What is he doing, making flubber?

What dumb PR, he looks like the absent minded professor. That is not the desk of a future President of the United States. Did Naomi Wolf come in and do the office in Earth tones?

A few points. Does anyone believe he read all that stuff on his desk? His slideshow called “An Inconvenient Truth”, which he DID NOT win an Oscar for, was made by other people. They are the ones that actually won the Oscar.

Isn’t this man Al Gore closer to B.T. Barnum than Albert Einstein?

By Number9 on 05.23.07 1:59 pm

He also is using overhead lights that we can’t see, probably leaves his screens on at all times, and what about all of the natural resources he using up in the form up paper, etc.?

By DG on 05.23.07 2:35 pm

Continuous bashing of Al Gore – who is not running for any political office – really makes the wingnuts look desperate. You can put down your sticks and stones now, he’s no threat. Similarly pathetic is the way wingnuts are clinging to Fred Thompson as their only hope – who as of yet is not running either.

Gore is graduated with Honors from Harvard and served in Vietnam. A smart person. Thompson is a laywer turned actor turned politician who has had reputation for being lazy since his high school days.

By Jon on 05.23.07 3:52 pm

The Smithsonian Institute is being investigated by Congress for altering publicly presented scientific information in response to pressure from the White House or Members of Congress. This is an attempt to suppress evidence that human activity is contributing to global warming.

What side of the aisle do you think this pressure to alter scientific findings is coming from?

The ignorant denialist side, no doubt.

By Kristy on 05.23.07 4:01 pm

Jon, from your lips to Al Gores ears. I hope he does run. I hope he runs against Fred Thompson and this country can finally have a real debate on political ideology.

By Number9 on 05.23.07 4:43 pm

Ooooh, I like it Number 9. That would be awesome.

By Terry on 05.23.07 5:56 pm

Ha, great post. Thanks Terry.

By Ned on 05.24.07 4:07 pm

When the (crack)pot calls the kettle black and tries to tell the kettle how to live then that pot makes themself an issue.

By Chip on 05.24.07 6:55 pm

How much energy use and emissions should an environmental activist be allowed?

By SemiPundit on 05.24.07 11:24 pm

This breaking news just in, the earth is still killing people not vice versa.

By Malcolm Tent on 05.25.07 12:23 am

And my question?

By SemiPundit on 05.25.07 12:28 pm

Malcom, you are correct, since our occupation of a place in our ecosystem, which extends at least to our sun, depends on our ability to adapt and cope with the threats and opportunities before us. As is often the case, sometimes the most innocent of decisions on our part can mean the end of us as individuals. For example, gravity always wins.

And the answer to my question above?

By SemiPundit on 05.26.07 3:16 pm

You’re the activist on this issue, Semipundit. Perhaps you should outline what you believe is an “allowable” amount of energy consumption per person. I don’t see Malcolm advocating for limitations.

By Terry on 05.27.07 6:12 am

Terry you are correct, I do not advocate for limitations. I figure if we ruin the earth we will just “evolve” into a new species that can handle the new harsher enviroment. Maybe we will grow gills like that Kevin Costner movie. Since humanity is nothing special (just another link in the evolutionary chain) we really have nothing to fear in our activity. I say let’s do what we want and let evolution handle the consequences. Trying to keep the earth unchanged is selfish and a crime against the evolutionary process.

By Malcolm Tent on 05.27.07 9:22 am

What I am actually getting at is a counter to the idea of the “environmental hypocrite”. It seems that in order to satisfy those who are critical of proponents like Mr. Gore, such activists, in the course of disseminating their message, would necessarily be limited in their use of resources to the point of being unable to disseminate the message. You guys have hit paydirt on this tactic.

I thought someone might rise up with a possible suggestion that activists use only the amount of resources that an average family uses, for example, as has been suggested for Mr. Gore, who uses his home as a workplace for his activities. It follows, then, that those who are not encumbered, like perhaps Rush Limbaugh, could figuratively clear cut a forest to host a giant barbecue for thousands of his followers. Rush and his guests, of course, would not have to be concerned, since they can consume all that they can afford to pay for. It’s neat when a person decides that such constraints don’t exist for him or her.

Malcom, beginning the millisecond after the earth someday plunges into the sun, it will be no different than if we had never even been here.

By SemiPundit on 05.28.07 12:14 am

Just to clarify, should Rush be expected to be responsible and use only as much resources as an average American family?

By SemiPundit on 05.28.07 12:16 am

And who decides, Semipundit? Big brother? That is the point of Gore’s hypocrisy on this one. I think you understand that. Gore would love to be in a position of authority where he could tell the masses what to do, yet while the masses are limited, the elites fly on gulf streams, have gas laterns and heated pools, and three screens to surf the net.

Should we conserve? Yes. Should we be responsible stewards of the earth? Yes. Should some government hack say I can’t fly to visit my aunt this summer because I’ve exceeded my carbon emissions for the year? No.

Hedrick Smith wrote a book called the Russians. Check it out. It’s not a political tome. It’s about Russian life. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

By Terry on 05.28.07 4:25 am