http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm

i think i've seen this movie before. disagree with the message... attack the messenger. Well done my evil friend, well done.

i think i've seen this movie before. disagree with the message... attack the messenger. Well done my evil friend, well done.

 

The irony is, I didn't see you respond to anything in the article

Gores' green commitment

 

The op-ed attacking former vice president Al Gore's environmental record was extremely misleading.

 

Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

 

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero.

 

He has long since switched to a hybrid car and was already in the process of adding solar photovoltaic units to his home before the commentary was published.

 

In addition, the Gores have donated 100% of all the profits from his movie and book to the fight against global-warming pollution.

 

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.

 

Rather than vilifying a person who is trying to make a difference, wouldn't it be more fruitful for Schweizer to join the effort to solve the climate crisis?

 

Kalee Kreider, communications director

 

Office of Al Gore and Tipper Gore

 

Nashville

Link. Additional Link...USA Today correction.

In a column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

At worst, great message, poor messenger. Also, poor and misleading reporting by the damn liberal press trying to make a conservative like Al Gore look bad.

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.

 

That is interesting wording. His "father's stock" was sold off, did Al hold any, and did he sell it? Plus if his father was dead, how was it "his fathers stock"? Wasn't it then his stock? He inheriteded it right? Why not just say he sold that off? Plus it leaves a tec

 

Also, why would it take Gore so long to actually divest the Zinc mine? He had already long since written his book, and was probably pretty far into production on his movie, not to mention he had already made his run for President.

That is interesting wording. His "father's stock" was sold off, did Al hold any, and did he sell it? Plus if his father was dead, how was it "his fathers stock"? Wasn't it then his stock? He inheriteded it right? Why not just say he sold that off? Plus it leaves a tec

 

Also, why would it take Gore so long to actually divest the Zinc mine? He had already long since written his book, and was probably pretty far into production on his movie, not to mention he had already made his run for President.

I think the idea was that his father owned the stock, and then when he died, the stock was in his father's estate. The estate then sold the stock. Doesn't sound like he ever owned it.

 

But all this is nitpicking anyway. The article was weak in the first place, finding a couple small tidbits about Gore's non-green activities and trying to crucify him with them. Turns out they weren't even accurate. Pretty weak sauce. Gore appears to actually put his money where is mouth is, which I must admit, is more than I do for the environment. Kudos to Al on this topic.

I think the idea was that his father owned the stock, and then when he died, the stock was in his father's estate. The estate then sold the stock. Doesn't sound like he ever owned it.

 

But all this is nitpicking anyway. The article was weak in the first place, finding a couple small tidbits about Gore's non-green activities and trying to crucify him with them. Turns out they weren't even accurate. Pretty weak sauce. Gore appears to actually put his money where is mouth is, which I must admit, is more than I do for the environment. Kudos to Al on this topic.

 

Its just like anything. When you hold yourself up as a moral authority on anything, there are people who are going to make sure that you aren't hiding in a glasshouse. It doesn't surprise me at all, as this is done everyday... Just ask people like Pat Robertson.

Its just like anything. When you hold yourself up as a moral authority on anything, there are people who are going to make sure that you aren't hiding in a glasshouse. It doesn't surprise me at all, as this is done everyday... Just ask people like Pat Robertson.

Then, as a journalist, you'd better have your information straight. Otherwise, you look like a fool, like this guy did.

Its just like anything. When you hold yourself up as a moral authority on anything, there are people who are going to make sure that you aren't hiding in a glasshouse. It doesn't surprise me at all, as this is done everyday... Just ask people like Pat Robertson.

 

I don't think advocating and encouraging policy change is nearly the same thing as claiming yourself a "moral authority."

I don't think advocating and encouraging policy change is nearly the same thing as claiming yourself a "moral authority."

 

Well to me, telling people to change their behaviors because you believe there is a better way to live life is pretty much the definition of a moral authority, at least to me. Right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter.

Al Gore is such a phony

 

everyone needs to conserve! well, everyone except him and his elite pals (of course).

 

 

 

I don't think advocating and encouraging policy change is nearly the same thing as claiming yourself a "moral authority."

 

 

i think if you want to get on your 'soap box' and preach about the enviroment you better be taking all the steps you are encouraging.

 

Well to me, telling people to change their behaviors because you believe there is a better way to live life is pretty much the definition of a moral authority, at least to me. Right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter.

 

exactly. i'm actually suprised the democrats on this board are defending Gore on this.

 

Then, as a journalist, you'd better have your information straight. Otherwise, you look like a fool, like this guy did.

 

 

he had one fact about a zinc mine wrong. not even close to a NY times or Dan Rather blunder. the main parts of the article were not retracted as far as i can tell.

Al Gore is such a phony

 

everyone needs to conserve! well, everyone except him and his elite pals (of course).

i think if you want to get on your 'soap box' and preach about the enviroment you better be taking all the steps you are encouraging.

exactly. i'm actually suprised the democrats on this board are defending Gore on this.

he had one fact about a zinc mine wrong. not even close to a NY times or Dan Rather blunder. the main parts of the article were not retracted as far as i can tell.

Are you serious? The article was wrong on the mine, wrong on the stock and wrong on solar cells (partially). That eliminates virtually every point they tried to make. The article was utter crap.

 

As for the NYT, I am not sure which controversy you are referring to, but I didn't see the NYT publish any articles or even any op columns where virtually all the points in "fact" were incorrect.

Are you serious? The article was wrong on the mine, wrong on the stock and wrong on solar cells (partially). That eliminates virtually every point they tried to make. The article was utter crap.

 

As for the NYT, I am not sure which controversy you are referring to, but I didn't see the NYT publish any articles or even any op columns where virtually all the points in "fact" were incorrect.

 

a) relax

 

b ) the retraction i saw only mentioned the mines

 

c) the NY Times is notorious for false information and late retractions. hell, guys that worked there would just completely make up stories.

 

d) yes, i seriously think Al Gore is a total hypocrite.

Edited August 18, 200619 yr by mr_genius

Well to me, telling people to change their behaviors because you believe there is a better way to live life is pretty much the definition of a moral authority, at least to me. Right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter.

 

Then I don't believe there is anyone on the planet that could tell people to change. Like Jesus said, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

 

"Mom, that hurt!"*

 

Added for comedic value, not to detract from m point.