......on Al Gore?
Al Gore did not discover GW. The concept was around long before be started speaking out on it. Yet often, people who don't believe in GW often debate the issue ONLY using personal attacks on Al Gore. Now, before I get flamed too hard, I will state that SOME people who don't beleive in GW do spend some time researching their position and come up with generally reasonable questions and answers. But there seems to be some contingent who just can't separate the man from the issue. Why do you think this is?
2007-09-04 02:11:13 · 11 answers · asked by helloeveryone 3 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Mr. Jello and Pojo, that's exactly what I'm taking about. I'm NOT here to defend Al Gore, I'm just wondering why the issue gets constantly redirected towards personal attacks on him. What you say about him doesn't really bother me, I just wish people would be more focused on the real issue. Personally attacking Gore's faults is NOT debating Global Warming.
2007-09-04 02:26:16 · update #1
So what if HE won't debate the science. There are MANY MANY people who would love to. It just seems like so many people support there arguments ONLY with personal attacks on AG. Traderbobbin, the last question you posted is a perfect example.
2007-09-04 02:33:55 · update #2
Fair enough Pojo, my point is that many people out there can't help but throw in personal barbs at AG, and that really gets in the way of any real debate. Agree or not?
2007-09-04 02:38:26 · update #3
Too many people are attacking the messenger for personal reasons, while the message (whether you agree of not) often gets ignored.
2007-09-04 02:44:17 · update #4
afratta, He represents environmentalist worldwide???? Really? I don't remember him getting hired for that position.
2007-09-04 03:39:35 · update #5
3DM - I like your answer, even though we obviously aren't on the same side of this issue. I've followed this since the early 90's and have put quite a bit of thought into it. So I really hate to see the debate boil down to, "Al Gore is a hypocrite." Not everyone was pulled into this by AG and he isn't my leader. Often times, he seems to be used as a distractionary technique, though I agree with you that this kind of thing happens on both sides of the debate. Your answer was really the only one to get to the heart of the matter, and you gave some good reasoning as to why this happens. One last thing, you stated:
"but to dismiss, wholesale, their opinions based solely on the expressed opinions, simply polarizes the issue further."
If someone chimes in on this topic, and their ONLY argument is a personal attact on AG, then I have no choice but to dismiss it, as they really haven't given any argument at all. AG being a foolish hypocrite does not mean AGW is not happening.
2007-09-05 03:46:26 · update #6
Live by the sword; die by the sword.
You have to admit that a significant portion - probably the majority of those who "believe" in global warming (at least as represented here in Y!A) - have reached that personal decision not through careful analysis of the science, but through the popularization/politicization/polarization of Al Gore and the book or movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". You could search and see how many time his name or the movie is mentioned by "believers" here in Y!A and realize this.
And this is welcomed by the AGW crowd (otherwise there would be protests about the use of his movie in public schools and demanding it be replaced with genuine science, among many other instances of Gore's view supplanting the accepted views of AGW scientists.) So, when you accept the "good" that a spokesman brings, you have to accept the bad. Such is the nature of having a polarizing figure serving as a spokesman, official or not, telling the truth or something not quite resembling it. (One of the reason you won't see too many Republicans welcoming a Presidential endorsement - Bush is "tainted" such that he could speak the absolute truth and draw a negative response.)
Similarly, there are many who vocally oppose any notion of AGW wholly on the basis of Al Gore or liberal politics. And unfortunately, this only detracts from the issue that much more. I just don't see it as being simply one sided. Now, you can also see how responses such as Bob's or John Walkup's only serve to exacerbate the problem. Certainly, there are many who have been attracted to the issue in opposition to Gore and the politics of AGW, but to dismiss, wholesale, their opinions based solely on the expressed opinions, simply polarizes the issue further.
Well, I suppose I've rankled enough feathers on both sides of the issue, but that's about what you can expect in this "polar" issue...
2007-09-04 06:43:46 · answer #1 · answered by 3DM 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I do not take Al Gore seriously on anything since he proclaimed HE invented the Internet.
Look GW is a volatile subject and people have their own beliefs. The earth under goes many cycles and has for millions of years and will continue to do so whether we are here driving our SUVs or not.
Additional Comment
Uh excuse me but the way you ask the question means you wanted the Al Gore issue addressed so we did. If you want a debate about GW then my comment would simply have been
"Hogwash" to the topic of Global Warming and Gore would not even have been in the response.
2007-09-04 09:21:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Since they can't debate the facts, they pick a convenient target and make emotional arguments about his personal life.
They claim that Al Gore's personal life has meaning in a discussion about whether man made global warming is real or not. That claim starkly exposes the intellectual poverty of _all_ their arguments.
It's a pretty sure way to separate legitimate global warming skeptics from mindless global warming deniers.
2007-09-04 10:16:06 · answer #3 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What else have they got? Blogs? Personal Web sites? A thoroughly debunked set of myths? Their argument has two main points: (1) Al Gore (2) Farts
2007-09-04 09:49:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hmmm....because Al "the Tree" Gore attacks us first, maybe?
"No reasonable person denies...." is one of his favorite lines.
So if someone disagrees with him, that person is automatically "unreasonable."
"No reputable scientist opposes..."
Making anyone who disagrees with Al "disreputable."
Al couches his statements in such dogmatic certitude that to oppose him, you must either be stupid, insane, or paid off by "big oil."
He forgets to mention that science is ALWAYS supposed to be about debate - especially with the levels of uncertainty that remain regarding climate forcings.
2007-09-04 12:38:42 · answer #5 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The lion's share of personal attacks come from meteorological globophobes(GW believers) when they encounter a skeptic.
2007-09-04 09:46:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Algore got his money from his ownership in Occidental Petroleum and now he's attacking oil to increase his profits. Notice the price of gas since he's been on the "Truth Tour"?
His movie has no many inaccuracies in it that he had to use animated polar bears for effect. It's a work of fiction posing as fact.
He sets himself up. He gets what he deserves. Myself I wish he stick to comedy. I love him on SNL.
2007-09-04 09:20:21 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
because al gore took it upon himself to be the "pr man" for global warming.
he preaches conservation, but doesn't practice it.
why aren't YOU down on him for hurting the environment?
he represents enviromentalists wordwide, and greenies are HAPPY to have him.
2007-09-04 10:20:36 · answer #8 · answered by afratta437 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because he won't debate the science.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_gore_challenged_to_climate_debate.htm
2007-09-04 09:28:48 · answer #9 · answered by traderbobhn 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I believe that the naysayers do not know the
facts about global warning, therefore they do what
they can do and that is a personal attack.
2007-09-04 09:21:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋