Al Gore uses 18,400 kWh of electricity per month?

[buzz_knox]

Of course, assuming he can reduce the carbon emissions he causes by spending more money instead is this a bad thing or necessarily hypocritical? He's still working toward the same end goal (combatting global warming) just enjoying his wealth at the same time.

Last summer was a record setting one for TVA, with both an all-time record and a record for August. To meet the demand, TVA had to run its facilities at maximum, including activating combustion turbines, and buying power from other utilities. The purchased power, in turn, required other utilities to generate at a higher rate themselves.

This means that the suggestion Gore was reducing his "carbon footprint" is pretty much hilarious. The power he consumed during that period resulted in increased heat generation from his own system (with the need to cool the house, resulting in more heat, in a lovely cycle) and increased use of fossil fuels from generating units.

I don't buy Gore's crap, and I generally think he's a two bit slime bag (for the sake of clarity). But suggesting that he was somehow aiding the environment at a time when conserving electricity would have been of far more benefit. And I say this as someone whose building had its air conditioning turned off so TVA could meet the power demand.

 

[Camp David]

I'd still like to see Gore's usage in comparison to others of similar wealth/stature.

You make the mistake of treating Gore and his wealth together. Gore has set himself up as the advocate for Global Warming. As such he should be the spokesman of conservation. He's not. He wastes electricity more than most of us... 20 times or more I guess. That is why he is a fraud.

Gore specifically said, at the Oscars, that we all need to do our part... Well? What has he done...conservation speaking? Anything? You know how much one flight, east to west, on a Lear jet costs in fuel?

Tell you what... if Gore wants any respect he needs to start giving away some of his millions and divest himself of the outrageous excess ...otherwise his message is simply one of hypocrisy

 

[buzz_knox]

So buying the capital equipment to convert the free commodity of sunlight into electricity is like buying electric motors or any other durable good. Bigger demand means bigger production. Bigger production leads to a lucrative market. A lucrative market attracts competitors. Competitors drive down prices. They can do this because a healthy demand funds R&D that leads to lower manufacturing costs and higher efficiency solar cells (better products).

For utilities, it's not that easy. The demand for power far outstrips the supply of power available from green power. Combine that with the not in my back yard attitude that many feel towards green power (facilities for wind power generation aren't exactly beloved in these parts), the need to locate them in particular areas, and the expense of acquiring the necessary property (which is quite fun), and green power becomes a losing proposition.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I don't know squat about economics, but I can see THAT.

You may not know squat about economics, but you seem to have said it better than I did.

So buying the capital equipment to convert the free commodity of sunlight into electricity is like buying electric motors or any other durable good. Bigger demand means bigger production. Bigger production leads to a lucrative market. A lucrative market attracts competitors. Competitors drive down prices. They can do this because a healthy demand funds R&D that leads to lower manufacturing costs and higher efficiency solar cells (better products).

Exactly. I was also wrong before; demand for solar cells has always met supply, it's just that demand before was always rather low and inelastic. Basically, it was only economically viable for applications where there were no suitable alternatives; think remote locations or satellites. So with low and inelastic demand, there was little incentive for R&D; the people that needed it would buy it regardless of price, and there weren't going to be many anyway.

So without government subsidies as well as individuals motivated to invest regardless of cost, solar power wouldn't be progressing at the rate that it is now.

You make the mistake of treating Gore and his wealth together. Gore has set himself up as the advocate for Global Warming. As such he should be the spokesman of conservation. He's not. He wastes electricity more than most of us... 20 times or more I guess. That is why he is a fraud.

Huh? Why is it a mistake to treat Gore and his wealth together? If I donate 10% of my earnings to charity, and a millionaire donates 10% of his earnings to charity, who is the greater philanthropist? In my eyes, they are roughly equal. This is little different; it would seem that, despite his lifestyle, Gore actually puts more effort into combatting global warming (even through his own actions) than most.

Now, at a certain point you have to adjust for means; my donating 10% of my income may well start eating into my food money, whereas a millionaire would only be reducing his yacht fund. At the same time, most people in America seem to agree that the wealthy (even the philanthropic among them) should be allowed to enjoy a somewhat lavish lifestyle without derision. Expecting every wealthy person that claims to be generous to live in a studio apartment and donate the rest to charity isn't generally considered reasonable.

Whether Gore's usage, and the measures he takes to offset it, are within reason given his principles and level of wealth is the issue at hand...and it at least appeared to me that they were...

Last summer was a record setting one for TVA, with both an all-time record and a record for August. To meet the demand, TVA had to run its facilities at maximum, including activating combustion turbines, and buying power from other utilities. The purchased power, in turn, required other utilities to generate at a higher rate themselves.

This means that the suggestion Gore was reducing his "carbon footprint" is pretty much hilarious. The power he consumed during that period resulted in increased heat generation from his own system (with the need to cool the house, resulting in more heat, in a lovely cycle) and increased use of fossil fuels from generating units.

I don't buy Gore's crap, and I generally think he's a two bit slime bag (for the sake of clarity). But suggesting that he was somehow aiding the environment at a time when conserving electricity would have been of far more benefit. And I say this as someone whose building had its air conditioning turned off so TVA could meet the power demand.

This on the other hand is an interesting point. I'd still say Gore has been a net positive for the environment either way. Assuming you agree that climate change is occurring, An Inconvenient Truth has done loads to increase awareness and spur people into action, regardless of what the guy on camera might do at home...he as an individual couldn't possibly offset that level of change. But this would definitely make this a bit more of a head shaker. Something for me to look into and think about, which is why I hang out in places like this.

Still seems like his paying for green credits should encourage utilities to build more capacity...even if it's other utilities that do it. Could utilities "trade" green power to bring it from nearby areas where, say, wind or solar is more feasible to those where it's more difficult to build? If people like Gore are willing to pay excessive amounts of money for this, shouldn't somebody step in to fill demand?

For utilities, it's not that easy. The demand for power far outstrips the supply of power available from green power. Combine that with the not in my back yard attitude that many feel towards green power (facilities for wind power generation aren't exactly beloved in these parts), the need to locate them in particular areas, and the expense of acquiring the necessary property (which is quite fun), and green power becomes a losing proposition.

I've always thought that distributing power generation through solar cells on-site was a pretty good idea...they're a lot less conspicuous than wind turbines, energy to emission level is pretty high in many areas of the country, etc. You'd obviously still have to have some centralized generation, but I'd think this would take a lot of strain off the grid...especially since peak usage generally coincides with daylight. I'm not far enough into my degree to really understand the intricacies involved with such a plan, so maybe there's some reason this wouldn't work (or scarcity of resources to create them)...but to me it has always seemed that the cost was the main limiting factor.

 

[Camp David]

I'd still say Gore has been a net positive for the environment either way.

Okay fine... until I waste as much electricity and energy as Gore don't bother me! Matter of fact, Gore aspires me to waste far more than I do now... he is a true leader in the field of waste; I leave a 200 watt light on in my outhouse dedicated in his memory and honor as a true environmental!

 

[JuanCarlos]

Okay fine... until I waste as much electricity and energy as Gore don't bother me! Matter of fact, Gore aspires me to waste far more than I do now... he is a true leader in the field of waste; I leave a 200 watt light on in my outhouse dedicated in his memory and honor as a true environmental!

Logical debate response: He, despite his usage, has had a net positive effect by convincing others to conserve. You, because you've convinced nobody to conserve, would have only a net negative effect. And I'm guessing that even taking into account all the people like you inspired to waste energy just to spite him, his effect is probably still a net positive.

That was pretty darn funny response: You do that, I'll blare some extremely obscene music out my car window in honor of Tipper, and later we can both get together and see how much ammunition we can burn through in honor of Sarah Brady.

 

[CobrayCommando]

LOL! Reagan is honored every day in Compton!

So is Nancy Reagan... 21 needle salute!

 

[SecDef]

So, the home offices for both Al and Tipper have zero impact? The fact that there isn't another building that has to be lit up doesn't mean anything? The fact that in a normal day Al has to WALK to his office is ignored?

Sure, he uses a lot of energy. He spends money to try and offset that. He doesn't have to, he does it to try and stay true to his message.

You guys sound like you'd be happier if he ate babies but was open and honest about it!

If he drove around in an SUV all by himself, then yeah, that's insane, but if he is with 4 or 5 people then you know what, he's staying true to his message.

In the end, it doesn't matter how much he uses. A single person can't make that big of a difference. Unless they are influencing others. Feel free to burn 200 watt bulbs.. that'll show him!

I'm still waiting for the links to where Gore went against nuclear power. It wouldn't surprise me too much, but I certainly can't take the word of "I remembered it" as there is a lot of bogosity flying around here. I'd like to see for myself.

 

[Fremmer]

OK, I think I understand Gore's excuse, at least a little better. I didn't understand it from the Internet articles, but a (presumably) AP story in the Omaha World Herald went into a bit more detail. I'll type the relevant paragraph for everyone:

"Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources"

Note that the paragraph does not state that the electricity that powers Gore's house originates from a renewable energy source. The extra amount he pays merely subsidizes renewable energy sources. He's getting his power from the same electrical grid as everyone else. How much coal ya think has to be burned (or how much nuclear waste is produced) to supply the power for Gore's mansion? I'll bet that it is a lot.

So Gore's justification for the enormous amount of energy that his house consumes (and adds to the greenhouse problem) consists of paying more for the energy. In other words, Gore doesn't need to cut his consumption because he can afford to pay more for energy, and the extra money he pays will be applied to renewable energy sources.

If you are willing and able to pay more for energy, then it is OK to consume whatever amount of energy you wish.

If Gore were serious about global warming, he wouldn't consume so much electricity every month. Simple as that. Next he'll be telling everyone that they shouldn't drive SUVs because they are too big and consume too much gas. I doubt that he'll care that you gas up from a gas station that charges an extra amount per gallon and is applied to renewable energy.

Hypocrite.

 

[SecDef]

Sadly it looks like you guys didn't read the book or watch the movie, so you actually have no idea what Gore suggests to call him a hypocrite...

Here are his tips to help prevent global warming (pages 306-321):

1. Buy energy efficient lights (i.e. compact fluorscents).
2. Buy energy efficient appliances.
3. Maintain your appliances (i.e. clean off your refrigerator's condenser coils).
4. Buy a programmable thermostat (to lower your home heating).
5. Insulate your house.
6. Get a home energy audit.
7. Conserve hot water (i.e. use less hot water in your dishwasher).
8. Reduce standby power usage (i.e. completely turn off your computer).
9. Switch to green power (see if your utility adds an option where you can pay for electricity generated by alternative energy).
10. Buy fuel efficient cars.
11. Reduce the mileage that you drive (i.e. use mass transit, bike or walk).
12. Drive smarter (i.e. don't drive 100 mph).
13. Hybrid cars .
14. Buy ethanol.
15. Tele-commute.
16. Fly less.
17. Consume less.
18. Recycle/reuse. Less energy is used on things such as the trucks that deliver the new products and dispose of the old products.
19. Don't waste paper (as this is a very energy-intensive industry).
20. Compost.
21. Refill your own water bottles.
22. Eat less meat.
23. Buy local. I guess this helps to lower the fuel used by long distancing trucking.
23. Offset your carbon emissions (carbon credits).
24. Educate others & write your local politicians. Visit our "Email the President" page if you want to email the President, your Senators, etc.
25. Support environmental groups.
26. Invest in energy friendly companies.

#'s 16 and 17 seem to be at the crux of the complaint that Gore isn't practicing what he preaches. I suggest that comparing him to the average american's home doesn't fit the whole picture of whether he is not leading by example.

BTW, since it isn't noted here, here is Gore's response to FOX:

– Gore lives a strict carbon-neutral lifestyle both in his work and private life. That means he tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible, and then purchases carbon offsets for the remaining emissions.

– In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions.

I totally agree that 20x average home sounds like an awful lot.

Go ahead, keep calling him a hypocrite, but at least now you'll be informed as to WHY instead of weird comparisons.

 

[mvpel]

Assuming you agree that climate change is occurring, ...

It is a given that climate change is occurring. It has always occurred, and will always occur. Climate change is why the spot where I am sitting here in New Hampshire is no longer under a mile-thick sheet of glacial ice.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Juan Carlos, post 43, in a reply to me:

and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

Juan Carlos, post 52, complaining about someone else’s comments.

So is this the level of debate and discourse to be expected at TFL? I mean, tossing somebody a jab when they actually say something stupid is one thing....but come on. This is some elementary school crap.

Also, do the mods here ever consider actually banning people like this instead of just locking the thread? Because that just encourages them to crap on them.

Are you “freaking out” ? I was merely pointing out that there are worse things than being a stooge for the enviro-whackos; namely, being a stooge for the Brady Bunch.

See ? I was actually on your side ! I was pointing out that there are worse people than Gore.

Oh … wait. Gore was also my example of Brady Bunch stooge. Hmmm. Huh.

Never mind.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I totally agree that 20x average home sounds like an awful lot.

That's the beauty of inappropriately chosen statistics. They have a tendency to completely blow facts out of proportion.

However. Even after accounting for the size of the house, home offices, live-in staff, security concerns/staff, entertaining (some of which would be in furtherance/promotion of his cause), and construction/renovation I have a hard time seeing how his usage could be that high. Especially if he is taking any real measures to conserve.

I mean, when put in context his usage is probably not significantly higher than the usual (compared to others of similar wealth and accounting for all the aforementioned circumstances)...it might even be a smidge lower. But I'll admit his usage still seems at least a little high considering his environmentalist stance. Nothing like what the "20 times" number suggests...but still. *shrug*

However, out of the 26 points SecDef quotes, I've only seen evidence that he fails to implement maybe 4 or 5. At most. And evidence that he implements at least 10. Probably more, because many of the rest are simply things that would be hard to spot from the outside.

So maybe mildly hypocritical. As in no more and possibly less than the average guy on the street (most people are hypocritical about something). But it certainly doesn't seem like enough to me to justify the yelling and arm flailing that has resulted from this "revelation." And it still seems like he does more harm that good. If this is the extent of his hypocrisy, I'm having a hard time feeling outrage.

"Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources"

Note that the paragraph does not state that the electricity that powers Gore's house originates from a renewable energy source. The extra amount he pays merely subsidizes renewable energy sources. He's getting his power from the same electrical grid as everyone else. How much coal ya think has to be burned (or how much nuclear waste is produced) to supply the power for Gore's mansion? I'll bet that it is a lot.

Well, aside from building a power plant on your own property there is no way to get power directly from green sources. It's a limitation of the very idea of a power grid and centralized production, and hardly his fault. Besides which, he is actually (apparently) installing solar panels on site in an attempt to ameliorate this to some extent.

However, by paying extra for blocks of green power, a consumer is directly subsidizing green power. In theory, a utility should sell no more blocks of green power than they can realistically supply, and if their entire supply is being used the extra money they're taking in should subsidize the creation of more capacity (as opposed to, say, padding the company's bottom line). If this isn't what's happening, that's a problem the utility needs to solve. But logically and rationally purchasing blocks of green power should be no different than purchasing the power directly from the alternative energy plant, regardless of whether it comes off the common grid.

So Gore's justification for the enormous amount of energy that his house consumes (and adds to the greenhouse problem) consists of paying more for the energy. In other words, Gore doesn't need to cut his consumption because he can afford to pay more for energy, and the extra money he pays will be applied to renewable energy sources.

If you are willing and able to pay more for energy, then it is OK to consume whatever amount of energy you wish.

So we're back to having a problem with wealthy people enjoying their wealth? If you're willing to pay more for your energy so that it is produced in an ecologically sustainable way, then yes, it is okay to consume whatever amount you wish. It's called being rich, and all I'm hearing there is jealousy.

Gore spends gobs of money to try and ensure that he is carbon neutral; that is to say that his net impact on the environment (at least the global warming aspect) is zero. I suppose he could push for a negative carbon footprint (it's arguable that through his advocacy and such films as AIT he has done so indirectly, but whatever) but the man's not running for sainthood. I don't ever remember him claiming to be perfect, either.

If Gore were serious about global warming, he wouldn't consume so much electricity every month. Simple as that. Next he'll be telling everyone that they shouldn't drive SUVs because they are too big and consume too much gas. I doubt that he'll care that you gas up from a gas station that charges an extra amount per gallon and is applied to renewable energy.

It's possible to be serious about something without being perfect. And if the amount you pay per gallon is enough that, when put into whatever programs it goes to, it completely offsets the carbon emissions of your SUV I bet old Al would give you any crap about it. Who knows.

It is a given that climate change is occurring. It has always occurred, and will always occur. Climate change is why the spot where I am sitting here in New Hampshire is no longer under a mile-thick sheet of glacial ice.

Oh, of course. I guess I could type more and say "Assuming you believe climate change is occurring at a faster rate that what would naturally happen without the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from humans"...I certainly am not conservative when it comes to word count.

I guess I was just lazy.


On the topic of human-caused climate change, I can't help but feel it's a modern version of Pascal's Wager. Slightly modified, of course...the gain and loss if it does exist are not infinite obviously. But there is much more gain to be had if it does not exist and you believe (and act accordingly) than in the original as well...cleaner environment, and all. Also, there is also some amount of scientific evidence in favor of it, which is a huge difference. Lastly, a huge difference is that there is a high probability (at least currently) that a majority of the effects will not be felt until after the decision-maker's death. I suppose this is fair, but you'd think if you have kids or grandkids you'd take the possible price paid by them into account, so it would still apply.

Seems like the only rational conclusion given this is that one should believe in climate change and act accordingly.

EDIT:

Are you “freaking out” ? I was merely pointing out that there are worse things than being a stooge for the enviro-whackos; namely, being a stooge for the Brady Bunch.

Wait a minute, let's get some context.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

Okay, I then responded by pointing out that Al Gore never claimed to have "invented" the internet...nor did his supporters ever make such a claim. I explained why logically this analogy makes no sense, and why logically nobody would assume that his statements in that interview were actually meant as a claim of invention. If you care to reply to those explanations and somehow discredit them, feel free.

You come in with this:

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

Excellent analogy ! In more ways than one, considering Gore’s gun-banning past.

No, incredibly poor analogy. Even by internet forum standards, which are admittedly often quite low. Yet you think it was "excellent" "in more ways than one."

As an excuse to take a not entirely relevant jab at his gun politics, I suppose your reply worked. But unless you want to rethink your assessment of the analogy and/or somehow answer my analysis of it, I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.

 

[kennybs plbg]

Global Warming Plan in a nut shell.

All members get credited a certain number of allowable units for release into the atmosphere.

The USA is allowed to release 20 units of emissions a year.

Some small 3rd world country is credited with 2 units but only uses 1.
It can now sell its extra one to the USA for 5 million $.

The overall emissions may increase in the world but now it’s O.K. because we paid for it.

Result: the only change here is who has the money and everyone is now happy.

Sign me up so I can help save the world.

kenny b

 

[Silver Bullet]

I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.

Not my fault if you can't follow the logic.

I was merely pointing out your double-standard between posts 43 and 52.

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Not my fault if you can't follow the logic.

What logic? Explain the logic. Actually, I'll give you this; had SecDef (or Gore, for that matter) actually made a claim that Gore "invented" the internet, the analogy would have merit. But they didn't, so it didn't.

As it stands, Cerf and Kahn (two of the people who actually did invent the internet, so to speak) seem to back up what SecDef (and Gore) said. If you plan to assert that this analogy is "excellent," I'd suggest you begin by somehow responding to this. And here, let's refresh everybody again on the analogy.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

No, that's like saying that Hitler was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives leading ultimately to the creation of the V2, because he funded it. Which he would have been, since no funding would probably have led to no V2.

Your response?

.
.

And double standard?

Here, let me help. The first post you quoted:

How does his gun-banning past relate to climate change? It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet. The only people using the word "invent" were his opponents. But I already covered that at length, and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

And the second:

So is this the level of debate and discourse to be expected at TFL? I mean, tossing somebody a jab when they actually say something stupid is one thing....but come on. This is some elementary school crap.

Also, do the mods here ever consider actually banning people like this instead of just locking the thread? Because that just encourages them to crap on them.

I don't see a real double standard there. I responded to your "point," while at the same time taking a jab at your intelligence for making said point when it had already been answered (instead of, say, pointing out any flaws in that reply).

This would be in comparison to NukeCop's and DasBoot's whole "Bet you got beat up a lot in high school, huh?"/"Har har I was thinking the same!" gems. I suggested that simply parroting points already made and responded to, while asking me specifically for a response that would presumably be no different was less than intelligent. Rather than responding as to why this would not be the case, he simply replied that I must have gotten beat up a lot. I'm suggesting this was because he had no response as to why that wouldn't be less than intelligent, because it quite simply was less than intelligent. Or possibly downright stupid.

 

[Silver Bullet]

How does his gun-banning past relate to climate change? It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet. .

It was an excellent analogy, because it doesn’t matter what Gore claimed, it only pertains to what Gore’s apologists claimed.

and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

I'll not feel bad for questioning your intelligence.

I notice that in the absense of anything substantital, you resort to insults. I’m puzzled about why you’re behaving in this manner. Are you trying to distract us from Gore’s abysmal record on matters of Right to Keep and Bear Arms ?

 

[Camp David]

"...Cerf and Kahn (two of the people who actually did invent the internet, so to speak) seem to back up what SecDef (and Gore) said. 'Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.'... No, that's like saying that Hitler was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives leading ultimately to the creation of the V2, because he funded it. Which he would have been, since no funding would probably have led to no V2.

Juan: Be careful about being led into believing Congressional-speak which politicians use to allege this and that to boost their reputation... Al Gore "pushing forward initiatives" could mean either he spoke to someone in the hallway over funding or actually signed a bill... if you examine the history on this point he did neither... Since DARPA was the funding vehicle and sponsor here of what became the ARPANET research effort, I doubt Gore, or any Congressman or Senator for that matter, had anything technical at all to do with ARPANET and its funding at the time, as it came under SecDef approval as do most DARPA research efforts, many which were 'black' programs. Indeed, since Gore's record in Congress frequently listed him voting against defense programs, I find little proof of him either realizing what this ARPANET effort was and its potential (the modern internet), or him supporting it. In fact, I believe just the opposite based on Gore's record! Only later, when the true potential of the Internet bore fruit, did Gore jump aboard.

Yet another case of Gore inflating his accomplishments. Nonetheless:

Algore's Carbon Footprint: A Comparison.

 

[Fremmer]

Let's keep this on-topic, folks. Gore's internet activity is irrelevant with regard to his use of energy.

And please refrain from asking about getting beat up in high school. You folks are bringing back painful memories about my high school days.

Fremmer, who wants to keep this Thread going and avoid personal comments directed at our fellow members.

P.S. Juan, I disagree with you about Gore, but at least you're presenting some interesting arguments. Well done.

 

[JuanCarlos]

It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet.

It was an excellent analogy, because it doesn’t matter what Gore claimed, it only pertains to what Gore’s apologists claimed.

Except his apologists have never claimed he "invented" the internet, either.

Let's go back to the analogy in question. I'll just go ahead and repeat my argument verbatim, since you didn't bother to respond to it and it actually pre-emptively responds to what you just said.

BTW, Al Gore was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives to move ARPANET forward into the Internet.

That's like saying that Hitler invented the V2 because he funded it.

No, that's like saying that Hitler was instrumental in pushing forward initiatives leading ultimately to the creation of the V2, because he funded it. Which he would have been, since no funding would probably have led to no V2.

SecDef didn't claim Gore invented the internet. So the analogy doesn't hold.

Response?

Juan: Be careful about being led into believing Congressional-speak which politicians use to allege this and that to boost their reputation... Al Gore "pushing forward initiatives" could mean either he spoke to someone in the hallway over funding or actually signed a bill... if you examine the history on this point he did neither...

*snipped more good points*

The only thing I can argue with is that his history probably wouldn't show who he talked to in hallways, so you can't definitively say he did neither. But yes, this may well be simply a case of Gore inflating his accomplishments. Which makes him...no different than pretty much any other politician, and most people.

This still doesn't change the fact that what Gore claimed to do (whether he did it or not, I suppose) and what his opponents are apparently still accusing him of claiming are worlds apart.

Say I tell you I was at the seventh game of the 2001 World Series (an excellent game, by the way) and caught a foul ball. Regardless of whether I was actually there or I just watched it on TV, I still never claimed I played in the seventh game of the 2001 World Series. One makes me sound like I might be inflating my accomplishments (not that going to a baseball game is an accomplishment...but I couldn't think of a better word on the spot), but the other makes me sound like an idiot with delusions of grandeur.

Gore was only claiming he helped fund/advocate for the internet. Yet his detractors latch on to this claim of "invention" because it makes him sound like an idiot with delusions of grandeur, rather than a politician who might be mildly inflating his political record.

Heck, Gore may well be an idiot with delusions of grandeur. But not because he claimed he invented the internet, since he never did so.