Survey: Should We Publish This Crap?

Looks like the majority realize he's a quack.

An editor has the power to post any contributions, and can ignore stuff that doesn't contribute. By all means publish a representative sample, but don't feel bound to publish nonsensical ones. If the dude can't even spell "speech" then I don't know how much he can contribute.

You will lose readers if you publish REPETITIVE postings, pro- or anti-, because people would get fatigued. You go to GREAT effort to bring a variety of editorial selections. If your comment field were monotonous, people would skip it! Your not under an obligation to bore your readers.

But please do keep publishing SOME that we all can have a laugh and can practice our flaming skills. And after all, I don't see overmuch coverage of the Al-meister here these days.

Gore bashing (and its variants) and climate change denialism ARE forms of spam on an environmental website. Take a page from Worldchanging and just toss that crap in the garbage where it belongs.

Thank you!!! It is really petty to harrass Gore about his home and airplane travel. I read something on Off the Grid about him using a photo where he is airbrushed to look thinner and not have gray hair - well it was a picture of him when he's younger - he wasn't trying to fool anyone, he wasn't being vain!!

People who condemn Gore are way off base - the guy is a true American hero. He has humor, humility, wisdom and passion. He manages to express the horror of global warming with a calm warmth and to invite everyone to care as deeply as he does. A visionary - what better reason to travel the planet than to save it?

I appreciate your addressing the issue of Gore bashing - it's infantile.

Have you considered meta-moderation, in the style of Slashdot?

you could relegate all Gore debate to a thread in the forums, and deem it off-topic anywhere else?

or, you could moderate all ad hominem attacks, since they're fallacious anyway, then you wouldn't be perceived as taking a stance on a particular issue.

I suppose it depends on whether you're only interested in comments that agree with you...

I'm a fan of free speech, so I don't support blocking these comments. However, posters should take responsibility for what they say and learn to reel in the verbal diarrhea. Everyone's heard the anti-Gore arguments before, and you're not contributing anything by posting the same tired comments.

You could set up an auto replace on comments so that any comment with the phrase "al gore" in it automatically says "Al Gore (the actual winner of the 2000 election)" and links to a page praising him for his work. Or something similarly likely to drive the Gore-haters nuts.

I think that all opinions should be posted- whether TH supports the argument or not- otherwise we will be isolating ourselves from the viewpoints of others. Hopefully, most TH readers are educated enough to stand up to such comments. If TH feels that a comment is out of line with their views then add a comment in response telling the readers where you stand.

I'm just as annoyed by the Gore-bashing as you are, particularly off-topic bashes, but to censor comments that relate to the topic just because you're tired of them seems a bit draconian. It could lead to some really nasty criticism of TreeHugger itself. Of course, that isn't to say that I don't think you can delete posts that are deliberate trolls or off-topic rants. Feel free on that front, as far as I'm concerned. :)

Not publishing comments from select groups of people is biased. Feel free to keep out the "crap," but please allow valid points to be voiced.

Has TH responded to the claims against Mr. Gore? You may have and I might have just missed it. I hear all of these claims often, and I have little to respond with...if you haven't responded formally to the critiques of Mr.Gore then maybe you should.

You shouldn't censor comments--unless they are spam, of course. I think Gore bashers are pathetic, but they have the right to spew hatred and nonsense.

"Looks like the majority realize he's a quack.
August 27, 2007 11:10 AM | flag a problem
Anonymous says'

And no, "Anonymous," we are not defending your right to talk because we think badly of Gore. On the contrary, I'm forever grateful for what he's done to explain science--even to morons like you. It's just that really we believe in free speech.

Let the deniers keep talking—the more they do, they more stupid they look.

There is a cottage industry of hacks paid to rabble rouse about anyone they disagree with. A handful of people can make a lot of echos that influence naive reporters. Whisper campaigns based on repeating mistruths (intentionally) have been around for centuries of course but the net raises the intensity quite dramatically.

Yes, we have written about Mr Gore's offsetting projects. But rational debate will not stop the hacks from spawning more rumors and unsubstantiated accusations.

I often feel the same sentiment that this poll is expressing. If we can just squelch all the stupid, ignorant, badly worded comments, especially when they disagree with our point of view, then we can really (choose one...) A) make some progress, B) Free up badly needed resources to expand our reach, C) Cultivate/Maintain connection with the well-informed, but time-starved demographic we need, D) Won't have to waste my time listening to this inane crap anymore!

But, these types of comments are actually valuable. Let me count the ways...

Know thine enemy! Knowing how our adversaries frame their arguments gives us the opportunity to frame our side of the arguments, perhaps even preemptively.

Track the propaganda. After reading several such comments, it's probably pretty easy to determine from what source people are exposing themselves to such nonsense. Often, "ditto heads" will regurgitate verbatim what they hear on talk radio or see on Fox "News" Channel.

Learn by example. By seeing how the famous treehuggers are being criticized, we might better tailor our lives to avoid similar criticism and maybe get our message out more effectively.

Credibility is the ultimate currency. If certain viewpoints are censored, then ultimately we play into their agenda because we know that the right wing propaganda machine actively censors. So let's let the inane be inane publicly. Besides, do we really think that those who advocate for sustainability (sustainabilists?) will be lured away by regurgitated right wing propaganda?

Ultimately, these are the folks that are going to have to be convinced that what treehuggers around the world are trying to do is the right thing. Let's also not forget the social component of the sustainability movement. Last I checked, censorship doesn't really jibe with what most people in the world think about human rights. Even though this is a private forum, very public issues are being discussed here. Everyone deserves their say.

Sorry for the rant. Vote your conscience, folks.

Ah, the usually liberal environmental crowd is getting prophylactic when it comes to speech that doesn't fit the agenda?

I agree with MARK: debunk the anti-Gore claims.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Was it Voltaire..? You can choose not to post, but an eco-fascist is still a fascist.

I think it is important to understand what other people think. These comments give us insight into the minds of the opposition. We should all be taking this chance to address the issues they bring up. Of course if their arguments and reasons aren't logical, logical arguments aren't going to get through to them...

I would also like to add that I work for a solar installer we are putting in some rather large systems for the wealthy and privileged. Mr. Gore should have enough room on his estate to put up a substantial solar array and it is disheartening that he chooses carbon offsets instead.

I agree with the majority. Yes, its frustrating to see that people throw up essentially childish blocks to the science of Global warming, (my favorite being Ann colter's "Al Gore is Fat so Global Warming Doesn't exist" article from back on those senate hearings) but they DO need to be heard, because those are the people that we need to convince. Frankly, the good work by people like Emory Lovins is where I think these flamers need to look: heres someone who buys into it and changes his own lifestyle. Rock on, RMI!

Actually, Pat, Gore's house does have a solar roof:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_gets_a.php

What would Dick Cheney do?

not publishing negative comments , isn't going to make " Al " more believable . . . .

he's a politician . . . .

he's running for office . . . .

nothing can change that . . . .

he's been bought and paid for . . . .

so has treehugger . . . .

While I find the anti-Gore comments annoying, I support the idiots' rights to post them. Once this (or any) Website starts censoring its comments, it loses credibility.

I agree that you should consider a user-driven comment moderation system like Digg or Slashdot.

Shouldn't we be able to over look the fact that Mr. Gore has a big house and a private jet.? He singlehandedly brought the issue of global warming into so many lives. Yes, he had to use a few more resources to do it but the amount of people who have changed has been more than enough to even it out.

I really don't think it's healthy to shut down the interwebs commenting function for the idiots of the world.... they have to say it somewhere, and I'd rather they type it on obscure forums than say it out loud.

" Feel the Wind in Your Hair with a Vespa Lamp " ?

excuse me ?

I've got a question for you . . . .

which is greener . . . .

wealth or poverty . . . .

treehugger tends to lean to the wealth side of the question . . . .

I think that, as with any blog, there needs to be some accountability for comments, as someone mentioned to me in a comment once -- lest I take credit for his term:)

I don't think there is any responsibility to publish anonymous comments at all if one is disinclined to do so. I stopped doing that, and it discourages [some] trolling, of which there seems to a lot on Tree Hugger sometimes.

A letters editor at a newspaper has a duty to publish SOME letters to the editor, but not ALL. Take it from an inveterate letter writer. I've written dozens and only ever gotten 2 in.

I TRUST Treehugger to show a representative slice of all the opinions they get, after all, they have a sterling reputation for courting diversity.

You must allow dissent or there is no honest discussion. On the other hand, it would be great if everyone dropped the ad hominem attacks and faulty logic.

I'd like it if we only wrote comments that were well thought out and added something helpful to the conversation instead of polarizing it.

I've heard the complaints against Al Gore and have no idea how much of it is based in reality or is manufactured for discrediting him and Global Warming. But... shouldn't someone who so fervently promotes a cause have the views they espouse reflected in their daily living?

Would you apply that same standard to a religious leader who had been found guilty of sexually abusing a child but had also been responsible for bringing thousands out of poverty?

Do not delete opposing viewpoints.Everybody has a right to their viewpoint.By deleting them you only play into their hand.Censorship is not an answer.You need both views in the open.People are smarter than you think.Let them figure it out for themselves.

Personally i hate all politicians.They will say anything to win.They are bought and paid for.Big business has corrupted them so much.They no longer represent the average person.Just big business.

Matthew says:
Shouldn't we be able to over look the fact that Mr. Gore has a big house and a private jet.? He singlehandedly brought the issue of global warming into so many lives. Yes, he had to use a few more resources to do it but the amount of people who have changed has been more than enough to even it out.
---
Honestly, that is like saying we should be able to overlook the fact that OJ Simpson is a muderer because he is one of the best foot ball players that ever lived.

Like it or not, Gore makes himself a target whether or not said critisism is valid. Another thing, the delete button is never substitute for the superior argument.

Last but not least, by making the comment system user driven moderated like slashdot, you are essentially turning the comment system into a "we only want things we agree with" because what you'll see like you see with slashdot is a specilty group of people calling everyone else who doesn't agree with them idiots. TH should be better than that. It works for digg because Digg isn't a niche website like TH or slashdot is.

" If the dude can't even spell "speech" then I don't know how much he can contribute. "

" you could moderate all ad hominem attacks, since they're fallacious anyway, "

" I think Gore bashers are pathetic, but they have the right to spew hatred and nonsense. "

" On the contrary, I'm forever grateful for what he's done to explain science--even to morons like you. "

" If we can just squelch all the stupid, ignorant, badly worded comments, especially when they disagree with our point of view, '

" While I find the anti-Gore comments annoying, I support the idiots' rights to post them. "

" I really don't think it's healthy to shut down the interwebs commenting function for the idiots of the world.... "

versus

" Looks like the majority realize he's a quack. "

" Ah, the usually liberal environmental crowd is getting prophylactic when it comes to speech that doesn't fit the agenda? "

there's nothing like objectivity . . . .

and , I'm not even going here . . . .

" the guy is a true American hero. He has humor, humility, wisdom and passion. "

" He singlehandedly brought the issue of global warming into so many lives. "

look in the mirror . . . .

" We have met the enemy , he is us . . . . " , Pogo

...and Al Gore does NOT have a private jet!

Just because you agree with someone's message doesn't mean you need to put that person on a pedestal. Sure he makes a good point about how individual people can make small changes to their lifestyles and affect change, but he surely doesn't follow them himself. And that speaks volumes about his character--decidely hypocritical. That said, criticizing Al Gore's character is not a valid argument against global warming, or living an eco-friendly lifestyle.

Don't censor people just cause they disagree with you, only if they are peddling h3r8a1 v14gr4.

Tell trolls that you're considering cutting them off, and they come out in droves. Just look at this thread as a perfect example of why Trehugger needs to set some standards.

Rob says
...and Al Gore does NOT have a private jet!
---
Yes because chartering a jet makes all the difference.

If these attacks are easily-refuted and mostly nonsensical, then why not make a "Why you're wrong about Al Gore FAQ" and then the author or editor may insert a link to the relevant section of the FAQ when people make these comments? Rather than squelching them, they'll instead be vehicles for their own counterargument.

Why don't you publish ALL the anti-Gore stuff in a special string over to the side? That way all the pompous ridiculosities can parade where they won't disturb anyone. And if a cogent, readable anti-Gore letter comes in, you can publish that with the regular stuff. Treehugger can't allow itself to be papered to death by hit squads. How would Redstate or one of those other horrible blogs like it if we Treehuggers went over there and intruded in their stuff? They wouldn't like it. Luckily its so icky over there they have it all to themselves.

Has anyone noticed how people on the left always want to kill each other off before tackling the real problems? I'm in favor of uncensored debate, but we are fiddling while Rome (and everything else) burns.

Besides, he (or she) can't spell esteemed, either.

"Looks like the majority realize he's a quack."

That's an inaccurate conclusion from the poll. I personally don't think he's a quack, and I still voted for #1, as did many others, according to the comments. It's about freedom of speech, being able to see all sides of an argument, giving the opportunity to counter-argument, etc. I think it would look very bad if TH censored comments from naysayers, and leave comments from those who agree. That wouldn't be fair.

Now about the Gore argument, I usually ignore it and find that it misses its target. Gore has a private jet? If it's true it could mean at best that Gore is hypocritical. But does that mean the facts he presented aren't true? Does that mean there's no global warning? What, we don't have to be careful about wasting resources because he supposedly isn't? How does that make sense? Some people are using the controversy as another cheap excuse to not care about the environment.

Of course you should allow all sorts of comments and views, but my goodness what a waste of time some comments are. People should be a little more self critical before writing snide remarks about public figures who are in the very least trying to raise awareness about an important issue. It's a little like saying, "I dunno if I agree with Einstein about his little theory.. but his hair sure is funny!", or "I like the Stones' music, but that Charlie Watts looks bored - so I don't listen to them that much", or "I don't like what Bush has done to our country, but he has a nice smile"

Do ideas HAVE to be attacked on a personal level? How else would Gore get all over the world to spread the message of Climate change? Sail? In the short amount of time we have left to make a change - he'd never get the message around fast enough.

Leave him be - and open your eyes and ears instead. Take in the facts and ideas- and see if you agree with them, then comment on them.