Al Gore's Nashville Home Uses 21x More Energy Than Average US Household

Fox New Insider: Al Gore's Home Uses 21x More Energy Than Average US Household.

Top Stories

That Fracking Al Gore

Al Gore Invests in Fracking Company

Al Gore No Longer Investing in Green Tech

 

Top Stories

Al Gore sells Current TV to Al-Jazeera

Al Gores cable channel, Current TV, makes MSNBC look almost moderate. Al G has now sold it to Al J.

 LOS ANGELES (AP) — Al-Jazeera, the Pan-Arab news channel that struggled to win space on American cable television, has acquired Current TV, boosting its reach nearly ninefold to about 40 million homes. With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that cofounder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.

The former vice president confirmed the sale Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling." (link)

Top Stories

An Inconsistent Truth. Highly Recommended

An Inconsistent Truth is one man's odyssey to find the truth about man-made global warming. As the title suggests, this is an answer to Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary but it's much more than a simple rebuttal. We not only talk with leading scientific experts on the 'skeptic' side but we explore the entire culture of the global warming movement; often in a humorous and satirical way. The viewpoint of this film might not be the most popular position on the subject but it offers refreshing diversity. Diversity, after all, is not just found in different cultures or races or religions. True diversity is diversity of thought.

I watched this movie last night and highly recommend it. It is well made and it is quick paced. It is entertaining, informative, and funny.  It presents the arguments of the critics of global warming and shows that there are critics who are as credentialed as the advocates of the theory. One of the revealing things in the movie is how blindly accepting of the theory are people who do not have a clue as to why they believe it. Another revealing aspect of the movie is the exposure of the hypocrisy of Al Gore and how he financially benefits from promotion of the theory. The movie also corrects a lot of misinformation such as the claim that the population of polar bears is shrinking or that there has been an increase in hurricane activity in recent years.  While a true believer in global warming will most likely not like this movie, people with an open mind will find that it contributes to an understanding of the debate.

The movie is currently playing at Regal Hollywood 27 near 100 Oaks and Carmike Thoroughbred 20, 633 Frazier Drive, Franklin TN. For viewing times and more information click here. 

Top Stories

$45 billion wasted later, Al Gore admits that ethanol was a mistake.

Better late than never, Al.

Al Gore admits that ethanol was a mistake. Wow! You mean just because diverting food to fuel causes worldwide hunger and starvation, and the production of all that extra corn was bad for the environment and created a large dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico, and just because if takes almost as much energy to create a unit of ethanol energy as the amount of energy produced that it may not be a good idea? Well, Al I could have told you that. I could have told you that before we wasted 45 billion dollars subsidizing the ethanol industry. Anyway, I am glad you saw the light.

Also, Al they say confession is good for the soul and I appreciate that you confessed that your support of ethanol was motivated by buying the votes of farmers in Tennessee where you were Senator and buying votes in Iowa where you were running for President.


Al, I am sure this confession will not hurt you with your fans. After all what is a wasted $45 billion and a bunch of people people starved to death? You were making people feel good about "doing something."  You were promoting "green" alternatives. Feeling good about doing something is what is really important, right? Your fans will still love you.

While you are at it Al, are there any other mistakes you would like to confess? You didn’t embellish and exaggerate the threat of global warming just to win a Nobel Peace Prize or become a movie star did you? You didn’t engage in fear mongering and sensationalism just to make a point did you? If so, now would be a good time to say so. Just asking.

Top Stories

Al Gore's new California Mansion

As reported in the April 28, Los Angeles Times, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings."The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms."

Wow, what a fine house! How big is that carbon foot print now Al? Not only must that big mansion consume a lot of energy and produce a lot of carbon but flying between Nashville and Montecito must produce a lot of carbon, I would guess. But you buy off-sets, right? No, you don't have to buy them, you own the carbon off-set company that sells carbon off-sets. Is that not right? How do you do that? Do you award your self off-sets?

Now, just a few years ago you were only worth a measly $2 million dollars. How did you get so rich? At one time you said "every penny" you made off your global warming work went to a non-profit and you were not enriching yourself off of spreading the global warming hysteria. So, how did you make your money? Tell us the truth, Al. Is being green putting a lot of green in your pocket?

In this video from a year ago, Congresswomen Marsha Blackburn ask these questions and you were oh so offended. Well, give us some answers, Al. I suspect you are a hypocrite.



By the way Al, I have my own carbon off-set firm I am trying to get off the ground. Please check it out. I would welcome your investment. I would like a piece of this carbon off-set action. Read about it here: Green Elephant Enterprises.

Top Stories

What do you think about global warming?

What I think about global warming can’t be put on a bumper sticker, not does it make a nice slogan. I think the issue is complicated with a lot of unknowns and there is a lot of components to the question. The question, “What do you think about global warming?” is really several questions. Do you think it is occurring? If that question is answered in the affirmative then that leads to other questions. If it is occurring, is it manmade? If it is manmade, what should we do about it? Assuming it is occurring, how severe is it? Do we have time to stop it? Can it be stopped? Below are my thoughts at this time.

(1) Climategate cast doubt on the theory of global warming. Climategate revealed data tampering, conspiracy and group-think. It showed that some scientist reached conclusions and forced the evidence to support the conclusions. Evidence that did not support the conclusions was doctored to show something it didn’t and then the raw data was destroyed. Scientist resisted efforts to comply with freedom of information acts and resisted efforts for others to see their research. Scientist who did not support the dominant theory were marginalized and silenced. For me, Climategate threw serious doubt on the validity the theory.

(2) Climategate does not negate the other evidence however. Despite the revelations of climategate there is still a large body of evidence that supports the climate change theory. There are hundreds of scientists throughout the world studying this issue. Many governments, organizations, and scientist all came to the same conclusion that climate change is occurring and it is manmade. I find it hard to believe that climate change theory is all a hoax and is a large enough hoax to encompass all of the individuals and agencies involved. Also, there is the physical evidence of shrinking glaciers and melting icecaps. I do not believe JFK was assassinated by elements of the CIA, or that 9-11 was an inside job, or that the moon landing was faked. I have a hard time believing in grand conspiracies. It is hard to get a large number of people to perpetuate a hoax or keep a secret. On balance, Climategate cast doubt on the theory of global warming but did not disprove it.

(3) The Consensus on global warming is less solid than has been presented. There are reasonable people and credentialed scientist who are critics of the theory or some aspects of the theory. These critics have been hushed and should be given a voice and platform. The science should not be considered settled.

(4) Climate change is occurring and has always occurred. The earth has always been cooling or warming. Climate has never been stable. That climate change is occurring and that there is a warming trend seems undeniable.

(5) We do not know the ideal temperature of the earth. Is one half of one degree less than it is today the ideal temperature? What should the temperature be? How do we know that what is occurring is not a natural fluctuation. The climate warmed in previous periods prior to man’s ability to impact it. If man’s production of global warming pollutants is causing global warming, perhaps it is even a good thing and is helping us avoid another ice age. How do we know that manmade global warming is not a countervailing force to global cooling? Maybe the scientist of the 60’s were correct after all and the world was heading for another ice age until manmade global warming reversed the trend. I have these doubts but will acquiesce and assume that global warming is a bad thing. I do wonder however how one determines that a degree less or a degree more is not really the ideal or natural temperature of the earth.

(6) Assuming climate change is global warming and it is manmade, I do not know that anyone knows what to do about it. Copenhagen accomplished virtually nothing and global warming emissions increased under Kyoto. Assuming global warming is occurring and assuming it is manmade; the prospects for stopping it are not very encouraging. Poor countries understandably are not willing to forgo the economic development that the prosperous countries enjoyed. I don’t blame them. In times of economic downturn, many in the developed countries are not willing to accept a curtailment of growth that would most likely be necessary to combat global warming and they are not willing to pay a fee to poorer, often corrupt, countries for those countries foregoing development.

(7) The current proposal for Cap and Trade will do virtually nothing to curtail global warming emission and will be detrimental to economic growth and simply expand government. In theory cap and trade could successfully curtail CO2 emissions. The cap and trade bill under consideration however, gives away too many credits and is in essence a tax on consumers. A revenue-neutral cap and trade with no give away of credits could possibly work, but has never been proposed. Another problem with proposed cap and trade is the use of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are fraudulent and fictitious. A better method of reducing carbon emission would be a revenue neutral carbon tax.

(8) Carbon-based fuel should cost more. Even if global warming theory is incorrect we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We need to do it for our national security. People will not conserve simply because it is a noble thing to do. If energy cost more, people would change their behavior. When gas was $4 a gallon people used less of it. If gas prices had stayed high we would have seen the popularity of smaller vehicles and carpooling. Over time high energy prices would cause people to choose to live closer to work instead of far-flung suburbs and houses with less square feet would be more desirable. Alternative fuels would flourish if only carbon based fuels cost more. Tinkering with CAFE standards and Cash for Clunkers programs and exhortations to combine trips and properly inflate your tires are going to have minimal impact on use of carbon fuels.

(9) Even if we had in place a workable cap and trade policy or a carbon tax and international treaties, I do not know that there is time enough to curtail carbon emissions sufficient to stop global warming. Assuming global warming is occurring, how fast is it occurring? I don’t know if the IPCC overestimates the danger from warming or underestimates it. According to Al Gore. the polar ice caps will be melted within five years. Other global warming alarmists likewise warn that the end is near. Even if we took immediate steps to radically reduce carbon emissions, it would take some years before the climate trend would be reversed. Reversing climate is like turning an ocean liner; it is not quick or easy. There may not be time to do it.

(9) Assuming climate change is real and it is global warming and it is manmade and the end is near, I think the solution for surviving it lies in geoengineering. I do not think we can save ourselves by abandoning technology. If I accept all of the above assumptions, then I think we need to pour money into efforts to use mankind’s ability to innovate and problem solve to combat global warming and in efforts to accommodate global warming. We need to move aggressively to manipulate the environment. We need to pursue ocean iron fertilization. We need to seed the atmosphere with reflective particles that will allow cooling of the earth while we have time to curtail harmful emission. We should aggressively pursue carbon sequestration. We should aggressively pursue replacing carbon-based energy with nuclear energy.

(10) Environmentalist may be the worse enemy of saving the planet. Assuming global warming is a reality and the survival of the planet is in danger, the environmentalist are likely to be the ones who will stand in the way of effective efforts to save it. I am not speaking of all environmentalists of course; I am myself an environmentalist. I love nature. I hike and birdwatch and I used to canoe and camp. I want clean air and clean water and I want to save beautiful vistas and natural waterfalls for future generations and I want endangered species to survive. I oppose mountain top removal and other practices that degrade the environment. I believe we should be good stewards of the earth. The most vocal of environmentalist, however, seem to have an agenda that goes beyond protecting the environment. Unfortunately, the most alarmist of the global warming theorist are also the people who think we need to live in harmony with nature rather than take dominion over nature and be good stewards of the earth. Rather than using clean nuclear energy to heat our homes they would prefer we shiver in caves. Much of the environmentalist movement is anti-human, anti-progress, anti-growth, anti-technology and anti-capitalist. Much of environmentalism is closer to an ideology and a faith than simply advocacy of policies that are protective of the environment. Instead of advocating practical solutions for combating global warming, many environmentalists are more concerned with changing people’s hearts and attitudes. Assuming global warming is real and the worst predictions are correct, the enemies of surviving it are the anti-technology and anti-market environmentalists themselves.

Top Stories

Prophet Gore Preaches the Inconvenient Truth at Baptist Gathering.

Last Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore preached the gospel of environmentalism to the New Covenant Baptist Celebration meeting in Atlanta. Over 15, 000 people were attending the event which brought together people from over 30 different diverse denominations that call themselves “Baptist”.

Gore presented his slide show of melting glaziers and stranded polar bears and read Bible passages as he called the faithful to take action to stop global warming. Gore criticized politicians who he said, “instead of acting decisively have tried to talk their way out of the crisis.”

As reported in the Tennessean: “Gore asked his listeners, whether Republican or Democrat, to pressure presidential candidates to stop talking and act on global warming. When asked for specific suggestions, Gore told them to pressure politicians to approve a new global climate treaty and to push for a carbon tax”.

God bless Al Gore. He is not just promoting Live Earth rock concerts. He is not just raising awareness. He is not preaching a muddled message of soft environmentalism. Like a prophet of old, Gore is not mincing words or sugar coating the truth.

So many pussyfooting environmentalist want to tell us to simply change light bulbs and properly inflate our tires. They put out list of “100 easy things you can do to help the environment.” None of those suggestions are going to matter a hill of beans. Global warming will not be stopped by turning down your thermostat, turning corn into ethanol, or tightening CAFE standards. Global warming will not be stopped by making people feel guilty for driving an SUV or letting them feel virtuous for wearing a sweater.

Just as not enough people will turn from their sinful ways so that society can do away with policemen and jails, neither will enough people be persuaded to voluntarily live a carbon neutral life-style to stop global warming. Any thing short of the call to action put out by Mr. Gore is just feel-good environmentalism. As Al said in his sermon, “As long as pollution is free, the earth will be treated like a sewer.”

It is disappointing that so many people who have long warned of the dangers of global warming will not endorse the solutions to combat it. I am not sure who is doing more to keep us from solving the global warming crisis, the global warming deniers or the reality deniers. I am not sure who is the best friend of global warming, those who don’t believe in science or those who don’t believe in economics.

Those bearded, flannel-shirt-wearing, vegetarian, leftist, old hippie environmentalist who think we only need to love mother nature and conserve are doing more to advance global warming than all of the Rush Limbaughs and oil company lobbyist put together.

I hope Al Gore is not a voice crying in the wilderness.

Top Stories

Gore Blames US For Blocking Bali

BALI, Indonesia, Dec. 13, 2007

(AP) Former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday the United States is "principally responsible" for blocking progress at the U.N. climate conference in Bali.Gore urged delegates at the conference to take urgent action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," said Gore, who won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for helping alert the world to the danger of climate change.

The United States has opposed including in a final conference document a suggestion that industrialized countries reduce emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020. Earlier Thursday, European nations threatened to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington accepts a range of numbers for negotiating deep reductions of global-warming emissions. (To continue: Gore Blames ... )

My Commentary

I applaud Al Gore for his continued leadership role on this important issue. It is shame and disgrace that the U. S. is not stepping up to the plate. As the the leader of the free world and militarily and economically the most powerful nation on earth, we should be leading on this issue rather than being chief obstructionist. If the U.S. would lead, the world would follow. Yet if we do not get on board, the rest of the world can not solve the problem without us.

If the majority of the scientific community are to be believed, we have only a few short years to do something about global warming or the process may be irreversible. Some experts say that we only have seven years to stop the growth and began a decrease in green house gas emission or we will have passed the tipping point.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto. The Kyoto agreement expires in 2012 and it has failed to meet it's goals. With U. S. leadership, a workable international treaty could cap emissions and establish a mechanism for international sharing of technology and trading of greenhouse credits. If the developed world was united in solving this problem, then China, India and the evolving industrial states could be persuaded to join the world community in this effort. Without U.S. participation, the effort to solve this problem is doomed.

The U. S. lead the world to victory in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. We have lead the world in humanitarian endeavors. We have been the inspiration and model for the world in advancing human freedom and dignity. I am embarrassed they we are now AWOL on what may be the worlds greatest challenge.

Top Stories

Al Gore’s Nobel Lecture Calls Carbon Tax the “Most Important” Solution to Global Warming.

On Monday in ceremonies in Oslo Norway Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in raising awareness of global warming. For those who will not read the 2800-word acceptance speech in its entirety, the essence of his speech is that the threat of global warming “is real, rising, imminent, and universal”. And that, “it is the 11th hour”. The penalties for ignoring the challenge of doing something about global warming “are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable.”

He says, “We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer.”

He says, “The way ahead is difficult.” He calls on the nations of the world to move rapidly to approve a new treaty to limit greenhouse emissions and calls for a moratorium on the construction of new coal burning facilities.

He says, “Most important of all we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis”.

Those who are in denial about global warming, those who want to solve the problem of global warming by changing light bulbs, and those who are in denial about the importance of economic principles in resolving this crisis will not be happy. Sometimes the truth is inconvenient.

(To read the speech: Nobel Lecture)

Top Stories

Congratulations to Al Gore

by Ronald Bailey Reason Magazine, October 12, 2007
"Global warming is not the result of environmental sin; it is the result of human progress creating another commons problem. We do not need to "lift global consciousness"; we need to find a cheap, low-carbon source of energy. I have no doubt that man-made global warming is an economic and technical problem that an inventive humanity will solve over the course of the 21st century." To continue...Congratulations to Al Gore

I could not agree more! We must solve the problem of global warming, but not by spirituality and repentance. Rational people can solve what is a essentially a technical and economic problem. Rod

Top Stories

Dear Al, Congratulations!

Dear Al,

Congratulations!

I wish to congratulate you on winning the Nobel peace prize. I admire your work in raising the consciousness of people about global warming. I have had a change of heart from some years ago when I scoffed at global warming. I remember when they called you “ozone man” and “Owl” Gore, and I snickered. I apologize. You were a prophet crying in the wilderness. The science is in. The issue is settled. You were ahead of your time. Global warming is happening and the activity of mankind is a major contributing factor.

I know you have come in for a lot of criticism and ridicule. A few months ago, you got a lot of criticism from people who said you were a hypocrite because your 20-bedroom, 8-bathroom mansion in Belle Meade with heated swimming pool and gas-lamp- lined driveway uses 20 times as much electricity as the average house in Nashville. Also, some wondered why you need four homes. I don’t like hypocrites. I was disappointed to discover that Rush Limbaugh was a druggie. And, all of those family-value Republicans who have long-term mistresses disappointment me. Anybody might fall from Grace, but purposely living a lifestyle contrary to what you preach is wrong. It you are going to campaign for virtue, you should walk the walk. But, Al, I don’t think you are a hypocrite.

I understand you work out of your home and you have to host a lot of parties, and a mansion that big just takes a lot of electricity. It is often a tactic of people to attack the messenger when they don’t like the message. And, Al, your critics are not above playing the class-envy card. I know it is usually Democrats who play the class-envy card, but Republicans do it do when they can get away with it. The reason Republicans play the envy card less than Democrats is not that Republican are more moral; it is because it does not fit their agenda. The Democrats believe the size of the economic pie is fixed and it is their job to redistribute. Republicans believe we can always make a bigger pie. So, the use of envy simply fits the Democrat agenda better. But, in this case they are trying to use it against you. Populism is the often the refuge of scoundrels.

You can’t help it if you are rich and I don’t hold that against you. I would like to be rich myself. You being richer doesn’t make me any poorer. I don’t expect you to sell your goods and give the money to the poor. Anyway, you bought carbon offsets. Some have said purchasing carbon offsets is like buying indulgences, but if the offsets really do off set, then use all the energy you want. I don’t care. I don’t expect you to live like a commoner. And, I also understand you are remodeling to make your home more eco-friendly. You are changing out all or your light bulbs and I understand you are putting in the same kind of eco-friendly, geo-thermal heating system that George Bush has had in his home for years. Good for you.

Anyway, you won a very prestigious award. I have sometimes wondered, however, why the Nobel Prize ever got to be so prestigious. It is not recognition by your peers, like the Country Music Awards, and is not an honor bestowed on you by the United Nations or anything. Gallup didn’t poll the world to see who should get a Nobel prize. It is not like the Pope making you a Saint. Actually, the Parliament of the somewhat unimportant country of Norway selects five little-known people who decide who gets the award. Did you know that Mahatma Gandhi never did get the Nobel Peace Prize? Many think he did. He was nominated five times, but was never selected.

Al, I also know some people are trying to say that you did not deserve the Nobel Peace prize because your global warming work was not related directly to the cause of peace. However, I think the augment that if we have continued global warming, there will be conflict over natural resources and therefore, curtailing global warming will curtail future conflict has merit. Anyway, there was no other category you fit for a Nobel Prize.

In any event, a lot of other people who got the Peace Prize also came in for criticism. Theodore Roosevelt got it for ending the Russo-Japanese War and some people said he did not deserve it because of his intervention in the Philippines to suppress a revolt snacked of imperialism, but it didn’t bother me. Another great Tennessean, Cordell Hull, got it for his roll in establishing the United Nations; yet his roll in pressuring FDR to refuse asylum to a shipload of Jews seeking asylum from Nazi Germany and their subsequent death in concentration camps should have disqualified him, some have said.

Of course a lot of people said Henry Kissinger did not deserve it, despite his role in negotiating the Vietnam Paris Peace accord. Some feel the secret bombing of Cambodia should have disqualified him and others feel his betrayal of our South Vietnamese ally and the subsequent massive deaths at the hands of the Communist in Vietnam and Cambodia should have disqualified him. And, some claim that Arafat should not have gotten the award because he was a terrorist. And, then there was the African woman who claimed HIV was engineered by white scientist to kill Africans, and some felt that that tarnished her image, and she did not deserve it. So, Al, you are not the first person who got the award that critics said should not have gotten it. It is a prestigious award, so you can rightfully be proud.

Now that you got it, what are you going to do next? I don’t think you have to worry about Bush getting the Supreme Court to take it away from you. I don’t think he can do that. So, you have all of this political capital. Not only do you have this prize, but also you have the two Oscars that your movie won, and a best selling book.

Face it you have raised consciousness. Mission accomplished! So, you don’t need to do Inconvenient Truth II, and one Live Earth was enough. I know Willie Nelson is doing Farm Aid for about the twentieth time, but I think one Earth Aid is enough. After the first one, it is kind of like reruns. So what next? I have a suggestion. Use your political capital to fight for a structural change that will really stop global warming. Don’t waste your enhanced prestige to tell people to change light bulbs or properly inflate their tires. Those things are commendable, but you know as well as I do, that if the problem is really as dire as you say it is, we must do more than that, or more than tinker with the CAFE standards.

In the past you have advocated a carbon tax, including, higher gas taxes. I know that during the Presidential campaign of 2000, you said we needed lower gas prices not higher gas price, but you were trying to get elected then and I don’t hold that against you. Since then, you have often called for a carbon tax. I know many of your most loyal supporters are not going to be happy until we are all living in caves and grubbing for worms. Some are not going to be happy until we remake human nature. But, that is not going to happen. Some of your most loyal followers may have other agendas rather than defeating global warming.

If we had a carbon tax, then people wouldn’t have to be persuaded to conserve because it is a moral choice; they would conserve because the harmful effects of carbon consumption was adequately priced. People respond to prices. There should be no free polluting of the environment with global warming emissions. All of the other alternatives would be cheaper if only carbon emissions were priced. Alan Greenspan, a guy who knows as much about economics as you do global warming, says the economy could tolerate a revenue-neutral gas tax of $3. So, Al, I hope you will not waste your new prestige on symbolic things and instead will make the best of this opportunity to make the structural change this planet needs. You can do it, Al!
I know this has been a long letter. Thank you for indulging me. Again, congratulations on the Peace Prize.

Oh, by the way, I ran into you at an art opening recently, at the Tag Gallery on 5th Ave. I am the guy who said, “Are you really Al Gore or an Al Gore impersonator.” Afterwards I felt so stupid. I think I had had one too many glasses of wine and was just surprised to see you out at an art opening, like a normal person. I am normally not a star-struck idiot. I am sure I did not make a good impression. If I every run into you again, I want to shake your hand and say, “Congratulations on winning the peace prize. I hope you move on to phase II of your campaign to save the planet.”

Sincerely,

Rod Williams

Top Stories

Al Gore's Chilian Bass Dinner Party was "Green" After all.

Pity poor Al Gore. It is tough being a prophet; everyone wants to see if you have feet of clay. Looking for any inconsistency by Gore to justify their dismissal of his global warming message, people even look to see what he is eating. Talk radio and the Internet were full of stories that he served endangered Chilean Sea Bass at his daughters' wedding party.
Well, it turns out he was serving an endangered species but the Chilean Sea Bass he served were farm-raised and did not endanger the endangered species.

Even if we do find that Mr. Gore is not "Mr. Green" in some of his personal behaviour, that should not invalidate the message. Bill Bennett wrote a book called "Book of Virtues", and then we discover that he is a high stakes gambler, hardly a virtuous activity. I resent being lectured to about conserving by people who fly private jets and consume more carbon fuel in a day than I will in a year. And, I resent being told to be virtuous by a high-stakes gambler. But the message is no less valid, because the messenger is flawed.

This time, Al was vindicated. The original story got a lot more attention than the follow-up that proved he was eating "green" after all. Those who jumped on Al ought to help set the record straight, but I won't be holding my breath.
To read the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/19/eagore119.xml

Top Stories