This is fair article you’ve put together in the face of some pretty lop sided argument, and credit to you for critquing the article on the basis of the argument itself, rather that the ad hominem tangents. As it turns out, those off topic critiques are also false, ane have been refuted by both a USA today correction, and Gore’s own people. fyi - Here is a link from my site addressing the misleading statements.

Keep up the great work!

Good points! I think the ball is in Al Gore’s court if he wants to position himself as a climate change leader. (Will he run? Won’t he run?)

I assumed the author of the article was trying to poke holes in the underlying climate change argument by his statement:

“Maybe our very existence isn’t threatened.”

But realize this just might be a rhetorical device.

Ian

You are also correct in stating that the argument is not made invalid because of personal attributes of the arguer.

However, Peter’s article never questioned the validity of global warming. He questioned the congruency of Mr. Gore. Any leader that does not practice what he preaches will be suspect.

For example, you consult on executive presentations. If your website looked like a third-grader built it, would you be credible? I think not.

Also, Mr. Gore’s social status should not allow him to do things he is asking everyone else not to do.

The issue here is the congruency (brand totality) of Mr. Gore. He is trying to build his personal brand as environmetally friendly. But he is using a non-environmentally friendly process to build it.

p.s. I love your blog.

However, I think that Gore’s critics have a point if they say that his behavior is a measure of his conviction. (Isn’t that true for all leaders?) For instance, he could probably reduce his carbon footprint substantially just by flying first class rather than private jet. If he wants me to give up an SUV while he flies on a Gulfstream, he lacks credibility. But suppose he says, “I’ve changed my own lifestyle to reduce my carbon footprint by 25%. It’s an inconvenience to me, but worth it for the sake of the environment. I challenge you to match my 25% reduction.” Then middle-of-the-roaders are more likely to stand up and listen.