I found this over at Free Republic. I also found it cute.

And Andrew Bolt talks about the problem with offsets, and the "do what we say, not what we do" hypocrisy:

...there's a moral problem. Offsets are really best suited for people rich enough -- like Gore -- to afford them.

They let the rich pay someone else to use less so they can use more. And so the aristocrat can party on under the chandeliers, while the power-rationed peasants sit out in his dark.

Of course, one hypocrite like Gore shouldn't discredit an entire cause. Yet it can't be an accident that global warming attracts more hypocrites than most faiths.

There's Tim Flannery, criss-crossing the world by jet to tell us to use less oil.

There's British PM Tony Blair lecturing Britons to cut their emissions, but declaring it "unreasonable" to expect him therefore to stop flying off on his overseas holidays.

And there's Prince Charles booking out all of a jet's first and second class to fly to New York to accept a green award from Gore.

Ah, Gore again. Which reminds me of Laurie David, one of the producers of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

David, too, demands we save the world by cutting our gasses, yet turns out to be as addicted to private jets as her friend Al.

Asked recently to explain such inconvenient hypocrisy, David spluttered: "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year."

But -- and here's where she shows she's nobler than you -- "I feel horribly guilty about it."

See? The global warming faith is more about how you feel than what you actually do. Even the makers of An Inconvenient Truth demonstrate that. What a circus.

A link posted by Daddy Dave over at Tim Blair's site:

Michael Crichton Speech, Aliens Cause Global Warming

Don't let the title throw you, it's a very well reasoned screed on the politicalization of science.

Anyone with wealth, any kind of serious wealth, should not talk the global warming talk. If they did, they would be hypocritical. Global warming alleviation should be a topic only for the poor, such as impoverished climate scientists. I think that's the only logical conclusion to be made from the series of posts on this topic here recently.

Either that or the rich who believe in global warming should become biblically true Christians, follow Jesus and give it (planes, houses, yachts, shirts) away to the poor climate scientists. Moving further with this logic, the free market and capitalism are incompatible with addressing global warming.

T_n_T,

I think you are confusing opulence with wealth.

I think Rand figured the difference was so obvious, any one with any perception at all would understand this without it being explicitly stated.

I know someone worth $50 Million who proabally lives a less opulent lifestyle than you do.

He mows his grass with a push mower and lives in a small house with a small yard. No servants, no expensive cars and no private jet. Hell, he doesn't even own a big screen TV.

He could give a fart about glow-bull warming either. It is simply the way he and his wife wants to live.

So if he, who could not eve a tinkers damn about the glow-bull warming hype, can live a simple life, so could the glow-bull arming hypocrites if they were serious.

Perhaps they are teling you T_n_T, that instead of toast, you can eat cake.

Mike, I understand that. It's just unreasonable to expect wealth not to be expressed in ones car, house, private plane, BBQ grill etc. It's just as unreasonable to expect that any one of these rich folks gives all those carbon heavy toys away the moment they buy into GW theory. Personally, I don't know any rich people who live or desire to live in hovels. What's the bloody point in making lots of money if all you can spend it on is hybrid cars? ;-)

Mind you, I think Gore could have focused more personally on his carbon footprint, but I think we are making much too much of this. It seems a pretty childish line of argument. After all we don't expect all rich people who convert to Christianity to follow Christ's teachings on giving all our excess away to the poor. We have come to accept that to live in the real world, this measure of hypocrisy is acceptable. We should give the Richard Bransons, Al Gores, Prince Charles's of this world some measure of this same allowance.

After all we don't expect all rich people who convert to Christianity to follow Christ's teachings on giving all our excess away to the poor.

So you agree that this is just a new religion, for which the rich purchase indulgences?

Rand, I have to admit GW adherence has many similarities to religion. ;-)

The rich should not be buying indulgences to mask their carbonic flatulence. Yet I, like Popes of past, forgive them their sins since their money is used to propagate the faith. And when the whole world is won for GW, they will be known as fathers of the church. So let them go in peace and farts.

Actually, I'm a big fan of carbon offsets. If rich people pay someone else to pollute less *and that really happens* then that's excellent. What I think is the problem here is that Al Gore is running an unauditable game. Maybe his carbon offsets really do offset his personal contribution. But what proof do we have that that happened?

The point here is not that rich people are discussing global warming, or even that they are expressing deeply concern about it. What is outrageous is that these people are often proposing very specific policies that would substantially degrade the quality of life for millions (billions) of other people while they refuse to make even relatively minor sacrifices themselves.

The same 'hair shirt environmentalists' that wish to cap carbon emissions and impose onerous taxes to price air travel and even some long distance auto travel beyond the means of most of us (and seriously restrict the use of even short and medium auto travel) engage in conspicuous consumption of the very resources they claim are in short supply, and emit carbon on a level that most of could NEVER approach. THAT is hypocrisy, and THAT is what most of us who express outrage at Gore's behavior in this case are upset about.

As a committed capitalist I have no problem with wealth, nor do I object to Gore buying carbon offsets (IF there were any way to audit such things, which in this case there appears not to be), but I do object to being hectored by self-important prigs who seem to believe that the rules are for everyone except them. Perhaps Gore and Pelosi (to name one other possible exception) are limited by security considerations to private jets, but most of the SUV socialists would fit quite nicely into first class on commercial flights....

As a minor point, anyone care to compare Gore's (rather nice, from what I understand) energy-wasting home with Bush's ranch?

Scott, let's expand the equation a bit just for fun. Anyone care to sum up Bush's total carbon footprint and include the contribution from the Iraq war? I bet Gore's energy use looks very attractive in comparison...;-)

Bush's total carbon footprint is no doubt quite large (I am going to ignore your somewhat disingenuous comment regarding the Iraq war, even you know better...), but a good chunk of this is related to the fact that he is POTUS, and thus the nature of his job gives him a MUCH larger footprint than a private citizen. Given his choice of living quarters (and remember, the Crawford ranch is not simply a vacation home, but is Bush's preferred address) and his known dislike of travelling (admittedly a personal pecadillo, and thus perhaps an unfair factor to include), it isn't unreasonable to expect that when we compare apples to apples, Bush is a FAR more 'green' individual.

I wasn't being serious Scott, I was just kidding along for the ride. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

In any case, I'm all for simple living until I can afford my yacht which will be the greenest thing in the ocean.

Carter was a pretty simple living Prez too what with all the turning lights off etc. Must be the Christian thing in Bush and Carter. Bush is a nice guy, Cheney would do well in Jail. ;-)

"They let the rich pay someone else to use less so they can use more. And so the aristocrat can party on under the chandeliers, while the power-rationed peasants sit out in his dark."

Isn't this what the libertarians exactly want? I didn't realize you quote, in agreeing tone, a seemingly communist viewpoint.