Discussing TCPR claims, O'Reilly said he'd "like to hear [Gore's] side of things," but ignored Gore's response to TCPR
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly asserted: "The Tennessee Center for Policy Research [TCPR] says the former vice president [Al Gore] is still using a massive amount of energy at his Tennessee mansion -- more than 20 times the national average." O'Reilly later stated: "So it looks like Gore is a pinhead, but we would like to hear his side of things. And he has an open invitation to appear on the Factor." But at no point did O'Reilly mention that Gore has reportedly given "his side of things" in response to a June 17 TCPR press release on the subject of Gore's purported energy use.
On the June 23 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly asserted: "The Tennessee Center for Policy Research [TCPR] says the former vice president [Al Gore] is still using a massive amount of energy at his Tennessee mansion -- more than 20 times the national average." O'Reilly added: "The research group also says Mr. Gore has made about $100 million on his global warming projects. So it looks like Gore is a pinhead, but we would like to hear his side of things. And he has an open invitation to appear on the Factor." But at no point did O'Reilly mention that Gore has reportedly given "his side of things" in response to a June 17 TCPR press release on the subject of Gore's purported energy use.
In a June 18 article, The Tennessean reported that Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider stated, "When [the Gores] do use power, it's green power." A day later, Gail Kerr of The Tennessean reported: "Gore's folks were quick to jump on the latest missive, saying his utility bills are actually DOWN by 40 percent. The group [TCPR], Gore's spokeswoman said, didn't include the former vice president's gas bill in this round of press release claptrap, as it did last year. That bill has gone down 90 percent, she said. And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas." In 2007, Think Progress reported that Gore's office had stated: "Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology." Kreider was similarly quoted in The Washington Post saying that "[t]he power coming into their residence is green, renewable power."
As The Tennessean further reported on June 18, "[T]he Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service's Green Power Switch program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas." According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which partners with the Nashville Electric Service and other local energy distributors to provide green power, "[a]lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."
In 2007, after the TCPR issued a similar report criticizing Gore's energy use, Media Matters for America documented several media outlets that similarly omitted steps Gore was taking to reduce the effect of his home energy usage.
From the June 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Time now for "Pinheads & Patriots": Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder; there's no question. But sometimes, a consensus is not good on the appearance front.
For example, Gus, the dog, has now been voted the world's ugliest pooch. That happened at a fair in Northern California. Now, this is not good for Gus' self-esteem. What canine would want to be the world's ugliest? So, I am making Gus, the dog, a patriot, simply because I want him to feel better. That's just the kind of guy I am.
On the pinhead front: Hello, Al Gore. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research says the former vice president is still using a massive amount of energy at his Tennessee mansion -- more than 20 times the national average.
The research group also says Mr. Gore has made about $100 million on his global warming projects. So it looks like Gore is a pinhead, but we would like to hear his side of things. And he has an open invitation to appear on the Factor.
We are energy concerned here. Candles lighting me right now.
And finally tonight, the mail. Just a quick note that we are having a big summer sale on Factor gear available on BillOReilly.com.
By saying "we'd like to hear his side of things", I may be incorrect, but I take it as such..
We (Bill Oreilly, and his viewers) would like to hear his side of things (personally, on the show...not to an outside interview).
I'm pretty sure he meant:
We (Bill Oreilly, and his viewers) would like to hear his side of things (personally, on the show...not to an outside interview) until we hear something we disagree with and cant rebut, at which point we will interrupt and cut his microphone, so the viewers get the 'fair and balanced' view of the right-wing position.
...and Bill O'Reilly's viewers have absolutely ZERO interest in what Al Gore would have to say about this. If they were interested in weighing both sides of any controversial issue, well, then they wouldn't be watching O'Reilly now, would they?
Please cite an example of KO ordering his staff to cut off someone's microphone.
What's that, you can't? OK, well, thanks for playing. Better luck next time!
This is such a shame, that the inane unresolvable argument over "climate change" and "global warming" has side-tracked the real and substantive issue of Regulating and reducing fossil fuel emissions... and the shame becomes a crying shame, when the inane nonsense descends further, into a defense of Al Gore's electric bill.
Of all the National Policy issues we see debated in Public, this one is presently among the most off-topic and confused and worthless and ineffective.
This is such a shame, that the inane unresolvable argument over "climate change" and "global warming" has side-tracked the real and substantive issue of Regulating and reducing fossil fuel emissions
Actually, that is the point - there are no reasons for the reduction of fossil fuel emmisions and fossil fuels in general - if indeed there is no global warming, or they arent the cause of it.
That would be good and all - if we really didnt have enough to last for the forseeable future.
But then again, by your logic, we never should have started using oil in the first place.
oh he will, don't worry.
I don't consider it global "warming." I think it's global "weirding" and we're already seeing the effects of it. Nature is a delicate balance, and when you add too much of one thing, that balance gets out of whack and crazy things start to happen. It's true in all aspects of our Earth.
Take, for instance, the wolves that have now been re-introduced into Yellowstone national park. For years the wolf was near extinct in that area, and the result was a massive boom of herbivores who then gobbled up all the surrounding foliage and pretty soon the entire eco-structure started deteriorating. They finally got the bright idea to re-introduce the wolves and now the Park is a thriving natural habitat. Now how hard is it to imagine that pumping all that CO2 that was once locked in the Earth's crust into the atmosphere in a geological miniscule amount of time would have an affect on the balance of our climate?
So from now on, I'm calling it global weirding.
This is just more mindless bullsh*t designed to piss off the people who already hate Al Gore.
I don't give a rat's ass how much energy Gore consumes. It has no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is a real problem, just as the price of John Edwards' haircut has no bearing on the plight of poor people.
Now, if you want to talk about hypocrisy..... let's go back and take another look at those Republicans leading Bill Clinton's impeachment.... you know, the ones who were having affairs and were on their third wives....? If that's not relevant, then neither is the size of Al Gore's house.
You forget, Nerzog, that through the Republican lens:
Liberal + rich = elitist, out-of-touch, crooked
Conservative + rich = successful, self-made, American hero
I don't give a rat's ass how much energy Gore consumes. It has no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is a real problem, just as the price of John Edwards' haircut has no bearing on the plight of poor people.
I agree - I could care less what they do or how much money they have, or how they spend. The bottom line is that they are trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, and make law of it. But in the end, it does have bearing whether global warming is a real problem - because if its not, then its purely a risk to our economy and standards of living.
You like logic; try this.....is the truth or untruth of the Bible determined by the hypocrisy of those preaching it?
The earth has had a wide range of temperatures. It still does. The range of temperatures that life can exist at is much narrower. The range that the current ecosystems can exist even narrower. I'd say if an average global temperature was 100F we would also have a major extinction event underway and accelerating. But thats just my guess.
Shall we wait till you agree that sufficient damage has been done before any actions are taken? How much damage would that be and how would verification of the data meet your standards?
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
He claims that he invented the internet.
I know, thanks to Senator Stevens from Alaska, that the internets are nothing but tubes.
Tubes were invented by Hiram K. Ramses in Egypt in the year 6325 BC.
Therefore, he could not have invented these tubes through which we shout.
Al Gore is a LIAR!
He claims that he invented the internet.
King, you're the liar. Gore did no such thing.
You are correct, SFNOMAD.
But you may want to have your sarcasm detector checked. It appears to be on the fritz.
It's too late Columbo, they've already started. It's called "the Grid" and it's already making the traditional servers outmoded.
Don't believe me? Google "The Grid" and find out for yourself...
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
Columbus wrote:
>>Because he is the feature person in the unproved man-made "climate change" issue
Here we go again. Global warming is not "unproved," if by "unproved" you mean science does not back it up. In fact, Oreskes did a study on peer-reviewed scientific papers and found that over 600 papers supported global warming; none refuted it. (Technically speaking, nothing can be "proven" with absolute certainty except in math. Even Newton's laws on gravity had flaws which Einstein had to correct.)
So yes, global warming is very much proved in the scientific sense.
You also write that showing that global warming is a problem is "... further damaging the economy and standards of living are worth fighting something that we arent sure is happening, or can be prevented." What is ironic about this statement is that the best scientists in the world have shown that global warming is happening. Scientific theories, when they have as much data to support them as global warming, usually prove accurate. But economic models hardly ever do. Further, can you possibly imagine the economic diaster that will follow if we don't do anything about global warming and the ocean start rising?
Columbus: ... the unproved man-made "climate change" issue ... that we arent sure is happening, or can be prevented.
Columbus, I was wondering what you do. I am a scientist; bioinformatics with most of my training in theoretical physics, mathematics, and chemistry. I talk to a lot of very well educated scientists. I have never met a single well-respected scientist that was arguing the case that climate change is not an issue.
First of all, there is nothing proven in science. NOTHING. To say there is is stupid. Things can only be disproven. It is called falsifiability (a philosophy detailed by Karl Popper, a 20th century philosopher of science.) Your use of the term "unproven" tells me that either (a.) you're not a scientist or (b.) your not a good scientist.
Secondly, there are movements outside of science to discredit scientific thinking. For instance, intelligent design. However, by and large these are not arguments coming from within the community. When topics are brought up for debate, the ideas are tested and the more accurate theory prevails. Sometimes people may be unsatisfied with the fact that their theories are bogus, and then they take it to political organizations that attempt to manipulate the bogus theory to gain public, non-scientific support for influencing policy. This is the only debate present in biology and climatology on evolution and "global warming", respectively.
This morning I was reading a novel by Gregory Benford that had an awesome quote in it that pertains to this second point. "Education can banish ignorance, but nothing can ban stupidity." Unfortunately there are those that will use other's stupidity for political gain and point to any form of doubt as "reasonable doubt." There is a reason we use the classification "reasonable" in our legal system, though. The same goes with scientific ideas.
Thirdly, you may claim that science is elitist and should not be the reasoning from whence governing decisions are made. I have no counter arguement here; however, if this is your stance, I'd like to hear what you think is better. If you can convince me of the authority of the Bible, the Koran, or the Joy of Cooking, then I will support your position. Otherwise I will mock you for making claims that sound scientific that have absolutely no scientific basis.
Billy:
AWESOME POST!!! And I notice that there is no response...
Behold O'Reilly begging to be spoon-fed his story rather than do the slightest bit of work.
Do some reporting, butthead.
Bill O'Reilly has an open invitation to appear on Keith Olbermann's show and discuss Andrea Mackris.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Off topic a bit but I have a problem with O'Reilly's use of the term "pinhead". The word "pinhead" is a derogatory term used to describe persons with a medical condition called microcephaly. This condition is characterized by a smaller than normal skull and brain size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly
I don't understand commentators that feel the need to resort to slurs and slander when trying to make a point.
BTW, one of the most famous "pinheads", Zip the Pinhead, was not mentally deficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_the_Pinhead