There is nothing wrong with influential people requesting some compensation for their speeches. But Al Gore is going too far.
The former Vice President and now global warming prophet Gore is getting kicked around a bit for his pricey appearance at a London function. It appears that, among other things Gore received, he charged over 3000 British pounds per minute of his green lecture. Just to make it worse (or better), Gore’s speech was given lukewarm reviews, and his persona towards the patrons (who paid no cheap change to get in the place themselves) is not exactly winning friends and influencing people.
Why be concerend about this? Simply because it’s not an isolated thing. The Follywood elite have decided to make global warming the supreme moral issue of their time–as they fly in their private jets, ride around in their limousines and charge through the nose for their enlightenment. Wouldn’t it be more persuasive, just to the average person, if global warming pundits actually acted like they really do care about what they’re talking about? Is that too much to ask?
I don’t care whether or not you think global warming is real. The point is that the people who told you it was are not. Al Gore either believes his issue is of critical moral importance, second only to his personal wealth, or he believes that global warming is a useful media tool but not worth serious sacrifice. Either way, I think the temperature just went down.
I’m no Al Gore fan, I didn’t vote for him, and I’m not a sky-is-falling global warming nut, but this little post seems missing the usual clear thinking I see here.
If I follow you arguments correctly it seems you are saying that it’s OK to be compensated for speeches, but $X is too much in Gore’s case because:
1. It wasn’t worth the money since he got some poor reviews according to a newspaper with a conservative bias.
2. He’s being hypocritical by burning all the fossil fuel it takes to travel to places to deliver his message; actually you don’t say that directly — you say you think he’d be more “persuasive.” I’ve heard this before and I think it’s simplistic.
You then make a hasty generalization by applying Al Gore’s behavior to “global warming pundits” in general. Followed by a whole paragraph filled with logical fallacies. Your “I don’t care” statement is a red herring — obviously you do care. You present a genetic fallacy by implication when saying it doesn’t matter whether global warming is real, the people who told you are not (another generalization). You then introduce a bifurcation/false dilemma fallacy by saying Al Gore believes either X or Y.
This post is a textbook case for how not to present an well constructed argument. You use a single, biased source, make generalizations and assumptions and numerous logical fallacies. It’s a shame because I think there may actually be a story in there somewhere.
Scott,
Instead of just dismissing my piece out of hand with abstract accusations of errant logic, why not actually refute what I said?
1) You claim The Daily Mail has a conservative slant? I need some evidence of this, especially in regards to global warming. European newspapers have, as a resounding whole, been extremely kind (and Yes Mannish) to Mr. Gore’s crusade. You need to prove your thesis, not just offer talking points which you sincerely hope will be backed up by the next guy who comments.
2) You say my argument is simplistic, but never say how. How is that simplistic? It is simple. A man truly convinced, as Mr. Gore is, that the earth is in serious trouble due to man-made attacks on the enviorment would be reasonably expected to act like THAT INCLUDES HIM. I’m not necessarily singling out Gore on this, but it is a common site to see the Green Police jump out of their jet to give another lecture. You need to refute this, not just dismiss it.
3) My statement means that regardless of whether or not you feel Mr. Gore is correct in what he’s doing, you cannot ignore the double standard he’s using. This post never once presumes that global warming is a false notion; it simply questions the integrity of monopolizing one’s influence for material.
Your comment seems to WANT to be a refutation, but falls woefully short.
[...] In other news, Al Gore beat Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize and gets a nice hefty $1.6 million to do with as he pleases. Of course in the not-too-distant future that will seem like petty cash since Gore is raking it in with speeches. [...]
Sam:
I was trying to do was understand what your argument was.
And actually in your third point I think you have clarified what your position is (and correct me if I’m wrong): that Al Gore is being hypocritical in pursuing his agenda.
If that is, indeed, your point, then I’m not sure your post really backs this up. And, as I said, I think you could make a more effective argument for that.
Let me try to be more clear about my thoughts.
OP said:
“It appears that, among other things Gore received, he charged over 3000 British pounds per minute of his green lecture. Just to make it worse (or better), Gore’s speech was given lukewarm reviews, and his persona towards the patrons (who paid no cheap change to get in the place themselves) is not exactly winning friends and influencing people.”
That is, according to one source. Just to be clear here, I’m a free market kinda guy: if Al can get £3K/min for a speech, more power to him. But is this high? That’s £200K/hr. A few Google searches shows me that Bill Clinton gets $350K, Giuliani was getting $100K, and even Ken Burns can command $50K. Gore’s not quite a former President (ha), but he has now won a basketful of awards, including a Nobel. And he’s definitely hot in a way that, say, Colin Powell is now not. Pre-Nobel it looks like Gore was getting as much as Giuliani:
http://sigwang.blogspot.com/2007/07/al-gores-100000-speaking-contract.html
So maybe Gore’s price tag was a little much, but I’m not seeing the facts saying the cost was outrageous or that he’s “going too far”, especially considering this event seemed geared towards the wealthy.
In addition, if you’re saying that the money he is making is NOT going towards the marketing machine that is spreading his word about global warming, but is instead lining his own pockets, we need to see some facts behind this as well.
OP said:
“The Follywood elite have decided to make global warming the supreme moral issue of their time–as they fly in their private jets, ride around in their limousines and charge through the nose for their enlightenment”
You’ve jumped now to criticizing an undefined group of people. Who are these “elite?” I ask honestly, because, if I imagine making this case to my peers, I will be asked to back up this claim with names. And “Follywood” — well, you betray some of your bias right there. Facts are generally more persuasive than name calling.
OP said:
“Wouldn’t it be more persuasive, just to the average person, if global warming pundits actually acted like they really do care about what they’re talking about?”
As far being “persuasive” — well that’s a conversation unto itself. What is the best way to influence the “average person”?
If I put on my strategic marketing hat I’d have to say that what Team Gore has done so far is pretty good. They’ve got a popular champion (and in this case the fact that he lost the election probably helped — the average person likes an underdog). This champion has gotten good MSM press and keeps getting it ( film/dvd well received by the media, TV Network, Apple board member, Oscar, Emmy, Nobel, chatter about running again, book critical of Bush, etc).
Is the average person thinking about all the fossil fuel being spent to cart Gore around? Or manufacture and ship the DVDs? I don’t know; I do know that MSM hasn’t really done a lot to highlight the fact (correct me if I’m wrong as I’m making an assumption based on what I’ve seen in the MSM).
These (unnamed) pundits *do* “act like they care” but I think your question is: wouldn’t it be more persuasive if they walked the talk? And my answer would be: maybe. It depends on how it’s marketed. If Team Gore decided that Al would now do all his speeches via satellite from his home that’s completely solar powered (or whatever the story would be) it might be good. But, performance-wise, it’s probably not as exciting or as *persuasive* as having a real, live Al Gore at your school/corporation/foundation. And Al Gore costs $500,000/hour so you know his message has got to be important (sarcasm).
OP said:
“I don’t care whether or not you think global warming is real. The point is that the people who told you it was are not.”
This is a generalization. I could understand you arguing “Al Gore is hypocrite — how can you take what he says at face value?” but the UN Scientists (who shared the Nobel) and all the others? I don’t even know anything about them. They may all live in solar domes and grow their own food, for all I know.
OP said:
“Al Gore either believes his issue is of critical moral importance, second only to his personal wealth, or he believes that global warming is a useful media tool but not worth serious sacrifice. Either way, I think the temperature just went down.”
So I think you’re saying that there are two conclusions to draw from the £3K/min for a speech plus lukewarm reviews:
1. Al Gore believes in the importance of his personal wealth first, followed by global warming
OR
2. Al Gore believes that global warming is a useful media tool but not worth serious sacrifice
Well, what about:
Al Gore believes in the importance of his personal wealth, and the global warming is a useful media tool to achieve that.
or
Al Gore believes in the importance of global warming and is willing to sacrifice too much in short run to achieve his long term goals.
or
Al Gore has done everything possible following his defeat to catapult himself into the public eye using savvy marketing of a hot-button topic and a sympathetic mainstream media. He now commands almost as much money for a speech as his former boss Bill Clinton and is more popular than the current president. Mission accomplished, Al!
Well, you get the idea. There are many possibilities.
In a nutshell I think your cutesy title, too-obvious bias, logical fallacies, and lack of facts hamper what might have been an interesting post.
I end with an obligatory: Ron Paul 2008!
Wow, talk about being owned. Nice work Scott. I also like Mr Paul. If I were American and could vote I’d vote for him, if it wasn’t for his stance on global warming that is :p talk about irony.
So hilarious btw, putting in www dot real climate dot org in the website field gives a “discarded” message. Is that censorship :)