New Republic: Al Gore’s Massive Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter Or Something

In case you hadn’t noticed, I’ve mentioned the whole “practice what you preach” thing when it comes to Warmists and their pet cult for over a decade of blogging now, because few actually do more than make a few token changes in their own lives, yet, they want to force Everyone Else to make changes in their lives at the end of the government sword. And here we have something fun, via Just One Minute, where Tom Maguire notes that “words speak louder than actions so stop hating you haters”, as the New Republic’s Emily Atkin takes a shot at defending climahypocrisy

Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter
Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It’s a deceitful, disingenuous argument.

Al Gore is back in the spotlight with his new documentary, An Inconvenient Sequel, making him a top target again of the right-wing counter-intel complex. On Thursday, the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research released a report, “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality,” that paints the former vice president as a hypocritical climate advocate. In near-creepy detail, NCPPR author Drew Johnson maps Gore’s home in Nashville, Tennessee, down to the number of windows, and concludes that “Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year with no sign of slowing down.” Johnson also slams Gore’s numerous attempts to modernize his home through energy efficiency, solar panels, and geothermal heating, saying they have been inadequate in offsetting his energy use.

Emily later notes that Gore isn’t the only Warmist who’s taken shots for being a climahypocrite. Interestingly, she inadvertently lays out the case that all these folks pushing anthropogenic climate change, are, in fact, hypocrites, before finally arriving at her actual argument

The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself. That’s why you only see groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research releasing “studies” on Gore’s energy use. NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests,

Isn’t that schtick about oil interests exactly what Emily just railed against, a redirection? Anyhow, it’s not up to Skeptics to debunk AGW (though that has been done many, many times, including by Warmists themselves, who trot out false studies, models that fail, etc), it’s up to Warmists to prove their hypothesis using the Scientific Method.

advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists. “The world isn’t warming,” the group falsely claimed in a 2014 paper arguing against climate regulations. Thus, it’s in their interest to try to undermine one of the most effective advocates of aggressive climate action.

We don’t deny warming, we deny that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. But, this is all a deflectionary argument, moving on to

But the hypocrisy charge simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An anti-abortion advocate who believes abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but gets one herself, is a hypocrite. But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. They’re asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming.

Um, if they’re asking others to practice what they preach while refusing to do the same, that would make them…..hypocrites! And, as Tom Maguire points out, they aren’t asking: they’re demanding that Government pass laws that force compliance.

But the most unfortunate aspect of this argument is how it misleads vulnerable populations. Rich people like Gore and DiCaprio and Obama won’t be affected by climate change.

Nor will they be affected by ‘climate change’ policies. They have enough money to avoid all the negatives of rising taxes, fees, energy and food costs, a general cost of living increase, and restrictive government policies. The middle and lower classes will, though.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “New Republic: Al Gore’s Massive Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter Or Something”

  1. Alan McIntire says:

    I read that “New Republic” article. Unfortunately, I couldn’t respond to them on that site. The article was arguing that it wasn’t Gore’s fault, it is the responsibility of the GOVERNMENT to make sure we use less energy. Sort of like a drug addict blaming the drug dealer for his addiction, or an alcoholic blaming liquor stores for his drunken behavior.

Pirate's Cove