Submitted by pmretep on February 28, 2007 – 3:11pm.
I hope everyone has seen his move, “Inconvenient Truth.”
that was my reaction too. as much as there is good information in the movie, the side trip along al gore lane was distracting and even self aggrandizing.
however, another way to look at it is that it covers his personal reasons for promoting the information, that questions of his personal interests would invariably come up. either way, it wasn’t necessary for me as i’ve long been educated on the matters at hand.
anyway, this “debate” is pointless. al gore is simply a messenger, a politician who believes in what he preaches. nitpicking the guy on his personal behaviour is stupid, particularly when there’s little to no actual information available. even if there was full disclosure and it turned out that he burns a mountain of coal just to make his coffee, it wouldn’t change the fact that it is wrong.
consider duke cunningham. busted for corruption and yet all you hear is how the democrats can’t pass strong anti corruption and lobbying legistlation. and yet, in the 10 years of republican control of congress, they didn’t do squat, didn’t raise a peep and in fact promoted wanton corruption. and now that the dems are “in power”, they simply whine and weep about how dems are hypocrits. yeah, that’s honesty for you, isn’t it.
back to al gore; what is the apples to apples comparison? how much energy he uses vs the energy use of an average rich politician? and the carbon credits he purchases vs the credits purchased by the average rich guy?
