Do you agree that average people sometimes make decisions that affect their so-called “carbon footprint,” even if they cannot afford to fly in a private jet or buy a large mansion?
And I have challenged you throughout this thread, that it is not as bad as you and the Op are making it out to be.
You won’t even concede the Op used an extremely negative comparison from the start. The Op’s title is what dragged me in here. I don’t normally spend my time defending Al Gore. I did not vote for him in 2000. I have a strong dislike of his wife left over from my teen years.
You continue to promote mis-information and when confronted attempt to nitpick the fine details.
He has reduced his footprint, he continues to do so. You have provided no cites that support your position that others have not refuted.
So yes, you are merely sniping or to use the modern phrase, swift-boating Al Gore.
Jim
How bad Gore’s conduct is is a matter of opinion.
As I stated earlier, the depth of Gore’s culpability is a different issue.
In which posts did I do this?
That’s false. For example, I provided a cite that Gore purchased his house in 2002 – long after he was prominent in the environmental movement. Nobody has refuted this, as far as I have noticed.
Except I posted the information first about the house purchase, Way back in post 45. You just glommed onto to a minor point. Now you are trying to claim you brought something to the debate, that I did. You continued to hammer about the his footprint after my first link & quote.
Jim
I was trying to be “sarcastic.” (Look it up.)
Gore’s done well on getting the message out–even though he’s not the first environmental advocate I’ve heard. My decision to commute by mass transit was not affected by Gore’s (occasional) use of a corporate jet. And the size of Al’s house has nothing to do with my switch to those funny-looking light bulbs.
Gore’s Nobel reinforced my pride in voting for him in 2000–even though so many told me my vote would not “count”–since I live in Texas.
Don’t feel sad! Kissinger got a Nobel, too. And he’s one of yours!
This is the problem with the “he bought a big house!” issue - that house was going to exist whether he bought it or not. It was going to use it its energy whoever owned it. Tearing it down would have been a waste of material and energy and money. So what Gore did, which is entirely within the point that he’s trying to make, was to buy this house and reduce its overall energy consumption, and to reduce its impact on AGW - both by improving its efficiency and by either purchasing green energy or otherwise subsidizing its use. This is the example that he wants people to follow. Not to sacrifice and reduce and do without, because he knows it won’t be followed to a great extent.
What does it matter that you mentioned the date first? Am I not allowed to make use of information that other people bring to the debate?
I provided a cite that said the house was purchased in 2002. Nobody has refuted this fact.
And you never answered my question:
In which posts did I present misinformation and then “nitpick the fine details” when confronted?
I’m aware of that. I thought your point was that regular people are not in a position to fly in private jets even if they would like to, and therefore Gore’s bad example is irrelevant.
Were you making a different point? If so, why don’t you explain it in a non-sarcastic manner.
:rolleyes: Really, I posted that he bought the house in 2002 and later you cited he did. Why would it be refuted and you were just regurgitating something I posted. You were just trying to twist a minor point into another nitpicky debate point. That is my answer to your question. You must have missed that the first time. But this is why I will take the time to debate **Sarafeena ** and Chief Pedant but hate to waste my time with you.
Jim
You tell me. You are the one who is claiming that everything I have cited has been refuted.
So my posting that house was purchased in 2002 is “misinformation” now?
Now you are just outright lying. I said: “You have provided no cites that support your position that others have not refuted.” Posting that house was bought in 2002 after I had already posted it anyway, was a piece of data that did not support your position. You tried to twist it into a fresh argument against Gore and basically failed again. You are nitpicking now in fact. You nitpick constantly.
Jim
I also posted a cite that Gore has an office in Nashville.
As far as I can tell, this cite hasn’t been refuted either.
Please engage in personal attacks somewhere else. thank you.
Of course it supports my position. Other people in this thread have tried to defend Gore’s behavior by arguing that his choice was between selling the house and staying there. Actually, there was another choice, which was not buying the house in the first place.
This is shown by the fact that the house was purchased long after he became prominent in the environmental movement.
And I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your claim about “misinformation”
If it must be explicitly acknowledged, then yes. Al and Tipper Gore (or more accurately, the political and business entity that represents Al and Tipper Gore) apparently maintain an office, or at least a mailing address, in downtown Nashville.
So the conjecture that maintaining office facilities in the house may further contribute to energy savings was incorrect.
::tosses laurels::
Which, as I have pointed out, would not have stopped the house from continuing its existing power consumption and carbon footprint, unless it was torn down (presumably it would have been occupied by the previous owner, or another purchaser). Gore’s subsequent modifications to the house have reduced it. Gore is not the only one who could have done so, but he’s the one that did.
I think all this ranting is being based off of entirely incomplete information, and an arguable premise. The arguable premise is that we should judge Gore’s Nobel’s worthiness based on Gore’s personal behavior. The incomplete information is precisely what Gore’s personal behavior is.
So Gore’s utility bill was X. That number means nothing without:
-What the bill was for that house before Gore purchased it
-What the bill is for other comparable dwellings in the same area
-What the bill is now
-Whether the bill that year was higher than average due to repairs/construction that would have a positive long-term impact
-Whether the Gore family had intended all along to improve the energy efficiency of the house but had been busy for several years doing other equally important environmental things
And so forth.
And I’d say that unless there’s a known history of blatant hypocrisy from AG, the burden of proof is on those who are attacking him.
Misquoting me is a form of lying. No apology forthcoming from me, that was a factual statement.
Jim
I’m not demanding an apology, I’m just asking you to take your personal attacks elsewhere.
I did not misquote you, as far as I can tell.
However, I’m still waiting for you to tell me which of my posts substantiate your claim about misinformation.
You could say the same thing about a gas guzzling SUV sitting at an auto dealership. It will exist whether you buy it or not.
I think there’s enough information available to reasonably conclude that he’s a hypocrite. Anyway you slice it, he purchased a big house and proceeded to use a huge amount of electricity and natural gas. He also made extensive use of a private jet.
I would say that at this point, the burden is on his defenders to come forward with actual information (not speculation) to rebut the charges.
It’s like catching your husband naked in bed with his secretary. Maybe there’s a legitimate explanation, but the burden’s on him to put it forward.