So, I googled 'global warming is a hoax', and conveniently came up with a site called 'globalwarminghoax.com'. It's exactly the kind of site you'd expect, except that they state that they are not in any way related to religious motivations.
I found an article that describes the new mansion purchased by Al Gore. In it, there are several images provided, as well as some of the environmentally unfriendly aspects of the house.
- Several electrically pumped fountains
- Six carbon-burning fireplaces
- Five huge bedrooms / 9 huge bathrooms
I assume they only included the bedrooms and bathrooms because, as they state afterward, they are unsure of the square footage of the house.
The article continues to comment that Gore flies tens of thousands of miles per year for his fight against global warming, and makes millions of dollars doing it.
Basically, the article is trying to discredit Al Gore's environmental claims by showing that he doesn't live the things he preaches, and that there is an enormous monetary incentive for his political aims. The idea is that, obviously, if you can argue the source as questionable, the information it provides follows suit. In doing this, the website is able to discredit scientific observations without providing any of their own: it's both the classic tactic of 'if i bash my opponent, his views are invalidated' and 'if my opponent is wrong, then I must be correct' at work.
I think that part of what makes this kind of argument so effective is that so many of the loudest environmental voices live the same kind of lifestyle. It's enormously unfriendly to the environment to travel on an airplane all the time, which is part of why I think it smells fishy to a lot of people when folks like Al Gore tells us all that we should buy really expensive light bulbs. This isn't to say that his science is off....but it is to say that he seems to waive the result of his own science in the name of "doing good" (spreading the word about global warming).
ReplyDeleteArgumentatively, I think that this kind of tactic is always really unsound and particularly so when it comes to causes that seek to promote any kind of overthrow of the way we do business as usual because living in a system necessitates engagement with that system (so we all end up being hypocrites sometimes). Still, that doesn't really undo the satisfaction that can arise when "do-gooders" are busted 'doing bad.'
Its funny because I remember the same argument from when the movie first came out about his Tennessee house. Although the article never mentioned that Al Gore was working on remodeling his house at the time. The remodeling included putting up solar panels, rainwater-collection system, and other energy efficient products.
ReplyDeleteReally the best way to keep your carbon foot print down is taking what you already have and making it better. If he just went and bought some land tore down a house and built an efficient house it wouldn't be well, very efficient.
This always bamboozels me. Giving your possessions to the poor and following---well, following anything--probably won't build the revolution by itself. But it LOOKS SO BAD, Al.
ReplyDelete