As I haven't seen the film, I can't comment on the presentation within. My only issue is that we are only hearing one side of argument. I have no problem with Gore being called to task on this matter and would like to hear his explanation. Without that information however, I'm not going to just conclude that the opinion of a biased writer is an accurate representation of the facts.

Make your own decisions about Al Gore. As I've said, I'm not a fan of his. If someone os going to put themselves as the standard-bearer for a cause, then that person sets themselves of for critcisms of their actions which contradict their words. I feel Al Gore has committed that here and I am going to point it out.

I'll remember this the next time I present Al Franken as a credible cite. ;)

No problem with that. As I said, I find it troubling as a personal issue about Gore but don't find it at all relevant as a larger issue about the reality of global warming and the importance of reducing carbon emissions.

Here's my last post in this thread (I'm going to abide by the wishes of the original poster and keep it entirely on topic).

I find the article to be distasteful, because it attacks a message by attacking the messenger. I think that this kind of cheap shot is typical of both the left and right. Technically, Al Gore may indeed be a "hypocrite" according to the narrow constraints imposed by the USA Today piece. Obfuscating the issue, like the author does, is worse.

damn right ;)

Maybe he is doing everything within reason. My dispute is with the lack of investigation the author took before writing a bashing article. Euro posted some good points that are worth considering before deciding on whether to condem Gore or not. And, he DOES take actions in his personal life that DO support what he preaches.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743273/



So it's ok to lie about global warming to save the planet from global warming?

Maybe this is why he doesn't go overboard in his personal life when it comes to living green? He really doesn't believe half of what he preaches.

Here's what seems to me a relatively even-handed left-leaning view of the article.

Ok, a summary of me, completely on topic as defined.

Does this article convince me that Gore is a hypocrite? No. It doesn't provide nearly enough detail to do so. Does it raise some issues of concern? Yes, but only one. The other two supposes indications of hypocrisy do not support the case and are irrelevant straw men.

So, then, I ask what is the purpose of the author in exposing this supposed hypocrisy? If it is to encourage Gore into a stronger commitment to his reputed ideals then I can support that. If it is (as seems likely based on other writings by the same author) to cast a cloud on the scientific evidence of global warming by casting a cloud over the messenger then the article is simply a worthless rhetorical trick.

What you quote does not support the question you ask.

He doesn't say "lie." He is simply saying that talking about solutions is useless until people believe there is a problem. So that right now the presentations to convince of the problem will be over-represented in relation to the presentations on how to solve the problem.

In fact, he specifically doesn't say "lie" by saying "factual presentation."