Talk:Al Gore

Criticism of Al Gore

Why is there nothing in this article about the viable and very appropriate problems people have with the flaws in Al Gore's environmental policies. His science is very questionable and is not backed up by actual experts. I think this article is at least very misleading.

Whittakerchambers (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you review Wikipedia:Five pillars. Statements such as: "His science is very questionable and is not backed up by actual experts" need to be backed up by Wikipedia:Verifiability rules. This means that you would need sources which fall under Wikipedia:Reliable sources that support every statement added to the article. Gore is certainly backed up by a number of scientists. [1] Criticism is always appreciated in articles, but it has to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. If you have reliable sources which discuss criticism of his policies, then add them to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

However, what needs to be understood is that there are more than 32,000 scientists who disagree with Gore (who doesn't have a degree in science, and they are all scientists in fields dealing with "global warming"). The people reading this page cannot be misled like they have been. Gore is using the media to promote his views, while refusing to yield to actual experts.

Whittakerchambers (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the main article as I stated above - it is always fair to add criticisms to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What the petition indicates is that there are critics of Gore, it does not invalidate that he has supporters. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The AAPS is a biased, conservative group. Just look at their news articles: trying to rescind mandatory vaccinations, conservative talking-point alarm at the stimulus bill, links to Americans for Prosperity "back-door government health care takeover" literature, etc. etc. etc. And where are these 32,000 purported signatures? What are their qualifications in the field of global climate change? What exactly makes them "scientists" and why does that alone qualify them to make this judgment over someone else? How does this number contrast to the number of "scientist" that support global warming? Most Ph.D.s are granted in the field of philosophy; how does that qualify anyone to comment on global warming more than anyone else? And having a Ph.D. after your name doesn't mean you can't be a nutcase.

Frankly, this is more of an attack on global warming than Al Gore. Gore is simply a well-know face of the movement and any questioning of global warming has nothing to do with the man's biography. DKqwerty (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Are we seriously going to consider the Oregon petition as a reliable source on a BLP? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If I follow this reasoning re qualifications of scientists, and most Ph.Ds granted in philosophy, it would also follow that because most motor vehicles have 4 wheels and speed boats are motor vehicles, then most speed boats have 4 wheels. What good is it to provide a unlinked statistic like that, provide no references, and draw conclusions? Sheesh, if you don't do *some* leg-work, people won't take you seriously. You can see who has signed the petition here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ I've done the work of finding you the names. I'll let you pick out the PhDs from the list and track down their fields of research. Just don't forget to compare it to the fields of research of those endorsing Al Gore's viewpoint. If your criticism fails to drive home points with **real** information, people like me who look for information supported by facts will see your argument for the house of cards it is.Yamagawa (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, the Kyoto treaty and the UN IPCC are also biased. They depend on the U.S. for funding, and so they spread alarmist, incendiary dialogue to further their cause. If you don't understand that, then you do not deserve to comment on this issue, DKquerty. Try to limit your comments to helpful ones, and stop bowing to the liberal establishment.

Whittakerchambers (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore and Pandeism

I am not sure where to request this so it is going multiple places.

Conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein recently labeled Gore (along with Barack Obama's true faith as Pan-deism. He critiqued a New York Times column by Gail Collins, which is why it is titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins". Collins, so Finkelstein observes, noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week, and quotes the observation from Collins that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali". Finkelstein relates that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing. People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans."

So Finkelstein is saying is that Gore (along with Obama and other environmentalists) are pandeists. Based on his political pedigree, it's pretty clear he means that as an insult (his next comment is "These are the same people who tend to demand the strict separation of church and state. Yet they would have teachers indoctrinate children in their modern-day Church of Gaia in our public schools"). I personlly doubt that Obama or Gore is a pandeist, but is this speculation worthy of mention somewhere? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For the Gore or Obama article? No, probably not, as it is pretty much a fringe position/argument , and one made by a blogger, which does not satisfy our reliable source articles. The notion that the devotion and preparations leading up to Earth Day is bordering on religiosity does seem like an intriguing topic, but unless the topic has received a bit more mainstream coverage and commentary, I don't think that is going to meet the notability and reliable source guidelines either. Are more sources than lone bloggers talking about it? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess a blog just responding to this blog wouldn't count. I don't know how signifigant Mark Finkelstein is. I'm sure if Rush Limbaugh or Stephen Colbert said Gore and Obama were pandeists it would be more in line with what you're looking for, but I find nothing other than this one guy. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this gorepedia or WikiPedia?

How is there absolutely no criticism of this person. Why is his sons "accident" tied in with a book? Who wrote this wikipedia article, why is it permitted to be protected in the state it's in. It's one big complete PR blitz professionally written from start to end.

There is enough valid, verifiable criticism of gore to earn it's own Wikipedia page. This will be a new low if this type of activity is permitted.

Why not start the article, son of a coal miners wealth instead of environmental activist. Why not start it with his house blows through more resources then probably 10 families put together.

I know Wikipedia isn't the place to simply criticize but it's also not the place to have one big complete PR piece written for people.Woods01 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culuture" section

Why this article does not have one? For things like South Park cameo? This is just as important as official information is. Netrat (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Environmental activist article

Perhaps an environmental activist article can be made, this allows the biggest environmental activists to be added. See [2] Note that other documentary makers as Yann Arthus Bertrand can be listed too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.172.175 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Second presidential run (2000)" Section

Some UCLA professor says that Gore's claim that he "created the Internet" is an Urban legend, so Wikipedia completely buys this weak attempt at changing what Gore actually said? There is no opposing view? Since when does a UCLA professor from a far-left liberal school dictate what is an "urban legend" regarding a far-left liberal political figure?

Actual Gore quote - In context: CNN's "Late Edition" March 9, 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his Bill Bradley of New Jersey for the Democratic Nomination, Gore replied:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That's the quote. Gore said it - on national TV, 30 years after the Internet began. The only ones calling this an urban legend are the far-left blogs trying to cover it up.

I'm sorry, but the radical left-wing control of Wikipedia is getting far beyond blatant.

--216.114.194.20 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE:

• The article includes the exact quote ... in context.

“ I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. ”

• The quote does not say "invented" (The "urban legend" was that "Gore claimed to have invented the internet.") The "noise" comes from his choice of phrasing "creating the Internet" in an impromptu answer on camera. (The "noise" also comes from people with their panties in twist screaming ARPANET=INTERNET ... etc etc)
• The discussion following the exact quote is approximately 550 words long.
• In the extended discussion of the phrasing: "Former Republican Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich also stated: "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is -- and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group" -- the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen."[101]
• It is the habit of our culture to take every imperfect choice of phrasing of a public figure, and turn it into something of profound significance ... if that suits someone's purposes.
• Gore did not put on his resume: "Invented the internet." He did not in a written speech say: "I invented the Internet." He did not in a commercial have someone say ... "I'm voting for Gore because he invented the internet."
• Would it have been more felicitous to have chosen the phrasing "I took the political initiative in transforming the existing infrastructure developed for the military into a popular and useful feature of our civil society: the Internet" ... (or perhaps just: "I took the initiate in creating the Internet as we know it?") ... rather than briefly "I took the initiate in creating the Internet?" Perhaps but ...

Shouting "Gore is a big bragging liar ... claims he invented the Internet" is political rhetoric. It is not an encyclopedic examination of what he said. That is what the article contains—as it should. (Shouting things that aren't true may have gotten Bush into the White House, and America into Iraq, but not bullshit about Gore into Wikipedia. For B.S. you'll have to go to a conservative-worshiping article :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore Evironmental Record

Can the MSNBC reference be eliminated. countdown which is an opinion based show (and a misleading one) should not be considered a source. Also there is definite proof of Gore's Carbon footprint. Also his lack of knowledge has been documented by recognized authorities like Bjorn Lomberg in the Skeptical EnvironmentalistTannim1 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)