Gore's Own Inconvenient Truths....

[MobBoss]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

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.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

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.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Much of this makes me really wonder how much of this Gore actually believes in and how much is just simple politics? So far, I am leaning more the "just simple politics" direction.

 

[Leatherneck]

And he says this as he zips back and forth across the country in a private jet.
Is he not awear that we are carbon based life forms ... do we need to get rid of ourselves too?

 

[El_Machinae]

Travelling on business is an acceptable use of fuel, actually. We CAN pollute, it's just the amount that's the problem.

This article (rather nicely) points out what Gore does not do, but does not comment on what he DOES do. I find that to be a little unfair. I mean, I don't use carbon-credit electricity - I don't even know if I have the option in my city. I do, however, keep my house at 55 F in the winter. See what I mean? There could be a balance in the reporting.

I don't know if owning shares of an oil company is wrong either, it's what's making money. Owning shares of a major company does very little to improve that company's ability to ruin the environment. I would agree, though, that concerned people should have positions in speculative alternative fuel stocks (penny stocks are at a stage where price-support really matters) - but there's no mention of whether the man invests in speculative stocks that have the potential to solve the problem.

The article is a little too biased for me - though I think the guy should move to a smaller house now (just to walk the walk). But, I'd be upset if someone called me a hypocrite for owing Petro Canada but failed to mention my long-term support of Ballard Power and Global Thermal Electric.

 

[.Shane.]

This article (rather nicely) points out what Gore does not do, but does not comment on what he DOES do. I find that to be a little unfair. I mean, I don't use carbon-credit electricity - I don't even know if I have the option in my city. I do, however, keep my house at 55 F in the winter. See what I mean? There could be a balance in the reporting.

Its basically a hatchet job. Look who wrote it. Now, if the author also had a book about "Conservative hypocricy", which, btw, would easily write itself, then I might do something besides laugh when I read it.

Basically the author is a paid assassin. Did USAToday run this as an editorial?

 

[.Shane.]

Ah, I get it. This article is making the email chain list rounds. I see it posted in about 3 forums I frequent, all posted today. Nice.

Here's a more detailed reply I posted elsewhere:

(sorry for redundancies to my prior post)

Its pretty much a hatchet job.

Do you really expect people to be able to catch 100% of all things they do in their lives and bring them inline with a policy they support?

I'm for recycling, etc... but if you checked my trash you'd find I miss stuff. You'd find that when I'm traveling, I tend to just throw out my cans rather than pile them up in the car.

I realize that's not an apples to apples comparison, but my point is, that in the grand scheme of all the things going on in your life, you miss things. Seriously, do you think that Gore even looks at his monthly bills?

More evidence of the hatchet job: They just point out the things he doesn't do. They don't point out in any detail anything that he does do that's positive.

And what has he done that's so bad?

*He has 2 houses OMG THE HORROR. Real estate is a better investment than stocks these days. So, investing in something that you get use out of is hardly a sin.
*His utility choices. I agree, he should've caught these things.
*Zinc lease. Have you seen the lease terms? For all we know its a 20 year lease and he can't cancel it. Maybe when it comes up for renewal he won't do it.

Seriously, this article is a joke.

Now, I'm not Gore lover. The one thing that I think he did that was horribly tacky was when he used his dead sister (was it his sister?) to make anti-smoking points, when he had long cultivated (pun woefully intended) tobacco farmers as political supporters.

Jesus Christ, look who wrote it. The guy obviously is a biased hatchet man. If he wasn't biased, he'd have a similar book about Conservatives, because I promise you, it would write itself. But he doesn't. He just has an agenda of hate.

 

[North King]

One giant ad hominem argument. I suppose it doesn't matter to the older conservatives on this forum, since they won't have to live in the world they're trashing...

 

[sysyphus]

Anthropogenic Climate Change does not exist because Al Gore regularly rides in an aeroplane. Got it.

 

[Stegyre]

Much of this makes me really wonder how much of this Gore actually believes in and how much is just simple politics? So far, I am leaning more the "just simple politics" direction.

A fair observation. When someone says, "Do as I say, not as I do," we are entitled to respond, "@%*! why?" That's hypocrisy.

But hypocrisy does not disprove an argument. The most that can be said is it may reflect on Gore's realism, not on whether he is right or wrong.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, I get it. This article is making the email chain list rounds. I see it posted in about 3 forums I frequent, all posted today. Nice.

I didnt get it in an email. Saw it first on the Drudge Report.

Its pretty much a hatchet job.

/shrug. The way I see it, it is either true or its not.

Do you really expect people to be able to catch 100% of all things they do in their lives and bring them inline with a policy they support?

Its done enough with republicans, so why should Gore be off limits to such scrutiny?

I'm for recycling, etc... but if you checked my trash you'd find I miss stuff. You'd find that when I'm traveling, I tend to just throw out my cans rather than pile them up in the car.

Owning stock in a petrol/oil company while being the front man against global warming is slightly different than throwing away the odd plastic bottle.

Seriously, do you think that Gore even looks at his monthly bills?

Uh...yes. I also happen to think he tracks his investments and what happens on his property. Bottom line, you are excusing him where you most likely would fry a republican for such oversights.

More evidence of the hatchet job: They just point out the things he doesn't do. They don't point out in any detail anything that he does do that's positive.

He is the spokesman against Global warming. I would say its assumed he would use green energy for his properties and not own fuel stocks.

Seriously, this article is a joke.

Like I said earlier...its either true, or not. If not, then by all means let Gore sue the pants off the guy.

 

[ThePhysicist]

It's true I'm sure, but it's not the whole truth, thats the point. You could make anyone look like a hypocrite if you selectively picked your facts.

Ad hominem arguments seem so common these days, can we argue issues rather than people?

 

[El_Machinae]

Owning stock in a petrol/oil company while being the front man against global warming is slightly different than throwing away the odd plastic bottle.

I don't see how ownership of a major oil stock impacts global warming either way, actually. I thought I refuted this in my earlier post.

Can you show how owning oil stock impacts fuel use, fuel waste, or anything related to Global Warming?

In fact, he's going to take a financial hit with his campaigning (against his oil stocks, in fact) - which could be spun to make him look good if one tried.

 

[puglover]

But hypocrisy does not disprove an argument. The most that can be said is it may reflect on Gore's realism, not on whether he is right or wrong.

True, but I think the article focuses more on pointing out Gore's inconsistencies, not the mistakes in his reasoning.

Some disciple of the Earth he is. Typical politician.

 

[.Shane.]

I didnt get it in an email. Saw it first on the Drudge Report.

Ah, that explains it. Same point. I didn't think all these online conservatives I know were reading USA Today. Drudge is the touchstone.

/shrug. The way I see it, it is either true or its not.

But there's no context and only one version of things presented, as well as the leaving out of any positive things he does. In other words, there's not enough info to know the "truth".

Its done enough with republicans, so why should Gore be off limits to such scrutiny?

The difference is, Gore's not calling anyone out per se. Its not like when Clinton was in office and Congressman Smith called him a hypocritical adulterer and then it turns out that Congressman Smith has 2 mistresses and is on his third wife.

Granted, I'm not pro or con Gore, so I don't hang on his every word. But, so far as I can tell he's just trying to bring attention to an issue and not saying that Bush or Cheney is the great satanic overlord.

Owning stock in a petrol/oil company while being the front man against global warming is slightly different than throwing away the odd plastic bottle.

I do think this is the strongest point against Gore. However, I know that once you're involved in politics the management of your assets often either falls out of your hands OR has many strong limitations. Knowing that his father before him was in politics, it wouldn't be surprising if they've had such control issues for decades.

That said, I'm not letting him off the hook. Not at all, I'm just saying we'd need a clear and objective view of how his families finances are managed and what the prevailing laws/rules are.

Uh...yes. I also happen to think he tracks his investments and what happens on his property. Bottom line, you are excusing him where you most likely would fry a republican for such oversights.

Already discussed investments... as for what goes on on his property, yeah, I agree if he's gonna put himself out front, he should've caught this, but I hardly think the fact that he didn't change his energy provider (or whatever it is) hardly discredits him. For all I know my utility provider offers this, but, to be honest, I have no idea if they do or not. Does that make me some kind of howling hypocrite if I also happen to think we need to act more on the environment?

He is the spokesman against Global warming. I would say its assumed he would use green energy for his properties and not own fuel stocks.

Actually he is A spokesman, not the THE spokesman. Big difference. But not that important here.

Essentially the author is providing a very distorted image in an effort to discredit the message by attacking the messenger.

 

[Leatherneck]

Right, Left, Center .. doesn't matter Gore is a nutball. He was many years ago in TN and he still is today.

 

[Urederra]

Ad hominem arguments seem so common these days, can we argue issues rather than people?

So, if a guy tells you "don't drink alcohol, it is bad for your health" and you reply "So, what are you doing holding a can of beer?" That would be an 'ad hominem argument or just another act of hypocrisy? The latter, I would say.

same happens if you find a Greenpeace guy protesting against seal hunting while wearing a furry coat. "Hey, you are protesting against seal hunting and you are wearing a furry coat, there is something wrong in here' Hipocrisy or ad hominem argument? Hypocrisy I would say either.

Last example, A priest is saying in his weekly sermon that same gender sex relations are sinful and people shouldn't do it, but the guy is caught red handed touching the altar boy. What would you reply if you tell him that he just told us that same gender sex relations are sinful and he replies that what you had said is an 'ad hominem' argument?

 

[Veritass]

The third case is actually an "ad homonem" attack.

 

[jameson]

The writer of the article is affiliated with the Hoover Institution, which receives donations from, among others, Exxon, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. I'm not surprised that the article continues such nonsense as:

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

He says he recycles. No proof he doesn't recycle.
He says he drives a hybrid. No proof he doesn't drive a hybrid.
He claims he uses carbon offsets for his film promotion. And he does, but for some reason, this doesn't count because he supposedly has to fund his film's promotion himself rather than his distributor doing so.

Tendentious phrasing, phoney accusations.

And Mr. Gore owns three houses. Now I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell, owning a house only consumes energy when you're living in it and heating it. For all his virtues, I have yet to see Mr. Gore capable of being in his three houses simultaneously while flying around promoting his movie.

It's beyond stupid.

Nobody wants to have to fundamentally change the way we're living our lives, and even fewer people want to have to tell people they need to fundamentally change the way they're living their lives. Not when we're used to abundance, and particularly not when our individual behaviour won't have a perceptible impact and only collective action does, so that people can still stick their head in the sand and say we're just fine and the real crisis won't become apparent until it's too late.

But the really, really, really dumb thing about this article and those who accept its premise is that truly, this isn't about Gore. It isn't about his behaviour. It isn't about his movie.

It is about the reality of man-made global warming.

If you want to argue with that, argue with the hundreds of scientific articles pointing that out, argue with a scientific consensus which was reached almost a decade and hasn't been challenged by any peer-reviewed scientific article since.

And then make up your mind about the point of slinging mud at Mr. Gore.

 

[North King]

So, if a guy tells you "don't drink alcohol, it is bad for your health" and you reply "So, what are you doing holding a can of beer?" That would be an 'ad hominem argument or just another act of hypocrisy? The latter, I would say.

same happens if you find a Greenpeace guy protesting against seal hunting while wearing a furry coat. "Hey, you are protesting against seal hunting and you are wearing a furry coat, there is something wrong in here' Hipocrisy or ad hominem argument? Hypocrisy I would say either.

Last example, A priest is saying in his weekly sermon that same gender sex relations are sinful and people shouldn't do it, but the guy is caught red handed touching the altar boy. What would you reply if you tell him that he just told us that same gender sex relations are sinful and he replies that what you had said is an 'ad hominem' argument?

Funny, coming from the person who constantly cried "ad hominem" in a debate where he was being pointed out to be hypocritical.

Oops.

Seriously, though. Saying a person is hypocritical does nothing to make the message false.

 

[Urederra]

Funny, coming from the person who constantly cried "ad hominem" in a debate where he was being pointed out to be hypocritical.

Oops.

When the posters attack the person instead of his arguments is an 'ad hominem fallacy'. Example; What you just did
The three examples in my previous posts are not 'ad hominem fallacies' since nobody is arguing that alcohol is not unhealthy, seal hunting is not bad or same gender sexual relations are not sinful, They are just examples of people who predicate one thing and do the opposite, just like Al Gore. That's hypocrisy. The article posted by MobBoss just points out that.

Seriously, though. Saying a person is hypocritical does nothing to make the message false.

And I haven't said in this thread anything about the falsehood of Al Gore's message. I am just saying that If you act contrary to what you are preaching, you are a hypocrite I just pointed out that Al Gore is an hypocrite because he is acting against what he is preaching. And the OP article is NOT an 'ad hominem fallacy' since the article doesn't try to invalidate Al Gore message just because Al Gore smells funny and people who smells funny can't be right. It would be an 'ad hominem fallacy' if the article says so.

Hope that the difference is clear, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

EDIT: Sorry for the long edit.

 

[sysyphus]

Owning stock in a petrol/oil company while being the front man against global warming is slightly different than throwing away the odd plastic bottle.

Depends on which company.

For example, Suncor Energy in Canada is historitcally a pertoleum company but has altered its self-view as an energy company and is a leader in teh development of green energy.

Even if the stock he owns is not in that sort of company, ownership of stock gives him a voice in that company to change its practice and to pursue green energy. Of course, he won't own a controlling share but could influence other stock holders and form a consortium of share holders to push for this approach.