:?: A friend asked how can we take Al Gore seriously after seeing this posted somewhere ?

Former US VP Al Gore warned hundreds of UN diplomats and staff on Thursday (9/29) evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

It sounds like an out of context remark. Does anyone know how I can rebut this statement ?

Smoking is bad for every living thing, including the earth.

They should ban them forever.

Hi, Wes--

This smoking/global warming statement is the latest thing the conservative blogosphere is using to ridicule Gore.

Below is the original source of the supposed "quote," which was not a direct quote of what Gore said in his UN speech because of how it was written. Read below from the Drudge report:

Matt Drudge is a known Al Gore basher, and he is also a known liar. Apparently, no public copy of the transcript of this speech is available (so one wonders where Drudge got his info in the first place <_< ), and the only people reporting this "news" are Drudge and NewsMax, which is another conservative source and also happens to have gotten its information from Drudge in the first place. So all paths lead back to Matt Drudge, a known Al Gore hater and known liar. That's number one.

But we're left with the question: Did or did Gore not say that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming? We can't know if he said it or not because we can't get at the original speech in question. Interestingly, if you dissect Drudge's report, he doesn't put quotation marks around the entire sentence in question. The words cigarette smoking are left suspiciously OUTSIDE of the quotation marks. This leads me to believe that Gore actually said something else besides what Drudge "quotes" him as having said. But again, we can't prove it one way or the other.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of poking around the internet to discover research that suggests that cigarette smoking does contribute to global warming. See below:

So, how do you respond to your friend? As I said, we don't know if Gore made the statement or not. One thing is for certain, the statement as "quoted" by Drudge isn't a direct quote from Al Gore because of the way the quotation marks are placed in the report. On the other hand, it appears to be true that cigarette smoking does put a large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and therefore can affect global warming. The question is how much, and not being a scientist, I'm not prepared to answer if 2.6 billion kilograms of CO2 put into the air annually would be enough to "significantly" affect global warming. It's a drop in the bucket compared to other forms of pollution. So is it "significant"? Don't know. One thing I will say is that if Al Gore said it, he undoubtedly knows what he's talking about. The question is whether he said it or not, and we just don't know the answer to that.

I'm sure this hasn't helped you much regarding your friend. I would tell him/her that Al Gore is an expert on the science behind global warming, and the odds are that if he says something is so, it is so. We just don't know whether he made this actual statement or not.

:?:

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/3/134913/130

Did Al Gore Say Cigarette Smoking Causes Global Warming?

By LadyInBlack
10/03/2006 01:49:13 PM EST

Or is this simply just another RW attack to skew his words and their context in order to take the focus off of the issue? Yeah, that's the ticket.

It doesn't take much if you have the will to search out information to do so. It certainly is more fulfilling than sitting at your modem reading the absolute tripe that comes from RW blogs in this country. Once again we see a multitude of them joining forces to skirt the important issue of the climate crisis that was disseminated to a global audience to do good, to hit their favorite target. Well, here are just a couple of sites to get them educated:

Earth Policy/U.S. Leading World Away From Cigarettes
What's In Cigarettes?

Tobacco And Global Warming

And here's one for them so that they can start from scratch:

What Is Global Warming?

Is that good enough to appease the RW dittoheads who have decided to now add another "sound bite" to their repertoire against Al Gore? Whether he said that or not at the UN or in what context it may have been said if it even was said, anyone with any knowledge of science knows that cigarettes emit poisonous and toxic gases such as benzine and carbon monoxide, as well as methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. Unfortunately, many of those smoking are too ignorant to know what they are putting into their own bodies and other bodies with their secondhand smoke that kills 30,000 non smokers a year, let alone what they put into the atmosphere.

If you inhale poisonous toxic gas and then exhale it, do you not emit those gases into the air? Where do you think they go besides your lungs to kill you? Now granted, scientifically that wouldn't be enough worldwide alone to cause a climate cataclysm, but then I don't think anybody including Al Gore has ever said that or would. Which is what makes sound bites like this placed strategically in the media so much more insidious.

I haven't really made a big deal about the reports from the usual suspects regarding his UN visit (and this will be the LAST time I mention it) because frankly, if Al Gore did speak about that in relation to global warming perhaps even in response to a question, he is entitled to do so. However, I sometimes just get so fed up with seeing this kind of deliberate baiting knowing it is the same tactic pulled before to discredit him, and it is absolutely unfair to him and his conviction about this issue.

People are also now focusing on this on all sides I believe (and those blogs showcasing this probably did it in the first place) because they think he is running for President and they don't want him pissing off potential voters, or vice versa... I say, give that a rest already.

People need to know the truth and the truth is that beyond anything he may or may not have said at the UN, that cigarette smoking is a killer, and it is logical to me that the gases emitted from it on a global scale may "contribute" to what is already in the atmosphere, even though minutely. But again, people don't want to take moral responsibility for their actions, or even research, so of course shoot the messenger whoever it is.

Bottomline: If Mr. Gore did talk about this in the context of the threat it poses to health, then I wish he would do more of it. He can talk about that all he damn well wants as far as I am concerned. I lost both of my parents to cigarette smoking. Talking about it and warning people of ALL of its dangers SAVES LIVES.

Those now doing this to once again divert from the seriousness of the climate crisis however, are also probably the same "Flat Earth" Society yahoos who thought cigarette smoking wasn't addictive and didn't cause cancer either. Tell that to my parents who got hooked before they could stop. God, how I wish they were here today. Instead of mocking Al Gore and posting things without substantiation, why don't these people ever really put their time to good use like actually helping people? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be part of their repertoire.

I haven't been able to find much about this, it sounds like someone is making a big deal about nothing. Even if AL did say something about global warming and cigarette smoking, it makes sense to me. But there are always some idiots who will bash AL GORE no matter what he says or doesn't say. It's the same old thing. And it sure does get tiresome.

I'm sure a total idiot like Rush Limbaugh would have something dumb to say about this. And people actually listen to this deranged Conservative, that's the scary part. :bad:

Thanks for posting this, AGIML, but this Lady in Black person has a tendency to go off in a manner that I've always found rather off-putting.

She consistently asks if Gore did say what he's accused of having said. Then she says that regardless of what he said, cigarette smoking is bad for you and no doubt does contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, she says that the amount is probably minimal compared to other sources.

Therein lies the problem.

I agree that the amount is probably minimal, which is why it's problematic for people if Gore said it was a "significant contributor to global warming." It can't be a significant contributor. I just don't see it. It, along with everything else humans do is very likely a problem, but it alone, I doubt, is a significant contributor.

I think we'd all like clarification on this.

Did he say it?

If not, exactly what did he say?

I'd like to know.

What do you mean by "off putting?" Perhaps to Mr. Gore it would be substantial as he lost someone he loves to its effects, as have I, even though it may be "minute" in percentage regarding other overall gg emissions. Is he not entitled to his own opinion? Or is everything he says under a microscope now even as a private citizen that has to be cleared with everyone first? Again, we don't know the context of his remarks there or if he said it at all, but that wasn't really my focus. So just to make it clear to you regarding my feeling on it, whether he said it exactly as reported or not at all I trust he wouldn't say anything unless he had the facts to back it up, and I certainly believe he is entitled to his opinion without having to clear it with me first.

I wrote this more as an opinion of the dangers of smoking regardless of that in my own opinion and to address those perpetuating another "myth" without speculation based on the principle of it regading the fact that cigarette smoking regardless of global warming does kill and that it should not be reduced to a sound bite. I'm not a political operative worrying night and day about everything he says because it might ruin his chances for some "political" campaign. I trust he knows what he's talking about, which was why I phrased the title in a question rather than a statement, in order to show doubt regarding their stating it as fact.

I personally believe that the fact that he spoke to an international body and managed to get this presentation shown to people on a global scale is really the important thing we as supporters of the man should be discussing rather than giving their rhetoric credence. That is really the main message of what I wrote and why I mentioned in it that it would be the last time I would mention it. Hope that makes it clearer for you.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend, and I've never seen you post here before. I should have phrased that differently.

What I was referring to as off-putting was something I read of yours in some other blog (no way I can remember which one) where you were criticizing those of us who were working to get Gore to run in the spring when "An Inconvenient Truth" was opening across the country. We launched a major effort at that time, of which I was national volunteer coordinator, and we were very sensitive to the issue of not politicizing the movie, and we bent over backwards to be sure no one misunderstood our motives and thought that we were in any way working FOR Al Gore. We made it clear that we were working for ourselves, as American citizens who want Gore to run for president. As I recall, you criticized us rather heavily for what we were doing. Given all the hard work many of us put into this effort, it wasn't well received by me and others. BTW, if I'm confusing you with someone else, I apologize, but this is the way I remember what happened.

We are working to get Al Gore to run in '08. Obviously we all have different opinions about how to go about that. So again, my apologies if I've misspoken. I was just reacting to what you had said before regarding that effort in the spring. It kind of stuck in my craw. Hopefully we can get past that.

:unsure: We need an emoticon for "foot in mouth."

And now, to address the specifics of some of what you said in response . . .

My 85-year-old mother was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer six years ago. She was one of the "miracles of medical science" and managed to beat it into remission. Well, they don't ever call stage 4 lung cancer being in remission, but it is dormant, for now. So I also have been touched by smoking in a personal way. Fortunately, not as strongly, apparently, as you or Mr. Gore.

But no, I don't think that gives Gore the right to say things that are his "opinion" if they're not true. I'm not saying it's not true. I really don't know. But if you're suggesting that this is an opinion of his that springs from his sorrow over losing his sister to cancer, then I would say that's not justified, and I don't think he'd consider it justified either. This was supposedly said in a speech at the UN. That's not a place to be voicing one's opinion about such things. If he's on a crusade to convince the world that global warming is real and is being caused by humans, then he needs to be sure he has his facts straight. I said, I believe that he does have his facts straight. But I can't go along with your suggestion that he be permitted to say things that aren't facts in a public forum such as the UN when he's trying to educate the world to the crisis we're facing.

That's why we need to know exactly what he said. I happen to believe that if Al Gore says something, it's true. But I can't argue with the people who are criticizing him for this because I don't have the facts. None of us has the facts. We need that first and foremost.

Why are you bringing up my opinion regarding any other effort in this thread? The topic is what the RW said regarding Al Gore's appearance at the UN. If I also then recall, I was not the only person who criticized the fact that people were using his important movie to get traffic on their own websites and sign up to join them. I think it is wrong to do so as it takes advantage of him, his work, and his movie which he has stated mulitple times is not political. I will continue to let my opinions be known on that regrdless of what people think. Now since you have used my response to this topic to subtly unload on me for daring to have an opinion because I respect the man, I hope you feel better as I won't even think of coming back here. And FYI, I too have worked very hard for many years to support Al Gore as well without any other motivations because I respect him, especially now that he is a free man now able to bring his message to the people the way HE wants to, and not smothered by self-important, self aggrandizing, egotistical opportunists everywhere he turns.

Again, the bottomline regarding his UN visit, was that he spoke to a global audience which needs to hear this truth and be inspired into real action regarding this crisis that goes beyond any "title." Saving the planet is more important than being President of any country, and making this climate crisis a political issue is the death knell for it, and he well knows that after thirty years of stonewalling that continues. Too bad so many people can' t see that, but I'm so gratified Mr. Gore does. And you see it even more when you shake his hand which I had the pleasure of doing not too long ago. Even in his book he mentioned how he felt after his son was in that horrific car accident, and that his priorities were changed, meaning that his family is number one, and the global climate crisis his number one issue. I hope it stays that way.

Well, you're obviously free to think what you want, but I wasn't using this as some back-handed way of voicing my opinion about your thoughts on us "using" the global warming campaign to campaign for Gore as president. I only brought it up because you asked why I said I'd found you off-putting. Since I never expected you to post here (you only just joined as a member yesterday), I thought I was expressing my opinion to people other than you. Actually, given that I didn't think you'd be reading what I wrote, you have to admit that what I said was pretty tame. I could've said all kinds of things if I thought you weren't going to read what I wrote.

In any case, as I said, I was merely explaining myself since you asked. Obviously we disagree on the subject, which is fine.

Saving the planet is more important than any other single thing, but Gore has gotten the world community where they need to be now to take action, and we need him as president. There are too many serious things going on to trust to anyone else in the White House.

The fight to save the planet can now be taken up by other people (and has been), and with Gore's guidance in the White House, the fight will be won.

But what about Iraq? North Korea? Iran? The Middle East? What about the situation here at home? We need Gore's experience and wisdom to deal with these very serious and threatening problems.

I believe we need Gore in the White House, and I believe that the crusade to save the planet will be better served with him in the White House.

If Big Oil and Big Tobacco are attacking Al Gore and trying to undermine his credibility then he must be doing something right! Go Al, tell it like it is! :good: