3 ms·

> Al Gore's hypocrisy and profit seeking were the cause of whatever harm was done to climate change awareness. Well clearly Matt & Trey disagree now. It is qu

> Al Gore's hypocrisy and profit seeking were the cause of whatever harm was done to climate change awareness. Well clearly Matt & Trey disagree now. It is quite funny that very few people are actually able to come up with valid criticisms for his climate change advocacy, which wasn't even on the more alarmist side of climate change in 2006.

leereeves 8y ago
> very few people are actually able to come up with valid criticisms I guess that depends on what you mean by "valid" but I think his plan to profit from carbon trading was a clear conflict of interest. All the conservative people I know are aware of this, so it also depends on who you know. And if those conservatives find out that Matt & Trey now think they should have kept this a secret to avoid damaging Gore's climate change advocacy, that will only reinforce their distrust of climate change advocates.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  Al Gore made more from the Google IPO in 05/06 than from his climate change advocacy, which is something he pioneered since when he was a conservative Democrat from Tennessee. The idea that it’s a conflict of interest is silly in the grand scheme of things.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    He was trying to convince people to sacrifice their own lifestyle for the sake of the distant future. Giving people a reason to think his efforts were a money-making scheme was just stupid.
    - akhilcacharya 8y ago
      This is such a silly canard, outside of the eco-primitivists nobody serious is advocating for wholesale lifestyle deflation.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        The laughably impotent response to climate change is another issue altogether. Al Gore was telling us that burning fossil fuels was going to destroy the world. The only appropriate response, if that were true, would be immediate "wholesale lifestyle deflation".
        akhilcacharya 8y ago
        > The only appropriate response, if that were true, That is an absurdly narrow viewpoint for a website dedicated to news about technological advances. I'm honestly astonished.
        leereeves 8y ago
        Your attitude is inappropriate on a website dedicated to rational discussion. Also, you must be unaware of what Al Gore was saying. "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted horrible things would happen by 2015. That was a very common prediction in the 90s, actually. We're past that now and technological advance is nowhere near eliminating or even reducing climate change. It was obvious even in the 90s that zero-carbon technology wouldn't be ready for decades. The only solution to the doomsday prediction Al Gore was selling 20 years ago was immediate drastic action (which even the Democrats never actually had the will to call for).

leereeves 8y ago

> very few people are actually able to come up with valid criticisms I guess that depends on what you mean by "valid" but I think his plan to profit from carbon trading was a clear conflict of interest. All the conservative people I know are aware of this, so it also depends on who you know. And if those conservatives find out that Matt & Trey now think they should have kept this a secret to avoid damaging Gore's climate change advocacy, that will only reinforce their distrust of climate change advocates.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
Al Gore made more from the Google IPO in 05/06 than from his climate change advocacy, which is something he pioneered since when he was a conservative Democrat from Tennessee. The idea that it’s a conflict of interest is silly in the grand scheme of things.
- leereeves 8y ago
  He was trying to convince people to sacrifice their own lifestyle for the sake of the distant future. Giving people a reason to think his efforts were a money-making scheme was just stupid.
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    This is such a silly canard, outside of the eco-primitivists nobody serious is advocating for wholesale lifestyle deflation.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The laughably impotent response to climate change is another issue altogether. Al Gore was telling us that burning fossil fuels was going to destroy the world. The only appropriate response, if that were true, would be immediate "wholesale lifestyle deflation".
      - akhilcacharya 8y ago
        > The only appropriate response, if that were true, That is an absurdly narrow viewpoint for a website dedicated to news about technological advances. I'm honestly astonished.
        leereeves 8y ago
        Your attitude is inappropriate on a website dedicated to rational discussion. Also, you must be unaware of what Al Gore was saying. "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted horrible things would happen by 2015. That was a very common prediction in the 90s, actually. We're past that now and technological advance is nowhere near eliminating or even reducing climate change. It was obvious even in the 90s that zero-carbon technology wouldn't be ready for decades. The only solution to the doomsday prediction Al Gore was selling 20 years ago was immediate drastic action (which even the Democrats never actually had the will to call for).