Like Hatz said, he was doing all kinds of things for the environment before and while he was VP but never had the time take the issue head on until he was out of office. I still can't believe out of all of the people in this country making millions from peoples suffering, Gore is the one you continue to belittle for doing it while promoting a good cause.

His bank account isn't a good cause. I don't belittle anyone for making money, I do belittle people for money making schemes.

So he was an Eco-nut already and he found a way to dupe people and make money off of it, wow, I'm so impressed.

I haven't really debated anything on global warming. Posting in this thread does not = debating :lol:.

When you argue a point of someone else, it's called debating. :lol: :lol: :lol:

That doesn't mean all of his money comes from speaking.

 

I know, but TB&G asked about speaking fees specifically.

Like Hatz said, he was doing all kinds of things for the environment before and while he was VP but never had the time take the issue head on until he was out of office. I still can't believe out of all of the people in this country making millions from peoples suffering, Gore is the one you continue to belittle for doing it while promoting a good cause.

 

I suspect his reasons are the same as those who get bent out of shape when Bono speaks about forgiving third world debt, when Sean Penn speaks out against the war in Iraq, or Oprah Winfrey starts a school in Africa for girls. Apparently, if the cause doesn't match their interests (meaning the detractors of the above), then the person bringing the attention to issues ignored is somehow guilty of something less than noble. If they don't live in sackcloths and eat out of trash cans, they must only be using the issues to bring attention to themselves. The can't understand how someone could feel that using their fame to bring attention to a need is how they feel they can make a difference.

His bank account isn't a good cause. I don't belittle anyone for making money, I do belittle people for money making schemes.

So he was an Eco-nut already and he found a way to dupe people and make money off of it, wow, I'm so impressed.

How is it a scheme if it's already been proven that he truly cared about the cause before money was ever involved? You're starting to stretch and it's pretty obvious you hate the guy for no real reason and you just enjoy putting him down because he believes in something you don't.

When you argue a point of someone else, it's called debating. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

What point (related to global warming and not just about where Al Gore makes his money) did I argue?

 

I pointed out to someone that ice isn't supposed to melt in the arctic in the summer, but I clearly stated in that very post that I was not saying it was or was not going to melt, just that it isn't supposed to. Not sure which post you are referring to.

I suspect his reasons are the same as those who get bent out of shape when Bono speaks about forgiving third world debt, when Sean Penn speaks out against the war in Iraq, or Oprah Winfrey starts a school in Africa for girls. Apparently, if the cause doesn't match their interests (meaning the detractors of the above), then the person bringing the attention to issues ignored is somehow guilty of something less than noble. If they don't live in sackcloths and eat out of trash cans, they must only be using the issues to bring attention to themselves. The can't understand how someone could feel that using their fame to bring attention to a need is how they feel they can make a difference.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but aren't Bono and especially Penn & Winfrey doing that good but NOT lining their pockets with the money? You know what I am saying? I don't think RTS is against Gore being rich, but the fact that he is exponentially making himself richer, and using this cause to do so.

I suspect his reasons are the same as those who get bent out of shape when Bono speaks about forgiving third world debt, when Sean Penn speaks out against the war in Iraq, or Oprah Winfrey starts a school in Africa for girls. Apparently, if the cause doesn't match their interests (meaning the detractors of the above), then the person bringing the attention to issues ignored is somehow guilty of something less than noble. If they don't live in sackcloths and eat out of trash cans, they must only be using the issues to bring attention to themselves. The can't understand how someone could feel that using their fame to bring attention to a need is how they feel they can make a difference.

Oh please, it's Al Gore we're talking about. He’s not near as righteous as you make him out to be. Same goes for that nut job Bono who speaks out both sides of his mouth.

Gore has been caught time and again in lies and half truths to promote himself and he just gets richer and richer off of those he has duped. Every time he’s called on one of his lies he claims there’s nothing to debate and the “non-believers” are “flat earthers”.

What point (related to global warming and not just about where Al Gore makes his money) did I argue?

 

I pointed out to someone that ice isn't supposed to melt in the arctic in the summer, but I clearly stated in that very post that I was not saying it was or was not going to melt, just that it isn't supposed to. Not sure which post you are referring to.

Bit of a stretch, HB.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but aren't Bono and especially Penn & Winfrey doing that good but NOT lining their pockets with the money? You know what I am saying? I don't think RTS is against Gore being rich, but the fact that he is exponentially making himself richer, and using this cause to do so.

I think that it is more of a by product of the issue the person is taking on. Global Warming is something that effects everybody as opposed to educating kids in Africa. I'm not saying I necessarily believe in Global Warming but it's an issue that if you're trying to take on, you NEED everyone to hear about it hence the term global. Thus, things like the movie and books and numerous speeches to people all over the globe and people of extremely high importance is much more required to combat the issue. Could he make less money and still do it? Yes, but he isn't forcing anyone to believe in Global Warming and he isn't reaching into their pockets and stealing their money. Not to mention people like Bono and Oprah have other things going on that they have to attend to much like Gore when he was in office and did plenty of things on the side to help the environment non-profit.

 

(I'm not directing all of this at you but you brought up a good point.)

Bit of a stretch, HB.

 

Here's my post.

 

That doesn't mean all of his money comes from speaking.

 

That is me debating on Global Warming in your eyes? I'm not the one stretching here RTS...

How is it a scheme if it's already been proven that he truly cared about the cause before money was ever involved? You're starting to stretch and it's pretty obvious you hate the guy for no real reason and you just enjoy putting him down because he believes in something you don't.

I saw no proof. You have some? Interest in something doesn't mean the guy really cares about it. I have lots of interests, but I don't care passionately about them.

Here's my post.

 

 

 

That is me debating on Global Warming in your eyes? I'm not the one stretching here RTS...

Sure you are, the original post had to do with him making money off of speaking on Global Warming. Nice try though.

I saw no proof. You have some? Interest in something doesn't mean the guy really cares about it. I have lots of interests, but I don't care passionately about them.

Feel free to look up all of the beneficial things he did in environmental law before and during office.

I think that it is more of a by product of the issue the person is taking on. Global Warming is something that effects everybody as opposed to educating kids in Africa. I'm not saying I necessarily believe in Global Warming but it's an issue that if you're trying to take on, you NEED everyone to hear about it hence the term global. Thus, things like the movie and books and numerous speeches to people all over the globe and people of extremely high importance is much more required to combat the issue. Could he make less money and still do it? Yes, but he isn't forcing anyone to believe in Global Warming and he isn't reaching into their pockets and stealing their money. Not to mention people like Bono and Oprah have other things going on that they have to attend to much like Gore when he was in office and did plenty of things on the side to help the environment non-profit.

 

(I'm not directing all of this at you but you brought up a good point.)

A by-product? :lol: He invested a lot of money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products. Come on, give me a break here. :lol: