...Al Gore recently testified before a Senate committee. It was a blatant attempt by the Democrats to give Al some face time and allow him to promote his money-making global warming scam. They even made sure that the Republicans didn't get much time to question Al, and when they finally got to, Al gave lengthy, long-winded answers to keep them from asking too many questions.

One Senator, however, got in a very revealing zinger.

Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.

It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

As a believer:
    ·        that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
    ·        that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
    ·        that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
    ·        that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Gore refused to take the pledge.

In one fell swoop, Inhofe put the lie to all of Al's bloviating, exposed his hypocrisy for all to see and made Al admit that he doesn't, and won't, practice what he preaches.

Oh I wouldn't expect Al to reduce his energy consumption to the same level as me. I've done quite a bit of work to reduce my energy consumption. I can't afford not to. But Al could have made a promise to reduce his consumption by some amount — 10%? 20%? Something!

Instead he refused. Good old Al. Just as tone deaf as ever. In one way, Al fits right in. He's just like the smarmy preachers who raise tons of money from their gullible followers and spend them on mansions and limos and private jets, laughing at the rubes while being driven to the bank. His is just a different denomination.  (Crossposted at Media Lies.)

Contributed by antimedia on March 24, 2007 at 09:47 PM in Antimedia | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: Calvin Jones

He seems to be hated because the argument is being won and the republians don't yet have policies to addres climate change, he does!

My link is to bill oriely and his thoughts on climate change.

Posted by: Calvin Jones | Mar 25, 2007 5:09:25 AM

Posted by: antimedia

I don't hate Al Gore. I doubt many people do. I despise his manipulation of people's emotions for his own personal profit.

As far as winning the argument goes, I'd have to disagree completely. I think his antics are contributing to losing the argument. It's a good thing, though, because the global warming hype is just that - hype. When global warming proponents can explain why Mars, Jupiter and Venus are also warming (Mars has lost a third of its polar cap in the past three years), then they might be worth listening to.

Al claims there is scientific consensus when nothing could be futher from the truth. I guess, if you consider lying a good debate tactic, Al Gore is a good debater.

One last thing. We don't need policies to address climate change. We need policies to address the uncontrolled growth of the power of the federal government. That represents a far greater danger to our futures than anything having to do with climate change, over which we have little to no control.

Posted by: antimedia | Mar 25, 2007 1:06:23 PM