In what was a most enjoyable day on Capitol Hill, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), finally got to question Al Gore on his support of global warming. Gore did not fare so well:
WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge" today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today's global warming hearing.
Gore of course refused and muttered something about his home and businesses being "carbon neutral". Carbon neutrality is, of course, a sham cooked up by energy grubbing liberals to make themselves feel better about their wasteful habits.
Gore looked and sounded like a man who was in a battle of wits, unarmed. Inhofe was better prepared and the recent hit piece on Gore by the NY Times probably didn't do much for his self confidence. The Times piece and other media are suddenly changing their tunes on the global warming issue, either because they know Gore would get creamed if he chose to run for president or because they think he may draw votes away from Hillary.
Here's more on this as it happened. And here's a video making the rounds:
Exit question: If Gore was the environmentalist he says he is, why is he only "carbon neutral"? Why is he not living in a house that not only is green, but produces enough electricity to send back into the grid? Why did Gore not build a house such as this that used no electricity. Why be "carbon neutral" when you could just as well be "carbon positive". The answer to all these questions is because he is a hypocrite.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 2)
16. Neither Inhofe nor Gore address the real issue which continues to be over the extent to which we humans are responsible for Global Warming.
I've read about it intensely these past several years, and have come to two conclusions:
1) Global Warming is real, but just how significant is a one degree Fahrenheit increase in average temperatures over fifty or so years...or that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 3 parts per million to 4 ppm. Yes, that's 33%, but is it significant?
2) The so-called cases to prove Man's involvement are as much statistical coincidence as verifiable cause and effect.
We simply don't know enough yet to make cataclysmic projections for something that really hasn't happened yet.
It worries me deeply that some, for whatever their motives, seem desperate to rush to judgement on this issue, demanding action which, if wrong, are likely to lead to economic disaster for the advanced countries of this planet...and even worse for the poorer nations such as in Africa.
jastover at 12:32PM on Apr 11th 2007
17. The worst hypocrisy of liberals and their "carbon credits" is that it is an example of what they blame Republicans of doing. Robbing the poor to give to the rich. Gore can buy carbon credits only because he inherited extreme familial wealth. So some other poor sap has to live the life of a cloistered monk to allow for his piggish profligacy
Kevin at 10:12PM on Apr 11th 2007
18. In elementary school in the 60's we were taught how the great lakes were formed from retreating glaciers. Also that this had happened more than once. In the early 80's we were told of an impending ice age if we didn't clean up our act and plant trees,(e.g.Jimmy Carter and no more Christmas lights). I am all for more plants, the world is just better looking. However this global warming is a sham as far as people being the cause goes. There were no people or factories when these things happened in the past. Gore has made himself head of an organization that will collect money for his "cause". Like most peopole of his ilk, I imagine it will go to line his pockets. All that support Gore and his cronies will be ponying up for this if he succeeds in getting a big enough market share, mark my words.
Faye at 8:06AM on Apr 19th 2007
19. Does anyone even read these? It seems that most of
the posts are related to personal pollitical views.
Try this for those who are saying we can do nothing
and also for those who are for doing something to
curb global warming.
We have a lot of free cheap energy that can be
converted into electric energy. They for the most part go ignored right under our nose. Some have had
laws passed to keep us from using them.
For instance we can use our nations rivers to power
paddle wheel driven generators like our forefathers
used but add modern designs to harness more energy.
We put up mile after mile of wind mill powered ones
but wind does not have the power of water and wind is
not a given where was is. The wind might blow but we
know when a river runs.
This would help our salmon runs repopulate the ocean and our fishing industry would again have fish
to catch and so would our sport fishermen prosper
from doing this. This would help the Indian Nations
to keep our rivers from being dammed and choking the
salmon runs.
We could put barges on inlets like Pudget Sound as
the tide difference between the South and North Sound
is great enough, power could be generated through the
entire 24 hours of the day. The size of the Pudget
Sound is immense to say the least and could power
many thousands of barges producing many generators
making huge amounts of electricity.
We could harness what are called flares at our
Nations oil refineries and make as much power as a
nuclear power plant. We could set it up so that
twice the amount these have been wasting each year
over the last five years would have to be given to
those willing to build the steam plants to harness
this waste. They could use the resident domain laws
to access the land and we could see much power from
what they call waste.
We could harness the power our trains waste as
they come down mountains, hills or just stop. They
say inertia makes it use more energy to stop a
moving train that to get one going. By putting
generators on the rail cars and an onboard computer
to tell them when to make power we could see huge
amounts made. A train going down a pass in Washington
State could power one up grade in Idaho if the same
power grid set up to collect it were made to power
them. We could see a big reduction in not just carbon but in the use of diesel. This would help our
hurting trucking industry by placing less demand on
diesel fuel. Just as this last winter we seen that
when it was warmer than normal and we used less
heating oil, demand caused the price of a barrel to
come down.
One thing I wonder is, when we used less heating oil last winter and the price came down, why does
it go back up when we hardly use it at all? Shouldn't
not using heating oil at all in the summer keep the
price down or are we to believe what lies they tell? I know this, if we cut our demand for oil by using
more electricity to do things and make way more, we
will see a huge drop in oil prices. We will also see
a drop in the price of electricity if we produce way
more. Simple supply and demand will keep the price
down and there is a law on the books which says the
power companies have to buy any power generated. The
power company gets to buy it cheap and we get the
savings passed on to us, unless we let Enron market
it.
There is not a person who should be against doing
these and other things to lessen our dependence on
foreign oil, clean our air, lower our prices for oil,
gas, diesel and electricity, to create new better
paying jobs, give our children a reason to see hope
for their future and a host of other reasons. To
think we can do these things for all those reasons
and curb our greenhouse gases at the same time we
improve our economy. Our Nations companies would
have many new things to build and sell to the world.
We could be the leading Nation in the war on global
warming and not even be doing it for that reason.
This would not matter if a person believed in global warming or not, nor if he were a liberal or a conservative. The only thing a person would have to be, to be behind this, is, American, no other reason needed to want to see our Nation being pulled back together. We need being pulled back together real bad right now and this would give both sides reason to meet on middle ground to save the Nation.
William Ehlert at 12:02AM on Apr 30th 2007