Al-pocrite's Inconvenient Truth

Behind all the glitz, glamor, and posturing is a very inconvenient truth for environmental evangelist Al Gore. He is not making a contribution to the control of global warming--at all.

At least some of the stars and starlets were smart enough to show up in energy-conscious vehicles to the Academy Awards the other night. But not Al Gore. He showed up in a limo.

Standing under the klieg lights to accept his award for best documentarian, Mr. Gore was all smiles. He probably didn't notice that the electricity used to power all the lights in the convention hall could have powered a small city.

But I don't think that is his quest. It appears to me that his quest is to make all the rest of us conform to his idea of environmental consciousness.

I know I'm putting a lot of undue pressure on him, but he's putting a lot of undue pressure on me, too.

What about the time he got a speeding ticket in his rental boat (car)? Wasting gas and wasting gas.

Interestingly, a recent study indicated just how much Mr. Gore doesn't contribute to the alleviation of global warming. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has determined that Al Gore's house uses 20 times the electricity of the average American house.

It is immensely helpful if those who (claim to) advocate a cause actually do their part to contribute to the cause they advocate. Otherwise they are seen by the populace at large as elite snobs. I think Al Gore fits the 'elite snob' category, and so he is (and always has been) hard for me to take seriously.

Katie Couric makes a good point on her blog
that we shouldn't judge Al Gore on his acceptance by the hollywood community. I'm not. I'm judging him on his own merits, and on the merits of Global Warming in general. Here are the comments I posted to Katie's site:


You make a good point. We should not disregard Al Gore simply because of a Hollywood embrace. Although it is hard to not laugh when some people think that Hollywood in general is an authority on anything except lascivious living, we should judge Al Gore on his own merits. He fails as a hypocrite. We should also judge Global Warming on its own merits. There is excellent evidence that global warming runs a natural cycle. So although we should do what we can to clean up the environment--no, there is no concensus that man has caused nearly irreversible global warming that must be stopped now. To shut those of us out of the debate who don't believe Global Warming is man-caused is as bad as Torquemada at the Spanish Inquisition.


  1. I never liked Al Gore. Although I liked the movie, I thought Gore came across as self-promoting in it. The movie was good in the way it illustrated the problem of global warming.

    Have you seen the movie? It doesn't sound like it. You still seem to be mired in your ignorant views about global warming being part of a "natural cycle."

    It's really just common sense. How could we release zillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere without it having an effect on the atmosphere? How could we cut down zillions of acres of trees without it having an effect on the environment?

    I wouldn't be so harsh on Hollywood. Leonardo DiCaprio has a pretty good website on the environment.

  2. I admit I haven't seen the movie. I haven't seen Michael Moore's movies either, because all of them are self-promoting. I would rather watch documentaries (i.e. productions that aren't politically polarized.)

    Forgive my ignorance about natural global warming. I got it from my study of science and how there have been historical cycles of warming and cooling.

  3. I guess I am "mired in your ignorant views about global warming being part of a 'natural cycle.'" also because I just can't see cycles that have been in place for billions of years altering because of 200 plus years of industrialization.

    Global warming is a natural occurance. Just as natural as livestock and trees (yes, trees), vegatation and melting bogs produce methane which is worse that co2.

    I believe we need to be careful because the more people we put and keep on this earth the more our resources will be used up but to say that the "problem of global warming" is man-made - I don't buy in to it all.

  4. I have just begun reading "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer, and the thesis, much of which you state in your comment, if very believable. He also states that many of those invested in the scare have a lot to gain by perpetuating it.

    A friend of mine, when they saw I was reading the book, said 'So what are we supposed to do, just ignore the problem, and hope we all don't die?' To which I responded, 'There is fortunately not a problem.' (Unless, however, you consider the scare mongering that is going on by un-qualified scientists, along with politicians and hollywood stars and starlets posing as such.

  5. I give up, Frank. You and Kari think that you're scientists, but you aren't. Who are you to disagree with the majority of scientists on a subject they have expertise in and you don't? Isn't that arrogance?

  6. We agree with those scientists, whether in the majority or not, who look at it from a practical, rather than a political, fear-mongering point of view. I don't know for sure, but I'm following that which seems most logical. The scientists who don't believe that man is causing the bulk of global warming are blowing holes in the IPCC's sinking ship.

    It's ironic that you said in your comments to my "God is a scientist" post that people don't want to hear views that go contrary to their religion. This is exactly how I think the IPCC feels. It is their religion. Al Gore spoke at University of Oklahoma yesterday (day before?) and called his crusade against global warming "moral" and "spiritual". Please...


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog