You would have thought he would have been trying to get a few Gore supporters.

Senator Inhofe showed what a real jerk he is during his 15 minutes of questions.  Please call his office at 202 224-4721 and tell him to show some class as a  U.S. Senator.

Until Gore takes care of his own "consumption" issues, he's nothing but a hypocrite and should be ignored.

Watching unedited videos of the hearings last night, I was apalled at the ambush Inhofe set up for Gore with his "yes or no" questions leading to a Pledge he wanted Gore to agree to (bringing his home's energy usage into alignment with normal American household use). Gore's response was to express a desire to meet over lunch sometime to iron out their differences. Talk about a classy gesture to reach out and bridge the divide. Wouldn't it be great if more politicians emulated this approach?

I love the Hypocrite Bandwagon.
Because Rainking, YOU'VE NEVER, EVER, in your WHOLE LIFE been a hypocrite!?

We're all Hypocrites.
I don't understand why his being a hypocrite renders his argument null.
Oh wait, it's because you don't want to have to do anything to help, and you can't find a justifiable reason, and you're grasping at straws...

He purchases wind energy and leads a carbon-neutral life! How many people can say that, really?
If anything a large amount of energy consumption at his house is a good thing because it means a lot of money going toward alternative energy.
I think it's very telling of the mindset of the "skeptics" that they are now scraping the bottom of the barrel with these inaccurate personal attacks on  a man who has stuck his neck out to try to help us all help ourselves.

"Oh wait, it's because you don't want to have to do anything to help, and you can't find a justifiable reason, and you're grasping at straws..."
Actually, um, no. It's because I don't go around guilt tripping the entire world (with inaccuracies I should add) about how they should be living and then doing the exact opposite in my private life.

The cost of Mr. Gore's energy bill is certainly an arguement I am getting from of some of my colleagues (educators, believe it or not). Is all of his energy consumption coming from green sources? Just trying to work on my afternoon rebuttal.

Oh, and SSG, you were kidding when you said "I don't understand why his being a hypocrite renders his argument null."
you can't be serious

There was nothing classy about Gore letting Inhofe get away with misleading the public with his sound bites that falsely imply that the vast majority of climate scientists have it all wrong and that there is some doubt about whether human emissions of greenhouse gases are accelerating global warming.  Gore was, once again, playing for political connections that might make him wealthier in the future rather than taking the stand he knows he can and should take if he is serious about putting his concern about the planet's future first.  He did it when he ran for president in 2000 and left environmental issues out of his campaign while he groveled for donations from industry.  He did it while he sat quietly at Clinton's side as the salvage logging bill was signed into law, eliminating the force of all treaties and environmental laws that restricted damaging logging and forest road building operations.  And he is doing it now, as he talks up carbon offset credits and carbon taxes as the focus of his vision, never mentioning that he stands to get rich from such policies (see me comments below for more on that).

It is my hope that Mr. Gore won't throw his hat in the ring. I think he will be much more effective where he is now, our own little eco bomb tosser. I think we have learned over the past 7 years just how irrelevant a sitting US President can become.  The other candidates can kowtow to BIG $$ and and Red/Blue states to get elected, while, hopefully,the emerging Green states will do the heavy lifting that is needed.
You go Al!!

You're like the people who argued against John McCain because "he had a black love child," and Ann Richardson because, "she's a lesbian."

You can't argue facts, so you smear and attack the the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. The weakness of your logic has a name: ad hominem. Yup - its a form of lying thats so old, the is in latin.

Fact: Global warming is happening. Fact: Gore has no consumption issues. You can address these, and the substance of the arguments, or stop posting.

...don't have the antipathy towards markets that you do.

You're attacking carbon offsets because they're... market based? And Al Gore for being... a capitalist who puts his money where is mouth is? Are you an environmentalist or an economic activist?

Most Americans are capitalists - so I think a "market solution" is a good thing. I just have the feeling that if you had a carbon rationing... or  carbon welfare checks...  most Americans would dislike the policy for purely ideological reasons. And then where would the environment be?  

But that's beside the point.  I am not speaking out against trading carbon credits because it involves markets, I am speaking out because those markets are incredibly ripe for scamming that can go on for decades before finally shown to be so, getting the word out, and actually doing something to end the scam (hopefully), by which time so much unmitigated greenhouse gas accumulation will have set off feedback loops that more or less assure environmental catastrophe rather than environmental damage and hardship that feedback loops already underway just about guarantee.

Unlike, say, the market for hog bellies, most of the business people buying carbon offsets, which is where most of the action expected to be, not only can't tell if they got what they paid for, they don't care.  They just want to get the credit for offsetting their carbon emissions so as to avoid the penalties for not doing so that Gore advocates.

We don't really know if a bunch of trees planted today will grow up to take out a given amount of carbon over the next few decades before climate change brings pests and diseases that kills them, for example, but we do know that if we emit tons of carbon today but take decades to slowly sequester it, most of the damage will be done and will carry forward by the time those trees do their job--if they ever do.

We don't really know if a factory in Poland that installs some carbon scrubbing technology today will pay to maintain that technology throughout its lifetime so that it does what it should.  In fact, we don't know if that factory in Poland will ever be inspected or, if it is, whether it will turn around and sell its equipment to another factory, that will then turn around and sell a full history of expected carbon offsets, only to later sell the equipment again, in an ongoing sham not unlike the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, in which reserve requirements and security behind loans was badly abused, leading to financial disaster of the sort we are starting to see in the sub-prime mortgage markets today.  Only we aren't talking about mere financial losses in this case, we are talking about the loss of the ecosystems upon which we all depend for our very lives.

Seems to me we should learn from these examples instead of nodding off and assuming that all markets are functional and efficient markets when we can clearly see that is not the case.  Given what is at stake, I think we should be doubly cautious about being scammed.

One sign that a scam might be afoot is when the people at the top of the businesses that are making the markets are encouraging everyone to buy in, but they turn out not to be telling anyone what they are doing to enrich themselves.  That was the case in the Enron debacle, one may recall.  And it is the case as pertains to Gore, who never mentions his role as the owner and chief executive of one of the firms making a market for carbon offset credits (whatever those may prove to be, someday), or his political and economic interest in going along to get along with some other power players who have a less than stellar reputation when it comes to telling the truth and putting the public's welfare first.

First, I would like to submit that Al Gore has been pushing the climate issue since long before the carbon offset industry existed.  Just a passing thought.

Second, and more importantly...  And I want people to visualize with me on this one...

If you were suddenly to become the possessor of several million dollars, what would you do with it?  (After you finish spending like a maniac on pointless crap just because you can, I mean.)  Personally, I'd put a sizable chunk of it into a business that would help solve the climate problem.  Call me crazy, but I have a feeling I'm not the only person on this blog who'd do that.  What approach would we take?  Does it matter?  Personally, I'd probably choose renewable energy production.  And if someone ever told me I didn't have the right to advocate renewable energy, because I'd made it my bread and butter...  I have a very diplomatic, well-thought-out answer to that.  I'd tell them to shut the %#&!! up, and go on with my day.

I'm curious how many people agree with me on this.

Gore chose carbon offsets.  That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to advocate them.

Finally...  There's a reason the environmental community spends so much time worshipping Al Gore these days.  It's not because he actually is some kind of saint.  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't; most of us will never know him well enough to judge.  The reason we stand behind him is, he's the best hope we have for success.  He's the highest-profile name we have speaking for our cause, and quite possibly the best public speaker, too.  If we're going to save this world we live in, we need him.  If it turns out he's also making money--or gaining power, or just racking up personal glory--off of this...  Frankly, I don't give a $#%@.