You've misconstrued so much of what I said and what snopes said, that answering is almost a matter of having to restate everything said earlier.
I can read plain statements in English, TL. I haven't misconstrued anything. You're just involved in some kind of ridiculous denial of the implications of your own language, and the language in the Snopes article.
YOU said that the REASON Gore's bill was so high was because he was buying green power. Therefore, I pointed out that the green power only raised his bill by 16%, so your explanation for his high bill doesn't work.
I said that one of the reasons he paid so much is because he pays a premium to have all clean power. I didn't say it was the only reason.
And I still don't see how "16%" constitutes a rebuttal of that point if you're not saying that only about 16% (or so) of his power is clean. And you certainly disputed my contention that all his power was clean, so what was I supposed to think? That you were making nonsensical non sequiters? Or that you misinterpreted your own math to suggest that only some of his power was actually clean?
Gosh, sorry I thought you were mistaken instead of insane.
It's not well more, which it would do your argument good to note.
It's about 3,000 kwh more.
The other page gave a figure of 16,200 KwH/mo
Times twelve months is 194,000 kwh.
Gore's 2006 consumption was up to 221,000
No, it wasn't. Those are the made-up numbers from the TPRC, which we've established from several sources are fraudulent.
Gore used 191,000 kwhs, not 221,000.
The one you keep quoting says "there's a fair bit of truth to the email." So why in the world did you write the paragraph you just wrote?
Because they don't label the article "false, but with a fair bit of truth" or "false, but not entirely inaccurate"; they label it "true." Just a sweeping affirmation of every factual claim of the article - even the ones their own explanations disprove.
By the way, I also found a web site pointing out that the math doesn't work very well on the claim that the region uses 19.83 kwh/sq. ft. Since the average use is 10,656 kwh/yr, a little division makes the 19.83 kwh/sq. ft. figure only work if the average house is 537 sq. ft. If the average house is over 2,000 sq. ft., as stated by The Buildings Energy Data Book, then the real average energy use must be closer to 5.3 kwh/sq. ft.
I don't understand your math. Why would you multiply the regional average power use by the national average home size? Your reasoning is specious on the face of it.
The 2,000 sq. ft. figure is also correct, so it looks like the claim that the average house uses 19.83 kwh/sq. ft. is more liberal misinformation.
The only misinformation here is you playing fast and loose with the facts. 19.83 kwh is the regional average.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
