Gore's Own Inconvenient Truths....

[FriendlyFire]

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.

Thats funny cause its true.
6.5 Billion in unaccounted for money in iraq, US army dumping halliburton for corruption and incompetence. And still Reublicans vote to kill an oversight bill.

/Meh were worried about Gores stocks and basketball games.

EDIT: I just realised that prior to the Iraq war. there was warnings about Chalabi and hes background including fraud and corruption. Especially that the Bush administration was groaming him for the head of Iraq government. I just had a strange sense of dejavu and irony.

 

[onejayhawk]

Much as I dislike Gore, and consider him a buffoon with no understanding of the science he claims to represent, Gore is hardly the paragon of hypocricy. True, he's rich and has a rich man's lifestyle. But he has to travel the way he does, to do his job. Cut him some slack on this. His own words are damning enough.

J

 

[North King]

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.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty clearly how the OP is using it.

 

[brennan]

The article is an ad-hominem because it tries to claim that Gore's lifestyle is contrary to his beliefs. It is about him, not his beliefs: therefore it is ad-hominem.

 

[DBear]

didn't Algore say that we had 10 years left 16 years ago?

 

[MamboJoel]

Politicians having "agendas" very different than their life style is not new to anybody in a democracy. Pointing out this difference is always a good thing though.
But, just an advise to MobBoss and others : Your authentic ecological concerns would be better expressed if they didn't come along with american-centered bipolar political disputes.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You guys don't actually expect your politicians to practice what they preach, do you?

How naive.

 

[El_Machinae]

I still don't see how owning shares in oil stocks is hypocritical? Especially in a major corporation; an individual's ownership of these shares doesn't affect global warming.

Not supporting alternatives would be hypocritical, but the article makes no mention of whether he has investments in alternative fuel companies (again, at the penny-share stage, retaining stock is vital to the health of a company, and a great way of supporting them).

Hell, the fact is that he owns shares in companies he's trying to limit. What would be suspicious is if he owned tons of shares (tons and tons) in companies that seek to profit from Global Warming concerns, and then raised the alarm. There would suddenly be a profit incentive. This isn't mentioned in the article.

Oh, and for the record, as a non-American I know almost nothing about Al Gore. I just read the article and realised how awful it was.

 

[MamboJoel]

What would be suspicious is if he owned tons of shares (tons and tons) in companies that seek to profit from Global Warming concerns, and then raised the alarm.

Very True. Nice you pointed that out.

But well, as a political figure he could avoid aving these shares and be consistent with his public message : it's a minimum.

 

[Narz]

Evidently Mobboss believes that if cannot bash the man's messege the next best thing is to bash the man.

Lets all find out Mobboss's real name and address so we can spy on him in his everyday life and point out his hypocracies in an attempt to discredit every positive idea he has...

Actually, let's not. Lets just point out this thread for what it is - irrelivant.

 

[Leonel]

And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film.

That's like paying someone to diet for you.

 

[Xenocrates]

if Mr Gore burned (no, burning causes CO2 - buried) his money, started living in a house constructed of recycled car tyres and wore hand-me-down clothes to save the environment, you'd call him a nutcase and reject his argument.

However Gore lives, you'd reject his message. In fact whatever his message, you'd reject it because it's coming from Gore.

Cumon Mobby

This opens up an issue regarding how modern lobbyists/PR companies operate. They distribute stuff by internet and they use MySpace and try make it look like their stuff is from 'normal guys'.

Watch this Gore bash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

It's origin was uncovered in this article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710851-115.stm

Besides which, I like Gore

 

[Narz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fheGgu4cJg

 

[El_Machinae]

That's like paying someone to diet for you.

Not really. The profits go into supporting (and expanding) the renewable energy infrastructure. Without economic support, these companies could never get off the ground

 

[sysyphus]

As someone who works for one of those companies, all I can say is that is even more true than you already think.

 

[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 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.

C'mon - can either of you explain WHY you think someone owning shares of an oil corporation has any impact upon Global Warming?

 

[.Shane.]

C'mon - can either of you explain WHY you think someone owning shares of an oil corporation has any impact upon Global Warming?

I'm not claiming it does.

All I'm saying is that of all the things that the writer posted to try and make Gore look bad, this is probably the only one that holds any potential validity to me. And, as I also pointed out, it may not be possible at all for him to do anything about it, depending on how his families trust is ran.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thanks for replying, I've been hitting the refresh button for over 10 hours now...

Why do you think it holds validity as a criticism? Throw me a bone!

 

[Urederra]

The article is an ad-hominem because it tries to claim that Gore's lifestyle is contrary to his beliefs. It is about him, not his beliefs: therefore it is ad-hominem.

No, is not an 'ad hominem fallacy'. It would be if the article would try to deny Al Gory feliefs just because it is said by Al Gore, or because al Gore smells funny and people who smell funne can't be right.

C'mon - can either of you explain WHY you think someone owning shares of an oil corporation has any impact upon Global Warming?

No way, I don't blame oil companies for polluting. I blame the ones who use the oil sold by the oil companies.

 

[Sidhe]

I wouldn't take anything that's been spun by politicians totally at face value, unless what they were presenting was not their own work, whose evidence was from a panel of scientists without significant bias and with every emphasis placed on evolutionary work that keeps up with modern discoveries. In other words positive or negative evidence from politicians needs to be taken with much more of a pinch of salt and a deal more analysis than that of respected scientists or scientific communities acting on their own initiative, either way, global warming or naysayers.