Re: E-85

Sigh! rexim, you still miss the point.

"would we be better off if Al Gore had not addressed these issues?"

No, and we may be worse off. As I said before, at this point, the US (and most of the world) is completely polarized by radicals on both sides. Gore just added to the divisiveness, with both sides digging their heels in and yelling louder, while the rational voices are getting drowned out. (putting on my "plague on both your houses hat") both Gore (in his books and "Inconvenient Truth") and his opponents are selectively distorting the actual science and using a lot of pseudoscience, such that those doing the real science can't get the real truth out, and the politicians are coming up with half-baked solutions without considering the consequences (just like the Australian colonists who introduced rabbits to control the "weeds", and now, a century later, are suffering serious environmental consequences, just to take one example).

"...don't demonize him for his private consumption ..."

Sorry, I am not "demonizing" him. Read what I wrote more carefully. To clarify - Gore would have made a significant contribution (and still can) if he had set an example, rather than engaging in polemics. Think about the message any public figure sends when preaching that everyone should reform or sacrifice, while at the same time very visibly practicing the very opposite of what they are demanding of everyone else. Your choice of words like "demonizing" and your earlier choice of "Can't a guy engage in a little hyperbole anymore?" is precisely what I was referring to in my comment above (and earlier) about society (American and worldwide) being polarized. Raise a question and the interpretation is the most extreme negative condemnation possible - "How DARE you question ..." and "How DARE you point out that the Emporer is naked?" In a very real sense, this is the same thing as Bush said - "if you're not with me, you are my enemy." Nooo, I don't blindly support either side in this polarized argument. There are serious environmental problems, one part of which is excessive energy use (or more directly, energy wastage), but most of the solutions being politically promoted will just worsen the situation.

How can the problems be corrected or practices of the general population be changed, if the public spokespersons and role models do not themselves practice "green" and show by their examples that life is indeed far more enjoyable by doing so? As long as Arnie drives his fleet of Hummers around (even if one uses biodiesel), Hummers and huge SUVs will be sought after and envied by a large segment of the population (I note that Hummer is now advertising that the H3 gets "20 miles per gallon" - hunh? coasting downhill with the engine shut off and the transmission in neutral?).

"If you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then we should just ignore the message because the messenger isn't performing as we expect he should."

Excuse me??? siiiggghhh ..... yet another example of twisting things to the most negative possible interpretation. What I said was simply that we hold public figures to a higher standard than the general population, and should do so, since these are the role models. People follow the examples more than the rhetoric. If Gore and many of the other self-styled public spokespersons were really sincere, they would make the effort to reduce their own personal environmental impact. Yes, I know that Gore is buying carbon credits, and that he "plans to install solar energy" systems (different reports have said different things about whether this is hot water for the pool, which is larger than my closest municipal swimming pool, or photovoltaics). But I have seen nothing about efforts to reduce the very high consumption rates, figured on either a per square foot or per person in the household.

See, I don't take the view that anyone is either an angel or a devil. Humans are just that - human. What I hope for (but maybe don't expect) is that people make the effort to act in the best long-term interests of the species, and that the leaders will lead by example. I do not believe that "some animals are more equal than others." Public figures are subject to more scrutiny than other people and hence are (and should be) expected to make more of an effort to set the desirable examples.

Would I refuse necessary heart surgery from an overweight but highly skilled surgeon? Yes, especially since I have the choice of a large number of highly skilled heart surgeons who practice what they preach and are trim and in shape, having taken personal steps to lower their own personal risk factors. And because I would fear that the guy would have a heart attack himself in the middle of surgery and fall over on me on the operating table, crushing me to death. Anyway, I already know how I am going to die - crushed into a grease spot by a giant redwood that topples over on me during one of my bike rides here in Earthquake Country during the Big One.

On that, my Primary-Care Physician and his wife ski with Barb and me in the backcountry a couple of times a season, as does my sports-medicine orthopedist. And one of my climbing partners from college days and frequent cycling companion is the head anesthesiologist in the hospital that I would be most likely to be operated on.