Al Gore compares today's global warming skeptics to racists of the past

I agree. Once again, thank you Al.

(video at Raw Story link below).

Al Gore compares climate change skeptics to racists

Al Gore continued his criticism of climate change skeptics in an interview with Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky on UStream, going as far as to compare them to the racists of the 20th century.

“There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural,” Gore said. “Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/al-gore-compares-climate-change-skeptics-to-racists/

a few coins.

work.

for once, and to stop larding out the Republicon socialism to their fatcat cronies.

Americans have to agree with your implications: Republicons are continuing to screw America's economic pooch, and to block efforts to put US citizens back to work.

in relation to his "lock box" bullshit on social security & his carbon futures business.

there is no analogy between racism and global warming. none. it's bullshit.

i'd be more inclined to give some creedence to gore if he wasn't making money off it.

and if he wasn't such a hypocrite in his personal energy use. which he is, i don't care how many fucking "carbon offsets" he buys.

i despise people like him telling everyone else they need to use one square of toilet paper when they are burning rolls of the stuff in bonfires.

He compared the ways we as a society make ignorance into shame, and educate people, by demanding better with our conversations.

the analogy is not between global warming and racisim. it is between global warming denial and racists attitudes in public discourse. he is saying that people need to criticize public display of global warming denial today like they did decades ago. It's not like a nuance or anything. you just have to watch the video. if you don't like the headline, please keep in mind that is only one brief comment he made in a 1 hour video. the person who posted this on Raw Story took a short segment out of the interview and put a headline on it.

even ifyou don't like this particular line, you have to admit there aren't many people out there using their prominence to rattle the cages about global warming, and he continues to fight the fight when he could just sit back and do nothing if he wanted to.

I'm very glad he's on our side and it irks me when environmentalists and progressives and lefties get on Gore's case so much. They don't even realize they are just buying the rightwing talking points.

the analogy is stupid.

i am not buying right wing talking points, and i'm not buying al gore. i think he's a fraud, a hypocrite, and a con. that is my opinion, & i have given you my reasons. he misled the public about social security, he's making bank on carbon trading (which is a fraud), & he lectures people on how to save energy while using it profligately. not only in his own home, but in jetting about the world lecturing the "little" people about how wasteful they are.

the us military is the single biggest user of energy on the globe. fuck gore. i don't need a hypocrite "leading the public discourse".

argument = violation of du rules.

I imagine we more often than not interpret things only in such a way as to better validate our own presumptions; regardless of the validity of an original statement, we'll do our best to mistranslate it if that's what it takes... :shrug:

Educate Ignorance.

It is the stupid that worries me . . .

gore's so damn educated he can't even practice what he preaches.

education fails there, so what use is it?

the rich are the only people who can be wasteful, is that the message?

hehe

Whether it was the argument used to deny equal rights to African Americans or the argument used to deny global warming climate change, the modus operandi of both methods of attack worked primarily to demonize or dehumanize the integrity of groups in the former case the targeted group was based on race and on the latter it was based on occupation.

No excuse for comparing this to racism.

Pure and simple. Many of them believe the Bell Curve nonsenes, etc.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

below Al Gore's carbon footprint. As Al Gore's carbon footprint is about 100 times bigger than anything I can hope to achieve, I never have to worry about breaking my promise. It's interesting how the carbon prophet admonishes the rest of us for doing a fraction of what he does every day.

that doesn't make him wrong. hypocritical mayhaps, but not wrong. but interestingly, if he convinces enough people who end up producing less of a carbon footprint he could end up with a negative footprint. ;P

do shit when al gore doesn't practice what he preaches and is living large?

when you attack the man and not the argument, that is an argument ad hominem. thank you for reinforcing my point.

and in this case, "the man's" behavior demonstrates that "the man" doesn't believe his own argument.

alright, the vp during one of the most popular presidencies of the lastt twenty years and the winner of the popular vote for the presidency is going to command some hefty speaking fees. and you are mad because he uses that pulpit to speak for the earths future? he would be hard pressed to find something les sexy. you would no doubt prefer a sarah palin style bus tour? or perhaps something more pro corporate

but none of this changes the fact that he is right.

alright. thanks for the tip.


in return i would like to point out that just because you dissaprove of someone does not make them wrong. as i read up on Gore, please read up on logical fallacies!

responsible for their own actions regardless of how Gore may or may not act.

people's lifestyle is not in any significant way a matter of individual choice. it's a matter of the prevailing socio-economic conditions, of how we MUST make our living, in what kind of environment -- it's not about what kind of lightbulb we use or what car we drive, it's about the fact that we cannot live a "normal" life without using lightbulbs or driving cars.

and please don't tell me about how you ride your bike everywhere.

they were preaching in the 60s about how if everyone just made the "right" choices everything would be hunky-dory, 50 things you can do to save the environment, etc. etc.

you can see how well it's working. i guess another 40 years of moral exhortation & "education" by phonies like al gore, & we should be in utopia.

sick of people who make environmentalism an individual moral issue, sick of "environmentalists" who fly more in a year than most people do in a lifetime, sick of all the phonies.

well done :applause:

and when people have to resort to personal attack, they obviously demonstrate their own fecklessness

what he preaches and is living large?"

First, we should "do shit" because it's the right thing to do to change the damage that is being done to the planet and the chances of survival of most of us oxygen breathers.

Second, we should "do shit" because MOST of us are smart enough to realize that someone who has a high profile and is in a leadership role who is trying to educate us should not be restricted to sitting in his totally sustainable buffalo hide teepee and sending smoke signals or good vibes to the rest of the world in hopes that the word might get out.

Third, we should "do shit" to show everyone else that Al Gore knows what he is talking about and that he is doing far more to educate us and help us to change our habits than indurancevile the antagonist who likes to sound off on a blog.

I'd love to know what indurancevile thinks should be done to educate the masses and to help us to convert the climate change skeptics. Besides throwing rocks at Al Gore and his efforts, that is.

for "offsets". :hi:

They're real offsets, the problem with offsets is that they don't punish the users, they're not, effectively, mandated. And as we all know, without mandates (carbon taxes and the like), nothing will get done.

does NOT believe what he preaches. His actions and lifestyle betray his core beliefs...

global warming is a scam and he is going to ride this pony to the billionaire bank.

that you have swallowed corp propoganda until the BS is coming out of your eyes. there is no controversy.

it's a matter of public record -- for example, his power bills.

who said it was? no one on this thread, thats who.

agw deniers are corp pawns who spew misinformation. aren t there better targets out their for your insatiable wrath besides gore? or me for that matter? though i do love that you keep kicking this thread.

It's one thing to argue that Al Gore is exploiting the issue to make bank. People often do that with good causes. It's another to completely deny the science.

We wouldn't tolerate some teabagger pushing the latest right-wing talking points. We shouldn't tolerate any "global warming is a hoax" bullshit either.

Maybe we should just do away with tombstoning, and allow freepers and teabaggers to post whatever they want, whenever they want.

Racist, really? Have some more crazy juice, Al.

The fuggers at M$Greedia never played a line of his recent interview with Olbermann.

Hurricanes, specifically.
Since Katrina, they have been mild to below average at best.
Mr. Vice-President Gore himself predicted more storms hitting and stronger ones every year.
Each year, WRONG.
It is difficult to support a theory when your own predictions in support of that theory prove incorrect every year.
I'm not a denier but I also don't deny the facts.
Get the facts straight, the people will follow.

but let's try for shits and giggles.

MORE DRAMATIC and VIOLENT Weather Events.

Now you remember the incredible snowgeddon? How about the terrific things at places like Joplin? Even the SIZE of Irene is part of the pattern.

We are talking of TRENDS here... that does not mean that EVERY STORM will be more damaging than the last. Wether does NOT equal climate.

That's how it works, right? He gets to ride private jets and own mansions so long as he plants a tree somewhere?

Not as I do.

wasteful they are.

i hate these arrogant hypocritical gits.

and YOUR analogy is a lot better than gore's.

Right?

I don't even recognize this place any more.

He hurts the global warming argument but not leading by example.

Nobody likes people who 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

the message is what matters and people not able to see that are as those people "not able to see the forest for the trees."

own corporation doesn't = a carbon neutral lifestyle.

gore's plane travel uses more "carbon" than an ordinary person's entire life does.

any use of carbon burning or promotes the transition away from fossil fuels, that's the ultimate goal until the world can wean itself away from the use of fossil fuels, carbon offsets work as a stopgap.

There's not enough cash in the whole world for all of us to live like Al Gore! :hi:

the switchover to green, sustainable, renewable energy sources to prevent or minimize the impact of global warming climate change.:hi:

You can make make billions if you want to and Al Gore has put his money where his mouth is, if we had more entrepreneurs following Gore's example, we would be much further along in the creation, development and use of green, sustainable renewable energy sources and a smart grid for the nation.:hi:

Lead the way, Al! :hi:

:cry:

Again you missed the message, MASSIVE CHANGES are needed and Al is leading the way.:hi:

do any of those things, irregardless of whether they "can" in some ideal world.

and the conclusion is that gov'ts will have to step in to make the transition -- as they always have. as indeed, they are, at present (funding for example the majority of wind projects).

and it doesn't demonstrate that gore & his for-profit "green" companies are anything but hypocritical scams.

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm


if it's such an immediate crisis, why aren't these folks doing anything but making bank? they evidentally think the world is going to last in roughly its present configuration long enough for them to collect their profits.

the same baseless accusation against Gore's integrity.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, I have no problem with the government stepping in and neither does Gore, for that matter he's been promoting for them to do so.

As to Gore's house it has the second highest energy rating that you can get, it was a near one hundred year old energy hog when the Gores' bought it, someone would have lived there regardless so the Gores took a negative and turned it into a positive.

Your article is obsolete and misleading.

isn't obsolete.

i don't care how high the energy rating of gore's (multiple) houses are, the fact is he uses multiples more energy in his house(s) than the average person. he uses multiples more in travel, and i'd bet multiples more in consumer goods as well. he makes money off petroleum shares held in the family for generations (one of the sources of his present status) & he makes money selling "carbon offsets". and peddling influence.

As I said before Gore's house was an existing early 20th century energy hog, someone was going to live there regardless and the Gores improved it making it far more energy efficient, I believe they pay a %50 premium on their electric bill under the Green Switch Program.

That is turning a negative into a positive.

His message is for people to cut this, stop that, and so on.

Please show me where this fucking hypocrite ever said, "You know what? Do whatever you want. Just make sure you pay for it."

hasn't enacted any comprehensive energy reform to change our society to green, renewable, sustainable energy sources, your choices are either to reduce energy consumption, pay premiums for energy ie: Green-switch, carbon offsets etc. or a combination of the above according to each person's ability.

Green-switch funds and carbon offsets can be used to stimulate the economic growth of green, renewable, sustainable energy sources, there is nothing hypocritical about that, it's just basic common sense and logic.

By changing the economic sphere of energy usage, the government's policies will follow and Gore is on the forefront of changing the economic sphere via his venture capital fund which promotes and subsidizes green energy development.

the poor can be lectured to.

oh, & "carbon offsets" = phony as a 3 dollar bill. just a dodge for corporations to use as much as they want & pretend they're "green".

Perhaps you have proof that your blanket attack of all carbon offsets are "phony" but I doubt it.

:hi:

Environmental commodity markets are inherently more susceptible to market failures than traditional markets because the commodity transacted is both intangible and represents a public good. Where buyers cannot easily evaluate the quality of a good or service, there is a clear need for quality assurance mechanisms. Without such mechanisms, competitive pressures force sellers to minimize quality and limit transparency. The result will be that bad projects will drive good projects out of the market.

What has proven most vexing for those involved in GHG offset markets is defining 'additionality'. This is a key factor determining a project's eligibility to sell credits. The crucial question is whether the added revenue or other resources gained from selling GHG offset credits somehow enables a project's implementation, or if the extra revenue simply lines the pockets of those who would have implemented the project anyway? In markets for public goods that lack some form of mandated quotas (for example, emission caps), additionality determinations serve the function of maintaining scarcity in the marketplace. Without them, GHG offsets representing business-as-usual reductions will tend to flood the market.

There is no correct technique for determining additionality because it involves the evaluation of counterfactual circumstances. No test for additionality can provide certainty about what would have happened otherwise. The challenge is akin to statistical hypothesis testing. Adopt tests that are too stringent and one risks disqualifying many truly additional projects, thus restricting offset supplies and increasing their prices. But adopt tests that are too lenient, and the market will be dominated by 'free riders' who would have implemented their projects anyway.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.2007.58.html


The problems with carbon offsets from tree-planting

One of the most common types of carbon offsets on the market comes from tree-planting projects. Many companies sell these offsets and claim they can be used to offset greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, such as air travel, automobiles, etc. While planting trees obviously has environmental benefits, selling carbon offsets from these projects is problematic in a number of ways...

It is simply not possible to plant sufficient numbers of trees to deal with the increased carbon dioxide emissions that are expected over the next half century. For example, scientists have estimated that to soak up just the United Kingdom's annual greenhouse gas emissions, we'd need to plant a new forest the size of Devon and Cornwall every year, and look after them in perpetuity...

Many forestry offsets are from tree plantings that would, or should, have replaced logged forests anyway. It is therefore difficult to claim that such plantings can be used to offset emissions from elsewhere.

Old-growth forests are often replaced by tree-farm plantations that are heavily managed (including with chemicals and fossil fuel-intensive machinery) and do not offer the same biodiversity benefits as natural forests.

Investment in forestry offsets does not contribute to reducing society's dependence on fossil fuels, something that is ultimately needed to address climate change.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/the-problems-with-carbon-offsets-from-tree-planting/


gore didn't increase his net worth 300% in ten years by being a philanthropist.

Did you didn't read my previous posts describing offsets as a good stop-gap or temporary method?

As to the second link, planting trees is just one aspect of carbon offsets, funding alternative, green, sustainable energy sources is another.

Furthermore, I never said Gore was a "philanthropist," I said he put his money where his mouth is and by his vision, investments and action humanity would benefit.

so the "temporary" fix is actually a "temporary" scam.

and there's a great deal more scamming which can be documented.

scamming directly attributed to Gore or his organization by all means present it otherwise you're just farting in the wind.

I realize you just joined us last month, so welcome to D.U.:hi:

......no...wait...that doesn't work either.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1

They're actual physical product that ... offsets the carbon you produce.

There is no such thing as a "carbon neutral lifestyle" that includes mansions, SUVs, and private jets. Al PAYS for the right to pollute. Basically, he buys personal "carbon credits".

And you're wrong about carbon neutral, what matters is the total amount of carbon and ultimately methane released into the atmosphere if one person burns more carbon but then pays via carbon offsets for carbon sponges, ie; forests to be planted or subsidizes energy efficient switch-overs for other industries to use or develop, the effect is no pollution insofar as greenhouse gases are concerned, that's why they call it neutral.

Having said that carbon offsets are just a stopgap method of being financial, environmentally friendly tool to use until the world can wean itself away from the use of fossil fuels.

Carbon offsets are used to as a means to raise money to fund the development and usage of green, sustainable, renewable energy and the planting of carbon sponges, most all of society benefits from this.

One other major difference religion and science are not the same.

Word is, Al "buys" his carbon offsets from his own company!

http://www.generationim.com/strategy/climate.html

role in using the current workhorse of capitalism to rapidly foster the needed change.



Honestly, if Al Gore's actions both in bringing out the message and in creating financial vehicles to foster change that saved the world from climatic catastrophe, would you be pissed because he made money from doing it?

What if his investment firm used it's resources to promote the legalization of cannabis, would you still be angry?

He doesn't. He "pays" a company in which he has a financial stake. Face it: your hero is a FRAUD! :hi:

Gore's company has a financial stake in promoting green, sustainable, renewable energy sources that benefits everyone, no matter the income class.

Keep your eye on the ball, the goal is changing the world's energy usage to green, sustainable, renewable sources, that's a major undertaking and Gore is doing far more on multiple fronts to move the world in that direction than any other individual that I know of.:hi:

so your intended point of contrast is actually a point of comparison.

What's so hard to understand about that?:shrug:

When it comes to profiting off of all of this while living a gluttonous lifestyle, I mean. :silly:

I have some breaking news for you, the world, industry, society lives by profit and using profit to change it is a most logical path.

If Gore makes millions because he helped foster humanity to a sustainable, renewable, green energy way of living, I say more power to him.

selling "carbon credits". I think it is YOU who are having trouble following along.

if at all and so he entered the economic sphere to affect drastically needed change.

Timing is running out in regards to global warming climate change and so I applaud Gore's decision to do what he could and if he profited from this, so be it.

carbon offset = something like helping to fund a solar array.

excuse me? building a solar array doesn't reduce al gore's carbon footprint. in the short term, it actually increases greenhouse gases. in the long term, it makes money for al gore.

what is this crap? we don't need "carbon offsets" to build solar arrays -- just build them.

just another way to financialize the real economy.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.2007.58.html

for your reading convenience.

take your concerns about government policy making this an "ideal situation" up with Obama, and the Congress, Gore is already doing so.

The desire to make amends for everything from a trip to the Oscars to a morning commute has spawned a plethora of for-profit and nonprofit carbon offset providers... But the growing retail market, which is largely unregulated, also is raising questions among environmentalists who say not all offsets are created equal.

“There’s a lack of standards in the voluntary market, and the offsets that people are purchasing might not be accomplishing what they hope they will,” said Deborah Carlson, climate change campaigner with the David Suzuki Foundation, a Canadian environmental advocacy group.

When the environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet commissioned a study on carbon offsets, communications manager Bill Burtis was surprised to find how few groups offered transparent details of their projects or had set up any process of independently verifying their environmental benefits...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659716/ns/business-going_green/t/market-carbon-offsets-raises-questions/


Please explain why an unregulated "carbon offset market" is needed to transition to solar, wind, etc?

of carbon offsets.



Changing the world's societies is like turning a ship, not a sports car, in an ideal world, they wouldn't be needed but we don't live in an ideal world and time is running out to avert the worst effects of global warming climate change, so carbon offsets can be a useful tool until governments get their acts together.

Mansions, SUVs, private jets. He's also a big advocate of "free trade" which merely moves pollution to the third world.

Where does he get the room to point fingers?

front and center into the nation's consciousness in-spite of the powers arrayed against the message.




Are you suggesting the First Amendment doesn't apply to Gore in-spite of the fact that he championed magnifying your own freedom of speech.

?Are you suggesting the First Amendment doesn't apply to Gore in-spite of the fact that he championed magnifying your own freedom of speech."

No. I'm flat out saying that Al is a big fat hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. (The First Amendment has to do with government restricting citizens' speech, btw. Not a THING to do with a private citizen criticizing Al Gore for personal hypocrisy! :silly: )

as being a hypocrite.

Gore lives a carbon neutral life style and he's preached global warming for decades long before he became a private citizen, but you know that.

The real reason you're pissed off at Gore is because he supported NAFTA which whether you believe it or not is or could be an *economic path to reducing the threat of global warming climate change.

*Subject to wise leadership in the White House and Congress.

and that therefore his advocacy for environmentalism tarnishes the whole movement with his hypocrisy and self-interest. :hi:

"Gore lives a carbon neutral life style"

Al pays someone money for the "right" to pollute more than 99.99% of the people on the planet. He's the worst sort of hypocrite. :hi: :hi:

The premiums he pays goes toward the development of renewable, sustainable energy, so you're wrong on all counts.:hi:

Then whine that the average person (who uses much LESS energy than ol' Al) should start conserving! :rofl:

green, sustainable renewable energy sources, most all people and society in general benefit from that.

It's a shame you can't see that.:(

need "carbon offsets" to build solar & wind. just a disguised cut for finance capital & a scam where big players can waste whatever they like & drive small players out of business.

of green sustainable, renewable, energy sources can't come fast enough and carbon offsets is a useful tool in channeling much needed resources toward that goal.

If anything small players have another potential, financial resource; due to offsets to aid them against the behemoth fossil fuel corporations.

After devoting most of the article to explaining why carbon trading isn't functional NOW.

hERE ARE more reasons:

***

But how do people know they are getting what they are paying for? After all, this is a market that trades in a gas, or more accurately, units of a gas that are not produced.

In the United States, the trading is voluntary and nobody is in charge. That worries people whose job it is to protect consumers.

"Our concern is that because these claims are very hard to substantiate and consumers can't easily tell they're getting what they pay for, there is the real possibility of fraud in this market," says Jim Kohm of the FTC's enforcement division...

One of the things the FTC will investigate is "double selling," Kohm says. "So, for example, if I have solar panels on top of my store and then I sell somebody else the right to claim that carbon scrubbing, I can't then claim the carbon scrubbing for myself, as well."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17814838


Carbon credit fraud:
The white collar crime of the future

Australia’s Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will
soon require the largest emitters
of greenhouse gases to offset their
carbon footprint. Such schemes
have already been subject to fraud,
misstatement and the involvement
of organised crime in the UK and
Europe. Deloitte Forensic is now
warning Australian companies
and regulators to prepare for the
potential fraud risks

Even a cursory look at the global carbon market in its
current form reveals some carbon credit fraud ‘red flags’
that simply cannot be ignored.

The global carbon market is now estimated to be worth
approximately $118 billion1. With the main participants
to this market being big business and government, these
features may attract highly organised fraud offenders to
Australia’s proposed CPRS. The CPRS is due to commence
in July 2011 but already evidence of fraud is being
uncovered that may seriously impact the reputation and
financial viability of Australian corporates.

Deloitte Forensic Financial Crime Partner Chris Noble
warned, ‘An emissions trading scheme may well attract
highly organised fraudsters from overseas and Australia
prepared to exploit arrangements that will be trading
in billions of dollars. The warning signs are already
apparent...

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Services/Forensic/Carbon_credit_fraud.pdf


Get in early on the ground floor! Superprofits!

Most every development, industry or creation began as a private endeavor until the government stepped in to regulate it.

As I said before I have no problem with government regulation and neither does Gore.

of Perry and Bachmann who also have private jets, corporate money and such. It helps him spread the message.

His "mansion" also houses his offices and his businesses. Much of what you hear about his energy consumption comes from Mt. Rushbo and the RW noise machine.

and we don't?

"His "mansion" also houses his offices and his businesses"

As does my suburban bungalow. Why does Al get to suck down the juice if I can't? :hi:

to "compete" with bachmann?

he could stay in dc & send out daily psa's to the world to "spread the message".

Its a campaign. You have to take it to the people.

Is Gore ever alone when he's in the SUV's? I highly doubt he travels without a cadre of at least 3-4 people. Security, personal assistants, etc.

Yeah. Looks like every 'office buiilding' I've ever worked in. :sarcasm: Funny, I don't see many filing cabinets in the photos. But I'm sure they are right wing photos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91241

for obvious reasons....

poor, poor dick heads

"Oh my... global warming is worsened by man-made polution. Quick... attack Gore's credibility before people start listening to him!"

who like pollution.

that's the ticket.

the criticism sticks on both sides of the aisle because IT'S TRUE. He's a hypocrite.

the hypocrite... you do nothing but try to get people here to dismiss the man and his concern's/efforts. So what's your end game if it isn't about smearing someone bringing attention to the most important topic of today's world? Are you doing anything to counter man's hand in Global Warming? No one spends the amount of time you have over such a thin argument...

... if I drive a car, does that mean I can say nothing about global warming to others hypocrite? You know damn well we all use energy to one degree or the other... so would all of our thoughts on this subject of man's hand in global warming be dismissed? That would be convienient, but that is not how reality works...

Think tanks need to come up with a better "smear tactic". Not smart...

to counter it?

as for your insinuation that i am part of some think tank devoted to smearing al gore, it's laughable, and also a violation of the du rules.

But it seems to me something science related would make a more reasonable comparison.
Language reflecting personal human discrimination can not be reasonably compared to that reflecting the equal opportunity effects of a denial of science.
Bad choice.

of the scientists.



Personally I believe Gore could have used McCarthy Era language as an analogy but whether it's racism, witch hunts against political opponents or the denial of science, the required propaganda modus operandi of using demonization against a targeted group are the same.

The language he refers to was not cleverly developed by organized groups who were involved in a political movement. It was not "used" to perpetuate and reinforce the validity of violence and hate towards individuals. It was ordinary daily language used en masse that perpetuated a hideous cultural norm. Average Joes with no relation to the klan were involved in randomly killing black men for looking at white women.

There is a personal distance between the scientist and his\her ideas that does not exist in the case of racism. The language attacks are not nearly as personal or hateful.
A comparison of efforts to discredit ideas and attacking integrity with speech that reflects personal hatred of an individual to a point that the person was potentially subject to violence is just not valid.

effect and hold on the people.

One thing is for certain it was the wealthy that promoted capturing, indenturing and eventually enslaving the African People, to facilitate the acceptance of such policies and institutions did require propaganda to normalize that kind of hatred in society.

Had the press of the day not demeaned people based on the color of their skin and/or land of their birth whether in print or toon, the "Average Joe's" perspective may have been more enlightened as well.

As I said the language isn't as hateful, but these aren't individuals being attacked, but a group of world wide messengers numbering in the thousands.

Furthermore should these scientists be demonized successfully, I'm convinced it won't stop there, intellectuals in general, and scientists in particular with the exception of those working for the military industrial complex will be hammered.

One of the hallmarks of most all autocratic societies is the persecution of intellectuals, the basic difference is a matter of degree and maturity.

So if Gore's warning serves to nip this in the bud, I would consider that to be a great service.

and attacking Al Gore. here is a forum that would love your support!!!!!

http://www.americanthinker.com

"How could they have thought that way", as in what future generations will think about the denialits. There could easily be a "Mad Men" series centered around AGW down the road.

I get the analogy, but from a communications viewpoint he might as well be chumming in shark infested waters.

:shrug:

Where else on DU can you get Gore-bashing and claims that climate change is a hoax?

I don't even think offsets are sufficient but I'm not dishonest about how they work.

but I won;t try to hit my head agains the wall.

:banghead:

Peace

Oh and I do get your User Name, I am sorry.

but after readying upthread I really do not feel like hitting head on wall.

- He's no better than the rest of the "Do as I say, not as I do" evangelists out there and now he's calling names??

It's unfortunate and sad. The man once had access to the largest pulpit in the world to preach about environmental issues yet he didn't do it. Now he alienates people with this poorly conceived remark.

Certainly not the way to win friends or influence people.

ad hominem