"Al Gore And NBC: Birds Of A Feather"

Abso-freakin'-lutely awesome piece from Investors Business Daily (via CNN):

Politics: Was what Al Gore called "the largest global entertainment event in all of human history" also the largest in-kind political contribution? And where's the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?

Considering that here in the U.S. the Peacock Network's three-hour Gore infomercial on global warming lost out in the ratings to "Cops" and "America's Funniest Home Videos," Gore's claim may be open to question. Live Earth, in fact, may have been America's funniest home video. Ever. (Ouch! - Ed.)

But thanks in large part to the 75 hours of free airtime that NBC gave Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance channel, Universal HD and Telemundo, Gore may now be the 800-pound gorilla this political season.

Gore insists he's not running for president. Yet, as we have wondered before, why would a man who insists that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind, bigger than nuclear terror, not want control of the reins of a major world polluter and chief resister to Kyoto?

Dan Harrison, an NBC corporate senior vice president, called the Gore effort "an initiative we believe in" -- the "we" presumably including corporate parent General Electric. (NYSE:GE) Yet he insisted: "I don't think climate change is a political issue."

From the other side of his mouth, Harrison opined: "If it's a political issue, it's whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness."

So he considers it NBC's mission to generate that political will in an election cycle in support of a man who once ran for president.

NBC and GE have other interests in hyping climate change. Let's not forget GE is the parent of NBC and stands to make a wad of cash from selling alternative energy products from wind turbines to solar panels to those compact fluorescent bulbs containing mercury.

So when Gore prances on stage to demand we stop building coal-fired plants, that's music to GE's corporate ears.

NBC's Ann Curry certainly thinks global warming is a political issue. During prime-time coverage, she almost got down on her knees to beg the jolly green giant to run for the White House.

Interviewing Gore from the site of the concert in New Jersey, Curry gushed:

"A lot of people want me to ask you tonight if you're running for president. And I know what you're answer is gonna be, believe me. I gotta ask you though. After fueling this grass-roots movement, if you become convinced that without you there will not be the political will in the White House to fight global warming to the level that is required, because the clock is ticking, would you answer the call? Would you answer the call, yes or no?"

Certainly Gore thinks global warming is a political issue, appearing earlier this year before Democrat-controlled House and Senate committees pleading for action. During his opening statement before the House, he famously said: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."

After Gore's testimony, a better course of action would have been to ask for a second opinion.

When a conservative appears on talk radio, liberals cry for the Fairness Doctrine. Seventy-five free hours for Archbishop Gore's Church of Climate Change? Not a peep.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Quote of the day

In a fashion reminiscent of Jenjiss Khan...sorry, Kerry flashback!...of Al Gore the Arrogant, this quote sounds exactly like something that pompous gasbag would say. From the NY Daily News:

With Al Gore in the news for battling global warming and Al Gore 3rd in the news for getting toasted, my favorite NYPD detective recalled a story that helps explain how father and son each became a particular kind of loser.

The story was told to the detective by a Secret Service agent some years back as they worked security for a dignitary visiting New York. Such details largely consist of just standing there for as long as 12 hours and the talk turned to a day when the Secret Service agent was assigned to then-Vice President Gore.

The detective recalls the agent saying that he was outside a room where Gore was loudly berating Al 3rd for something to do with school. The agent then overheard the senior Gore say to his son something truly stunning.

"What, do you want to end up like those guys standing outside the door?"

The guys being the agent and his partners, highly trained and intensely dedicated individuals who remain ever-ready to take a bullet for whomever they are assigned to protect.

You would think that such selfless and motivated people would be perfect role models for a teenager having a little trouble staying on track.

You have to wonder if the son might have turned out differently if the father had asked the agent to take his boy under his wing.

"Now [the senior Gore] is probably wishing his son did end up like those guys outside his door," the detective said yesterday. (Ouch! - Ed.)
...
King asked about the son's arrest and Gore would only say this was "a private family matter." But, if there now seems just an outside chance the father might end up becoming President after all, one thing that can now be said for certain about Al 3rd is that he will never end up like those guys outside the door.

The Secret Service does not hire people with criminal records.

"He should be so lucky," my favorite detective said.

What an @ssh0le! That he is not the Commander-in-Chief (despite his best attempts at grand larceny) is proof that karma has a wicked sense of humor and a mean set of molars.

Hypocrisy, irony, or both?

You be the judge:

As Madonna bounds on to the huge Wembley stage to save the planet, how the assembled Greenies will cheer.

The superstar is today fronting the massive Live Earth event, with nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

The much-hyped bid to save the world is being masterminded by former U.S. vice president Al Gore - who helped focus attention on the environmental movement with his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth - and features artists including The Police, Red Hot Chili Peppers, UB40 and Metallica.

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle 'climate crisis'.

Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances - having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.

Indeed, Madonna's carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego - she has vowed that she will 'speak to the planet' at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order - for the superstar's energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.
...
Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge." ...

Once again, "do as I say, not as I do" and "good enough for me, but not for thee" rule the day for these jerks.

There's much more in the article, especially the indulgences scheme known as "carbon offsets" (like the ones Gore buys from himself). But I think you get the idea: normal people (i.e. us peons) with Hummers are bad while celebrities with multiple gas guzzler cars and jets are good. Got it?

"Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny"

Another global "warming" skeptic, or as Ellen Goodman calls them, "Holocaust denier", in the Chicago Sun-Times:

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. (If hurricanes have declinded in the last 40 years, and global "warming" has purportedly increased in the last 40 years, then how can the two be connected? - Ed.) Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

Night and Day: Al Gore edition

Many of you may have heard about this, but if not, here it is. Al Gore in 1992, when running for VP (via Hot Air):

The year is 1992. Sen. Al Gore had been picked up by Gov. Bill Clinton as his running mate for the White House. The pair of Southern Democrats were up against President George H. W. Bush, who had seen his 90+% approval rating after the Gulf War plummet thanks to a souring economy and a tax increase that Bush had told us –”read my lips”– would never get past his desk. Gore had been picked to offset Clinton’s obvious bimbo weaknesses and relative inexperience in foreign policy. Clinton’s most notable achievements in that field up to that point had been decrying the Vietnam war while on British soil, making a trip to the USSR in 1969 that he never quite explained, and deploying the Arkansas National Guard to help out in local crises.

Gore, by contrast, had served in Vietnam. He was a stable family man. He was regarded as a centrist Democrat, a foreign policy expert and a Blue Dog hawk on national security. And at that time, in that campaign, he delivered the following speech to the Center for National Policy on September 29, 1992. The point of the speech was to dent Bush 41’s unrivalled foreign policy credentials by making him look weak in the face of threats. That was no small task, given that the Gulf War was just about 18 months in the past and the US was still enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq. Bush 41 had also ordered the 1989 invasion of Panama to deal with dictator Manuel Noreiga, a successful military operation that went off almost without a hitch.

The thesis of the Gore speech: Reagan-Bush had looked the other way and let Saddam Hussein become a terroristic menace and a WMD developer. They had ignored Saddam’s many operational ties to terrorists over the years so they could maintain relations with him and offset the threat from the mullahs in Iran. Reagan-Bush and then Bush 41 on his own had shown weakness in the face of the threat from Saddam’s Iraq, a weakness that was not offset even by the 1991 Gulf War victory. Gore’s speech was intended to make an issue of Republican weakness in the face of terrorism, and in the face of Saddam’s hard and verified connections to terrorism in particular.

Al Gore a decade later, when running for Sweetheart of the Nutroots homecoming king:

In a withering critique of the Bush administration, former Vice President Al Gore on Sunday accused the president of betraying the country by using the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

You HAVE to see the video to fully appreciate the tone. Hot Air summarizes:

Just so we’re clear on this, the 1992 version of Gore accused Bush 41 of lying by minimizing the threat that Saddam posed to the US and the world. The current version of Gore accuses Bush 43 of lying by overstating the threat that Saddam posed to the US and the world. A competent MSM would ask Gore to explain why he’s such a Goldilocks on such a difficult issue, if naked politics can’t explain it.
...
This is, in short, Al Gore: a craven opportunist who will say whatever he deems to be the most useful thing for the political moment, without regard to truth or principle or consequences, other than one — that the consequences include making Gore relevant. That’s the one principle that he obviously cares about a great deal.

Milbank: Gore is too smart for Americans to elect

The condescending puff piece from Washington comPost resident moonbat Dana Milbank:

A capacity crowd of 1,500 people jammed into Lisner Auditorium at George Washington University last night for Al Gore's speech and book-signing. But the numbers don't matter: Even if Gore were speaking before a sellout crowd at Verizon Center, he would still be the smartest guy in the room.

He reminded his listeners of this repeatedly last night.
...
Gore practically oozes gray matter.

"He's the smartest guy out there," said a former Gore volunteer named Andy Williams, who snagged a coveted front-row seat.

"He's very smart," concurred Alan Schwartz, wearing a T-shirt with President Bush's image and the words "Worst President Ever."

"He's the smartest guy in the pack," said Eugenia Ayers, who was one of the first in line.

And therein lies a problem for the Gore '08 bubble.
...
Imagine the Iowa hog farmer cracking open "Assault on Reason," and meeting Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Lippmann, Johannes Gutenberg, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and Marshall McLuhan -- all before finishing the introduction.
...
"I want the smartest guy around to be president," said Schwartz, in the "Worst President Ever" T-shirt. But, he added, "how do you convince people it's okay to feel inferior to their leaders?"

Yep, that Gore is a friggin' genius (hat tip to Moonbattery):

Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record — consistently glossed over by the press — is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).

Just spout out a few names from history and use a couple of big words here and there, and the fawning MSM will forget what a dumbass loser you were in college.

Gore's green hypocrisy continues, in front of Senate committee

Fresh off of his PR black eye regarding the Goreacle's sky-high energy consumption bills (for a place he barely stays at most of the year), Gore thought this would be a great follow-up:

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
...
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.
...
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.

Of course he did. He shouldn't have to make the same sacrifices that we peons are expected to make. That's the liberal way: one set of rules for the leftist elite, and a set of rules for everyone else. Kudos to Sen. Inhofe for humiliating him that way.

NYT piling on Gore?

OK, who spiked the water over at the Old Gray Hag? How did this get past the editors' eyes? Boy, someone's sure to get fired over this! From the Big Apple's fishwrap:

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Now just how in the hell is the left supposed to peddle their "consensus" and "settled science" claptrap if we have pesky scientific dissenters (or, as Ellen Goodman calls them, "Holocaust deniers")? Anywho:

...
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Poor Dr. Easterbrook. He's going to have to endure death threats and people looking on the payrolls of Exxon et al to see if he's a Big Oil shill. Continuing:

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” ("Imperfections" and "technical flaws" are euphemisms for "sh#t that's not true"! Glad I could clear that up for you. - Ed.) He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States. (D'oh! - Ed.)
...
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

Yes, Dr. Reiter, they but "continue to ignore the facts", and why not? Facts can be damned annoying sometimes.

"Carbon offsets" or "carbon credits", either way a shell game

The Gorebots responded after the story of the hypocrisy of the Internet's inventor popped up a few days ago. Their favorite line? Gore's not really a hypocrite because he purchases "carbon offsets"!

First of all, "carbon offsets" are nothing more than the modern day enviroweenie's version of Middle Ages "indulgences" (which were sin taxes). With "carbon offsets", you can be an energy hog all you like, so long as you pay your "sin tax" later by planting trees, etc. "Indulgences" occurred when the Catholic Church used to "sell" them to the wealthy so they could continue to sin, as if God can be bought ("But Father, she had supple breasts, and I paid 30 pieces of silver for the buxom wench!").

Secondly, in addition to "indulgences", "carbon offsets" resemble another medieval "good enough for me, but not for thee" practice: "sumptuary laws". Per the Virginian:

In the Late Middle Ages sumptuary laws were instated as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the up-and-coming bourgeoisie of medieval cities. ... The danger is that the use of "carbon offsets" will create two things that re morally monstrous: a de-facto sumptuary law and the impoverishments of the poor and powerless of this planet. The creation of an aristocratic elite that differentiates itself from the hoi polloi by its ability to buy "carbon offsets" while the rest of the planet is forced by environmental laws into a smaller and smaller carbon straightjacket is not so far fetched.

Thirdly, "carbon offsets" cannot be accurately measured to calculate one's true "carbon neutrality" because the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is largely unregulated and vulnerable to misrepresentation.

Finally, and probably most importantly: Gore's dedication to purchasing "carbon offsets" is not admirable, because he's buying them from...himself!

Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management, a group that he founded and on whose board he is the chairman! The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...a pretty noble goal, right? However, Gore presumably derives a paycheck OR will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. In short, Gore isn't buying "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he's buying stock!

Gore runs around the nation and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy...all while burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put "climate change" at the top of the international agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "environmentally friendly"...companies like, oh I dunno, those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' money in! So when Al beats the drum for possible future global warming, he's also drumming up business.

A master businessman, he is...but so too is he a master hypocrite of the filthiest order.

The best way to stop global "warming"!

New terminology, thanks to Gore

Thanks to Tigerhawk for borrowing one of the left's mindless terms and making it into a more appropriate term in today's political lexicon:

There righty sphere is in gut-grabbing chortle mode over the revelation that one of Al Gore's three luxurious houses uses more energy (via Glenn and everybody else) in a month than the average household does in a year. Gore, apparently, is a chickengreen, calling on others to make sacrifices he won't make.

The most interesting thing about this is that at least some leading conservatives go on quietly conserving without demanding that everybody else do the same. Bill Frist is the rich, retired Senator from Tennessee with the green house, and Wizbang compares the household efficiency and carbon loadiness of Al Gore and George W. Bush, respectively.

Americans -- at least those who do not suck up to the Hollywood nobility -- can smell a phony a mile away. They will only start listening to these guys about the sacrifices they should make when they walk past them in the first class sections of regularly scheduled commercial flights. Until then, they have less credibility than a carnival barker.

Chickengreens...how appropriate!

Gore's own personal "inconvenient truth"

From Drudge:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House

2006

High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month

2005

High 20532 Sept - October
Low 12955 Feb - March
Average: 16,200 kWh per month

Bill amounts

2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)
2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)

Nashville Gas Company

Main House
2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)
2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)

Guest House/Pool House

2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)
2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

How many times have I had to mention the left's "Good enough for me, but not for thee" mentality? This is yet another example in a long line of leftist hypocrisy.

Look, Al Gore is a wealthy man, and as such, he is entitled to buy any house and use as much electricity and natural gas as his dollars will allow him. However...so is everybody else! Perhaps the next time Gore jumps on his big-#ss carbon-emitting airplane to jet off to another international do-gooder soapbox to lecture us peons about how we're "cooking" the planet, he'll get called out like this.

That Oscar for "Best Science Fiction" flick may be in danger?

Prager hands Goodman her lunch over "Holocaust denier"

Dennis Prager, via RCP:

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . "

This is worthy of some analysis.

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word "cruel." To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie -- as do Holocaust deniers -- for some other vile reason.
...
A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: "Question authority." In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

Third, the equation of global warming denial to Holocaust denial trivializes Holocaust denial. If questioning global warming is on "a par" with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis.

Fourth, the lack of response (thus far) of any liberal or left individual or organization -- except to defend Ellen Goodman -- or from the Anti-Defamation League, the organization whose primary purpose has been to defend Jews, is telling. Just imagine if, for example, an equally prominent Christian figure had written that denying America is a Christian country is on a par with denying the Holocaust. It would have been front-page news in the mainstream media, the individual would have been excoriated by just about every major liberal individual and group, and the ADL would have cited this as an example of burgeoning Christian anti-Semitism and Holocaust trivialization. But not a word at the ADL on Soros's comments about de-Nazifying America or Goodman's Holocaust-denial comment.

Fifth, and finally, the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history -- the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don't believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted. Just watch. That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet. Or even 10. Or even three.

I'm still waiting on that Big Oil paycheck that Gore said I was supposed to be getting to compensate me for my skepticism!

Profile in moonbattery: Al Gore

Wow...to think this guy was 538 votes away from the presidency! That he failed in his endeavor to disenfranchise enough Florida soldiers serving overseas in order to commit electoral larceny is further proof that God does exist!

From the deranged, unhinged former Veep:

Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.

During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."

Hey, I'm a global "warming" skeptic, and I haven't received MY check! Grrrrrrr!

However, feel free to take this CNN piece with a grain of salt. After all...

Gore was the Democratic nominee against Bush in the 2004 presidential election. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, is up for the best documentary Oscar.

Two errors here: (1) Bush faced Gore in 2000, and not 2004; and (2) I think CNN meant to say that An Inconvenient Truth is up for best fiction award. Meanwhile, Cambodia is experiencing some of their coldest weather ever due to global warming "climate change".

Mr. Gore, your tinfoil hat must be itching like a Clinton mistress' nether regions.

Kerry drops out

Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) has decided that he's not up to the challenge of running for president again. From MSNBC:

John Kerry, the losing 2004 presidential candidate, on Wednesday said he would not seek the Democratic nomination in 2008 but would instead remain in the Senate to fight George W. Bush's "misguided" war in Iraq. (That would be the war that Heinz-Kerry voted for, n'est-ce pas? - Ed.)

In an emotional speech on the Senate floor, Mr Kerry, 64, who lost the White House by a narrow margin, admitted he had made a mistake in voting for the 2002 congressional resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq.

Nothing like a little editorializing in a "news story", right? It's funny how the left is with their fuzzy math. When Gore (Democrat) won the popular vote in 2000 by 500,000 votes, that was reported by the MSM in the context of a "whopping" popular vote margin. Yet when Bush (Republican) bested Kerry in 2004 by about 3.5 million popular votes (and became the first president to garner a majority since his father did it in 1988), the MSM decided to "come around" to the electoral vote thingy. Thus, their "lost the White House by a narrow margin" editorializing. But why quibble over semantics (and bias), right? Continuing:

During the 2004 campaign, Mr Bush's campaign team painted the senator from Massachusetts as a "flip flopper", most notoriously when he said: "I actually did vote for the $87bn [funding for the Iraq war] before I voted against it."

On Wednesday Mr Kerry struck a clearer note when he said he wanted to spend the remaining two years of Mr Bush's presidency making up for the fact that he had voted the wrong way in 2002. He would use his Senate perch to press for a change of direction in Iraq and after that would seek re-election to the Senate.

Aside from calling the soldiers "stupid", few things are as disheartening to soldiers as hearing their leaders badmouth and undermine their mission. However, Kerry's got a track record of that, doesn't he?

Besides, don't sweat that re-election in Mass., Jean-Francois. If your state's citizens continue re-electing a pickled murderer to the Senate, as well as an escort service "entrepreneur" to the House, as well as having continued to re-elect a Foley-like underage page poker in Studds back in the 1980's...well, you get the idea. As a Mass. liberal, you're safer than a French soldier's enemy on the battlefield!

Now we get to the heart of why Kerry won't run again:

Mr Kerry's decision leaves a field of nine Democrats running or likely to announce their names soon, including Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.
...
"Kerry's departure from the race is really a signal of how strong the field is already," said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic congressman. "But that does not mean we won't see other candidates, such as Al Gore [former vice-president], entering the race at a later stage."

Mr Gore, whose film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was nominated for two Oscar categories on Monday in Los Angeles, has not completely ruled out entering the 2008 race.

Some Democratic consultants have speculated that the losing 2000 presidential candidate might declare his intention to run in 2008 after having won an Oscar in March. But the chances, they say, are still slim (unlike Gore himself - Ed.).

Boy, what I wouldn't give for a moonbat like Gore to win the nomination! Everything he did in that 2000 election, from bribing Wisconsin homeless with cigarettes to getting ambulance chasers to disenfranchise overseas military votes in Florida (all while piously demanding to "count every vote") would be fair game to show how ruthless that sonofab#tch can be.

Anywho, au revior, Monsieur Kerry. I doubt seriously you'll be missed much during the campaign.