Defending the Truth

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.

http://tinyurl.com/m7qko

I Believe That He Is B-s I Just Think He JuSt Need Someone To Blame...

In this article Gore is criticized for a few different things. Let me evaluate each one:

First, Paramount Classics is paying for the renewable energy credits for his jet rides. The implication is that Gore should pay this himself, but if Gore is truly energy conscious, it should not matter who is paying this, so long as it gets paid.

Next, Gore has three homes. The article suggests that if he is advocating self-sacrifice, he should not have three homes. However, Gore is not advocating self-sacrifice in every possible fashion, he is advocating it in energy consumption alone.

Next, Gore has not signed up to pay extra to use wind energy to power his homes. His office said he is looking into switching to wind power. The article implies that if he were truly energy conscious, he would have already made this switch. However, since the article gives us no insight into how long this switch was available as a reasonably-priced alternative, it may be perfectly understandable that Gore has not yet made the switch to wind power.

Next, Gore has money invested in Occidental Petroleum, a company which has been criticized for drilling in ecologically sensitive areas. However, no evidence was provided that Gore cares at all about preserving ecological habitats; his words appeared to address energy conservation.

Finally, Gore was criticized for allowing a Zinc-mining company to mine under his house, even though this process pollutes a river. The same logic applies: no evidence that Gore cares about preserving habitats was provided.

Based on the logic provided above, this article does not appear to offer substantial evidence that Gore is a hypocrite.

It is common to attack the man instead of the problem to avoid the problem itself.

So... Gore burned up over 65,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying around the nation promoting his second-rate movie on saving the environment.

And Hevusa thinks this is a GOOD thing?



Yep, I guess all is normal in the world.

Was the hybrid jet in the shop?
Getting the word out about global warming is critical at this point. Yet people like Jefferson attack the person to avoid the issue itself.

WRONG

I'm attacking the HYPOCRISY. Get it? Get the point?

All Al Gore is doing is trying to keep his name and face in the public eye. He's angling for future political aspirations. This is not about environmental awareness, it's about Al Gore's publicity.

The funny thing about it is, I actually like Gore. I think he's a smart man. But I also think he's a total hypocrite about the environmental stuff.

Liberals don't know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. All they know are 3 words......."I hate Bush". They prove it every day.

This single statement is better evidence of hypocrisy than the entirety of the article linked in the first post of this page.

Still, in order to fully suggest hypocrisy, Renewable Energy Credits must be addressed. Gore said that Renewable Energy Credits offset the fuel he used in his plane. His logic is probably that although he is using up a lot of fuel, someone else will use up a lot less fuel because they'll be using the "Green Energy" created by these REC's instead of polluting energy.

What do you say to this?

It is not hypocrisy when there is no viable alternative to speedily getting around the country. Plus the millions of people that Gore educated via the film certainly offset this use of the only way to speedily travel country wide.

Hybrid jet in the shop???