The Hypocrisy Of Al Gore
It's the hubris of one who knows what's best for all of us, but feels above having to comply. Walter Russell Mead writes on The American Interest:
If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka "indulgences") with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.
"Inconvenient Truth," indeed.
Yeah, that's why I couldn't get myself to vote for him in 2000. Something was just not right. He invented the internet, cares for the environment, lives in a huge house...
I didn't mind Bill, or Bush I, or Ron, but Al was on a different level.
Went for Darth Nader, 2000, 2004, 2008.
biff at June 27, 2011 7:57 AM
As somebody asked, "Al, if you actually believe the seas are going to rise so much, why did you buy that multi-million-dollar beachfront estate?"
Firehand at June 27, 2011 1:53 PM
Gore has connections with the cattle industry. Even though methane exhaled by livestock and livestock transport to slaughter is said to account for as much as 40% of greenhouse emissions Gore never publicly endorses eating less meat, never mentions it in "an inconvenient truth" documentary and only mentions it once in his book.
Diana at June 27, 2011 3:28 PM
@Diana -
That's because the greenhouse theory is a crock of shit and always has been, and Algore knows it.
He's hoping to fool you into giving up your lifestyle so he can feel more powerful. Feudal lords need serfs, you know.
brian at June 27, 2011 3:56 PM
When the scientific research appears to support your position (say, on evolutionary psychology), you quote it and reference the papers. When it appears to go the other way (say, on climate change), point out that Al Gore is fat and ignore the irony of a libertarian criticizing someone for betting his personal money on businesses that will profit if his beliefs are correct.
Joe Buck at June 27, 2011 5:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/27/the_hypocrisy_o.html#comment-2309700">comment from Joe BuckWhen the scientific research appears to support your position (say, on evolutionary psychology), you quote it and reference the papers. When it appears to go the other way (say, on climate change), point out that Al Gore is fat and ignore the irony of a libertarian criticizing someone for betting his personal money on businesses that will profit if his beliefs are correct.
I attend ev psych and related conferences, and read studies in ev psych daily. Today and yesterday, I've been rereading one of David Sloan Wilson's on prosociality/social capital, etc.
However, as I have blogged here with some frequency, I have not studied physics and don't understand climatology, so I don't weigh in on global warming/climate change at all.
What I'm weighing in on here is Al Gore's hypocrisy. I think that's plain to see for all, science background or no.
Amy Alkon at June 27, 2011 6:14 PM
There is no irony in the criticism. This is the same as a town councilman voting for a construction contract to his own construction company -- just writ large.
Another example of this is Chertoff pushing the porno scanners.
In a free market -- a business person deciding to invest in R&D or building a solar cell manufacturing plant -- and lobbying the government for breaks or incentives is fine.
The case of Algore -- he was nominally in the government when he started advocating these laws/regulations. Then he was investing in the ethanol production. He was also setting up the carbon exchange. (www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.html)
Jim P. at June 27, 2011 6:17 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/27/the_hypocrisy_o.html#comment-2309724">comment from Jim P.Thanks, Jim P., for batting cleanup. Forgot the libertarian bit.
And Chertoff is a good comparison.
Amy Alkon at June 27, 2011 6:22 PM
Joe, if you look at the graphs of Atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature, they stop tracking each other around the year 2000. The temperature graph flattened out.
The greenhouse theory has been proven false. Either CO2 is a forcing factor in temperature or it is not. It doesn't get to take a 10 year break.
In science, when reality refutes a hypothesis, that hypothesis is discarded. In politics, however, reality is discarded.
Al Gore didn't invest in carbon trading schemes because he believed in global warming, but because he believed in his political party's ability to drive the regulatory environment in such a way as to favor such a scheme.
In a civilized world, that would be called fraud by political corruption, and he'd be tried, convicted, and hanged for it.
But we don't live in a civilized world, so instead scientists will take money in exchange for carefully crafted lies to support the political agenda of a few thieves who are out to rob us blind and make us think we're saving the world in the process.
Algore has never cared about the environment. It was HIS TURN to be president, and those pig-ignorant middle Americans with their guns, and their God, and their low-sloping foreheads went and ruined it. He was BORN to be the president, don't you understand what you've done you ignorant racist teabagger?
Global Warming was how he intended to make us pay for denying him his shot at glory.
And he was undone by some casual scientists who caught Michael Mann making it up out of whole cloth.
brian at June 27, 2011 8:19 PM
Al should have easily won in 2000, but he fizzled out. You can bet B.O. will get some serious money out of the Brazilian drilling deal.
Here is Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder on why global warming isn't for him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHZ9lZHW4
The temperature has been rising for 200 years now. While carbon emissions don't help, they certainly are not the main cause. If you recall Dickens novels, he always wrote about a white Christmas in London. That hasn't happened until recently.
biff at June 28, 2011 6:20 AM
I would like to point out that we are currently in the middle of one interglacial period of the current ICE AGE.
WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A 2.5 MILLION YEARS LONG ICE AGE PEOPLE.
And durring the last inerglacial period the earth was warm enough for hippos to wallow in Britian.
Once we reach that level of warmth we can start worring, until then, I focus more on the type of polution that kills everything growing where it was spilled and not the kind that will enable human civilzation to survie long enough to establish off world colonies
lujlp at June 29, 2011 1:31 PM
Well, I can see it's time to ask you all to go for the raw data, some of which is with NOAA, because some of what is going on isn't what some folks expect.
Radwaste at June 30, 2011 9:02 PM
Leave a comment