A new study finds that the US is the hottest it's been in the last 400 years, if not the last 2000.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/

My questions:

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?

Is having Al Gore as the front man to Global Warming actually hurting the acceptance that we need to act?

I would agree with the concept that Al Gore is the wrong guy to front your agenda.
To illustrate, consider the following questions:

A. What person, for their own personal use and benefit, has the largest “carbon footprint” in history?

B. Does Al Gore really believe what he has been selling, or has his rank hypocrisy exposed his cynical exploitation of a theory?

In his book, “Earth In The Balance,” Gore warned that “sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society” would be necessary to save the planet, yet he has demonstrated zero personal inclination to heed his own warnings and imprimaturs. Why? Based upon his actions rather than his words, would it not be safe to conclude that he is less than sincere in his warnings?

It has been calculated from Air Force II's (then a 707) itinerary that took the Vice President from Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Kyoto, Japan
and back -- all in just 72-hours for the 1997 Kyoto Conference, that Gore burned 70,737 gallons of carbon belching fuel to attend the foundation forum for his pronouncements.

A 7/11/00 Washington Times article by George Archibald titled “Gore Campaigns As Frequent Flier On Air Force Two” outlines Gore's use of his/our $26,250/hour perq. The article reveals that rich&powerful Al logged 375 flight hours from April 1999 to May 2000. That is $9,843,750 if anyone is keeping track just for that 13 months alone in that one airplane. While the article concentrates on the economic abuses of Gore's usage, the author overlooked the real import of his information – the spectacular use/waste of fossil fuels, and the CO2 produced from that use, which Al has made a living out of oppossing for years. However, Archibald did established the true working numbers of flight hours by the ex-V.P. when he reviewed the flight schedule, and talked to the ground crews, the accuracy of which the Gore's camp admitted by it’s total silence and lack of any denial. Besides, we were there at the time, and the figures have the total ring of truth. He is invited to deny/explain away what is evident anytime he wishes even at this late date, if he can.

Air Force Two in this period is described as a Boeing 747 (actually a VC-25a). This airplane has four GE cf6-80c2b1 engines, and the fuel usage of such a configuration can be found on the net for anyone interested. The actual flight time coupled with the aircraft type and configuration gives us the fuel usage by the World's Best Known Champion of Minimalist Fuel Use. It reveals that AL GORE IS THE SINGLE MOST PROFLIGATE PERSONAL USER OF FOSSIL FUELS in memory, probably EVER. I will not even attempt to assess the carbon usage from other years or from his other activities. (Has anyone seen him drive up to one of his ill informed sermons in a Volkswagen TDI?…I didn’t think so.)

I have chosen the term "personal user" as the ex-Vice President's two constitutional duties, to preside over the Senate and to assume the presidency upon the death or incapacity of the president, were both to be carried out in the District of Columbia and needed no travel – certainly not one so lavish and exorbitant. This term is therefore to distinguish from official duties, and show the use for what it was - a matter of choice for personal convenience and benefit of Gore alone and his political campaign.

The math: Boeing 747 @ 375 hrs x 10 tons fuel/hr x 321.9 gallons kerosene/ton = 1,207,125 gallons of kerosene burned by Gore from April 1999 to May 2000. Note: 10 tons is a low average as fuel usage varies with the mode of usage (takeoff, cruise, landing) and the weight of the aircraft as fuel is expended. It should also be noted that because only approximately 7% of a barrel of crude oil is turned into kerosene, it would thus have taken 17,446,400 gallons of crude oil to produce enough fuel to have flown Mr. Gore to his fund raisers, pep rallies, and Buddhist “prayer sessions.” Remember, the infamously massive Exxon Valdez spill was a mere 10 million gallons of crude. One could say, "it took nearly two supertankers a year to keep Gore in the air." Rather than release our strategic oil reserves, Al could have helped us all by merely taking one of our measly Gulfstreams instead of the biggest perq in history to squire his rapt and admiring minions from the press corp to one droll staged event after another.

More recent escapades have documented him at Cannes debuting his new movie while he and his entourage used five vehicles to go five hundred meters from the Carton Hotel to the Palace where the film was shown. http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...ia-250330-1.xml The man was also spotted and photographed arriving at the Sierra Club convention in San Francisco on 9/09/05 in a Cadillac Escalade of his choosing on the occasion of giving another in a his long string of speeches accusing normal people of abusing his sensibilities by using wasteful fuel strategies like driving large SUVs. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482655/posts

If I am incorrect in my charges, I challenge the Vice President or any of his sycophants to point out a single bigger user. Sure, there may be another U.S. Administration executive that could possibly qualify – Clinton, Bush or Cheney – but none of them have made a fashion of touting cave dwelling as the preferred way of life for their subjects either for the last twenty-something years, nor has their use of jet aircraft been so “in your face,” as has the ex-VP’s. No other humans come close. I would cite chapter and verse from his turgid tome, but I couldn't find a copy at the local used bookstore, so it must remain for others to struggle through his endless morass of didactic drivel for quotes to illustrate his reeking hypocrisy. I am sure valuable examples could be gleaned where he rails against air conditioning as a waste of fossil fuels, and point out he has never been outside air conditioning in the last forty years except to show off his new earth tones in a photo op. I will leave it to others to calculate the massive effluents into the atmosphere from his jet fuel use, but I am sure it is considerable to those, such as Gore himself, who count such things and discount the ability of the earth to counteract those substances. In environmentalist’s terms, Al Gore has one of the biggest environmental "footprints" on earth today, and as far as I can count, the very biggest.

His most recent excursions around the world since leaving office are marked by one airplane trip after another to all corners of the Earth lecturing all within earshot or reach of print how everyone else is a cosmic disappointment, while he best among us all can show the correct path, if we will just do as he says, but not as he does. I would point the interested reader to http://streams.cei.org/ where the Competitive Enterprise Institute keeps a semi-current running total of the disparate totals between the preacher and the flock on carbon footprints, as he jets about lecturing. It is important for everyone to know Gore for what he is- THE WORLD'S BIGGEST, ELITIST PHONY.

When the living large Beltway Jesters start piling out of Toyota Prius clown cars rather than use them as “throw down” props as Gore admits in recent statements, and instead of their usual black Suburbans, 747s, and personal business jets, then I perhaps will stop to consider if they are really serious when they lecture us about we, the "little people," living small. As they, including the subject of this exercise - Al Gore - have not shown any sign of seriously doing as they instruct others, I will thus not even consider their rantings, and will merely pass them off as more ballyhoo and bluster.

No one, and I mean no one, lives larger or has a bigger footprint on Mother Gaia, than the one shouting the loudest demanding others deprive themselves – Albert A. Gore, Jr. If he does not believe his own message, why should we?

joe

Maybe it's me, but why would people not act against Global Warming because Al Gore is the front man? What does it matter who he is or what he has done in the past? It is not that he "invented" this Global Warming theory, he is just voicing the opinion of a large group of scientist who have ringed the alarm bell numerous times. Al Gore is not the issue, Global Warming is the issue. Ignoring the opinions of numerous scientists just because Al Gore is the frontman makes no sense. People please: don't ignore the message because you don't like the messenger.



I think this is a perfect example of a completely non-sensical conclusion. Yeah, sure, Al Gore is the biggest poluter in the world because he has used his plane to fly around the U.S. and large parts of the world. Al Gore is the reason why we have Global Warming, how stupid of me that I never realised this before!! I bet there are many, many, many more people who pollute the earth more than little old Gore don't you think?

Apparently if we were this hot before then that means something made us that hot. Was it Global warming?? If it was then that means something caused global warming 400 or 2000 years ago...I know it was the internal combustion engine... oh wait it wasn't invented yet... Well how did we get that hot??

As for Gore... A simple one liner can explain this common phenomenon:

Do as I say, not as I do.

If the messenger takes actions that indicate he is not convinced of his message, then the message is tainted.

If my priest said I needed to attend services every week, but never showed up himself, what am I to conclude?

If my politicians tell me that the government is strapped for cash and thus he needs more from me but I find he is on a junket to Aruba on the public's dime, what am I to conclude.

If your parents smoke but tell you not to smoke, what are you to conclude?

I agree that you should not ignore the message because of the messenger or even his actions. But the messenger can provide a counter-argument that may not have existed had the message been spread but someone else. It is possible for the messenger to harm the cause.

So Gore is guilty because planes fly on jet fuel instead of hydrogen cells and for the sake of his message he needs to ignore the impact conducting personal campaigns can have on people and events?

Can someone please provide some reasonable information that could really damn THE WORLD'S BIGGEST, ELITIST PHONY? Something that belies party lines like Arnold asking Californians to preserve fuel while he drives around in a hummer before labeling Gore such, perhaps? Or perhaps this isn't about party lines and you and Bulwark think Arnold should stop "playing lip service" to the environmental cause until his hummers and SUVs are finally converted?

I guess I was unclear about my stance on Gore himself.

I myself don't see Gore as a hypocrite for his trips. Obviously the Vice President has business to conduct (including attending global warming conference, if applicable) and he needs to fly to get there.

What I was saying is that Gore could be scapegoated for his behavior (as shown by Bulwark's post and the opinions of others elsewhere).

However, there doesn't seem to be a huge "green" movement out there attempting to get rid of carbon "pollution". Yes, some lip service is paid to it, but I don't see big time celebrities or spokespeople against global warming leading by example.

Ummmm...yes? Come on, Lesly, can't you see this? Look at your post below...clearly you think Arnold is hypocritical.



Wouldn't the same be the case for Gore, only, given the statistics on fuel usage, that much more so? How much faith would you put in people who drove their Hummers (or other gas-guzzling 4X4) to conduct their 'Save the Environment' rally? You'd have to admit that, as Amlord was pointing out, it would create a concern about how committed they were to their message. If Global Warming is happening, and if it is bad, and if it is caused by burning of fossil fuels...then flying around in a great big plane burning thousands of tons of the stuff isn't exactly the best way to convince people you are concerned about this, is it? Think about it...17 million gallons of fuel. How many SUV's annual usage is that the equivalent of (about 15,000, assuming 15 mpg and 20,000 miles/year). Say that he had 15,000 people driving SUV's follow him around to all these meetings...wouldn't that be sending a bit the wrong message? To draw a direct comparison with your analogy...Arnold would have to drive his Hummers around the world over 8,000 times to use the same amount of fuel...yet you are up in arms when he drives a few thousand miles in them, so I can't say that you are doing anything but proving the very point Renger and Amlord were making.

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?

While I would agree with Amlord that one should listen to the message, the messenger is often important. I don't think anyone can say that Al Gore's 'I invented the internet' statement helps his credibility here. Al Gore has a history (as do many/most/all politicians, but perhaps him moreso than most) of adopting whatever message he thinks will strike a chord with his constituents. I think this, more so than his lack of any Internet patents, is what might create a credibility gap for him. One would certainly have to wonder if he's really doing this to help the environment, or if he's doing it to help himself poltically.

Actually AMLord there are quite a few celebs who are known to drive/own vehicles that are "environmental friendly"

List of celebs that drive/own a hybrid.

Now the list is unofficial and unverified. But taking it on it's face value I would say some are not being as hypocritical as Al Gore is. At least they are making some kind of effort.

I don't agree. I don't see how flying a lot is the same thing as driving a lot because the technology just isn't in place for aircraft—unless you guys are thinking environmentalists want us to move into caves and live on spiders? Somewhere in the 1970's...

Concerned Consumer: Damn. I spend too much cash on gasoline. They really need to do something about cars and make them go longer on a tank of gas. I can't stop traveling. It's part of my job!
Anti-Environmentalist: You guys are such bigots. What's stopping you from driving 40 miles on a bycicle to get to and from work?
Concerned Consumer: ...

Maybe the fact is Al Gore like most everyone else on earth really cant go about traveling to a different nation via non fossil fuel technology, I dont know of hydrogen or alternative based methods of travel for such. I guess he could have run a video conference but that is still a technology that is bad for the environment. Al Gore is using his position in society to present the current understanding of global warming from a scientific perspective in terms the average person will be able to understand, just like a science writer, I am glad he is doing such also.

Most the people that are arguing he is a hypocrite for such are being hypocritical in saying that being they dont accept global warming because the political party does not, kind of woozy on that one though, remember global warming is just a product of the liberal agenda, and so is the epa, and anything related to the issue of global warming that supports it.

Face this proposition, what company can really afford to go alternative in a capitalist market, I would wager that little to none can overall, and only produce such in a small amount, and that would just be cars not anything else. Most green technology cannot obtain lift off because of this gravity, so what you need to do is change the perception in a general sense among the populous because they are the consumer base, if they want more of x they will get more of x because someone out there is trying to capitalize on it, now we can look at suvs for what they are, a waste of natural resources and a prime polluter among the various types of automobiles one can obtain in America via our capitalist system, the carrot on a stick idea if that helps is what maybe gore is trying to establish, and I am glad he is using his position to do such not many really are.

Green technology exists, but how again is it to get into the market? it gets into the market by people wanting it, why would people want it? Because global warming is bad, how would people know its bad? Because people like Al Gore relate to them from the fronts of scientific understanding on the issue. So now people make conduct aspects of behavior that is "green", like not buying destructive products, and wanting an alternative or a change, the technology people established for day to day or 24 hours or survival on a global scale over a say a year produces an epic amount of pollutants overall, as Al Gore nicely put it people have become a force of nature in this regard.

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?

Gore's detractors don't need anything more than this. As for his limited respect from the public, the book and movie continue to do well, so the premise is flawed. He also won the popular vote in 2000, which also indicates powerful respect. Of course semantically speaking, all respect is limited, even God's.

Is having Al Gore as the front man to Global Warming actually hurting the acceptance that we need to act?

How so? Seems to me that highly respected people have already come around. Seems to me that oil prices are driving consumers to hybrids. Ford Motor Company is heading toward hydrogen internal combustion engines. A couple of little projects in the ME are convincing people, including President Bush, that we have to get off the oil addiction.

Meanwhile, storms tear up the US, as predicted from the global warming people. Actually, it goes drought then flood. I'm expecting to see killer blizzards this winter, followed by floods in the spring, then the drought/flood pattern we've been seeing this year.

Gore's work is actually a documentary and book about his slide show that he's been doing for several year. If he couldn't attract audiences, then his work would fizzle and that would be the end.

His work is not fizzling. It continues to be a commercial success.

Anybody who worked with the Internet in the 1980s knows about Gore's contributions to the realization of today's Net. Nobody invented the Net. However, Gore made greater contributions than his fellow senators of the period. Still, I don't have to go into that little thing.

Just look at his book sales and movie figures.

I also suspect he's the front guy because everyone else is boring or lacking in vision, or both. He also seems to have remarkable connections with famous people. Maybe politics was just a wrong career choice made early in life. Maybe he's found what he should have been doing all along.

It's really not uncommon as we age.

I cannot help but notice that no one could come up with another human being more profligate with fossil fuel use of a discretionary nature than Al Gore. Renger ventured that there must be many, many, but could not come up with one.

There undoubtedly are pilots and ships captains that have burned more, but that would hardly be discretionary choice. Al in contrast did not need to take my 747 to LA to collect campaign funds from Buddhist nuns, did he? He could have taken the train, or even down-sized to a G5, but that would leave the press contingent, wouldn't it?

Do not get me wrong, I do not consider CO2 a pollutant, and really don't care what he drives or flies. I just think it curious that he apparently doesn't either.

I am serious - name another human who has personally chosen to burn more fossil fuel. The Governator is a piker in comparison.

GW Bush- easily outdistances Gore. Heck, GW did before he was even selected to be president- he had personal use of Ken Lay's jet ferrying him around. Look at GWs wasteful trip to the aircraft carrier to say "mission accomplisheder-est"- ya, that beats Gore, hands down. And his trip on Thanksgiving day to Iraq for a photo op. and on and on.

It is a silly argument anyway- Gore is the only one PUBLICALLY ACCOUNTABLE- I would say John Travolta uses two or three times more "footprint" than either of them- he has 3 jets, one of them a large one- 707, 737, or something like that, that he flies himself around on for fun- no other reason. Then, you can beat the crap out of all of those public figures- just go to south florida and the new "jetway" gated communities- which allow you to park you jet at your house!

Al Gore is doing a good job of geting the message out- that is why we are debating on this relatively obscure little political debate site!

What has happened to Al Gore, was he was part of the republican hate machine that still exists today- can't compete with the message? Smear the messenger- and that is where we are at right now.

You may not like Al Gore- too bad he is alway right and you are always wrong LOL

Oh yeah, and as far as the internet- Al Gore is equally as important as Bill Gates in the fact that you can type on this debate today- he was the prime mover of creating the public world wide web- in fact, he was recently featured in the documentary about the heroes of the internet that DIDN'T become billionares from it.

It is just that the folks that harp on that comment, 1) Never saw the comment in the full context of what and when he was saying it 2) aren't that good at reading or looking up historical stuff. 3) Never have had a working sense of humor, ever.

It is the colosol ignorance of the right that continues to even repeat that phrase- even though Al Gore NEVER claimed to have "invented the internet"

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/07/...&frame=true

Snopes is your friend!
1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.

He himself NEVER claimed to have "invented the internet" instead- he claimed to have sponsored legislation that "created the information superhiway"- which, is true!

Excerpt from Snopes:

Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

The fact that he flew is not the issue, for you are right in that it is required in the modern world to get to certain destinations. What is the issue is that he clearly didn't do one single thing to try to minimize his fuel use...not one. He could have taken a smaller plane, and used a whole lot less fuel...but he didn't. He could have made alternate arrangements on some of those trips...but he didn't. In fact, he feels SO strongly about fossil fuel use that he didn't do one single thing to curb his own personal use--use that was MUCH higher than a normal person, and possibly anyone else on earth. How could someone who truly believed what he has been speaking and writing about be such a glutton when it came to his own personal use? The most likely answer would probably be that he doesn't, at least not enough to curb his own personal use.


Actually, for anybody serious about global warming, that would indeed be the answer, or at least one of the available alternatives. Public transportation could be available, as well as relocating to get close enough to work to commute easier without using the car. It would be very difficult to claim that the environmental damage of fossil fuels was a strong concern if that same person was driving 40 miles to work every day, most particularly if doing so in a gas guzzling vehicle. It just doesn't ring true...it would be like wearing a leather jacket to a 'Save the Animals' protest.

I do think that there should be some sacrifice of folks who are really up in arms about this issue to actually use the products they endorse though- that would be nice. However, I live in Anchorage Alaska- and I am kinda digging the warmer summers now- who knows- is there palm trees in my future back yard? - I embrace 6.00 a gallon fuel, and hope it comes sooner than leter, and folks are forced to deal with the reality of peak oil and start getting a little smarter about what they drive.

I ride motorcycles, in Alaska, for about 95% of my daily transportation- yes, even in the winter! My TW 200 Yamaha gets nearly 75mpg in the city, in the winter, with studded snow tires. Just gotta be made of a little sterner stuff to do it, that 's all LOL

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?

Not in the least. The only people who bought the idiotic (and patently false) Love Story and internet and Love Canal smears were people who were deseprately opposed to his presidential campaign (the one he won) in the first place. To the extent that Gore's respect is limited at all, it is because of his political beliefs - including his environmentalism - not because of a few cheap journalistic tricks.

Is having Al Gore as the front man to Global Warming actually hurting the acceptance that we need to act?

Not in the least. He is a passionate, informed speaker and An Inconvenient Truth is a good live presentation, a well-researched book, and a fairly stimulating film. For those who are curious but not well-informed about the subject (and able to approach it with an open mind), it is also fairly convincing. Gore's air miles are irrelevant to his message. Indeed, his use of Air Force II, etc. has only been researched and repeated in order to launch ad hominems in an effort to poison the well. In other words, it is a fallacious argument used solely by those who reject the message in the first place. Those who devote so much time and energy to ad hominems clearly don't care about researching the issue itself - and are certainly not interested in debating it rationally.

Gore is not the best spokesperson for addressing the threat of global warming because, to a large degree, he's preaching to the choir. Someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter would be far better as they'd be reaching people who are grossly misinformed about the issue already. Sadly, that's about as likely as Al Gore becoming the next CEO of Halliburton.

Just curious:

What are the energy-efficient alternatives to jet flight?

Riding the rails might be one.

Amtrak might be another, but less so. No freight involved.

Hitching, that would be in there.

Anyway, the point is that the argument is silly: We don't live in an energy-efficient world, so therefore keep yer trap shut.

Ha!

Oh, and the implied parallel argument: Those who keep their traps shut can use as much energy as they want.

President George W. Bush is in favor of energy efficiencies and alternatives. He was not when he ran against Gore in 2000.

This says volumes, libraries of them.

Apparently it's easy to talk about others being efficient while riding in a 747*.







*not to mentioned the following jet(s) with the security details and armored cars.

I'm just not getting this argument at all, the problem is so much larger than the exhaust from one single aircraft, even a 747. Plus, now he uses scheduled airlines, those planes are going anyway whether he's on them or not. There is also the "greater good" aspect of the effect his travels are having as he makes presentations to corporations and governments. To not do any of those things in the name of causing zero pollution would be a huge net loss.

To address the original debate point, Al Gore is tainted as a representative on the subject because he's a former liberal politician. The country is so divided now that many on the other side of the political spectrum will reject his message for no reason other than that. The ascendancy of the religious right and its rejection of science in general (supported by GW "the jury is still out" Bush) also makes it tough. Its difficult to believe in global warming when you believe the earth is only 6000 years old, and what does it matter anyway when the rapture is almost upon us. I understand that not all religious folks are that extreme, but the visibility & repectability of the anti-science crowd is so much higher now that it is bound to have a wider effect.

It must be satisfying to be able to address an issue with the great assurance that your opponents are knuckle-dragging nitwits fresh from their last meeting of the local chapter of the Flat Earth Society. It may never occur to the holder of such ill-esteem for the other side that they may have some command of the facts, and as high a regard for the scientific method as they themselves. It may never occur to them that those they enshroud with crazy beliefs have none of them at all. But then that would destroy the strawman they have built in their fertile imagination, and require a thoughtful response to their rejoinders. Oh, by the way, "The jury is still out."




Yes, the temps have been rebounding from the "Little Ice Age" which started declining as precipitously fast 400 years ago as they are recovering now. It might also interest you that the sun is "the hottest it has been in the last 400 years, if not the last 2000," as well. Coincidence?

Incidentally, Mann, et.al., forgot to include the "Little Ice age" in his much referenced by Al Gore and infamous "hockey stick" graph.

Another author has caught on to the reeking hypocrisy of Mr. Gore and updated it a little from my account -

Let's be clear about this. Those who would not respect or listen to Al Gore even if he could walk on water will not embrace what he says about the environment, regardless of how much acclaim he garners from other segments of the population.

But let me ask you this: Would you take the message better from, say, Dennis Kucinich? Probably not, because he's a liberal Democrat. How about if one Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter were to raise a great hue and cry about global warming? Would you listen then because there would be the requisite slamming of liberals included in their message?

If Al Gore being the primary spokesman for the global warming threat is the primary reason that certain people don't want to listen to the message, isn't that just a little lame? So you see him as a hypocrite, as a man puffing on a cigarette telling you not to smoke. Does that mean that the documentation of decades of the dangers of firsthand and secondhand smoke are not to be believed, because you don't like the messenger? Seems kind of a lame reason to discount what he's trying to say.

As far as the so-called Religious Right and their denial of the global warming problem, let me direct your attention to what is currently the second line in my "signature":

I don't know about you, but editorials are pretty poor sources of information. It's like predigested pablum, especially from McNews. I wonder how much the editor got under the table?

On the subject of wind energy, the power companies are looking for consumers to subsedize the development. Well, that's just dandy. Will the extra money actually go toward wind development, or will it end up lining the pockets of corporate officers?

That's one reason, and a darn good one, to delay the decision. Given the track records of energy barons, I wouldn't sign up for the wind thing until the fog clears. Smells like a con job to me.

But then, it gets back to the poor argument that those who don't talk about energy inefficiencies get to use all they want. Or the converse, if you use energy, keep yer trap shut. Neither one holds up in the light of reality.

I find little light being allowed in the issue, if those supporting Gore's position can't see how someone who so clearly does nothing to put his money where is mouth is makes a poor case for his arguments. Perhaps if we point this out in a different fashion...rather than pointing to all the rather blatant examples of his excess use of energy, which are being routinely dismissed here: can any of Gore's supporters here point to one single enviromentally friendly action he IS taking? Even ONE? If not, then please explain why it is so hard to admit that such a person makes a poor spokesman. There is a very simple question, that most audience members of ANY message would ask, that is being posited here: "Why should we believe what you are saying when you yourself so clearly don't?" Gore's actions, as provided here, give no answer to that question. He clearly demonstrates that the Inconvenient Truth is far too inconvenient for him. The message he is sending is 'Global Warming is so very important that I personally have decided to do nothing about it whatsoever, and in fact am perhaps the world's single largest contributor to the problem." What sort of a spokesman is that?

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?


After I viewed An Inconvenient Truth I viewed Al Gore in a new way. I have more respect for him
now then I ever did when he was V.P. He has researched the subject and he offers the evidence for the
viewer. He does not claim that he (as a human being) isn't also contributing to the problem. I don't
understand people like Bulwark taking offense at what he has done. He's provided us with information.
We can draw our own conclusions from it. Berating the guy only makes the berater look foolish.

Is having Al Gore as the front man to Global Warming actually hurting the acceptance that we need
to act?

I don't think so. This is an issue that should not be viewed from the context of party lines. Those who
choose to discard evidence because Al Gore is a democrat are blind sheep who only follow the herd and
there's not much you can do about people like that. When you get down to it, it's not hard to follow
the money trail to see who stands to gain and who stands to lose by admitting that global warming is a
indeed occurring. If you research it, there is enough scientific evidence available that cannot be logically
refuted.

So the argument is that Gore should be ignored because he tells us to do things that he doesn't do. Do as I say and not as I do.

Okay, what has he told us to do that he isn't doing? Be careful. His ideas are in print. No fake quotes allowed.

Here's the list of claims so far:

- Don't fly on jetliners
- Don't own real estate
- Don't drive a car, truck, van or anything with internal combustion engines

Then there's the desires of critics for what Gore should be doing. I don't know what he should be doing. I do know what he IS doing, and that is getting a message out. He's getting the message out to corporate heads, graduating college students and the masses.

Isn't that what a spokesperson is supposed to do?

Maybe that's the real problem for the critics. Gore is doing his job too well.

If you want Amorey Lovins to be spokesperson, fine. What, never heard of the guy?

Exactly. Can't get the message out if you don't have the buzz.

But the earth is cooler today than it was 300,000 years ago. Any review of the data shows a cyclical trend that has been ongoing for millions of years (not a few dozen which are the focus of global warming advocates like the insufferable Albert Gore Jr.). The frequency of this trend is approximately 100,000 years. We're at the top end of the trend that has long been established. It's arguable that man has "some" impact on this trend. However, the underlying process is well defined. It's doubtful that man is the "primary" or even the secondary or tertiary dominant variable in this process.

Global warming historical data

Does Al Gore have limited respect? He sure does from me. It's not only his "I invented the internet" quip. It's his sanctimonious positioning on a whole range of issues whether they are foreign policy (Iraq and the war on terror), economics (his lock box nonsense), social policies (his scare tactics of "THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY), his pandering to racist tendencies of minorities (his aping of a "black preacher" style when addressing the congregation), and even government ethics (his role as Clinton's bag man for illegal Chinese campaign contributions during the 1996 presidential cycle).

I personally think that the man is mentally challenged. He lives in a parallel universe that does not resemble what I believe is "reality".

Is he the best advocate for global warming? Not if you look at his record in science. He scored "D's" in science when he was at Yale. Hardly a sign of someone grasping fundamental concepts of the subject.

What Gore is best at is railing. He rails like a wildebeest on a rampage looking for a meal.

Not that this has anything to do with the debate on global warming (but neither does the entire paragraph which is only a heavy-handed diatribe by lordhelmet against the former vice-president) however, anyone writing about "racist tendencies of minorities" should not be using verbs like "aping" in conjunction with "black preacher" unless they want someone wondering about their "racist tendencies."

Might I suggest substituting "aping" with "impersonating," "copying," "duplicating" or some other word less racially-charged?

Still no list of anything he IS doing to cut back on greenhouse emissions, so either his book has no suggestions whatsoever, or, as is being claimed here, he's not doing ANY of them.



AuthorMusician, I think anyone will admit it's a matter of degree. Flying on jetliners probably can't be avoided....burning more jetfuel than any other person on earth probably can be. Owning real estate isn't bad, owning a HUGE mansion with NO alternative energy sources installed or other well-accepted means of making homes more environmentally friendly can be. Who's being partisan here? Those who point out some clear deficiencies for someone carrying an environmental message, or those who refuse to acknowledge them? Note that nowhere in any of my posts have I criticized his message itself, the debate has nothing to do with that. Rather, it has to do with whether or not someone carrying the environmental banner should actually practice at least SOME of what he's preaching. No one here has provided ANY evidence that he's doing that. Are you really in the habit of placing great faith in people who so clearly do nothing to act upon their own message? Would you place a lot of credence in diet advice from a fat person? Essentially, the analogy here is that Gore is perhaps the fattest person on earth. All his diet advice might be well researched, sound, well presented, and completely valid. That doesn't change the fact that a fat person isn't exactly ideally suited to be presenting it. What Gore is clearly demonstrating, in fact, is really just how true the title of his book is. The truth is obviously FAR too inconvenient for him. If it's too inconvenient for the messenger, exactly why should the audience take any action? Essentially, by disregarding these activities, you are claiming it's ok to be the world's largest actual contributor to greenhouse gases, as long as you tell other people not to do so. Is that really where your standard is?




Yes, it is. If your argument is that these activities, and that the access he gets from his connections and recognizability outweighs those things presented here, then that is a valid argument. Playing ostrich and ignoring these clear deficiencies is not. Why is it so hard to admit that these are pretty valid concerns for someone carrying an environmental message? Again, do you routinely give such a pass to people carrying a message who so clearly don't personally act upon any of it? Be honest...of course you don't.

Note 2: My criticisms here are NOT politically motivated (yes, really! ). I've never had any criticism of Al Gore, other than that he seemed fairly awkward in some of the political events (criticisms that were fairly widely noted). I think he might actually, sincerely be concerned about the environment. My sister is a very strong environmentalist. She has attended classes and lectures on environmental topics, and has noticed that the presenters of these often arrive in some old 4*4, with smoke belching out the exhaust. When she asks them about this, or about any other environmentally friendly actions they are taking, they usually have no answer. She has stated that this immediately detracts from their message. Why? Because they have obviously not actually done any of it. I see this all the time among supposed environmentalists...there's lots of talk, but not much action, especially regarding things they personally could/should be doing. In a nutshell, this is the main problem of the environmental movement...lots of people talking, very few doing anything. This same concept seems to clearly apply to Al Gore. How believable is someone who follows NONE of their own advice? Is this really such a hard concept to grasp, or admit? Al Gore himself hits the nail on the head...it's an Inconvenient Truth. Everyone values their supposed convenience over any of the actions they could be taking to improve things. Including, clearly, the current spokesman of the movement.

Hobbes,


I don't see as anyone has established that Gore is the "world's largest contributor to greenhouse gases."

Here's a good comparison:

President Bush has alternative energy installations at the Crawford ranch.

Does that make him a better speaker than Gore?

Um, no. Actually, he does talk about turning around, but alas, nobody listens.

Well, LH- since Gore never said this- I believe your reality may need a bit of tweaking eh?

www.snopes.com is your friend LOL- really- if you are going to go off on a guy, you might want to actually know what he said- instead of what your sources told you he said?- BTW- Al Gore, did, in fact, have a great deal to do with the "creating" of the internet- in fact, he has won a Webbie for his contribution to the WWW- he was the lawmaker in America, really, to recognize the value of what he had been presented with at that time.

I think LH though, has provided a very good example of why he is maybe not the "best" man for the job overall, but he gets the message out to the fence sitters- he may just be TOO polarizing, and about the only things conservative politicians are competant at is mudslinging, labeling and demonizing.

Just look at LH's comment about "reality" and the "quip" attributed to Al Gore that never was said by Al Gore- it is a prime example of saying a lie over and over again until folks like LH think it is "reality"- and they have done this quite succesfully to Al Gore.

Unfortunately, I can not think of a single charasmatic scientist that can hit the mainstream with sound bites for the brain dead that will turn the tide on the ignorance of all things science that is so celebrated in our culture now.

Now that Pat Robertson is on the wagon with this- perhaps even those that choose not to listen to science, but rather "beliefs" might very well be a turning point here. And I thought Pat was totally useless- turns out he may have some worth on this planet after all.

I've got the perfect comparison on this question.

Rush Limbaugh railed against drug use while on drugs. People attacked him for being a hypocrite and others railed to his side, citing his pain and so on.

Well, maybe he's a hypocrite, but the strength of his anti-drug arguments are not weakened. This is the primary meaning of the ad hominem argument -- attack the person, not the argument.

So, Al Gore could be president of the American Big Butt CO2 Werks, and it wouldn't change a thing about his arguments. They either stand or fall on their own.

Now, whether he's a successful unofficial spokesperson of the Society for the Prevention of Earth Destruction is the question. I still maintain that he's better than anyone else to date. He's got two books and a documentary, plus he regularly speaks on the subject to corporate heads, college students, and the seething masses.

I've mentioned Amory Lovins. He's been in it since the 1970s and is well-known among environmental circles. He also has gained the respect and ears of Corporate America along the way.

However, as an unofficial spokesperson, he sucks. No real buzz. Not banned in the Conservouniverse, although they hated him plenty in the 1970s. Still, he never got much mainstream exposure.

Meanwhile, the arguments either stand or fall on their own. It's taken decades to get the horse to see the water. Now to get it to drink, eh?

BTW, don't take drugs. Rush says so.

Yes, that is a good analogy. For the reasons you state, Rush would also probably not be the best person--hypocrits seldom make an ideal candidate for spokesperson. The argument against is the same, politics has nothing to do with it.



As I said above, he may indeed be the best person in spite of the criticisms being leveled against him here. I also can't think of anyone better. Let me ask you this, though...wouldn't he be even better if he actually practiced some of what he's preaching? In fact, quite a bit so? He may get the audience with these corporate heads, but you have to think his message would carry more weight if he could speak from personal experience, wouldn't you?



Here we are in agreement. Perhaps if the spokesperson drank a little first, it would help?

I would also say that in order to advance the environmental movement, it needs to get taken out of a liberal-conservative framework. There are a great many conservatives that are environmentalists (look at who started the park system). I will admit that 'business' and environmentalism are often portrayed as being at odds. As I have said in other threads, that also needs to change in order for the environmental movement to progress. There are a great many ways environmental measures are good for business, often by cutting costs. Seeing businesses or conservatives as antagonists is a large reason why the environmental movement is moving forward so slowly. In short, if you want the horse to drink, you have to make it palatable for them. Dragging it there kicking and screaming ain't gonna do it, as you may get it to the water, but it won't drink. Why do you think the movement is still where it's at after decades? The current tactics are clearly not working...it would fit the definition of insanity to continue using them.

Exactly -- that's what Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute is doing and has been doing for the past thirty years or so. The accomplishments are well documented on the Institute's site, along with history and the such. Plus there are a bunch of other organizations working hard to get that horse to drink.

I don't know why Al Gore doesn't do things that I might, given the same resources to work with. Maybe if he put solar panels on his houses he would gain credence among skeptics. I doubt it though. Maybe if he drove a Prius would help, but maybe not. I wouldn't buy one due to the battery, as mentioned before. And the ROI on solar panels isn't in my future. There are a lot of reasons to do or not do things.

The point is though that he does have the ear of corporations, students and the general public. This likely inspires others to do things that make environmental and economic sense to them. Why is Puff Daddy so darn popular? You've got me. The guy can't sing or dance and he talks his own language. Meanwhile, I saw a clip of this kid doing the Canon in D on electric guitar. It was a monster performance!

He was in his bedroom working with a drum machine.

More often than not, buzz carries the day regardless of talent, ability, and if one practices what one preaches. Gore has the buzz and uses it successfully. It doesn't matter if he recycles or not.

I think Rush is still on the air. Go figger.

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?

He never said that. Perceptions all that really matters for public credibility, but for the sake of the truth, lets just get some things straight here.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"

The Republican party and the "liberal press" also misportrayed him to have said he was behind the expose of the Love Canal.

The Love Canal canard distorts a story Gore told to a high school class in Concord, New Hampshire. In answer to a question about how students could get involved in politics, Gore described a letter he'd received from a girl in West Tennessee while he was a congressman. Based on the girl's complaint about a poisoned well, he organized an investigation, which in turn led to other pollution sites, culminating in the expose of Love Canal. Referring to the well in Toone, Tennessee, Gore said, "That was the one you didn't hear of--but that was the one that started it all."

The media was quick to misquote the line as "I was the one that started it all." Seemingly dissatisfied with Gore's style, the Republican National Committee improved the line thus: "I was the one who started it all." When the Concord Monitor and the Boston Globe exposed what had really been said in that high school class, the New York Times, the Washington Post and U.S. News offered grudging corrections of their reportorial errors.

And they also pretended he was off his head when he said a character in a novel was based off him, when the author actually backs him up on that and knew Gore in College.

Some of the media's stars had rare fun with the idea that Al Gore was the kernel for Ryan O'Neal's most famous role; but no one seemed interested in finding out whether Gore was telling the truth or not. CNBC's Chris Matthews chortled. "It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron." But in this case Snoopy really is the Red Baron. Erich Segal, author of Love Story, corroborated that Gore and his Harvard roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, were indeed the models for the story's main character.

Moral of the story: Don't be gullible; always look for context when faced with popular slogans, and most of the time you actually will find that the slogans misconotate that which they are based of off.

In 2004 for example, John Kerry was attributed to inconsistency and poll based decision making, due to his vote against the Iraqi war funds appropiations bill. The real reason he voted against it, was that he (and some other democrats) wanted the war to be funded by a partial roll back of Bushes tax cuts. They didn't get their way, and voted against the bill in protest.

Thats not to say that John Kerry wasn't obsessed with polls and thereby insincere, but the particular issue that Bush used against him the most, hadn't the basis it was perceived to have...

Getting back on topic:

Al Gore has been most prolifically discredited in this thread, by his superfluous use of gas in his flights around the world. He would likely argue were he here, that the end justifys the means, and that the reducement of CO2 he has caused by his speeches (and movie) makes up for the amount of CO2 he burned for getting to them.

Whether this is true or not, can't really be empirically determined. I watched his film a wavering skeptic, and came out a convert. The movie certainly has the power to draw people to his cause, but the biggest limitation to its impact (and his speeches) is that it is unlikely to be largely frequented by those who disagree with him.

Is having Al Gore as the front man to Global Warming actually hurting the acceptance that we need to act?

I doubt it. Just because a man tells you to do as he says not as he does, does not mean his arguments to do as he says are incapable of changing peoples opinions. Many great philosophers violated their own teachings, but they are still considered great.

Furthermore, who would we have purporting global warming's anthropogenic origins if not Al Gore. Certainly some can explain it, and affirm it more convincingly then he can, but they do not have his pulpit; a loud voice.

You've hit the nail on the head.

The fact is we are all hypocrites. None of us practices all that we preach. Draft dodgers like Bush and Clinton ordered troops into battle. Jefferson may have poetically defined liberty but owned slaves and had an affair with at least one of them. I've heard rumors that MLK and Gandhi cheated on their wives, while both preached of morality. Newt Gingrich was the voice of the Contract with America - he had apparently served divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital. More than a few of the politicians clamoring about Clinton's sexual misconduct were themselves having illicit affairs, some of them with interns. How many of us engage in activities we tell our children to avoid?

Conservative attack dogs have made Gore into a polarizing figure, which is too bad for him - he's really pretty centrist politically. This polarization may indeed make him not the best spokesperson - rather than his hypocricy. But this is an issue that demands to be heard, and loud voices are needed. He might not be Moses, to lead us out of Egypt, but he might be the guy that paves the way for Moses.

Also, I was looking through the links about his fuel usage, and I'm skeptical as to how the figures came about. How does one really determine that Al Gore has used more jet fuel than anyone else in the world? Who compiles this data? Seems a bit odd to me... could be true, but it sure rings more of factoid than fact.

Does Al Gore have limited respect from the public, mainly due to the "I invented the internet" perception?

I mentioned on another thread that I really don't think this misspeak/misquote/misrepresentation or whatever anyone wishes to call it harmed him in the least. Those who liked Al Gore before wouldn't change their minds over something so insignificant, especially when compared to the plethora of Quaylisms before. I mean, really, who cares? He has always come across as an intelligent and articulate man. I'm a conservative, and I rather like Gore.

Is having Al Gore as the front man to Global Warming actually hurting the acceptance that we need to act?

I haven't seen the film, but I probably will reading the reviews here. At any rate, I think he is a fine spokesperson for the cause. His political offiliation is rather immaterial, IMO...many political candidates and office holders from Christmases past went on to doing other things, in some cases much more effectively. Carter comes to mind.

No Al Gore is the perfect man for the job. Only someone as crazy as former Vice President Gore could accurately represent the global warming cause. Basically it comes down to this, Gore supports the Kyoto treaty. This treaty outlines many actions that should be taken by the nations of the world so that global warming can be slowly but surely be stopped, and possibly reversed. The only problem is that if every nation followed this treaty, it would only improve the global atmosphere by less then 1%. However, such a remarkable achievement would cost billions of dollars. So I say that if global warming is happening, which it is not, bring it on. By the way, if Gore can invent the internet surely he can invent something to get humanity out of the global warming situation. All in all, I am not too worried about global warming, the cause that supports it, or Al Gore's reputation.

- Scipio Africanus

"Only someone as crazy as former Vice President Gore" - please do tell us how he is crazy.

"The only problem is that if every nation followed this treaty, it would only improve the global atmosphere by less then 1%" - Please, provide some support for this statement.

"So I say that if global warming is happening, which it is not, bring it on." - It isn't? Wow, you're on the extreme fringe with this one. For most people who bother to debate this issue, it's about whether people are causing it or not.

"By the way, if Gore can invent the internet surely he can invent something to get humanity out of the global warming situation." - Have you been reading this thread at all? He didn't, and never said he did.

Do you have anything of substance to add here?

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, has something to say to you, and everyone else here.



Link Here's another link to more info.



After you listen to the entire speech, please answer your last question for me. Thank you.

IMO yes. His ludicrous statements such as –‘The ice caps are melting and could be gone in a few years” (as a result of CO2 of course) leave many of us thinking he is a fringe lunatic.



Yes and IMO it is not yet clear how we should “act”. First I say the just is still out on the extent of warming caused by CO2. Some senior atmospheric scientists still say it is not a major contributor to global warming. And second, without the support and action by fast growing large countries like China and India (exempted by the Treaty) it would be a waste of time for the US to spend many billions to reduce CO2 output. Lets spend the money reducing air and water pollution instead. It kills and sickens far more people then “warming” ever will.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/waterpollution.htm