spent fuel transfer, etc.) I have no problem with nuclear.
"Those Who Know History are Doomed to Repeat It" Henry Kaiser
Carpareus...The proof is in t
February 27, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Clear thinkerCarpareus...
The proof is in the geology of the rock in the mountain and the surrounding area. They look at how stable the rock is itself, and how stable the area is in case of earthquakes. Yucca is very, very stable.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
"Those Who Know History are Doomed to Repeat It"
February 27, 2007 - 16:58 ET by CarpareusPlease re- read the post to which you are reponding.
"Those Who Know History are Doomed to Repeat It" Henry Kaiser
Yucca would only store spent
February 27, 2007 - 17:04 ET by Clear thinkerYucca would only store spent fuel, so security would be fairly straightforward.
Does that help?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
The only 100% safe storage ar
February 27, 2007 - 17:03 ET by CarpareusThe only 100% safe storage area I can conceive of would be on or within the Sun. Transportation might prove to be an interesting challenge.
"Those Who Know History are Doomed to Repeat It" Henry Kaiser
P.S. Just heard that a space shuttle was damaged and may not launch on schedule in (was it) March?
Carp...You know damn well tha
February 27, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Clear thinkerCarp...
You know damn well that there is nothing on earth 100% safe, and shipping to the sun is out of the equation. The safety history of Nuke plants in the USA are excellent.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I believe I said that. "Th
February 27, 2007 - 17:20 ET by CarpareusI believe I said that.
"Those Who Know History are Doomed to Repeat It" Henry Kaiser
P.S. This PC is within a hair's breath of being totally FUBAR so I'm about out of here to go look at Macs.
Don't buy a Mac!!! Gun Saf
February 27, 2007 - 17:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDon't buy a Mac!!!
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Why not buy a Mac?
February 27, 2007 - 17:33 ET by CarpareusWhy not buy a Mac?
More bang for the buck with
February 27, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMore bang for the buck with a PC and you won't have to re-learn how to operate your computer.
But, the real reason is you'll start being more and more liberal. ;-)
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
I beg to differ. Macs are wa
February 27, 2007 - 17:41 ET by gfrrmanI beg to differ. Macs are way more user friendly and I DAMN sure ain't no stinkin' liberal!!
User friendly doesn't equat
February 27, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveUser friendly doesn't equate with bang-for-the-buck.
Anywhooooo....we are veering off topic.
I'll gladly debate the virtues of the PC over a Mac all day, but only in an appropriate venue (thread).
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
derailing the thread
February 27, 2007 - 18:09 ET by CarpareusWhoops- wasn't my purpose or desire to derail the thread- my apologies- later.
Fine. You keep your PC and I
February 27, 2007 - 18:12 ET by gfrrmanFine. You keep your PC and I'll gladly stay with my MAC anyday. I promise NOT to veer left!!
I disagree with bang versus b
February 27, 2007 - 17:43 ET by CarpareusI disagree with bang versus buck analysis and Macs are what I re- began with in '96 after a near thirty year absence from back when we wrote line code only. Its either a Mac or Linux as I weary of all the security crappe that WIN requires, and before you say it, Bill is entitled to make all the $ he can
Maybe some- not me 8>D.
If you're good at programmi
February 27, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIf you're good at programming and the command-line, go LINUX!!
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
It will probably be one of th
February 27, 2007 - 18:06 ET by CarpareusIt will probably be one of the end results of several of this afternoon's projects much as I think I might like the new Mac.
FYI I'm above average at programming- it's my typing that sucks. On my very best day ever I hit 30 wpm for the test for the radio room at RCA Alascom (still had the U.S. Gov't Air Force pens in stock after the long lines system buyout when I started in 1971 Gene). Never did end up in the radio room though unfortunately. And with that I REALLY AM OUTA HERE for several hours; c'yah'll.
JM
I'm using a Mac right now and
February 27, 2007 - 17:37 ET by gfrrmanI'm using a Mac right now and wouldn't have anything other than!!! They ain't cheap though.
...more venison and wild boar.
February 27, 2007 - 17:49 ET by CarpareusHere here! I'm sorta thinking about a used G3 however I like the looks of the new 4s at C***co. Seriously yah'll, thanks and I'm outa here for several hours. Also need to pick up some more venison and wild boar- yum yum!
JM
I do my stuff here
February 27, 2007 - 18:06 ET by tumbler_2007Here I a yam doing my stuff;
This is my Mac Mini operating like a charm, a terrific little package about the same size as the Douay-Rheims Bible right there next to it. My wife got this for me last year.
I've hooked it up to a HANNS-G 19 in. flatscreen, and an older set of powered speakers by Altec Lansing. Va-voom; this AM was playing the Shostakovich 7th symphomy on the built-in CD-DVD player.
Have youz folks ever heard Shosty's Leningrad Symphony? Very powerful work. Ironically this CD is by the New York Phil conducted by Kurt Mazur; a German who likely was about 5 years old when the Nazis attacked Leningrad (where Shostakovich lived and wrote this.) In between pages Shostakovich worked in a fire-fighting team putting out fires which Nazi bombardiers were inflicting on the Russians. Say what we like about the Soviets. But they were unflappable and brave at Leningrad. And Dmitri Shostakovich the #1 symphonist of the 20th century, IMHO.
H Kaiser
February 27, 2007 - 17:12 ET by mastersofdeceitThat's a great album!! Especially the Andy Griffith Show Theme w/ vocals.
You can still order the CD from SST.
Henry Kaiser
February 27, 2007 - 17:16 ET by CarpareusAbsolutely. Is it true that he's related to the Kaiser family?
Carp, Interesting. I've never
February 27, 2007 - 17:30 ET by mastersofdeceitCarp,
Interesting. I've never heard that. His Allmusic bio doesn't say anything about it.
Unless I'm wrong (that kinda
February 27, 2007 - 17:53 ET by CarpareusUnless I'm wrong (that kinda goes without saying, eh?) I saw a blurb somewhere about his connection to them. And with that I'm outa here for a few hours especially as my alarm is sounding telling that it's time to go.
I don't have time now to sp
February 27, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI don't have time now to spell it all out for you. Do some reading...that's how I learned. Search the internet, but remember to take everything with a grain of salt. There are a lot of organizations that are so against nuclear power they will use whatever tactics they can to scare everyone from using it.
Look at France's nuclear program too.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)