Why do the “moderate” non-Deniers have a compulsion to be unfair to Gore?
Question by Paul's Alias 2: Why do the "moderate" non-Deniers have a compulsion to be unfair to Gore?
Other than Inhofe, Al Gore is the politician most attached by non-Deniers. I see them say things like Gore is only in it for the money (a bogus claim since Gore does not keep any of the global warming money), that he is just a washed up politician (it's his fault that the Supreme Court stole the election?) that he is a bad boy because he did nothing while in power (he never was in "power"--vice presidents have little power) and that he is a hypocrite for buying a big house in Montecito (buying that second house actually would reduce his energy consumption--no one uses air conditioning in Montecito , and rarely does one use heating--air conditioning a gigantic house does not use more energy than air conditiong a snall one if you do not use air conditioning), and that Gore is not a scientist (he, in my opinion, is far more of a scientist than Michael Mann who the "moderates slobber over--I once had a converstation with Mann, not initially knowing who he was, and I kept gettinhg frustrated, having to tell him "Just take this to any physicist and ask him if this is correct").
Can anyone cite me an example of a moderate saying anything nice about Gore? I, in fact know of two recent examples of "moderate" non-deniers praising Lindzen,who truly is a kook (besdes his global warming crap he also denies the Surgeon General's claims about smoking).
<
He makes NO money off global warming. No matter how often I explain that he gives all that money away you guys just keep repeating the discredited claim.
In testimony under oath before Congress he said he gives all the money away. If there was any actual proof for your claims, he would be in jail for perjury. And it is not as if certain people would not have been spending lots of time looking for proof.
<< hence questions.>>
You guys have "questions" about ANYONE who supports the science. Is there anyone you guys have not attacked?
<
You people "pick holes" in valid theories. For example, in the past, you guys would "pick holes" in the Theory of Relativity. You would refer to it as "Jew Science" and claim it was a conspiracy by the Jews, and now you claim global warming is "Junk Science" and is a conspiracy by the liberals.
Here is stuff about the earlier efforts by you guys to discredit valid science because it was associated with people you were prejudiced against:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
<
No matter how often you prove to them that the claim is totally wrong, they just repeat the false claim....exactly like I said they would continue doing!!!!!
<
Again, no concern at all for the truth.
Prove your claim.
<
They always say this...and then I point out that he gices away ALL the money he gets from Kleiner Perkins.
And then they just keep repeating the discredited claim.
<
WEell Bob, either you do not read all the answrrs here or you do not have a great memory, because both were said by NON-deniers.
I believe the claim that Gore did it for the money was made by antarticice.
< and only occasionally seen them call Gore a hypocrite (truly awful rebuttal of this point, by the way).>>
Let me explain it again, and hopefully you can get it this time.
One of the "moderates" claimed Gore was as hypocrite for buying a big house in Montecito. But the physics of the situation is that a house being big dioes not magically mkake it use up power. If you are trying to articially keep a house colder than the outside then indeed the electrical poweer needed is roughly proportional to the surface area, but if you do not have an air conditioner in the house (no one in Montecito does) the area does not matter. A similar situation regarding heating.
Ask a physicist to explaimn this to you.
<< Whether or not Gore is a scientist isn't really in debate -- he isn't one, obviously.
>>
My point was that in my opinion Gore is a better scientist than Michael Mann.
Have you ever had a conversation with Michael the Great?
<
Bob, after untactfully tells me I do not understand what tact is, he tells me that it is tactful to attack Gore, indicating in a very literal way that he does not know the actual definition of the word.
<
Good move--I'm sure you will have Rush Limbaugh convinced any day now.
<
How is your strategy working? You and the other moderates have been aggressively doing that. Have you convinced the Deniers?
<>
I'm not trying to convince people here on the board.
<< Whose strategy is more likely to win people over>>
I'm sure mine has worked better than yours.
<<*No-one* in Montecito has air-conditioning? Is that some sort of city ordinance?>>
Here is another shocker for you--no one in Antarctica has air conditioning. Do you think that is so because of some law?
Best answer:
Answer by napoleon
The problem with Gore is 2 fold, firstly his business interests go hand in hand with "Climate Issues" hence vested interest, hence questions. Secondly when you begin to ask questions of his flagship film "inconvenient truth" you can pick holes in it.
Put the 2 together and you can easily come up with the word corrupt
Just read your edit, are you aware of making money through association? If you've ever wondered why celebrities put themselves on reality shows which degrade them?
Why they endure humiliation and lose any dignity for negligible fees?
By highlighting their profile other cash projects hopefully come in, I think you're naive if you don't think Al Gore has'nt earned a penny this way regardless of his frontline earnings.
You know nothing about me so the rest of your rant on a personal basis is conjecture, you just need to be told you're wrong.
Add your own answer in the comments!
July 17th, 2010 - 03:04
Al Gore has made an absolute fortune out of global warming. He left office with a paltry $2M in declared assests. He’s worth about 50 times that now.
This is a business opportunity for him. He is involved in a company called Kleiner Perkins which has billions invested in companies seeking government concessions to become more profitable.
I have no problem with Al Gore promoting his business interests, but trying to scare people into buying your products would be unethical if not illegal for most businesses.
Al gore is obviously not the conservationist type – he has among the highest energy consumption for anyone in the world. He’s like a salesman who’s not interested in using the products he sells.
July 17th, 2010 - 03:14
Good question. I have never seen anyone even attempt to document the frequent claims that Gore is making millions or billions of dollars from Global Warming. It is simply an oft repeated lie.
My guess is that the answer to your question is that it is just to much trouble to defend him, because there are so many attacks. Getting into a dispute about Gore takes the focus away from the science. Which is the motive for the attacks to begin with.
The notion that he is making millions from AGW through Kliener Perkins, a high tech investment firm, is absurd. Gore’s percentage ownership of Kleiner Perkins is a tiny percentage of the firm, and Kleiner Perkins’ investments related to AWG are a tiny portion of its portfolio.
One of the more frequent canards against Gore is that a British Court ruled that his film “An Inconvenient Truth” has been barred from British Schools. This is simply false. Here is a link to the actual decision. If you take the trouble to read it, you will see that the court allowed the film to continue to be shown, accepting that the major points in the film are accurate and that with some additions to the teachers guide materials took care of some minor inaccuracies.
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22161.pdf
By the way, the court’s decision is posted on a conservative web site. I can only assume that they think no one will bother to read it.
July 17th, 2010 - 03:59
Al Gore uses more energy than any one of us. He’s constantly telling the rest of us to cut back, while he uses more. We’re supposed to drive Mopeds while he has no problem parking his fleet of SUV’s and letting them idle for an hour and a half while he spews about “global warming.”
His movie, Inconvenient Lie, had scenes lifted from other movies. And his footage of the polar bears supposedly trying to climb on to a rapidly diminishing ice floe was faked. There was land behind the photographer and polar bears are very strong swimmers.
July 17th, 2010 - 04:57
I’ve never seen a “non-denier” say Gore was only in it for the money, is a washed up politician, a “bad boy”, and only occasionally seen them call Gore a hypocrite (truly awful rebuttal of this point, by the way). Whether or not Gore is a scientist isn’t really in debate — he isn’t one, obviously.
Personally, I’ve really only called him irrelevant in terms of the science, because he is. I honestly couldn’t care less what Gore does or says.
But I can see the reasons for debasing Gore, and it largely has to do with something called tact; a quality you have yet to comprehend, Paul. Despite what you and I would hope to be the case, a large portion of the population (in the U.S., at least) is either unconvinced of AGW, or denies its existence all together. As I’m sure you know, Gore is a polarizing figure, especially among those right-leaning ignorants and deniers (not mutually exclusive), and if we are to convince them of AGW’s reality, we must first convince them that the science of AGW does not hinge the size of Gore’s bank account. Unfounded attacks against the man are obviously reprehensible, but downplaying his role is entirely reasonable.
———-
*No-one* in Montecito has air-conditioning? Is that some sort of city ordinance? Anyway, the question of whether or not Gore’s new house has air-conditioning is irrelevant — can you honestly tell me this house doesn’t draw more power than average, especially the average in southern California? It doesn’t use more water?
“The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.”
Not to mention the fact that this house lies thousands of miles away from a few of his several other houses, the amount of materials that went into building the house was massive (even though Gore didn’t have it built, he’s providing a market for such houses), and that larger houses in general require more energy (not just related to heating/cooling).
“Bob, after untactfully tells me I do not understand what tact is, he tells me that it is tactful to attack Gore”
Do you not understand English? I never said attacking Gore is tactful, and I specifically said unfounded attacks (some of which you’ve listed in your question) were wrong. I DID say that debasing Gore, or downplaying his role would be useful.
“How is your strategy working? You and the other moderates have been aggressively doing that. Have you convinced the Deniers?”
I haven’t the faintest idea. What about your strategy? Has it convinced anyone? Whose strategy is more likely to win people over? Not just deniers, but the general public who remain ignorant and unconvinced of the severity of the problem?
You’re debating style is very reminiscent of some of the deniers on this site…
————
Clever…Of course no one has AC in Antarctica, but I’m almost certain some do in Montecito. And as a general rule of thumb, larger houses are more likely to some sort of central air system.
And you honestly think your strategy works better? How did you come to that conclusion?
July 17th, 2010 - 05:03
Perhaps because he has been very, very successful.