Al Gore:How Green Is He?

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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.

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

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER

[SzczerbiakManiac]

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.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

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.

Precisely-

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I'm quite amused.

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?

[Morrigoon]

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

[€uroMeinke]

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.

[sleepyjeff]

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.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

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?

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

Perfectly stated summary and one I can wholeheartedly agree with.