Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the
Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and
electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool
house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20
times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills,
I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew
Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not
following his own rules."
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Pitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's the same kinda BS that happened when a previously unheard
of organization
> posted info about Al Gore living in a mansion that consumed high
amounts of resources.
> Nobody checked the source of the report, yet it still made the
rounds, in fact the report
> was one of the things that placed the term "carbon footprint" into
the vocabulary of
> people who'd never even heard the term.
> It turned out that Gore's home is a great example of taking an
energy hungry old building
> and turn it into a great example of renovation. All of his power
comes from green sources.
> But unfortunately, in our culture of fast news from less then
reliable sources, people
> believe whatever they see on TV or the internet. Some refer to
people like this as "sheep".
> For me, i'd rather consider the possibility that there may be a
problem, and prepare for it
> accordingly. What's the downside? A cleaner environment, less
waste and a healthier
> world. How can people complain about that? The only people who
probably can complain
> are companies like Exxon. I say screw Exxon. They've made absurd
amounts of money.
> I'm also fed up with this subject being debated on political
terms. The truth is, most of the
> rest of the world is already doing things to improve the
environment. Germany and
> Holland are global leaders in this effort, and they could care
less about dems and
> republicans. I'd rather follow the rest of the worlds lead and
actively speak out against our
> countries inaction rather then be one of the sheep.
> I'd love to hear somebody like Tommy convince me that changes made
because of the
> possibility of global warming can somehow be a bad thing.
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
<jerseyshorejohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "A Dec. 21 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh breathelssly
began: "A
> > new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent
scientists
> > experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide who say global
> > warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately
be
> > connected to man's activities."
> >
> > But it's not a "U.S. Senate report"; as Unruh himself states in
a
> > curiously vaguely fashion later in the article, "The new report
comes
> > from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office
of
> > the GOP ranking member." But who is that mysterious "GOP
ranking
> > member"? Unruh doesn't say. (It's Sen. James Inhofe, whom Unruh
cites
> > later in the article but doesn't identify as the committee's
GOP
> > ranking member.
> >
> > Since it comes from the "GOP ranking member" and not from the
entire
> > committee, as Unruh falsely implied in the lead, it's a
partisan
> > report -- but Unruh never explicitly states that, either.
> >
> > Unruh also reflects the bias of the report, and his own biased
brand
> > of "journalism," by uncritically repeating its unverified
claims --
> > such as, in Unruh's words, "there probably would be many more
> > scientists making such statements, were it not for the fear of
> > retaliation from those aboard the global-warming-is-caused-by-
SUVs
> > bandwagon" -- and making no attempt to gather reaction to it
from any
> > of the global warming scientists whose "consensus" the report
is
> > trying to debunk.
> >
> > Meanwhile, it comes as no surprise that Noel Sheppard touts the
> > report in a Dec. 20 NewsBusters post. Since Sheppard has his
own
> > biased history on the subject, he similarly ignores the
partisan
> > nature of the report, stating only that it was "just published
at the
> > United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public works
website"
> > but not that it was published only by the Republicans on the
committee.
> >
> > Sheppard also states that "readers are strongly encouraged to
review
> > this entire document to learn the truth about what real
scientists -
> > those not receiving Oscars, Emmys, and Nobel Peace Prizes -
think
> > about this controversial issue," even though the report ignores
what
> > "real scientists" have said that contradict the claims in the
report."
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 23, 2007, at 10:25 PM, justifiedright wrote:
> >
> > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple"
<asburycouple@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Choose a bit
> > > > more wisely next time.
> > >
> > > Oh one more thing: The report with the 400+ scientists
disputing the
> > > Global Warming claims, it came from:
> > >
> > > The United State's Senate.
> > >
> > > No wonder the New York Times didn't cover it and the
Washington Times
> > > did.
> > >
> > > The NYT aren't very up to date on politics.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
