Al Gore's climate views prompt debate over UT's honorary degree for him

MARTIN, Tenn. -- In a rare display of political leanings, some members of the UT system board haggled Friday before deciding to award former U.S. Vice President Al Gore an honorary degree.

During an academic committee meeting, trustee Crawford Gallimore sparked the debate when he asked if the board should be recognizing a public figure aligned with controversial research.

Mr. Gore, a native Tennessean, former presidential candidate and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has been one of the loudest public voices pushing corporations and governments to combat global warming.

The research on climate change has come under attack in recent months.

"Should we be giving honorary degrees to people with controversial advocacies?" Mr. Gallimore said. "We have given people (honorary degrees) with a professional life in politics, but those were retired or at the state of senior statesmen. Let us not forget our responsibility of proceeding with exceeding care."

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/feb/27/ut-to-give-gore-honorary-degree/

an honorary degree? But Gore is controversial. Mr. Gallimore is right about that, but why would that be grounds not to give him the degree?

considered to be controversial? Because he states the obvious that global warning is caused by man? Is Gore also considered controversial because he believes the earth is round?

any other nation would hold this man in the greatest esteem....this country mocks him, this nobel prize winner.

nt

campus is located, is blue, blue, blue.

Yes, I know it shows up red on the county maps because the country of Knox is red, but the city in the middle is blue.

http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2008/nov/06/mccain-wins-knox-obama-wins-knoxville-w-knox-passe/

I would also note that Gov. Bredesen carried Knox County in 2002, John Kerry won the city of Knoxville in 2004 and Al Gore Jr. carried the city in 1998.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Ck1T6pYi-sgJ:blogs.knoxnews.com/silence/archives/2006/09/corker_ford_and.shtml+john+kerry+wins+city+of+knoxville,+tn&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

In fact, I don't even have a Republican representative in my immediate area. It's all Dems until you get to the state senate level and that's because we share that with a very red area in Halls and has more people, thus turning our blue district red from there on up.

I highly doubt UT is "for pollution" considering it's flanked by some of the bluest neighborhoods in the city.

or they just don't believe that al gore is legit?

is more important than anything.

:shrug:

Just because right wing loonies don't like something doesn't mean there is anything to debate.

Did his parents forget to give him a first name?

this is what happens when you have an administration that ignores science for eight years and promotes fantasy advocacies

China is the number 1 emitter of CO2, Mr. Gore. Perot was right, and you ARE wrong! :hi:

this is a 'shit on ut' thread not a 'shit on al gore' thread

(nor his personal lifestyle, for that matter!)

:hi:

Until such time, I don't think it's "shitting" on him to point out the inconsistencies in his positions--it's being a small part of an informed electorate.

There you go. If Mr. Gore can't negotiate this gaping inconsistency in his ideology, you can't expect me to!

so because al was a free trade advocate his environmentalism is moot

"so because al was a free trade advocate his environmentalism is moot"

Not moot. Logically inconsistent and hypocritical. Same as his lifestyle. :hi:

But if it makes you feel any better, both my jobs and Mr. Tesha's
have been outsourced several times, so no, I'm no fan of outsourcing.

Tesha

You clearly dislike Gore and you never miss an opportunity to tell us.

And if *YOU* thought it was an attack, you could have alerted on it
and had it removed.

Tesha

as "he doesn't like him" when I've explained the basis of my disagreement with Mr. Gore in explicit detail, but I will repeat it: it is illogical to advocate for "free trade" with countries with low or no environmental regulations while claiming to be an "environmentalist"--the inevitable consequence of such advocacy is a loss of jobs at home and an INCREASE in net pollution.

Incidentally, this is the exact same point I made on my first post to this thread.

"You clearly dislike Gore and you never miss an opportunity to tell us."

Nonsense. I disagree with his ideology. Has not a thing to do with "like". I think it's you who are having trouble disentangling ideology from personality.

:shrug:

Why does anyone have to be **** on in this thread? A bit O/T, but personally I'm not a big fan of honorary degrees. What purpose do they serve? Why not just a certificate or letter of appreciation. IMO, it's somewhat disrespectful to all of the working class folks who are in-debt to their eyeballs to see someone more or less handed a degree from an institution from which they may have had little or no involvement. But then again, it is certainly a well established custom within academia.

Also, I'm new to DU, nice to meet you.

:hi:

rest of the nation.

Perot was just protecting his own private free tradd monopoly.

I'm not a Perot supporter; I'm a Gore detractor! And sorry, but I make a good point, which is why I've never even seen a Gore supporter attempt to address it. :shrug:

Al Gore was and is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, your (rather limp) protestations to the contrary notwithstanding! And I'm sure your explicating (where Gore has stood mute) will resolve the whole thing. :silly: :hi:

1. You defend Perot's decision with your "Perot was right and Gore was wrong post" and no context; without acknowledging Perot's hypocrisy in having his own private free trade monopoly until I pointed it out.

2. You accuse Gore of being a hypocrite, when he exposed this monopoly.

3. You don't even have the decency to acknowledge that Cheney/Bush have been in power from 2001-2009, not Al Gore.

4. You don't seem to understand that MFN is "Normal trade relations" and that's the case with the vast majority of the planet.

5. You don't acknowledge that Earth isn't standing still, the rest of the planet is developing regardless and why shouldn't they, we did?

6. This planet wide industrialization; China and India coming on board, combined with the recovery of nations bombed to the Stone Age from World War II challenging our long time post WWII global dominance, our aging baby boomer population, the corrupt, incompetence and resistance to change from the Cheney/Bush Era are the primary dynamics putting more CO2 in to the atmosphere, while adversely affecting our jobs.

7. The fossil fuel industry, the automobile industry and the corporate media have all fought to trash Gore for their own reasons, either because of his environmental advocacy or because he championed opening up the Internet for the people, so you're in good company. You and they have a lot in common, in resisting much needed change, wanting to turn back the clock and we as a nation have paid a heavy price for this timidity.

:hi:

No I don't. It's a reference to Al Gore's famous debate with Ross Perot regarding NAFTA. I'm not responsible for anything Ross Perot has done because I note that he was right (and Al Gore was wrong) about NAFTA.




I have no idea what you indeterminate pronoun refers. I call Gore a hypocrite because he lives in a mansion, flies around in private jets, and demands that everybody else make sacrifices.



Should I "acknowledge" that water is wet (or any other commonly known facts) before pointing out that Al Gore was wrong about NAFTA? You're beginning to reach.



And this is an answer to Al Gore's massive misjudgment with regard to neoliberal economics in what way, specifically? Reaching some more!



You need a verb in there, somewhere--you've written two sentences fragments here.



So...you end your meandering post with a limp ad hom. Nothing you've written here even speaks to the issue.

Conclusion: you cannot speak to the tens of millions of lost jobs and increased environmental degradation caused by so-called "free trade". :hi:

You didn't acknowledge any of the major dynamics; I listed as contributing to both pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere and the loss of U.S. jobs.

Jobs were being lost prior to NAFTA and CO2 has increasingly been pumped in to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

With you the world begins and ends at NAFTA, regardless of what transpired before and after, it must be sweet living in a such a simple world.

Al Gore lives a carbon neutral lifestyle, can you say the same?

It's as clear and on-the-nose as it can possibly be.

"With you the world begins and ends at NAFTA, regardless of what transpired before and after, it must be sweet living in a such a simple world."

You're arguing with straw men now, and you have even begun to address the basic point.

"Al Gore lives a carbon neutral lifestyle, can you say the same?"

:rofl: Al Gore lives like a KING compared to me or anyone I know--he "live a carbon neutral lifestyle" only inasmuch as he pays somebody else to conserve for him ("carbon offsets")--but he himself uses more energy in a week than many families do in a year.

carbon offsets are a reality/necessity is because sustainability has been fought by entrenched industries; automobile, fossil fuel and their corporate media propaganda machine for decades. General Motors in their short term vision killed the electric car and we're paying the price for that.

Al Gore was living beyond your means long before he started paying premiums and this is because he was a Senator's son, Congressman, Senator and Vice-President.

You still haven't addressed the other dynamics I posted.

1. The rebuilding of the world devastated from being bombed to near oblivion after WWII.

2. The development and industrialization of densely populated nations China, India.

3. The aging baby boomer generation.

You can't stop change from happening just because it's uncomfortable, either adapt or be prepared to be run over.

:puke:

"You still haven't addressed the other dynamics I posted.

1. The rebuilding of the world devastated from being bombed to near oblivion after WWII.

2. The development and industrialization of densely populated nations China, India.

3. The aging baby boomer generation."

Gore was well off long before he started paying premiums and he has the second highest environmentally friendly ranked home; which by the way was originally built in the early 1900s, so he took an energy hog and made it far more efficient.

He's also working to change the world toward more sustainability.

The answer to your last question is no, but you already know that.

So puke all you like, but don't choke on it.

How much more effort should I be expected to give your points when you don't attempt to engage with mine? I gave you a point by point rebuttal for goodness sake!

There were some winners and some losers but with the E.U. forming and China making inroads, I believe it was a wise policy.

I believe some of the negative repercussions from NAFTA would have been addressed and alleviated under a Gore Administration instead of becoming even more acute under Cheney/Bush.

The coup/selection of 2000 is one reason; I believe NAFTA can only be partially judged.

MFN is Normal Trade Realations and China was being renewed for this every year, this alone created great rifts, negative repercussions and it was denying a growing reality, you can't just ignore the largest nation on the planet.


Now as for my points.

"You still haven't addressed the other dynamics I posted.

1. The rebuilding of the world devastated from being bombed to near oblivion after WWII.

2. The development and industrialization of densely populated nations China, India.

3. The aging baby boomer generation."

"At the end of the discussion, the committee unanimously approved the recommendation to award Mr. Gore with an honorary degree. The full board voted on the proposal later Friday afternoon."

Thanks for the thread, spanone.

When did America become so fucking stupid?! :wtf: