Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush vs. Gore in energy consumption
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 46 of 77 (399951)
05-09-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
05-08-2007 8:57 PM


Gosh, crash, by the standards you're trying to apply to snopes.com, your post (the one I'm responding to) doesn't stand a chance, either.
No, you're reading it wrong. Gore pays $432 more for clean energy than he would pay if the same amount of energy were supplied by "dirty" sources. Neither article claims that only %16 of Gore's energy is clean.
Nor did my post.
The Gores pay $432 more than they would otherwise (that's what a "premium" means) because all of their power is clean. Not that they only buy $432 worth of clean power, as you misunderstood.
You'll have to substantiate this claim. I simply pointed out that the Snopes article, quoting the Tennessean, said that "some" of Gore's energy use is from clean sources. Why do you say all?
As for your "that's what a 'premium' means," that's exactly how I treated the $432. Any suggestion that only 16% was clean came from you, not me. I did say it wasn't 100%, as you had claimed, because the source said "some." You've given no source for your 100% claim. As far as I can tell, it's simply what you hope is true.
"Mitigating factors" is a misleading way to refer to the fact that Gore's house is both a year-round residence for the Gores, a residence for several live-in staff, and offices out of which several charitable organizations are managed, while Bush's ranch house is essentially a vacation home occupied only a few months out of the year - which Snopes doesn't mention at all on either page.
Bush's energy consumption compared to the average home isn't mentioned. Bush's energy consumption compared to Gore's isn't mentioned. The article simply says that Bush's home is environmentally friendly, which it is, so the fact Bush lives there only 2-3 months per year isn't relevant, because nothing was said about how low Bush's power bills are.
That's a point that neither article on Snopes sees fit to report, and I don't see how the claim that Gore's use of energy is "extravagant", which Snopes called "true", is supportable.
They didn't say this. What they did say is that "other factors...make the Gore home's energy use comparable to that of other homes in the area."
Well, wait now. Is it 12, or is it 20?
Snopes reports that both figures were given. Since the wording of their report makes the issue of 12 or 20 is irrelevant, there's no reason for them to verify one or the other. I opted for the lower one out of simple fairness.
Snopes job is not to evaluate Gore's energy usage. Snopes job is to find out if the details in the urban legend are factual. The details ARE factual. You object to the conclusions in the email. It is not Snopes job to evaluate those conclusions down to the nth detail. Nonetheless, they did get responses from Gore and enough info to "mitigate" the conclusions, though they had no responsibility to do so.
Snopes determined that the claim that Gore house uses "20 times the national average" was "true."
No, they didn't. They concluded that the "gist," which is that the Gore household "consumes a substantially larger proportion of energy than the average American home" is true. For any reasonable reader, this is a very clear statement that they are not backing either the 12 times or 20 times figure, just that it's "substantially larger."
But you are not being anywhere close to a reasonable reader of their article or even my post (as suggested by your interpretations of what I said about the $432).
I mean, if you can be that wrong on the facts,
They're not wrong on the facts, they're dead on. There's several things you claim they said, which they didn't say, but who can get "facts" right when those facts are nothing but the very unreasonable interpretations of a disgruntled reader?
Says you, but it's clear from the research of both CBS News and the AP that the region Gore's house is located in has the highest per-household energy use of any area in the country - 50% higher than the national average.
So I'd say that's a pretty significant difference in energy needs.
Of course, you would say that, but you'd give no reason for it. You'd accuse and complain about Snopes for comparing Gore to the national average rather than to his local area, but you're perfectly happy to lump Bush's house into the national average without checking.
I didn't say that the Nashville area has no significant difference from the national average. I did say that the energy needs between the Nashville area and the Waco area shouldn't be significantly different, based on their similar weather.
Nashville's energy needs may be 50% higher than the national average, but are they 50% higher than Crawford, Tx? I don't know (and you don't either), but I do know the weather in the two places is very similar. I only live 150 miles from Nashville. Winters are not that bad here, and summers are, if anything, less severe than in the Waco area of Texas, though not much less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 8:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 10:02 AM truthlover has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 494 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 47 of 77 (399956)
05-09-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
05-09-2007 1:00 AM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
Because of his policies, RR. If you want to debate those, we can. Quite frankly Bush has been in the position to do much more for the environment as President of the United States than just live in a green house a few months out of the year.
I agree crash, I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 1:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 77 (399959)
05-09-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by truthlover
05-09-2007 7:44 AM


Gosh, crash, by the standards you're trying to apply to snopes.com
What standards? If you're going to report on a claim that "Gore's house uses 20 times the national average in power" and call it "true", then Gore's house had better use 20 times the national average - not 12 times, and not less than the regional average.
That's the only standard that I'm applying - that Snopes is calling specific claims "true" that its own research clearly indicates are false.
. I simply pointed out that the Snopes article, quoting the Tennessean, said that "some" of Gore's energy use is from clean sources. Why do you say all?
Because the Green Power Switch program doesn't provide "half-dirty" power. That's what the program is for - you pay a premium to replace your "regular" power, in 150-kwh blocks, with clean power.
Look, let me explain it again in a different way. The gas station down the street sells regular unleaded for 3.09, and Ultimate Silver Badass Gas for 3.29. If told you that I paid a "premium" of 2 dollars on ten gallons for the ultimate gas, for a grand total of $32.90, it's false to conclude from that that I put only less than a gallon of the ultimate gas in my tank.
No. The whole tank is filled with ultimate gas, the 2 dollars is the premium I paid on top of what regular gas would have cost if I had gotten that, instead.
$432 is what Gore pays on top of his regular energy bill - that's what a "premium" means - to get clean power instead of dirty power. At that cost he's paid for 194,000 kwh per year (according to the Clean Power Switch website), well more than his home's energy use of 191,000 kwh.
Any suggestion that only 16% was clean came from you, not me.
No, look. Here's what you said:
quote:
Gore pays $432/mo, a figure snopes.com provides, toward getting SOME green energy. That $432 represents about 16% of his electric bill.
I know how to read, TL. The fact that you find it important to mention what percentage of his energy bill the $432 premium represents makes it pretty clear that you didn't understand what it meant. I don't know why the AP says "some" when the math makes it clear that it's really "all", but I suspect it's just the typical media bias against Al Gore.
Bush's energy consumption compared to the average home isn't mentioned. Bush's energy consumption compared to Gore's isn't mentioned.
Yes. Isn't that interesting, that they don't mention those figures at all? Yet they conclude that a direct comparison of Bush's vacation residence against Gore's primary residence and business office, rather than being specious which it obviously is, is "true"?
Sorry, I call shenanigans. For a site that supposedly "debunks urban legends", you'd think they'd operate with a little greater rigor.
They didn't say this.
They did, TL. The email says "extravagant." Snopes calls it "true." The whole thing - "true."
If the email makes claims that Snopes can't support, then they should label the email "false." Or at best "unknown." It's that simple. Snopes should be checking its sources before they give them the stamp of approval, and they clearly didn't in this case.
Snopes reports that both figures were given.
They fail to report that the people who gave the figure of "20" did so on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, as confirmed by the Tennessee power company. So that's a major failure of their effort to "debunk", right there - not investigating the evidence behind claims.
But that didn't stop them from calling the email "true." I'm sorry but that's not debunking. If I tell you that I won a million dollars in the lottery, but really I just found a ten-dollar bill on the street, my claim was not "basically true". The "gist" of my claim is not true. It's the same thing happening here - Snopes called "true" claims that are objectively false, and reached for the most specious of justifications to do so. They're playing fast and loose with the truth and I'm calling them, and you, on it.
Snopes job is to find out if the details in the urban legend are factual.
Which they didn't even attempt to do. Had they, they would have reported that the TCPR simply made up the "20 times" figure out of whole cloth.
But they didn't. They didn't research the details at all. Yet, they called the email "true." That's bullshit, TL!
You'd accuse and complain about Snopes for comparing Gore to the national average rather than to his local area, but you're perfectly happy to lump Bush's house into the national average without checking.
When did I do that? As you mentioned, figures for Bush's vacation house aren't given. I have no idea how it stacks up locally, and I never said I did. I imagine that a house only lived in 2 months out of the year probably uses substantially less power than other, local permanent residences.
They're not wrong on the facts, they're dead on.
No, they're being deliberately misleading by calling false information "true." They don't even say "basically true", or "mostly true" - they call the whole thing "true." It's there in black and white, TL. Are you even reading these articles?
I did say that the energy needs between the Nashville area and the Waco area shouldn't be significantly different, based on their similar weather.
The Belle Meade area has the highest national average. Simple logic informs us that therefore, it must have a higher average than the Waco area. Is it significantly higher? I need more than your charming anecdotes to substantiate that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 7:44 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 1:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 49 of 77 (399981)
05-09-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
05-09-2007 10:02 AM


It's hard to know where to start, Crash. 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.
truthlover writes:
Gore pays $432/mo, a figure snopes.com provides, toward getting SOME green energy. That $432 represents about 16% of his electric bill.
crashfrog writes:
I know how to read, TL. The fact that you find it important to mention what percentage of his energy bill the $432 premium represents makes it pretty clear that you didn't understand what it meant.
There's nothing in what I said that even remotely indicates I was suggesting green power was only 16% of his electricity. 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 nothing about his green power being only 16%. I did, however, say that it was only "some," not all, because that's what Scopes said. I asked your for some backing for your claim that "all" his power is green.
You did at least go provide this:
$432 is what Gore pays on top of his regular energy bill - that's what a "premium" means - to get clean power instead of dirty power. At that cost he's paid for 194,000 kwh per year (according to the Clean Power Switch website), well more than his home's energy use of 191,000 kwh.
It's not well more, which it would do your argument good to note. The other page gave a figure of 16,200 KwH/mo, which is exactly what $432 would pay for. Gore's 2006 consumption was up to 221,000, so I suspect the premium is tied to the usage, and Gore is probably specifically paying for all his energy usage as green.
No, they're being deliberately misleading by calling false information "true." They don't even say "basically true", or "mostly true" - they call the whole thing "true." It's there in black and white, TL. Are you even reading these articles?
Yes, as a matter of fact. What are you reading? 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? It's bizarre. I can't even understand why you would write that, and then end by asking ME if I had read it. Good grief.
The Belle Meade area has the highest national average. Simple logic informs us that therefore, it must have a higher average than the Waco area. Is it significantly higher? I need more than your charming anecdotes to substantiate that.
You're the one making accusations, not me. I'm simply questioning your statement when you implied that Gore's area uses 50% more than Bush's.
When did I do that?
When I said:
truthlover writes:
There's not a real significant difference in energy needs.
Which I said about the Crawford, TX area and the Nashville area based on weather, you said:
crashfrog writes:
Says you, but it's clear from the research of both CBS News and the AP that the region Gore's house is located in has the highest per-household energy use of any area in the country - 50% higher than the national average.
So I'd say that's a pretty significant difference in energy needs.
Since I was talking about Bush's area vs. Gore's area, and you reply stating that the difference is significant because Gore's is 50% above national average, your statement is only true if Bush's area is the same as the national average. Otherwise, your "I'd say that's a pretty significant difference" makes no sense at all.
The Belle Meade area has the highest national average.
Actually, according to your source, it's the East South Central area, consisting of TN, MS, KY, and AL that was the highest. I was unable to verify that. Unfortunately, the info's doggone hard to find. However, I did find a 1997 report that's difficult to read and a 1993 report that's easier.
The 1997 report has a table on p. 18 that shows energy expenditures higher in the East South Central than in the West South Central (where Bush's house is). However, it's nowhere near the highest.
The 1993 report gives energy consumption per household on the second page (table 1). It has the West South Central, where Bush is, higher than the East South Central, where Gore is. The Northeast and the Midwest dwarf both, being about 30% larger.
I guess both sides can be purveyors of misinformation, huh, crash?
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.
You know, as I read this more, it's funny, but newer homes use more electricity than older ones, so the argument that Gore's house was built in the 60's doesn't help. In the 1997 report, it shows that average household use was 10,219 kwh then, but in houses constructed in the 60's, it was just 9,459. It was houses constructed in the 1990's (new then) that averaged over 12,000 kwh.
Anyway, since I can verify that 10,219 kwh was avg. household use in 1997, I think the current 10,656 figure is very likely correct. 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.
Sorry, I couldn't resist the jab. I don't believe I qualify as a political conservative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 10:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 3:16 PM truthlover has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 77 (400001)
05-09-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by truthlover
05-09-2007 1:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 1:10 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 4:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 51 of 77 (400008)
05-09-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-09-2007 3:16 PM


Well, thanks for your time.
The similarities between the application of your politics and the creationists' science amazes me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 7:41 PM truthlover has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 77 (400028)
05-09-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by truthlover
05-09-2007 4:30 PM


The similarities between the application of your politics and the creationists' science amazes me.
That's not an argument, that's an ad hominem, and I could say precisely the same thing about you.
Try to remember than I'm no Gore partisan, I voted Bush in 2000 against Gore. But bullshit is bullshit, and taking an email, refuting it on nearly every substantial claim, and then calling it "true" is bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 4:30 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 9:44 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 54 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 10:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 53 of 77 (400041)
05-09-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
05-09-2007 7:41 PM


crashfrog writes:
I voted Bush in 2000 against Gore.
You're no longer my friend.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2007 8:06 PM Taz has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 54 of 77 (400052)
05-09-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
05-09-2007 7:41 PM


That's not an argument, that's an ad hominem, and I could say precisely the same thing about you.
Well, it wasn't meant as an argument, but as a statement as to why I was dropping the discussion. I maintain a small hope you see why I said it.
A better response than I expected, though, so thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 7:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 77 (400159)
05-10-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taz
05-09-2007 9:44 PM


You're no longer my friend.
Sorry. I was very poorly informed by a media that did everything in its power to prevent a Gore presidency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 9:44 PM Taz has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 56 of 77 (443067)
12-23-2007 5:14 PM


for fgarb, Gore's necessary energy usage for promoting CC (or himself)
In another thread, fgarb and I tangled over the following comment by him...
Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize not for good personal behavior, but for sounding the alarm about global warming in a very effective way. Perhaps he can be criticized for having to burn excessive fossil fuels himself, but flying around the world repeatedly was necessary to spread his message widely.
The following is my reply...
I don't understand how it could be said that he sounded the alarm in a very effective way. He was a rich guy that was already famous, and used his political clout and stature to get a movie made on a subject that many (if not most) scientists already agree, and so does much of the world. The only major nation (besides perhaps China) where climate change is in question is within the US. And while his movie may have sold well... how is that an indication that it did anything? Michael Moore's movie F911 sold very well too and did not change a thing in this nation. His movie Sicko, is not only better but addresses an even more important issue (for people in the US) and it may not do anything.
Is there any reliable evidence that Gore's movie or slideshow did anything but sell well to the chorus, some of whom actually know the data better than him and must forgive his misinterpretations and misstatements to pat him on the back for the message?
In the end he was given a medal for base propaganda, not good science, or even results. Indeed, the idea that "sounding the alarm in an effective way" should be rewarded for itself, seems a bit odd. McCarthy effectively sounded the alarm about Communism. That is simply propaganda, and is not deserving of an award... to my mind... especially (in Gore's case) when it is pretty widely accepted already.
As to your second point, there is absolutely NO reason Gore had to fly anywhere to do any promoting (or anything else) for the movie. Heck, I would have been more impressed overall, if he had made the movie digitally, powered only by noncarbon-based fuel technologies, and then distributed it for free in venues (like the internet) which do not require large energy consumption, promoting it through same techniques to show an example that technology can be our friend and allow us to do things in new ways that minimize environmental impact.
I mean to have him say, well that's how you have to get a film (or whatever event) done. How is that any different than someone else saying, well I gotta fill up my gas tank and drive my SUV that's how you have to get X done? Be on the forefront, and then I'll start buying the medal business.
....
He and I may both be on shaky ground with respect to Gore's personal energy habits, but I have to dispute the necessity of Gore' methods in trying to get the word out.
Fgarb suggested this thread or a new one. I think it might as well go here rather than a whole new thread, due to its similar topic and limited scope.
I will make a nod to the OP in pointing out that while Bush had no reason to be environmentally friendly, he did so quietly. Gore really should have been doing so given his public outrage on the subject, and didn't do as much as he could have.
More to the point, while Bush's detractors point to the White House as being inefficient and the correct comparison to Gore's house... uh, who did Bush inherit that White House from? Maybe Gore didn't live there but it was Clinton-Gore running it. That Reagan tore down the solar panels (which is really shitty), one must ask why Gore didn't have them reinstalled... Bush did.
I don't think Gore is a great example for environmental living. He seems to be a phony and a braggart. Too bad. For a millionaire it should be pretty easy, and we could use more good examples.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by fgarb, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 58 by fgarb, posted 12-24-2007 12:56 AM Silent H has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5469 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 57 of 77 (443204)
12-24-2007 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Silent H
12-23-2007 5:14 PM


Re: for fgarb, Gore's necessary energy usage for promoting CC (or himself)
First let me say that with regards to Gore’s personal behavior, my goal is not to win this argument because I don't know that I am right. For that part of it, my goal is to find out how hypocritical Gore is being. It seems to me that he is mostly being honest and is genuinely trying to help the environment as best he can, but I will consider evidence to the contrary.
SilentH writes:
Is there any reliable evidence that Gore's movie or slideshow did anything but sell well to the chorus, some of whom actually know the data better than him and must forgive his misinterpretations and misstatements to pat him on the back for the message?
I don't know if any data regarding how many people's minds he changed. I personally know two people who went to the movie with a skeptical mindset. They had both told me in the past that they thought GW was a stupid thing for the environmental movement to focus on. They didn't know if it was real and didn't think it was a big deal even if it was happening. They came back from the movie and were both really surprised at what they had learned and had were suddenly worried about the future effects of warming. I realize that's just an anecdote, but I suspect it is representative of a broader picture.
As for misstatements, there are only two deceptive parts of the movie that I am aware of. One is where he overlays plots of CO2 and temperature and asks "do these curves fit"? The audience is left thinking that rising CO2 in the past caused increasing temps when in fact it was the other way around. The other is when he talks about melting ice causing rising ocean levels which flood cities. He says something like "if [blah] icesheets melt, here is the badness that will happen". He never mentions that projections suggest this melting will take centuries to occur. Neither of these deceptions is a falsehood, and while they annoy me, I don't feel think they're that big of a deal.
Overall, four years ago I was pissed about how everyone I talked to was dismissing global warming as "no big deal", and wouldn't put in the effort to learn anything about it. Thanks largely to Gore I think, it is now broadly realized that GW is a danger, and that we should try to do something about it. There are still plenty of misconceptions out there about it, but I don't blame Gore for these.
I'll address the rest of your post in a second entry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 5:14 PM Silent H has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5469 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 58 of 77 (443209)
12-24-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Silent H
12-23-2007 5:14 PM


Re: for fgarb, Gore's necessary energy usage for promoting CC (or himself)
First let me say that with regards to Gore’s personal behavior, my goal is not so much to convince you of anything as to find out what is true. I really don't know how hypocritical Gore is being. I suspect that he is mostly honest and is genuinely trying to help the environment as best he can, but I will consider evidence to the contrary.
SilentH writes:
As to your second point, there is absolutely NO reason Gore had to fly anywhere to do any promoting (or anything else) for the movie. Heck, I would have been more impressed overall, if he had made the movie digitally, powered only by noncarbon-based fuel technologies, and then distributed it for free in venues (like the internet) which do not require large energy consumption, promoting it through same techniques to show an example that technology can be our friend and allow us to do things in new ways that minimize environmental impact.
As I understand it, Gore did not set out to make and promote a movie. What he did was he made a slideshow and went around showing it to as many people as possible in the hopes of spreading awareness about the problem (while at the same time getting rich through speaking engagements, but I can’t say as how that’s a problem). To get speaking engagements at places to convince audiences of things you need to travel around to them which requires plane tickets and the burning of lots of CO2. Sad, but true, so Gore bought carbon offsets to reduce the damage as much as possible. After extensive presentations (Gore estimated that he showed the presentation 1000 times), he had spread enough interest that a film crew got involved and we all know the rest.
Since then, you can argue that Gore should be doing all his future speaking engagements via video conferencing. That would be a very unprecedented way to do things, and maybe he should be trying it. But I can't blame him for thinking that that's a less effective approach and that he should be meeting people face to face and that the benefit of convincing crowds of people in person is greater than the cost of the CO2 from his roundtrip flight - especially after offsets.
As for his home electricity bills, I think the point has been made on this thread that has per square foot usage is smaller than the average in the region he lives in, and he gets his power from renewable sources. As for his personal jet, that sounds a bit excessive to me, but he claims that he flies commercially. I don't know how true this is, but I certainly don't trust FOX News about anything, especially when it comes to statements about the former VP. If there are non-biased sources of information about this that anyone has I would consider it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 5:14 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2007 3:01 PM fgarb has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 77 (443331)
12-24-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by fgarb
12-24-2007 12:56 AM


Re: for fgarb, Gore's necessary energy usage for promoting CC (or himself)
Hey, what's this double-teaming me? And I don't know if I can trust that creepy looking guy! Heheheh.
I only have time to make one reply today, so I'm going to make it to you since I missed out yesterday. I'll answer (or try to) both your posts in this one...
We can both agree that Gore has good intentions. I don't believe he is malicious. However that does not mean he is doing the best things, or even the right things. And I believe he has two "problems" which hamper his efforts. The first is that he is a natural politician, which makes him more concerned with image than getting something done. Second is that his style of leadership is one of scaring people into action, namely scare them about X so that they view him (and whatever policy he states) as the answer.
He does not seem to be concerned with what I am concerned about... good science, both understanding and application. And he does not seem to trust people enough to lead without fear.
Your own anecdotes point toward that. They began to be worried about future aspects of global warming. No one should have to be worried, and that's a terrible way to pitch the issue. We'll ALWAYS have climate change regardless of GHG emissions. It should just be a reminder that we do live in a fluctuating environment, and we have to take that into consideration in many different aspects. Reducing GHGs would help with some of those fluctuations. I don't know I guess it reminds me of those driver's ed films where they show dead people to remind you to buckle up, or look both ways before driving forward.
There were a couple more misstatements regarding science and evidence, but you hit probably the top two (another important one is his use of Katrina). To my mind he is engaging in propaganda when he does such things. I don't view that as good for anyone, even if it is effective.
As far as changing minds goes, one of my problems with that claim is that most of the people that matter (the scientists) understand and agree with CC models. And of politicians and average citizens, isn't it primarily just the US where such knowledge is lagging behind? But this is not really an important issue, just something that makes me disagree with him getting a Nobel. He added nothing to knowledge, and was partly mistaken, he had no solutions... so what's the big deal?
If it is that he's a leader, which seems to be what he is pitching himself as, then I think its fair that he be measured... and he is falling short (to my mind).
I understand your point about giving slide presentations... if he needed to make money, but I find that hard to believe. The guy is rich. And this is where I think he's failing to be a leader. He could make dramatic gestures which not only indicate his sincerity, and get across the message, but actually demonstrate how new technology can be used to reduce our impact on the environment.
Why not give those same things via video conference systems? Or do it all online? If people have to see him in person, then that alone says it is not what he is saying, but who he is that is changing people's minds.
In fact, he could easily have set up a server and made the movie available to anyone on demand over the internet. He could have coupled that with actual data, up to date data, on all sorts of science related to CC, as well as methods to reduce emissions. If you go to his movie's website (or at least that's the way it was a year ago) there is absolutely NO information. One is locked into a system of having to rely on re-watching his movie or re-read his book, and trying to glean what one can get. If he wanted to seem hella cool he could have spent time online answering people's questions live with Climatologists sitting right next to him.
But assuming for a moment that he had to go to speaking engagements before the movie, there is no reason he had to fly. He could have taken a car (which consumes less). And more importantly could have used electric or hybrid type technologies. Maybe the hybrid stuff wasn't around until more recently but electric has been for some time. It just depends how much you want to put into it.
By not doing this, he is practicing convenience over environment. Routine over novelty. By buying carbon credits he is practicing wealth over changing habits. I mean there are only so many carbon credits that can be bought, and none of them involve reducing emissions. That the rich can keep their lifestyle, because they can afford it, is not the message he ought to be sending. Yet it is, even if not intentional.
But I can't blame him for thinking that that's a less effective approach and that he should be meeting people face to face and that the benefit of convincing crowds of people in person is greater than the cost of the CO2 from his roundtrip flight - especially after offsets.
Why should meeting him be more useful than getting the information? And indeed if people are concerned, why not attend lectures by local climatologists? My opinion is that I can blame him for thinking it's less effective, if changing habits is part of what is needed to change our effect on the environment. Show some sacrificing, or perhaps that there is no sacrifice (even though there is difference) by using new technology.
That would totally impress me. Heck, he could have sailed to Stockholm on a wind powered ship (sailing ship), with all the luxury in the world, yet no emissions. That would have been a statement.
On his home, I think he's being environmental. He's doing okay. But he's not showing anything cutting edge, which is what he could be doing, and what I would be expecting from a leader. It is an irony that a rather non-environmental guy like Bush actually has a cutting edge home.
And I might repeat a point that some within this thread claim Bush's real house is the White House. As it stands, he got it from Clinton-Gore who did nothing to put the solar panels back in, and Bush did. I'm not trying to make out like Bush is some environmental leader, but there is an irony when one looks at how the two actually live.
On his jet... I don't know. Like you, I don't trust Fox worth anything. And Rrhain had given some appropriate responses Gore might have. Then again, I keep falling back to my question of his leadership. If the environment is what his life is about now, and he wants to be a leader, then he needs to do better than he is. I am not a multimillionaire and I have managed to live without a car and without a private jet, or buying carbon credits for some time. I could have made it to those places without such emissions, or I would have chosen not to go. That is to say if I could not make it without producing unwanted emissions (and so setting a good example for future habits) then I'd say I couldn't make it.
He's not a bad man, he just isn't living up to the hype he has created around himself, he is not helping people understand science, and he is creating fear where it's not needed (and I would argue unhelpful).
{AbE: By the way, Happy Holidays! I may very well be out in your neighborhood today... though not on your rooftop.}
Edited by Silent H, : AbE

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by fgarb, posted 12-24-2007 12:56 AM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by fgarb, posted 12-24-2007 8:39 PM Silent H has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5469 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 60 of 77 (443398)
12-24-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Silent H
12-24-2007 3:01 PM


Re: for fgarb, Gore's necessary energy usage for promoting CC (or himself)
SilentH writes:
Hey, what's this double-teaming me? And I don't know if I can trust that creepy looking guy!
I don't really trust Dr. Cranium either, but I try to keep quiet about it. He tends to be a bit spiteful about challenges to his authority. ;-)
SilentH writes:
He does not seem to be concerned with what I am concerned about... good science, both understanding and application. And he does not seem to trust people enough to lead without fear.
Your own anecdotes point toward that. They began to be worried about future aspects of global warming. No one should have to be worried, and that's a terrible way to pitch the issue. We'll ALWAYS have climate change regardless of GHG emissions. It should just be a reminder that we do live in a fluctuating environment, and we have to take that into consideration in many different aspects.
Well, I think people should be worried about the future consequences of global warming. It is not just a scientific puzzle to solve - in the worst case scenarios a significant fraction of the world population could die due to floods, drought, and famine, and a significant fraction of the species on the planet would die out.
SilentH writes:
There were a couple more misstatements regarding science and evidence, but you hit probably the top two (another important one is his use of Katrina). To my mind he is engaging in propaganda when he does such things. I don't view that as good for anyone, even if it is effective.
It's been a while since I saw the movie, but I don't remember any serious misstatements about Katrina ... or any other topics besides the two I mentioned. It is not reasonable to say that global warming caused Katrina, and I don't think he did so. But it is reasonable to say that more flooded cities and a worsening of storms such as hurricanes are likely consequences of runaway climate change, and to remind people of just how devastating such disasters can be.
Were his slides less detailed than they could have been? Yes. When he presented the dangers did he sometimes gloss over possible caveats? Sure. But he was trying to cram a lot of technical info into a 90 minute movie to be seen by the general public without boring them to death. I thought he did a good job of conveying the dangers in a reasonably accurate and entertaining matter, which is exactly what made the movie so effective.
SilentH writes:
Why not give those same things via video conference systems? Or do it all online? If people have to see him in person, then that alone says it is not what he is saying, but who he is that is changing people's minds.
In fact, he could easily have set up a server and made the movie available to anyone on demand over the internet. He could have coupled that with actual data, up to date data, on all sorts of science related to CC, as well as methods to reduce emissions. If you go to his movie's website (or at least that's the way it was a year ago) there is absolutely NO information. One is locked into a system of having to rely on re-watching his movie or re-read his book, and trying to glean what one can get. If he wanted to seem hella cool he could have spent time online answering people's questions live with Climatologists sitting right next to him.
Obviously I don't know what Gore was thinking. Maybe he was just out to make a buck and had ill intentions. But in his shoes I might have made the same decisions. It all comes down to what you're trying to accomplish. If your target is a bunch of people who are concerned about climate change and one of your principle goals is to pass on ideas to them about how to change their lifestyles to reduce greenhouse gasses, then what you describe would be a novel and possibly very effective approach.
In Gore's case, I suspect his primary target was the skeptics, and his primary goal was to convince them that there was significant danger that was being ignored in Washington. Earlier this decade lots of people didn't take the issue very seriously. If I were him and I thought I had knowledge that there could well be an impending disaster, and that the only chance to avert it is to convince people of its validity, my goal would be to convince as many people as possible as fast as possible of the danger. Flying around to speak to large audiences in cities around the world would be an efficient way to do this. Maybe he should have also tried some of the things you’re suggesting, but I can see why he took the actions he did.
SilentH writes:
He's not a bad man, he just isn't living up to the hype he has created around himself, he is not helping people understand science, and he is creating fear where it's not needed (and I would argue unhelpful).
I'm sure Gore could be living in a more environmentally friendly way if he tried. But I think he has educated a lot of people about the basics of GW who would have never paid much attention to it in a reasonably accurate way. And I think some level of fear is needed to get the public to demand action on the issue.
Have fun in Chicagoland. I'm back in CA this week where it's nice and warm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2007 3:01 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2007 4:43 PM fgarb has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024