LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground Water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

ANSWERS:

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS,ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed for Mr. Gore is "an inconvenient truth".

I personally have never seen Bjean attack anyone---I have seen her attack an idea or a topic.

To debate or argue a point in type this way is a delicate thing, because one cannot see expressions or nods, that type of thing. We are reduced to mere words, a few silly smiley faces and Exclamation points to make our point.

Sarcasm is a double edged sword--------while it can cut to the quick it is also used to lighten things up, to add a humerous take to the comments. How the individual reading it takes the sarcasm is strictly up to them.

Insulting the comment, is not necessarily insulting the one making the comment, especially in this case when you are not stating YOUR opinion but submitting a quote from someone else.

I don't think anything that has been said has changed anyones view. You obviously do not like anything Al Gore has to say or stands for--and that is your right. Getting irritated because someone does not agree with you is also your right. You even have the right to say so.

By the same token so do others....

Kat

I personally have never seen Bjean attack anyone---I have seen her attack an idea or a topic.

To debate or argue a point in type this way is a delicate thing, because one cannot see expressions or nods, that type of thing. We are reduced to mere words, a few silly smiley faces and Exclamation points to make our point.

Sarcasm is a double edged sword--------while it can cut to the quick it is also used to lighten things up, to add a humerous take to the comments. How the individual reading it takes the sarcasm is strictly up to them.

Insulting the comment, is not necessarily insulting the one making the comment, especially in this case when you are not stating YOUR opinion but submitting a quote from someone else.

I don't think anything that has been said has changed anyones view. You obviously do not like anything Al Gore has to say or stands for--and that is your right. Getting irritated because someone does not agree with you is also your right. You even have the right to say so.

By the same token so do others....

Kat

And I never said that she or anybody did not have the right to say so... I'm glad we agree on that.

I think the point was that a quote from a single source, doesn't disprove that global warming exists. If I needed to I could likely find at least one plumber who would be willing to state that water doesn't run downhill. Should we then discount gravity or the definition of a liquid??????!!!!!!

I think the point was that a quote from a single source, doesn't disprove that global warming exists. If I needed to I could likely find at least one plumber who would be willing to state that water doesn't run downhill. Should we then discount gravity or the definition of a liquid??????!!!!!!

Well, it's not just this source...., also, I'm not stating that this particular quote proves that global warming doesn't exist, it's simply additional information...

Kat: You said that SO much better than I. Thank you so much because that's exactly how I feel and it clearly demonstrates how one can dislike the message but not blame the messenger. You always come through, Kat, and I've always thought you are really sharp and that you must have a heart of Gold!

Elenation, obviously the tone of my posts irritates you, as well as the message. That's too bad because I honestly do not post what I do to irritate you or insinuate that you are a bad person because we have differing viewpoints, politically.

I know that sometimes my posts sound harsh, and believe it or not, you're not the first person to point that out to me.

By way of explanation, I will tell you that I am almost always at work, pressed for time, when I get on LBT. So I'm not as careful with my wording as I probably should be - at least if I were here to make friends and have people think I'm a sweet person.

Fact is, I enjoy the debate a whole lot on lots of different topics and lots of different threads at LBT. I learn a lot. I learned something from your post about Dr. Gray, in fact. But I can differentiate between someone's politics and the individual who is posting.

If someone makes it personal, and they are accusatory and insulting to the individual who made the post, that's a whole 'nuther thing in my books.

If I irritate you so much, please ignore me! But you don't irritate me, so I probably won't ignore your posts.

Hi Tommy! Haven't seen one of your posts in a long time. Glad to know you're still alive and kicking.

Kat: You said that SO much better than I. Thank you so much because that's exactly how I feel and it clearly demonstrates how one can dislike the message but not blame the messenger. You always come through, Kat, and I've always thought you are really sharp and that you must have a heart of Gold!

Elenation, obviously the tone of my posts irritates you, as well as the message. That's too bad because I honestly do not post what I do to irritate you or insinuate that you are a bad person because we have differing viewpoints, politically.

I know that sometimes my posts sound harsh, and believe it or not, you're not the first person to point that out to me.

By way of explanation, I will tell you that I am almost always at work, pressed for time, when I get on LBT. So I'm not as careful with my wording as I probably should be - at least if I were here to make friends and have people think I'm a sweet person.

Fact is, I enjoy the debate a whole lot on lots of different topics and lots of different threads at LBT. I learn a lot. I learned something from your post about Dr. Gray, in fact. But I can differentiate between someone's politics and the individual who is posting.

If someone makes it personal, and they are accusatory and insulting to the individual who made the post, that's a whole 'nuther thing in my books.

If I irritate you so much, please ignore me! But you don't irritate me, so I probably won't ignore your posts.

You don't irritate me, when your posts come across harsh , well then the posts do irritate me... as far as sarcasm, I think it can be a lot of fun as long as it's respectful, sometimes we can detect when sarcasm is meant in a demeaning or condenscending way.

And please know that it's not personal, really , nothing here is personal.

Fair enough, Elenation.

I think the point was that a quote from a single source, doesn't disprove that global warming exists. If I needed to I could likely find at least one plumber who would be willing to state that water doesn't run downhill. Should we then discount gravity or the definition of a liquid??????!!!!!!

OK I'm jumping in something I shouldn't here.

Although I understand and basically agree with what you seem to be trying to say I can't help but point out the Dr she quoted did not try to claim that Global Warming didn't exist. His dispute was with the over-emphasis of the human "cause" behind it. You should have rephrased your comment to say "...doesn't disprove the effect of humans on the current rate of global warming..."

My own personal belief is that GW is occurring but due to a combination of causes both human-related and geologically-related. Unfortunately instead of debating the percentages of contributing factors both camps tend to argue that the other side has no impact at all which is hardly likely.

TommyO -

:Dancing_biggrin:Welcome Back!!!:woot:

I for one missed your presence on LBT. Things have been a bit dull :Yawn: around here since you left. Coincidence perhaps but true never the less.

I nearly shed a tear :sad2: when I realized I missed saying goodbye in time on your "Goodbye before a break from LBT" thread.:cryin:

Oh and I hope my last post wasn't too passive-aggressive for you.

I thought, perhaps, you might enjoy an update from the topic of the original post of this thread. It's interesting to note that the original poster wanted the "truth" to be told. With politics involved, I'm not sure that will ever be possible. Even the article she posted (but not her fault, obviously) might not have been the 'whole truth'. It turns out that at the time Gore's detractors were 'exposing his hypocrisy' that the mansion was undergoing extensive remodeling that resulted in some pretty environmentally conscious changes. Who's telling the truth at any given time in the world of politics? Who the heck knows... I've just learned not to stick my neck out too far on a particular story... because there can always be something lurking in the details of which I am unaware (maybe even this one).

With that in mind, enjoy the update...

Gore makes Nashville home more 'green'

CNN.com Fri October 12, 2007

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs -- even on his Christmas tree.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave.

Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction.

"One of the things that is tremendously powerful about what the Gores have done is demonstrate that you can take a home that was a dog, an absolute energy pig, and do things to correct that," Shinn said.

Gore bought the mansion in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade in 2002 for $2.3 million. It houses his offices and those of his wife, Tipper, as well as a commercial kitchen for formal events.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider declined to say how much the couple spent on the improvements.

"The Gores decided to take a series of steps over time that might be logistically or financially out of reach for many Americans," she said. "But they were fortunate enough to have the ability to do so.

"But everyone can get started, whether it's changing light bulbs or purchasing green power."

In February, a conservative think tank criticized Gore for using an average of 16,000 kilowatt hours a month for an average monthly bill of $1,206 in 2006. The typical Nashville home uses about 1,300 kilowatt hours a month.

Gore has said the criticism was unfair because the 10,000-square-foot mansion was undergoing extensive remodeling. He said this week that "global warming denier" groups were trying to discredit him because they don't like the attention he has given to climate change.

"You're going to have people try to attack the messenger in order to get at the message. They have not been able to succeed," Gore told CNN from Norway, where he picked up the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work.

"The only way to solve this crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives," he said.

The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification.

Electricity usage at the home remains well above regional averages, but Gore's power consumption decreased by 6,890 kilowatt hours, or 11 percent, between June and August, despite the heat wave.

Gore's electric use increased again after he had to take his solar panels off-line in August so his new geothermal system could be integrated into the system. But his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated.

When the Gores' heated pool is hooked up to the system later this month, their energy use is expected to decline more, his spokeswoman said.

Gore has also said he invests in renewable energy such as solar and wind power to balance 100 percent of his electricity usage.

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said the size of Gore's house limits how much he can cut his energy consumption.

"We all need to evaluate what we legitimately need in square footage," he said.

Still, another owner of the same house likely would not have been as dedicated as Gore to reducing energy consumption, said Smith, who also serves on the advisory committee for Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

"I promise you the energy use would be as high, if not higher," he said.

I have gathered much information in the past on Global Warming and well...Al Gore... and I thought this was interesting..

One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. .................... "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said. He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants

Thanks for posting this, Elenation. This is just one of many, many studies done by scientists and meteorologists who believe that even if global warming is real, it very well may not be man-made. Many of these scientists are being fired, ignored, or silenced in other ways. In fact, the founder of The Weather Channel calls the theory "the biggest scam ever perpetrated on society" and he has been excoriated by many of his fellow meteorologists for saying so. It always makes me wonder: If man-made global warming is such a proven "fact", why fear further studies, scrutiny, or discussion with others? Al Gore will not attend debates on the subject and, as the above article states (and as I have read in many other places), a scientist can lose his/her grant if they don't follow the politically-correct global warming agenda. I have posted links before on this subject, here is another:

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

Anyway, I appreciate Elenation, Gadgetlady, and the other posters who don't just accept one side of this debate. There are just too many discrepancies to consider it "case-closed", IMO.

Gore makes Nashville home more 'green'

CNN.com Fri October 12, 2007

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient

To me, that says it all. He's been on the "green" bandwagon for years. Why did it take someone exposing him for him to make improvements on his house?

My dh and I put in a solar pool heater about 2 years ago and solar panels on our house just about 6 months ago. We do not fancy ourselves "green" by any stretch of the imagination. We did it to save money on our electric and gas bills. The only thing that stopped us from doing it previously was the cost.

Presumably, Al Gore, who has had the funding source AND the "green" drive for many, many years, would have done it prior to now. IMO, if not for someone's exposing his hypocrisy, I doubt he would have done it at all.

Again, the title of this thread is "When the truth is inconvenient." The article posted by L8BloomR is written by the Hudson Institute. The "Institute", which calls itself non-partisan is funded by major corporations including Eli Lilly, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, etc. It's members include a who's-who of neo-conservatives.

The information in the article comes from Dennis Avery who has written, among many other questionable writings, one that claims that organic foods are more dangerous than those that are sprayed with pesticides.

This particular global warming piece is compiled from information contained in Mr. Avery's book. The book, interestingly, only uses warming data up to 1985. Why? Because the data after 1985 muddies his waters considerably. His so-called 'explanations' for global warming don't account for the meteoric rise since 1985. (Another interesting note from Avery's book is that it is not warm enough in England to grow wine grapes. The owners of the 150+ vineyards that are located there would probably beg to differ.)

I, personally, am still not decided on exactly how much of global warming is attributable to humans vs. nature. One thing is for sure, however. In making up my mind I am sure to closely evaluate the source of my material. Relying on research from a 'think tank' funded by the very corporations that would be most impacted by more rigid environmental regulations is not something I would consider doing. I also don't accept Al Gore's assertions at face value. I'm still researching his sources and will probably be doing so for quite some time. In the end, we may find out that all this to-do about man-made global warming is junk. Or, we may find out the opposite.

I encourage everyone to do their own research on the subject before arriving on their settled opinion. Keep in mind, though, articles and books by either far-flung faction (right or left) probably aren't the best hooks on which to hang one's hat.

To me, that says it all. He's been on the "green" bandwagon for years. Why did it take someone exposing him for him to make improvements on his house?

My dh and I put in a solar pool heater about 2 years ago and solar panels on our house just about 6 months ago. We do not fancy ourselves "green" by any stretch of the imagination. We did it to save money on our electric and gas bills. The only thing that stopped us from doing it previously was the cost.

Presumably, Al Gore, who has had the funding source AND the "green" drive for many, many years, would have done it prior to now. IMO, if not for someone's exposing his hypocrisy, I doubt he would have done it at all.

Reread the article. The extensive remodeling was already going on at the time that he was 'exposed.' Please don't let your disdain for Al Gore override everything that you read. You don't have to like the man. Many many people don't. But also don't rely on misleading stories to fuel your disdain. I'm sure you can find many other true things about him that will fuel it just fine.