No he has three big houses and flies private jets.
Right 20 times more. So what do you mean when you say “No”. You odnt; seem to actually dispute the facts that I presented.
Like I said, indulgences. He knows it is immoral, but he is rich so he can indulge in the immoral behaviour by spending money. Or as the OP said, he’s beating his wife and building shelters.
More to the point, he is saying that I am immoral and unethical if I do not.
More nonsense from another AGW patsy and Gore apologist.
Three quarters of Catholics use birth control. 40% approve of abortion and 63% approve of stem cell research. Of course people are hypocritical on moral issues. Look at Carrie Prejean. Look at all the lies told by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman on a regular basis.
I’m amazed that people keep trotting out this tired and useless cliche. Do they really think they have a valid point?
Guess what, I live near the place that houses possibly the most dense population of climate scientists in the world, and do you know what? They drive cars to work, only a few ride bicycles. They all live in houses, not tents. The labs use electric lights and gas heat. They’re all such hypocrits!
Therefore, what, exactly?
How about the cost? 12c for an incandescent globe vs $5 for a fluorescent/LED?
:rolleyes: I am - obviously - pointing out that the problem is too much CO2; that CO2 is not intrinsically evil like slavery. So your comparison between the two was silly.
It’s not their hypocrisy that makes them so dangerous; considering that their basic positions are often evil or crazy, hypocrisy is often an improvement. Their problem is that they are wrong.
You talked about his Nobel Prize, not how much effect he had.
No. If he’s right on the facts then he’s right on the morality, because the claimed facts are what make it a moral issue in the first place.
Then what ARE you suggesting? That kind of lunacy seems a pretty straightforward extension of the idea that we should reject his advise even if he’s right due to his alleged hypocrisy.
No doubt about that. And that makes it acceptable does it? And it doesn’t in any way weaken their position on the issue?
See to me that isn’t acceptable. And a Catholic who I knew had abortion and then started to argue that anti-abortion laws do no harm wouldn’t get much respect for their argument form me. Apparently you think differently.
Given your inability to invalidate it, it appears the answer is yes.
Good question:what, exactly? What has the actions of a group of scientists got to do with morality? As far as I know morality isn’t a science, nor is it amenable to study by climate scientists. Right?
Except that he now has light for less energy and less carbon.
Like? What law has he proposed that would lower the quality of life for Americans?
Let’s look at another example.
Let’s say that, as the mayor of a city, I’ve decided to make it my key issue to fight crime. The way that I intend to do this is by increasing the budget for police officers so we can expand the total number of officers in the city.
However, I have noted that the soccer mom contingent of my voter base is super gung-ho. They want to “Get active. Get involved.” I can tell them till I’m blue in the face that they’re unequipped to deal with crime. Not only do they have no training, but they don’t even live anywhere near the locations where crime is actually an issue. Still, if I want to keep their vote, I have to make them happy. Telling them they’re a bunch of morons if they think there’s anything else they can do beyond voting for me and paying the extra taxes for the new police force is self-destructive. So I put together a “Community Watch” sort of list of things that they can do that are entirely pointless, but keep them happy.
Now, am I a hypocrite if I don’t personally start up a community watch in my gated community? No. I can definitely be accused of cynicism, but that’s entirely different. I never believed a community watch to be worthwhile. I never suggested a system of community watches as legislation. I never advised anyone to even do it. I simply answered what more could be done when asked by the lunatic fringe.
shrug I can’t say that the individual cares. If the world changes around them to be carbon light, then good for it. So long as he doesn’t have to do anything, it’s all good.
Still not making an ounce of sense.
We’re talking about moral and immoral, not good and evil. Gore has stated that the consequences of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is a moral issue. I assume you aren’t suggesting that he argues that it is moral to exacerbate the problem? So surely emmissions of CO2 are intrinsically immoral.
I can’t understand why you think he is arguing otherwise. What, like emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is a moral issue, but it’s morally neutral?
Yet much of the time it is the hypocricy you decry. Nonetheless we shan’t hijack this thread. I have told you why it is worth bashing Gore over.
I was calling into question your claim that Gore makes little difference to the problem, and so can be excused. The Nobel committee amongst others disagree with you, and now even you will not answer me when i ask whether you feel he has had an insignificant impact.
That is a total non sequitur. Even if we accept the objective facts that Gore claims, how does that tell us what the moral course of action is? It is a fact that we can nuke Moscow. How do those facts tell us whether it is moral to do so?
Only to you my friend, only to you. When you start seeing things that demonstrably are not there then I suggest that you question where the lunacy lies.
And pays carbon offsets when he has to. Your argument is as silly as decrying stitching a wound up because, “It makes all these little punctures, it’s just making the wound worse!!!” Listen, I’ll go slow, because it seems you’re very upset about this and may not be thinking clearly. Al Gore, the human, can live in a cave and mutter quietly about how carbon is endangering the planet. Would you have heard about him if he had? No.
So Al Gore needs to get his message out. Al Gore needs to give presentations and promote his film and books in order for people to hear the message and provide the leverage to effect social change. Al Gore traveling is the hole the needle makes in my analogy above. It’s a pin prick that helps the overall wound. If you refuse to understand that, I would suggest that you’re frothing a bit hard.
Show me in detail how much energy houses of similar size, built at similar times, of similar materials, that have similar home offices and in similar environments use electricity. Because you know that, right? You aren’t simply pointing at a number and hooting because it seems bigger than your home’s electric bill? Compare apples with apples or come off looking the fool.
Unlike writing checks to a god that doesn’t exist, these indulgences are useful. If you don’t understand how carbon offsets work, educate yourself on them and get back to us.
He says to make simple, painless changes. Are you suggesting he is not?
Isn’t it more likely that the patsy is the fellow who believes in moronic pseudoscience rather than the vast majority of working climate scientists and every major climate science organization? Are you a moon-landing denier as well? 
It’s not flying first class that makes Al Gore a hypocrite, it’s flying in a private jet. But as long as he buys farmland to leave fallow in order to reduce his carbon footprint, then I guess it’s ok.
Again, you are Al Gore. You need to promote your film and book. The publisher / production company needs to you fly from New York to LA to Austin to Chicago (for instance). It isn’t realistic to fly commercial.
You appearing at all events will do a lot to sway public opinion, perhaps nudge it in the right direction and convert skeptics.
What do you do? Do you ignore the experts in swaying public opinion and fly coach, missing some of your dates or do you fly a private jet, do the publicity with the caveat that carbon offsets are purchased for the private jet fuel?
I propose that there is only one intelligent answer.
Firstly I have no idea where this came from. When was quality of life mentioned prior to this post?
Secondly Gore is a major supporter of “Cap and Trade”, which everybody in the country, even Obama’s own office, agrees will drive down spending power and reduce the standard of living. They would argue that it will be amnor decrease in SOL, but a decrease nonetheless. Of course others say it will be significant. The truth doubtless lies in the middle, but there seems to be no disputing that Gore supports laws that will lower the quality of life for Americans.
Two problems: firstly Gore isn’t running for office.
Secondly Gore didn’t do that. He put considerable effort into encouraging people to become involved. He ended “An Inconvenient Truth” with “Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen.” That was added before it was released, before the popularity of the issue. So clearly he isn’t just humouring people who demanded that he give them something to do. He actively goes out and tells people that the should be doing things even when they are content to do nothing. His audiences never asked him what they could do, he told them what they should do.
No, it’s like decrying a doctor who goes out and knifes one person each night, but says it’s OK because he stitches up two people every day.
Morality doesn’t work like that. If the act is immoral you don’t get to make up for it later by paying an indulgence.
Anyway I’ve had enough of your ranting and personal insults so I won’t respond to the rest of your post.
And bravely he did bugger off, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin…
Well hey, maybe he is an idiot and by extension a hypocrite. Personally, I would think it more likely that he’s selling the idiots on what will sell them, but either way the truth of the matter is that these sorts of measures are impractical and are never going to be passed. Arguing over them is a waste of time.
Because that’s the only thing affects the individual. If I have to sit in economy instead of first class, that’s affecting my quality of life. If I have to be out planting trees on the weekend instead of watching TV, that’s affecting my quality of life. If I have to throw away my dryer and go back to hanging up clothes outside, again, this is affecting my quality of life. But anything which doesn’t change my day-to-day life in any appreciable way is not affecting the individual.
The terms are synonymous.
Not in the least. Al Gore has done more than any other human to change public opinion about AGW. If we end up doing anything to avert it he will hold a significant amount of the credit for it. Your example is simply childish and without any bearing on the facts. Some flights to promote his books and films (with carbon offsets purchased) to help reduce the billions of tons of carbon we puff into the air each year.
Saying that an act is immoral regardless of circumstances isn’t intelligent. Killing someone is immoral. Unless that person is trying to kill your child for instance. So now that we’ve established that immorality is based on circumstances, I think you’ll come to realize that whether Gore’s actions are immoral or not depend on the circumstances around said actions.
I suppose I’d be upset too if someone pointed out that my arguments were completely without merit.
Again a silly argument. Lowering quality of life in the short term to avert a catastrophe in the long term is a good thing. Do you save for your retirement? Why? According to your stance saving for your retirement is stupid, because you could be living better now. :rolleyes:
Used that broadly that’s true. But used that broadly I would have to ask what law Gore supports WRT AGW that doesn’t affect quality of life. If measures to combat AGW aren’t being applied now then it is a pretty good indicator that it is because somebody doesn’t want to do it, right? So if a law is passed and those things are done then doesn’t that pretty much prove that the laws are affecting quality of life, as the term is used by you here?