Al Gore:How Green Is He?
 

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe.

Read the whole story.

I'm quite amused.

I'm pretty sure that scaeagles posted this same liberal-bashing article here.

I like how the focus is no longer on what he is saying but if he is participating. Isn't the important thing what he is talking about? We LOVE to disount others based on "facts" about what we can glean from their personal lives instead of taking what as being said as something to consider.

Question what he is saying. That's a good thing. Focusing on his life as a method to discount what he is saying is just shortsighted.

No it's not. Words don't mean anything without action behind them. If he tells others how to live- but does not live that way himself- he is nothing but a hypocrite and not worth listening to- at all.

I'm quite amused.

I agree, Neph. See above GWB quote.

I guess I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Absolutes don't exist most of the time. And, we really don't know all of the facts about the home energy issue. What about the things that he DOES do? You throw those out to?

Hate to disagree, Nephy, but it's a question of how one feels about the global warming issue. If you believe that Al Gore's message is correct, then it's good that he's spreading it - if you don't, fine. For me, I can look beyond the person and hear the message.
If we were going to discount every hypocrite's message, then how could we take any message from the current White House seriously?

They're mad at him because he owns a couple large houses?

Even if the message is worth supporting, when the messenger chooses to not live up to the standards he is proposing, the messenger deserves scorn and ridicule.

With apologies to Skay-gulls, I had missed that.

I am also amused about how something is "X-bashing" if it goes against one's leaning. The truth can hurt.

To use a quote that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the original post as some sort of diversionary tactic is completey ridiculous. The OP had nothing to do with Bush, nothing to do with a war (be it Iraq or Vietnam) yet you chose to post this?!?

Sorry, but this is a non-sequitur and not worthy of even being in this thread.

Yeah, I didn't read the whole article, but that is the conclusion to draw on the quote. No mention how energy efficient the households are, energy efficient appliances? Compact florescents? Insulation? Yeah he's got a big home, but isn't that a nescesity as a politician?

As for the green utility option, I'm surprised to see they are still available out there. It was a nice idea in the dereg world, but with the energy markets the "green" utilities often resold non-green power. The Gore Household(s) probably maek a bigger difference in thier conservation methods than who they pay thier power for.

I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last week.

I'm not entirely on board with the degree to which the biggest chicken littles claim that global warming is man-caused and therefore man-fixable.

That said, the movie is very well made and makes a reasonable case for its view of things. Much of the criticism I have seen of the movie turned out to be unfounded (Gore is clear in stating that projections are projections and worst case ones at that; he never says that the Chinese are better on the environment than us but rather better on a very specific policy issue).

The truthfulness of his message is in no way impacted by his personal actions. If he condemns murder and then murders someone, it does not contradict the original condemnation.

That said, he does open himself up to personal ridicule when he encourages people to make specific personal decisions but does not do so himself. At the end of the movie he makes a bunch of "think global, act local" changes and switching to green power from your utillity companies is one of them. So it does seem bizarre that he wouldn't have done this himself.

He also, for the most part, removes the question of government mandate from the discussion and frames the question of whether we should reduce our carbon footprints as a personal moral decision. And it is clear what he considers the moral side to choose.

So, I think it is valid to point out that by his own definition Al Gore may be acting immorally. However, this has zero impact on whether his evaluation of what is moral is correct. The Christian Bible contains a similar sentiment in that none of us is perfect and we all sin, even those we look to to delineate the proper sin-free life.

Just curious...Do you find the hypocracy of the current administration to be as amusing or merely inconvenient?

Say, for example, when they are quietly trying to divert homeland security funds while telling us that they are doing everything in their power to keep us safe.

I frequently hear supporters say that while they don't agree with everything Bush has done, overall they still feel his intentions are good even if he hasn't always made the best decisions. Why, I wonder, is the same courtesy not extended to Al Gore?

Except that it exposes a double-standard.

I think that Euromeinke asks excellent questions that were never for a moment considered when that article was written. Of course, a balanced article would have defeated the purpose which was simply to bash Al Gore.

It sounds like there is more questions about the Gore household then there are answers provided in the OPs quoted article.

In what way? The article says nothing about how Bush or the current administration does anything better or worse. It makes no references to Conservatives or Liberals. It simply says that there is prevalent and credible evidence that a man who has chosen to use his name to promote a (worthy) cause does not practice what he preaches.

Bringing the Bush administration into this makes about as much sense as bitching about the effect that the Pressler/Harriss era had on Disneyland. Sure, it is a painful ugly detail, but totally irrelevant to the topic.

The cause of environmentalism is a worthy action that the world does need to pay more attention to - never once does the article say otherwise. What it DOES point out is that Al Gore, the individual, is hypocritical on what he says. He is making a large campaign out of this issue and yet does not practice what he preaches. So, yes; that makes him a hypocrit.
___________________________________________
ETA (to avoid multiple consecutive posts): The article is not a blind attack piece; it is legitimately calling into question the credibility of the cheerleader of the cause. For those who didn't read the whole article (yet called into question the point of the worthiness of the point made):

Please don't label me a liberal. In fact, please don't label me. We don't need to make it personal.

I called it "liberal bashing" because the author of the article that so amused you is the author of "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy". He's a fellow of the Hoover Institution. He has an agenda, and it's as valid to point it out as anything else in this thread.

No, it points out that the author of the article is quick to call Gore a hypocrite without further investigating what the reasons are that he has made the personal choices he has made. It is the author I am questioning here as much as Gore.

Precisely-

If the purpose of this thread is to discuss global warming then yeah, Kevin, my post is a non-sequiter and I apologize. However, I interpreted the topic of this thread to be about the hypocrisy of a politician/statesman and in that vein my post is on topic.

Considering the lead sentence in the OP:

I would say that your interpretation of this thread topic to be spot on.

So would I.

This is an opinion piece written by a self-described liberal basher. The author makes no attempt to investigate alternative explanations for Gore's actions, choosing to only promote the explanation that supports his bias.

Bolding mine.

Are you sure about this? You admitted that you still listen to Rush Limbaugh even though he has certainly shown himself to be a hypocrite on certain issues.

This thread just isn't the same without scaeagles.

He publically changed his life and behavior- You show me the same of Gore- and then I will reconsider my comment.

Still don't see how you made that transition. This thread is about Al Gore and his position on a green planet and his hypocritical actions. It isn't even to debate global warming. It is about the credibility of an individual - Al Gore.

Aw c'mon... Limbaugh's just damn funny!

Heh - we all listen to those who tell us what we want to hear and ignore our own hipocrisies, prefereing instead to find logical justifications to explain how we feel.

Based on the way Gore presents the need to use green energy whereever possible it is hard for me to imagine a valid reason for not doing so that wouldn't contradict the presentation in An Inconvenient Truth. Similarly, I would be disappointed in him if his primary vehicles are not hybrids since he specifically encourages everybody to drive them and lists increasing automobile fuel efficiency as a vital and easy step.

I don't expect Gore to live a perfect lifestyle based on what he preaches but I do think it is a bit disappointing that such an easy and obvious step hasn't been taken. It isn't like he is even the one who would have to do it. Just tell whoever runs his homes for him to make sure it gets done.

The zinc mine is a non sequiter since it offers nothing in contradiction to the message Gore offers in An Inconvenient Truth which focuses solely on carbon emissions. The Oxy Oil issue doesn't bother me too much particularly if he has attempted to use significant minority ownership to alter corporate behavior for the better. But regardless, since I haven't seen Gore ever call for divestiture as a form of conservation or protest, I hardly see him not doing so as obvious hypocrisy.

How does that merit a thread? We can either all say "Oh yeah, how clever of the guy who wrote the article to show what a hypocrite Gore is," or "The article is wrong. Al's all right by me."???

To try and narrowly define the conversation makes for a boring thread, in my opinion.

NO IT ISN'T.

The article, the title of the thread, EVERYTHING has been about AL GORE'S CREDIBILITY on the subject that he spends a hell of a lot of time preaching on. To make any association with the current administration is absurd!

Yes, the current administration has some crappy policies on the environment, but so did Disneyland under Pressler/Harris (hence the reference above). There are PLENTY of threads bashing the current administration for a myriad of reasons. This post was started solely about the credibility of Al Gore - quite trying to derail it into yet another Bush bash-fest.

THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GW BUSH AND THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.

Sheesh!

...and you would know, you posted it.

Dear Mr. Thread Boss,

Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. Let's say we all stipulate that the hard facts of the article you linked to are true. Where do we go from there?

Well it does now

I just look at it this way........if Gore really believes that the planet is in dire straights, wouldn't he be doing everything in his power to save the planet.....everything?

So I conclude, based on Gores actions(or lack thereof) that he either doesn't think the planet is really as bad off as he says or that mankind isn't really able to do much to stop what may be happening.

Disregard the hypocrisy by dismissing the author of the article.
Disregard the intent of the OP by derailing his thread.

So when a well known conservative bashing author writes a piece calling Bush a hypocrite- I can disregard it.
And when someone makes the intent of their thread clear- I can disregard it.

Lesson learned.....:rolleyes:

Oh, so your condemnation of hypocrisy is not so strong as you initially declared. At least when you like what the person is saying.

Still, I've seen no public change in behavior from Rush Limbaugh so I don't know what you base your forgiveness on. All I've seen is a public commitment to change. Hardly the same thing.

Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Do you have any idea what Gore actually says and therefore the standard to which he maybe should be held? Do you know the degree to which Gore does live by the principles he preaches or just know about the purported failures to do so? How much do you have to fail to live up to principles before you become a hypocrite? If Gore has reduced his carbon footprint by 70% is he still a hyprocite because he could have reduced it by 72%?

In other words, do you have anything even approaching enough information to condemn the man as a hypocrite unworthy of any attention?

Or do you just rely on ideological filters to provide you with talking points on which to become indignant?

However, just to make sure it is unnecessary to consider anything I have to say:

I frequently say that you shouldn't eat doughnuts. That they are bad for you. And yet I eat them all the time! Obvious hypocrisy. Therefore doughnuts are good for you.

Call the article wrong if you like. That is fine. Personally, I've never been a fan of Al Gore. Pointing out a hypocritical actions is worthy of a thread to me (there have been FAR smaller issues with their own threads here). If a thread topic does not interest you, then don't post there (I avoid topics all the time).
To bring the Bush administration into this thread is a non sequitor and detracts from the issue of the thread. You (Mousepod) have not done this, but others have.

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."

You may have a point but over-represented by its very definition means the numbers are inflated. Enron executives went to jail for doing this;)

What are you talking about? All over-represented means is that he is going to talk more about whether global warming exists than how to fix it.

In no way does it imply that the information about whether global warming exists is inflated.

If that's the case then I am wrong to call him a liar(at least on this point)

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

If one has a point to make, as say, Peter Schweizer, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy does, one presents, perhaps in an overwhelming fashion, facts supporting one's point of view.

Perfectly stated summary and one I can wholeheartedly agree with.

I'm going to point out what incredible trouble I would get into around here when someone would point out something Bush was doing and I would make a comparison to something Clinton did. I would usually be told that the only way I could justify something Bush did was to say Clinton did something worse. I think there's been some of that going on here.

I mentioned in the referenced thread that I don't begrudge anyone their lifestyle or their extravagnaces. But they had damn well better be watching over their actions when seemingly contradictory to what they are preaching.

Look at how Gore travels around the globe to preach his message. By jet. Has he ever heard of a satillite link or a phone call? I really don't care that he flies somewhere to do it. Just don't tell me that my SUV (theoretical - I don't own an SUV) is going to destroy the planet when one of your plane trips burns more fuel than my SUV does in several years.

It reeks of Animal Farm. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Kevy, you rock.

Oh! If we want to talk about environmental hypocrisy, how about Obama? Apparently he was at a townhall meeting preaching about not driving gas guzzlers. He then drove off in a 2007 GMC Envoy. When questioned, his press secretary claimed it was running on E85. However, the 2007 GMS Envoy isn't able to run on E85.

Maybe his secretary was just "over-representing" the fact that he'd like to run on E85;)

Gore doesn't claim to not emit carbon pollution. He does claim to be carbon-neutral meaning that what carbon he does put into the atmosphere he takes out an equal amount.

Now, I have no idea if he lives up to that and it is certainly a valid argument that he is engaging in checkbook environmentalism (he gets to keep being profligate while simply writing a check that pay some non-profit to plant a lot of trees). But you can't (or, rather, shouldn't) label him as a hypocrite for not doing what you decide he should have said he would be doing.

Further, even if that were not the case, "you have to break some eggs to make an omellet" is also not necessarily hypocrisy. If he believes that by giving the presentation in person he can do a better job to convince people of his argument than by a satellite uplink then it makes sense to do so (especially if he does travel in a carbon neutral way).

Disagreeing with that evaluation also does not make him a hypocrite, it just makes him at odds with your evaluation.

I would prefer to see him be carbon-negative rather than carbon-neutral (I'd like to see all of be carbon-negative; even if the certainty of man-made emissions causing global warming isn't 100% it still makes sense to make the easy reductions) but again him not doing what I would prefer he do is not hypocrisy.

You know, knwing that virtually everything we do has some sort of environemntal consequences, it would be nice to see what exactly Gore does as his own contribution. Sure we could point to a million things any of us do that causes the environment to suffer, but how he personally addresses that issue , would in my mind make for a better story. And if in the end he did nothing, that would be far more damning. At this point, I really don't see enough to warrent serious criticism, I kinda even doubt he really has a green power purchase ability, since I think that dies with electric deregulation, though I suppose he could install solar heating on his roof.

Um, did I just see people posting in all-caps because of an effin' thread drift? These political threads (and dammit, why am I in them again?) always bring up multiple strains of bacteria conversation. I do not see anything wrong with pointing out further political hypocrisy when the topic is addressed. And Kevin, you did bring up political hypocricy. And you may have started the thread, but we all know from years of posting together that it's the group, not just the OP, that determines where a discussion will go. So I reassert the question: are you as amused when any other politician is hypocritical?

Am I happy that Gore isn't living 100% as-he-preaches? No. But do I think he's human and accept the good that he is doing? Yes, I do.

You might be interested in some of the comments to the link I posted above. Apparently quite a few regions do have programs you can sign up for to use solar or wind generated power (I doubt they actually segrate the power sources but rather you're payments go for continued development of the green power). There are comments that talk about how different regions are doing it and someone mentions that TVA (which would cover Gore's Carthage ranch at least) does it.

I'm still stuck on the house size comments made earlier.

There are many things that one can do to one's house to conserve energy. A small, poorly insulated but overly ACed or heated house might just use as much as a large house on a conservation plan. There are many things you can do go "go green" that don't involve downsizing your living space. Does he have dual paned windows? How about solar panal additions to the structures? Energy efficient appliances? A zoned AC/heating unit? But, a large,efficient house is a greener place to live than a smaller house which wastes resources.

I have 1320 square feet of house with old windows, big drafts and ineffeciant heating and air conditioning. I wonder how my usage compares with larger but greener houses.

It's not just the house itself.....what about the yard? Is it being mowed with a push mower, an electric mower, or a maybe a two-stroke tractor?

Does he use a clothes-line?(I know that there are energy efficient dryers, but even those are really no friend of the enviroment)

Does he walk to destinations that are within walking distance? Even evergy efficient cars do some damage.

------I ask these questions because, even though I am no enviromentalist by any stretch of the imagination I do use a push mower, a clothes line(except in the Winter) and walk to and from work(about 3.9 miles each way) at least twice a week. I also live in an 1100 square foot home that is heated and cooled by an energy efficient heat pump.

Who is worse? Someone who believes global warming is real but does only what is convenient to help stop it or someone who doesn't buy into it at all but still tries to live a life with as little waste as possible but for selfish reasons?

I think most people could point to things they do that are good for the enviroment.......even Gore. But if one is going to ask others to sacrifice even more than they already do that person should at least be prepared to give up a little more than they already do too.

Again, what Gore does or doesn't do isn't the problem for me. If he weren't so apolocalyptic about the whole thing, it wouldn't be a story. It was like Jimmy Swaggart in the car with a prostitute and a playboy. Not the first man to do it, I'm sure, and not the last either, but in spite of his lack of infallability, it was a story because of his high profile status as some sort of moral leader.

Likewise, there was so much criticism of Bush for not going to Vietnam.....legitimate criticism. When it would come up, if I would dare to mention that Clinton not only didn't go, he spoke of loathing ithe military and now wanted to be commander in chief, I would be rebuked here about changing the subject from Bush to Clinton. "We aren't talking about Clinton!" was the repeated cry.

So, I completely respect, though disagree, with what Alex is saying. As far as justifying hypocrisy by pointing out that we are all hypocrits....it is an obvious thing to point out. I count myself among the worst as a professing Christian who does stupid and non Christian things daily.

I agree, the size of one's house does not have to correlate to its energy efficiency.

You probably use more, newer houses are normally more efficient because of building code requirements. I believe attics are required to have insulation now with a high R-value. But there are many things you can do to make your house more efficient, as you have pointed out.They don't all have to be expensive. I just got done adding extra insulation to our attic, retrofitting dual glaze lowE windows, and swapping out incandescent light bulbs for the compact flourescent lighting. The new insulation really helped the upstairs temperature, and the new windows are great, no drafts and do a good job of cutting out the outside noise. Its amazing how much cooler the bathroom is when you remove 2 60 watt incandescent bulbs and replace them with 2 13 watt flourescent bulbs and get the same amount of light for less energy.

Apples to oranges, Leo. I wasn't defending Gore by mentioning Bush. I could understand the charge if I had brought up Bush's environmental record or some such. I was contributing to what I thought was a thread about political hypocrisy.



On the subject of Gore, I drive a hybrid but not one of the more fuel efficient models. Sometimes we ride our bikes to go get dinner but we usually take the car. i recycle but sometimes it's easier to throw my plastic water bottle in the nearest garbage can. Do these things disqualify me from teaching my children to be environmentally conscious? Should I be banned from speaking at the city council meeting where they will consider allowing housing developments in our wetlands?

I remember you stating that seeing Reagan speak live in Sacramento shaped you politically. Do you believe you would have been similarly inspired by a conference call?

I'm not justifying hypocrisy by saying we are all hypocrites. I'm saying it is not hypocrisy when someone fails to live up to your standards of how they should live.

Gore does not say we should emit no carbon, he says we should be carbon neutral. This means he could be the biggest carbon emitter on the planet and still not be a hypocrite so long as he is also the biggest carbon reducer on the planet.

I'm also saying that failure to achieve perfection is also not hypocrisy. So even if Gore were proposing the lifestyle several people in this thread are erroneously trying to hold him to, it is not necessarily hypocrisy if he fails to acheive it 100%.

Public Alex mojo.

I also agree with what Alex has said in this thread. Thanks for the well-worded comments.

Oh yeah, he likes it that way, doesn't he?

Well spoken, Alex!

I apologize for not being more clear on what I meant. You have not done that in this case, but others have (or at least that's what I think I read).

I didn't say Gore should live up to my standards. Not in the least. I clearly stated that I begrudge no one their wealth or private jets or large homes or whatever their extravagances may be.

However, again taking the example of Jimmy Swaggart, I don't believe he had ever said he was a perfect individual prior to his "fall". (As an aside, I am no Swaggart fan, it's just a good example.) However, didn't he lose his most of, if not all of, his credibility in speaking in terms of what is moral?

Sac, I cannot hypothesize as to if seeing Reagan in person vs. seeing him on TV would have inspired me any differently. I was inspired by him whenever I saw him speak. If you are passionate, that passion comes through a TV or a radio or a phone.

Gore can do whatever the he wants. He can preach his sermons, and I will fully admit that he has no credibility with me whether he preaches it or not or drives an Excursion. I just think it's humorous, really.

Again, this comparison makes no sense. It only makes sense if Al Gore is willfully failing to live up to a standard he claims to live to. So far, there is no evidence offered that this is the case.

Just evidence that he isn't living up to the standards that others have decided he claims to live up to but he has not.

You find this "humorous." Similarly I could find it humorous that you don't live up to Levitical law since you claim the Bible as the source of your morality. It doesn't matter that you make no claim that Levitical law is the ruling law of the modern Christian since Mosaic law was overturned by Jesus and the New Testament. All that matters is what I claim you should believe and act on based on my interpreation of what you actually believe.

Does me calling you a hypocrite because of this actually make you a hypocrite and therefore your hypocrisy is humorous?

You say you aren't judging him based on your terms but you are. Or else there would be nothing to find humorous here.

Whatever. Sorry to offend you by finding it humorous that he tells me my SUV will be the death of humanity but flies half way across the world to give a speech. I can't make you see the irony I see, you can't make me think I'm judging him. Is calling the situation ironic judging him? Is saying that I find it to be hypocritical that he takes those flights while criticizing someone for what they choose to drive judging him? I guess it is a value judgement, but I have never seen making a value judgement on an action the same as judging a person. I don't question his fervor, only his methods.

Do his appearances coincide with fund-raising efforts? I have no idea, but if they do, I would imagine that personal appearances are necessary. More people show up for "appearing live" than "teleconference".

You can't make me see that irony because the first half of the ironic situation is not true. He makes no such claim. Or, at least, not without the nuance you won't see in his message.

SUVs are a problem because they put carbon into the air without any effort to remove an equal amount of carbon. Gore emits carbon on all of his travel and endeavors to remove equal amounts of atmospheric carbon. Driving SUVs is not the problem. Doing nothing to ameliorate the carbon emissions of SUVs is the problem.

So yes, you are finding it humorous simply because you believe him to have said something he has not said. Therefore you are judging him on your terms. Not his.

You don't offend me. The unwillingness to engage him on what he actually says rather than caricatures of what he says simply baffles me. Bafflement is not offense.

Actually, in his book Earth in the Balance, he says that the internal combustion engine poses a greater threat to the future of mankind than nuclear weapons.

I have expanded upon that to say that he is saying that my SUV will be the death of humanity. I am saying what I am saying in sarcasm.....of course he did not literally say the SUV is going to be the death of humanity.

And I apologize for the crankiness in my earlier post. I'm cranky this week. Of course there was no offense taken on your part.

Until scaeagles puts away the sad, green face .... how 'bout we all tread a little lightly around him?



After all, his neocon world is crumbing .... and then there's, well, the new job stress. It's a whole new universe for Leo. Let's take it easy on him, huh? Just till he gets his bearing again.

from yahoo.news:

BINGO!

HA- I love it!

When on one hand you can claim to not being able to judge Gore based on the article- you see perfectly fit to suspect that the author has done nothing for the enviornment.

Who knows if he's done anything for the environment, he chooses to spend his time criticizing people who actually ARE doing something.

I would assume that anyone who would write that article is not exactly a raging environmentalist (though I'd bet my bottom dollar that there are hairy tree-huggers out there who are just as pissed as Leo about Gore's jet fuel usage). It's my suspicion that the real target of the author's ire is not what he perceives to be hypocrisy on Gore's part, but rather, the president-elect's global warming message itself.

And on the other hand you are perfectly willing to judge Gore based on just this article but assume that the author may have done something for the environment for no particular reason.

But again, you've taken what a person said (wouldn't it be more fruitful for Schweizer to join the effort to solve the climate crisis?), expanded it into something they didn't say (Schweizer has done nothing for the environment) and then got all superior for the thing you claim they said but actually didn't.

He encourages Schweizer to help him with the climate crisis that is global warming. Maybe Schweizer is the biggest aluminum recycler in his neighborhood (doing something for the environment) but since he is on record that anthrogenic global warming (the climate crisis Gore encourages him to help with) has little evidentiary support I would guess it is likely that he is not intentionally doing anything to help with that particular effort.

This is not the first and only report of Gore's hypocrisy.

On the flip side you seem almost as eager to believe anything that man says as you say I am for him to be found lacking.

Pot- meet kettle

I haven't believed anything he has said. Find one example in this thread of me blindly believing any claim made by Al Gore.

Show me where I have. I have, however, listened to what he has said and not gone along with people trying to hold him to things he hasn't said.

In this thread I have acknowledged that if he isn't using available green power that it is troubling and listed several other things I would also find troubling. I also readily acknowledged that I have no idea whether his claims of being carbon neutral are true. In fact my first sentence in this thread was stating that I do not entirely buy into the central argument of An Inconvenient Truth.

You however, have the disturbing habit of showing minimal reading skills. Or perhaps, minimal reading comprehension skills, since what your recaps of what people say so often has little relationship to what they actually said. I know that sounds harsh, but since you did it just five posts ago, the nerves are still jangled a bit.

If you feel there is other evidence of Gore's hypocrisy I would be interested in seeing it. However, please make sure it is based on the actual arguments made by Al Gore, not on the distorted paraphrasing of people hoping to find hypocrisy so that they don't have to address the argument.

Now, I do have opinions on whether Gore is telling the truth about certain things he says he has done. But so far it has been unnecessary to share them because nobody in this thread that has accused him of hypocrisy has actually used Gore's arguments to show hypocrisy. They have only used the distorted summary of another person.

"Gore is a hypocrite because he says A and does B." Until the A part is actually something Gore has said we haven't even begun to discuss whether to believe him. To help us get to the point where A is actually something real, I suggest going and seeing An Inconvenient Truth and reading Earth in the Balance so that you don't have rely on the Conservative Cliff's Notes version.

OWnZorD

As usual, Alex has infused the conversation with considered, rational thought. I have never known Alex to defend Al Gore, so I set more store by his posts because I know he's not an apologist.

More public mojo, Alex. I'll even refrain from the *snap* emoticon out of respect. Just this once.

Are you calling me cranky, you buttwad? I didn't say anyone else had that right - just me.:)

scaeagles isn't having a happy period.

Wow. "Buttwipe" I know. "Dickwad" I know. But Buttwad... that just brings up some unpleasant images.

Heh.

Psst...

That's because you are probably used to hearing the more common word for "buttwad" which is, of course, ham. ;)

Based on what MBC has posted, I dub ISM to be IShaM. I like for for two reasons. "haM" is for his buttwad status, and "ShaM" is fitting for his postings.:D

The inconvenient truth about all this is that scaeagles is secretly in love with Al Gore. Ever since Al's enhanced Rolling Stone cover, it's caused cartoon hearts to circle Leo's head.

Yep. Better update my ultimate sexual fantasy from a threesome of me, MBC, and Hillary to a foursome including Gore.