Al Gore:How Green Is He?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

I'm quite amused.

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Except that it exposes a double-standard.

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):

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

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.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

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:

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

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

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

The author makes no attempt to investigate alternative explanations for Gore's actions, choosing to only promote the explanation that supports his bias.

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Considering the lead sentence in the OP:



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

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!

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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

Sheesh!

Well it does now