Well, he sure works hard at it.
Posted on 06/29/2006 10:24:33 AM PDT by presidio9
In today's complicated world, precious few truly black and white, cut and dry issues remain. For me, however, there are at least two: Al Gore really is a dislikeable [expletive deleted] — and the destruction of the Earth by human hands would be an incredibly bad thing.
Within a rational environment, these two ideas could be compatible. Sadly, our political and cultural climates aren't ruled by anything close to reason or rational thinking.
This spring, filmmaker Davis Guggenheim unveiled "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary following former Vice President Gore's campaign to bring about worldwide awareness of global climate change. The film mixes the science of global warming with the story of Gore's commitment to the environment. Unfortunately for Guggenheim (and the planet), the documentary's star attractions — global warming and Gore — make it hard for many conservative Americans to swallow the message.
The film is, of course, propaganda. Its purpose is to persuade audiences into thinking that global warming is real and a threat. The main difference between the documentary and, for example, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that the underlying subject — the environment — is not a partisan issue, though some would like it to be. (For those that missed the Republican and Democratic talking points, liberals are pansy tree-huggers and conservatives are eco-terrorist monsters.)
Generally speaking, it's not difficult for "red state" voters to believe that humans could, in some way, be to blame for the Earth's worsening health — but throw Gore and global warming into the mix and things get dicey.
To understand this, we have to start with Gore.
As a conservative, albeit a fairly moderate one, I really, really don't like Al Gore. Most Republicans feel the same way, although they might admit to something stronger — hating him. It's not just his association with former President Bill Clinton. It's not even that he was one of the first to vocally oppose the war in Iraq. But for some inexplicable reason, Gore is right up there on the GOP "enemies" list — somewhere between Jesse Jackson and Osama bin Laden.
Personally, I don't hate Gore, although anything he says or does certainly gives me suspicious pause. That said, I confess I'm not above hate.
I hate that Gore was involved in shady fundraising on the back steps of the White House.
I hate that when he had the power of the vice presidency, he did nothing with it.
I hate that he ran for president in 2000 with little more than his "lock box."
I hate that he conceded the race, then declared himself the "real" winner.
I hate that the choice was between Al Gore and George W. Bush.
Most of all, however, I hate that Gore, his cronies on the Left and their opponents on the Right have turned the environment into an "us versus them" issue.
Both sides have used the theory of global warming — essentially that increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels have caused a significant change in global temperatures — to divide the electorate. It was an easy task.
For non-believers, it's hard to accept that their cherished lifestyles — the indulgent, energy-wasting ways of life passed down by their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents — could be destroying the world that they love. Taking responsibility and moving toward change would be like admitting guilt (and, for big business, losing money), so they deny and deny some more — grasping for any alternative theory to explain away obvious climate change.
Believers, on the other hand, are more often saddled by hypocrisy than guilt. Although they accept global warming and the human role in it, they do little to curb its causes other than extolling the virtues of hybrid cars. More often, they complain during even-numbered years about the complicity of Republicans, pointing fingers rather than pushing for real reform.
Does global warming exist? The "inconvenient truth" is that it doesn't matter. Even if the theory is hogwash, there are still many other ills caused by the burning of fossil fuels, as well as hundreds of other human activities that are killing the planet. When our soil, air and water are all saturated with toxic wastes, the rainforests are gone and cattle are the Earth's most exotic animals, we may long for the days when someone was blathering about the heat.
Al Gore isn't destroying the Earth — we are. Don't be so blindly vindictive that you kill the message because of the messenger.
I don't hate albore. He's just NOT credible, and therefore, should disappear.
So, Tommy - how come Gore didn't do anything with that when he was in office?
ALGORE's problem is that nobody notices him...............and for good reason..........
I don't think he has any friends.
Worse than that, AlGore always seem to think he is, by far, the smartest guy in the room. And by trying to prove that he is the smartest guy in the room, everyone else sees that is the stupidest guy in the room, no matter who he is talking to.
Who caused Earth's last ICE AGE?
Who caused it to melt?
No. We're not.
As a GW believer, this statement is CRAP, and one of the problems with this entire argument. WE CAN have it all. All the energy we need, and STILL be "good" about CO2 emissions. Sure, there will be a transitional period, but so what? Thats what we Americans are good at, ADAPTING! Lets go Nuclear, lets use Renewable Fuels. Lets let good ole American Know-How, and Can-Do, do its magic.
All I see from BOTH sides is that awful pessimism about it.
There are ways to "fix" things, and they would be GOOD for the USA, even if GW turned out to be wrong.
As for Al Gore, he can kiss my ash..
Yawnnnnnnnnnnn...can't hardly stay awa,..........{HAAAAAAUUUGHH Hegghh HUUUEEEE}
1.) Maybe he didn't think he had the controlling legal authority,
2.) He was distracted because of all that iced tea he was drinking,
or
3.) It was inconvenient.
Earth Tone ping!
The author's attempt to distinguish himself from the right and from the left on this issue is sadly unimpressive.
The only relevant issue in regards to "An Inconvenient Truth" is whether or not the science behind it is solid. Unfortunately, the actual inconvenient truth of global warming is that there is absolutely no way to prove that mankind has a global, and significant impact on climate. The fact that human technology is not going to sit still while we continue to collect observations, the variables of the hypothetical human contribution to climate change are going to continue to change, thus making a scientific analysis of actual cause and effect impossible.
And while the author was correct about there being other reasons besides possible human impacts on climate to regulate emissions, the differences between what global warming proponents propose and what rationally conservative environmental policies propose are radically different. The liberal environmentalists envision a world where there are far fewer humans and very little industry. The rational and conservative environmentalists envision a world where technology and science offset human impact on the environment allowing for growth and development.
When you get right down to it - the liberal solution won't work without a central world government, and genocide of the world's poor. While the genocide might be unintentional - it would be inevitable because the wealthier nations would be unable to afford the expense of aiding the poorer nations. For the most part, the wealthier nations would be only steps away from poverty themselves. And the conservative solution would work either way - if humans are behind global warming, science will probably overcome the problems, but such science takes money to develop into practical technologies. Money that otherwise would be unavailable or misspent under the liberal plan. Or if global warming is not man made, then the conservative plan would help prepare mankind to deal with the consequences of natural climate change.
Liberals have proposed a lose-lose solution. Conservatives have a win-win solution.
Nuclear power is the way to go. We need nuclear not because of the Global Warming Hoax but because it is cheaper and renewable.
Number three: Manbearpig will kill us all. Seriously, nobody disagrees that the "destruction of the Earth by human hands" would be bad; it's just that many of us think that the threat is a laughable hoax.
As a conservative, albeit a fairly moderate one...
Seminar caller.
...I really, really don't like Al Gore. Most Republicans feel the same way, although they might admit to something stronger — hating him.
Right. Slam real conservatives by accusing them of "hate", after claiming to sympathize with their "dislike".
"So, Tommy - how come Gore didn't do anything with that when he was in office?"
As whacked-out looney and bizarre as Al is, we all need to drop and thank God that he didn't do anything while in office.
The man has never looked like he had a full pallet of bricks.
" everyone else sees that (he) is the stupidest guy in the room"
Perfect! I will not suffer being lectured to by a dumba$$. And oGre is a
DUMBA$$!
Well, he sure works hard at it.
False, false and false.
Soil, air and water are not becoming saturated with toxic wastes.
Rain forests are not disappearing.
Species are not being decimated.
Google (or better yet, another search engine) "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and read the first chapter for news on how environmental extremists twisted and manipulated data to come to these conclusions.
I always end up laughing at people who try to impress me with their intelligence. ALGore is the poster boy for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.