Al Gore is all talk and no action...

from the film An Inconvenient Truth:

"The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."





It seems that Mr Gore is a little CONFUSED when he says "WE".

news.yahoo.com...


I am sorry to say that I wasn't surprised. Just upset with myself because the optimist in me thought maybe, just maybe, he would be practicing what he preached. The optimist in me is rarely not disappointed these days. Sigh.

Holy crap noone has blamed this on a Neo-Con, BushCo, Karl Rove conspiracy!

The point isn't whether or not he "practices what he preaches." The point is that what he says is true and the fact that things have gotten this way and that so many people don't seem to know or care about the issue is FAR more upsetting than the "news" that a politician is two-faced.

Its pretty clear that gore doesn't even beleive his own rhetoric, he was vice president for 8 years, and did NOTHING.

Now we're supposed to beleive that he's out to save the world?

Pure unadulterated nonsense.











See also: The GLOBE Program





In my view, there appears to be very little attempt in this thread to deny ignorance...

On a larger note, if you can't attack the science...then go after the messenger... Now, there's a sound principle...



[edit on 11-8-2006 by loam]

BUNK! The guy was second in command of the most powerful country in the world at a time when it was actually influential within the world!

If he actually did try to do something, but failed, well that doesn't say anything good about him either, and what can he possibly do now, as an out of work private citizen, that he couldn't do then!?

I never saw him use his influence to forge an infrastructure for the hydrogen economy, I never saw him demand from the steps of the white house that we have miles per gallon standards on fuel burning cars, nor that such and such percentage of vehicles on the road at least be hybrids! I never saw him get shuttled around by the secret service in an alternative energy vehicle for that matter!

The most influential policy to come out of the gores was tippers attempt to villify 'satanic rock'!


And he invented the internet too! The guy had a chance to do something, and he did nothing.

He was a fraud then, and he's a fraud now. He was vice president for eight years, when was the environment's resuce the 'central organizing principle for civilization' back then, eh? I mean, even if Clinton was opposed, he'd've at least jumped at the chance to have a distraction during his impeachment proceedings, but still, NOTHING!


Bullcrap! I haven't attacked the science of global warming, i haven't said that its not happening, I haven't said that its some sort of conspiracy, all I've said is that Al Gore is a hack, and thats the truth.

Apparently, you didn't read the links... Most importantly, the last one specifically detailing his initiatives and accomplishments. Moreover, Gore brought to the political arena a discussion about such issues at a time when almost no one was discussing such matters.



Careful. That argument cuts both ways. Shall we apply that logic to the present administration? Oh, and was Al Gore President or just the Vice? And who controlled Congress for most of those eight years?



He is no mere "out of work private citizen". The simple fact we are discussing him now indicates otherwise. He clearly remains influential...or the ideologues wouldn't be wasting their time trying to discredit him.



Because you obviously weren't looking then, and didn't bother to do so even now.

Here is but a small sample of his approach to science, government and the subjects you raise:

The Technology Challenge: How Can America Spark Private Innovation?

REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES



Notice the political climate even then? ...at a time when we didn't have the world self-destructing around our ears...in a way that served as obvious tangible support for his assertions...like now?



C'mon, Nydgan, even you can not be that politically naive.



Again...nonsense... Apparently you must not like the links I provided...



Actually, I was referring to Peter Schweizer, who was the source of the article this thread is based upon (Know anything about the Hoover Institute?)...and others like him. But if the shoe fits...

[edit on 11-8-2006 by loam]

loam, thank you for the links. I agree that Gore has done more than others give him credit for. I also realize that politics is not as cut and dried as the "he was there" mentality. Going against companies that make thier living by polluting is a daunting task at best.

What stung me from the article was the lack of personal responsibility. If the article is even halfway accurate, it still indicates that he is saying one thing only to do another. Personal responsibility was a theme of his film as well as political responsibility, and I, for one, loathe the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

to quote the article-

"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.) "

That is just a simple waste of resorces from a man who tells us not to waste. The counter argument may be that he has every right to own and waste so much, and this is true. But he indicates that "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

And of course-

"Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.


Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.


Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River. "


All I know is that when I feel strongly about something, I don't play around. I stand by my feelings and beliefs, even at my own expense. Is this an easy way to live? You all know the answer. But that is what I believe is right. And when I observe someone who says one thing, then does another, I feel that they should endure, at the very least, a proper lashing on some internet forum.

Fair enough!

However, where this narrow issue is involved, I'll take Gore's brand of imperfection over the alternative of some of those who are currently in power.

Basics:

Lets' say that eating pink and only pink on every 3rd Wednesday of the month will automatically save the world.

Al Gore comes on stage spouts truths, half truths, lies, becomes THE dictator of how your life is run...as far as cotton candy goes.

There are still some more questions to be asked. How much Cotton Candy that is only pink must be eaten in that one day...and how many people have to do it to make it effective? Does the cotton candy eating (only PINK!!1 PINK, I TELL YOU!) have to be spread evenly around the whole globe because 10 bites eaten in a city still leaves 10 uneaten bites in the rainforests?

Oh, and the volcanoes belch more green cotton candy (death to us all) in one setting than all cotton candy eating of any color ever done by man since he was a munkey. So we is going to die, anyway, for all our pink cotton candy eating...

Just enjoy your cotton candy and take care of what's a necessity now.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy many conservation efforts. They save me money, if not time, irrelevant of whether or not they make my home mroe liveable (and much of that is still debateable). But all having EGORE for a sponsor does is turn people away from wanting to conserve.

I think we have some Al Gore Haters here. I don't really care for him but to say he did nothing is a bit naive. Could he have done more, certainly but to say he did nothing sounds a bit juvenile.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by kleverone]

The first person that invents a robot that tells the time and weather with any degree of accuracy is going to have the whole of America in the palm of its hand.

God help you, and God help us all.

They clearly aren't concerned about global warming either.

I refuse to beleive that a person as powerful and influential as the vice president of the united states, given two terms, can't accomplish anything, wrt 'combating global warming', regardless of him facing a congress that is opposed to his actions.

If anything, if he couldn't get major work done then, then what can he possibly realistically or effectively do now? 'raise awareness'?


There is resounding scientific agreement that the earth is warming, and there is no one in science that can explain it in terms of any of the natural cycles that control climate.
Meanwhile, the globe warms, coincident with a man-made increase in atmoshereic concentrations of a known green-house gas. I'm not trying to say that global climate is simple to understand, but lets be reasonable.
None of that has anything to do with Gore. Thats the major problem here. Gore is nothing more than a politico, the people that want to help the environment, who recognize the danger, are pinning their hopes on the wrong donkey. Gore couldn't do anything when he was in the executive branch of the most advanced and industrialized nation on the planet. Him doing anything now beyond being used as a celebrity name to attach to 'movies for public consumption', is a waste of time.

I stopped reading the link after reading this from it:



"Extreme personal sacrifice" is a right-wing, anti-green caricature of the action called for, NOT an accurate description of it. We currently WASTE about 90% of the energy we produce; it would not be that hard to improve this figure by a factor of four. Some of the measures Gore recommends would contribute to doing so.

If we do increase efficiency, we will not be USING less energy, we will simply be WASTING less. We get no value from the energy we currently WASTE anyway, and so we would not experience any "personal sacrifice" whatever, let alone "extreme" personal sacrifice, in doing so.

A fourfold increase in energy efficiency -- which, again, is very doable -- means at least a fourfold decrease in energy produced for the same enjoyment, which in turn means a fourfold reduction in carbon emissions, even without switching the way we rely on to produce energy.

That's a 75% reduction in carbon emissions. All without pain.

Factor Four: Read this, please

[edit on 22-8-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Well, the Vice President of the U.S. is hardly all that "powerful and influential," and I rather strongly suspect that he faced not only a hostile Congress, but also a hostile or at least indifferent president. Bill Clinton was and remains a superb politician. We have not, in my opinion, seen his equal since Franklin Roosevelt, and like Roosevelt, Clinton never moved too far ahead of public opinion. During his two terms, the public saw little in the way of dire threat. True, dire threats did loom on the horizon -- not only global warming but also terrorism, peak oil, a crisis in the economy which is becoming maldistributed to an alarming degree, and a crisis with regard to America's superpower status which, with the fall of the Soviet Union, has lost the purpose that once justified it. But none of that was foreseen by most people during Clinton's terms, and so the people didn't care about any of it much -- and so neither did Clinton.

Gore is often excoriated -- with some justice -- for failing to live up in office (and that includes Congress, not just the Veepdom) to the principles he has articulated in writing and film. The most likely explanation of why he failed to do that is that it was inconsistent with keeping his elected office. The people simply were not ready.

And that means he is in a position, perhaps, to do more now that he is out of office and so doesn't have to worry about keeping it. Like Jimmy Carter, he may make a much better ex-pol than he did a pol.

No one is letting him take action