snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:38 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
So let's just suppose that we all live in a small town that get's isolated from the rest of the world. Some people do some calculations and figure that food is going to be in short supply in the coming years. An impressively obese man stands up, in a nice suit, and announces that we all should just cut back our consumption to solve the problem. As an example, he's going to cut back to 18,000 calories a day from his consumption of 20,000. Now assuming the average person is consuming say 2500 calories day, which idiots are going to follow this guy as someone who understands how to handle a food shortage?
Isn't that a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy? Ad hominem tu quoque, to be precise. Since he does not follow his own advice, it stands that his advice is wrong? You can give great advice, and still disregard it yourself. I mean, call him a hypocrite if you want (although I would say that the energy needs of someone who has a home office, with many employees, are probably greater than those of someone who has a small house, a small family, and is away from home 8-10 hours a day) but if you are going to say his advice is wrong, do it by attacking the advice, please.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:39 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Cheer

He contributes to "Green Power"? I do that! Cool!

Is he on TVA then?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:40 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unklesam View Post
They are just getting around to low-energy bulbs?? He is super wealthy and he hasn't been diverting funds to wind-power? He is just now "in the process" of using solar panels?
They are remodeling a home they bought fairly recently.

Quote:
Sorry, I have been doing 2 of the 3 for the past several years.

And if I had the money, I would be using solar panels as well, because in Philadelphia you get credit for any energy you can create and either use or store, it is just way too much upfront cost for me.

And I beleive it is speculation that the home doubles as an office, but even so, might there be better alternatives than the convience of a home office? Perhaps an office complex that pools energy resources?
I wonder what he is spending for his power per square foot. Of course his bills are higher since he lives in a large home. And he and Mrs. Gore's businesses are pooling energy resources, just with their home as opposed to other businesses.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:41 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
He contributes to "Green Power"? I do that! Cool!

Is he on TVA then?
TVA? In Tennessee?

Let us ponder, shall we?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:46 PM
Swiri
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBCal View Post
Air Force One burns more fossil fuels in a few hours than Gore's house uses in a year.
You can't compare a house with an airliner (although AFO could be many USAF planes).

You also can't compare state usage with private usage. The image of a country, and the security of its president, are riding on it.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:46 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
TVA? In Tennessee?

Let us ponder, shall we?
Do'h! I guess the TN river valley does actually make it into TN.

I was thinking (yea, really) of Co-Op vs. City utility. It didn't dawn on me that TVA would supply power to BOTH city/co-op.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:47 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is online now
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by geminilee View Post
Isn't that a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy? Ad hominem tu quoque, to be precise. Since he does not follow his own advice, it stands that his advice is wrong? You can give great advice, and still disregard it yourself. I mean, call him a hypocrite if you want (although I would say that the energy needs of someone who has a home office, with many employees, are probably greater than those of someone who has a small house, a small family, and is away from home 8-10 hours a day) but if you are going to say his advice is wrong, do it by attacking the advice, please.
My point wasn't that his advice is wrong. Rather, that he's not much of a leader.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:50 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
My point wasn't that his advice is wrong. Rather, that he's not much of a leader.
Only if he isn't matching up to the standards suggested by other posters, and we have no evidence either way for those yet.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 28 February 2007, 03:55 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Al Gore's political opponents have been telling lies about him for years, even having the gall to paint him as the liar. I don't believe anything they say about him anymore. I would bet the farm that if the whole picture is presented, it's very different from what his opponents are saying.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:30 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually this is not inconsistant with either Al Gore's movie, or his past behavior.

An Inconveinient Truth is long on the problem and very short on the solutions, because the solutions are hard.

Buying back your carbon is a cute way to make rich people feel good, but it does very little.

As Al Gore's spokes people have not disputed the numbers, but simply the analysis it is fair to say the numbers are probably relativly accurate.

There is no doubt this is purely political gamesmanship and is meant to embarass and icon. However that the Icon should be embarassed is not being contested by the Icon himself.

This embarassment is something that wealthy liberals have had to deal with for centuries, as their urge to do good is offset by there very real human desire to be exceedingly comfortable. What was it that Jesus fellow said about Cammels and needles?

Is it hypocritical? Of Course it is, but that doesn't take away from the message about global warming. That Al Gore doesn't walk the walk is nothing new, anyone aware of his record in Tennessee knows that. The Tenessee Public Interest Research Group (which is a nonpartisan group associated with the national Public interest Research Group) has stated for years that while a Senator, one of Gore's biggest contributors was also one of the states biggest polluters.

Essentially, I am not surprised by any wealthy liberal railing against global warming and doing nothing about it themselves, the problems of global warming go far beyond the petty politics of the day, and will have to be delt with by everyone eventually.

Mr. Gore may wish to enjoy his mansion now, since he knows in time he won't have one, or that what passes for a mansion will be considerably smaller.

In the end, it's just another politician makeing a name on something popular. At least he's picked a good cause to front, as opposed to jingoism or tax reform.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:34 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Have you read any of this thread? "Gore uses more energy than the average person" is not a criticism. "Gore uses more energy than the average politician/person living in a mansion" is.

Unless you are seriously advocating the "bicycle and sackcloth" approach to environmental advocacy.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:43 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geminilee View Post
Isn't that a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy? Ad hominem tu quoque, to be precise. Since he does not follow his own advice, it stands that his advice is wrong? You can give great advice, and still disregard it yourself. I mean, call him a hypocrite if you want (although I would say that the energy needs of someone who has a home office, with many employees, are probably greater than those of someone who has a small house, a small family, and is away from home 8-10 hours a day) but if you are going to say his advice is wrong, do it by attacking the advice, please.
I'm a little rusty on the latin, but I think this hyperbolic example is fairly correct. The Fat man is sacraficing, and may be sacraficing at an equivilant rate as his fellow towns people, however, because he is starting from a higher level of consumption his sacrafices seem insignificant.

Al Gore is sacraficing by purchasing some of his energy at a higher cost from renewable providers, and no doubt by purchasing carbon offsets, however the actual gross energy consumed, and to a grand extent the net greenhouse emissions caused by that consumption is likely still far greater than is sustainable. The movie itself shows this hypocrasy (despite purchases of carbon offsets) as Al Gore flys to multiple locations in the film. As the center of the film is Gore's presentation, wouldn't one location have been sufficient? Certainly there is drama in the story because of the travel, but if one holds that the purpose is to educate and not agrandize Al Gore, that drama is secondary and at a dramatic cost to the environment.

There is self agrandizment in what Gore has done, but there is also a great deal of good in his raising of awarness of this very real problem.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:45 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringTheNoise View Post
Have you read any of this thread? "Gore uses more energy than the average person" is not a criticism. "Gore uses more energy than the average politician/person living in a mansion" is.

Unless you are seriously advocating the "bicycle and sackcloth" approach to environmental advocacy.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see figures of the average usage for a politician or anyone living in a mansion. All I saw were figures comparing him to the average household.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:53 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringTheNoise View Post
Have you read any of this thread? "Gore uses more energy than the average person" is not a criticism. "Gore uses more energy than the average politician/person living in a mansion" is.

Unless you are seriously advocating the "bicycle and sackcloth" approach to environmental advocacy.
See somehow I don't think living within a carbon budget if you will is the equivilent of Bicycles and sackcloth. Actually, I'm not quite sure how much energy sack cloth requires to produce as opposed to polyester or cotton, but bicycles are actually a very good idea.

Likewise, I think that if I woke up one morning and said, "Oh my goodness, the massive energy consumed by humans leads to the horrendous destruction of the environment" I would look for the many places I could cut my energy consumption. Depending on how dangerous I thought global warming was would show my concern in the choices I made. If I truly felt that the danger was real and present, I would probably move out of my rural mansion and into a tasteful and spacious condominium in a major city with excellent mass transit so as to ensure I was duplicating resource use where ever possible.

Essentially, if you belive that global warming is a real threat, and you live in a remote home larger than your families needs you are a hypocrit. If you don't belive global warming is a real threat you are at your own discretion as to how much enegy you should or should not use.

It's pretty sad that the republican Mayor of New York probably is greener than Mr. Gore.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:55 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

When you moved out of your rural mansion, how would you make sure that the people who bought it would not consume more energy than you did?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 28 February 2007, 04:58 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geminilee View Post
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see figures of the average usage for a politician or anyone living in a mansion. All I saw were figures comparing him to the average household.
I wasn't clear there. You are right, the second set of figures aren't available - so I am saying that it is unfair to criticise him based solely on these statistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Essentially, if you belive that global warming is a real threat, and you live in a remote home larger than your families needs you are a hypocrit.
Do you have any evidence he is using any more than he needs? As his spokespeople pointed out, his mansion is both the family home and where he and his wife work.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 28 February 2007, 05:14 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
The movie itself shows this hypocrasy (despite purchases of carbon offsets) as Al Gore flys to multiple locations in the film. As the center of the film is Gore's presentation, wouldn't one location have been sufficient? Certainly there is drama in the story because of the travel, but if one holds that the purpose is to educate and not agrandize Al Gore, that drama is secondary and at a dramatic cost to the environment.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Gore has been traveling to give various incarnations of this presentation since 1989. He didn't do it just to add drama to the movie - the movie director was trying to capture the essence of what Gore has been doing for years.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 28 February 2007, 05:20 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Read This!

Isn't this thread EXACTLY what has been mentioned in another thread as the "Republican Strategy"? Don't talk about the problem (global warming, pollution, etc.), talk about anything else (Gore's non-sackcloth & bike lifestyle)?

"We need to reduce our 'footprint'".
"Al Gore is a hypocrite!"
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 28 February 2007, 05:20 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is online now
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,667
Default

Okay, okay, okay I get it now. If I want to be more green, I can just buy a bigger house and install energy efficient lights and appliances. It doesn't matter that my overall energy consumption is going up, just that it's better than it would be if I lived in a 'normal' bigger house.

Beach...I guess I misunderstood his point all along...Life!
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 28 February 2007, 05:21 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Gore has been traveling to give various incarnations of this presentation since 1989. He didn't do it just to add drama to the movie - the movie director was trying to capture the essence of what Gore has been doing for years.
Yes he has been travelling...but the choice to have the filmcrew travel with him was an artistic choice to add drama to the film. If the purpose of the film was just to inform, you would just have Al at U of T or UCLA giving the presentation, with the film crew there to record it, sort of like how they do a stand up special. You don't follow the comic from town to town, you pick one audience and do the routine.

Honestly, I don't mind that Al Gore did this, mostly because I don't think Global warming is a problem to the level that Mr. Gore implies. I think it is a problem, but I belive there is more absorbtion space still in the system, and thusly more time to roll out better technology before the system collapses under its own weight.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.