Al Gore:How Green Is He?

[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.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

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.

[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!

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

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

[mousepod]

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?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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

Sheesh!

Well it does now

[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.

[Nephythys]

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.....

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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."???

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).

Originally Posted by mousepod

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

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.