How unhealthy has the global warming denier obsession with Al Gore become?

I don't think unhealthy. In fact I think it's actually healthy for a denier who rejects the science to attack Gore. They are simply wrong and don't want to accept reality. Lacking facts or reality they have nothing else to attack which makes them desperate, and attacking Gore will reduce their stress levels. Lower stress leads to reduced blood pressure and a less chance of developing heart disease and stroke.

So while they are attacking they should also be thanking Gore for what he's doing.

Of course they would realize the same health benefits by learning the science and then they wouldn't be as desperate and so full of stress.

As for that clip. Now that's desperate. Not fare, not balanced and certainly not truthful.

"We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is!" -"Dave" FOX News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ZpcPQP3yg

Yes, this insane attack on Al Gore reveals the quality and the motives of most AGW deniers.

The reasons for this unjustified attack, as previous answers pointed out, are:

1) Gore is an easy target. Deniers don't have to deal with scientific data and scientific arguments.

2) Political motivation. Deniers dislike him because he is on the other party, and most importantly they try to convince us that AGW is a political issue!

And I would add:

3) Al Gore is the first eminent politician who spoke openly about global warming and informed extensively American people. That surely hurts deniers, who would prefer people stay in the dark. Gore did prove that it is an inconvenient truth.

Bait and switch works... pretend you're talking about global warming, but focus on making up mileading things to say about Al Gore instead. Most people won't notice that there's never any reference to even a single peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal cating any doubt on global warming, or mankind's role in contributing to it (because no such paper exists, the entire denial movement is a blatant fraud).

It's sad that people are so easily misled, and that the media plays along to create a false sense of drama and controversy to boost ratings.

The denial propaganda artists are simply doing their sleazy jobs, the media is a pack of scumbags for not revealing to their viewers a balanced view of the truth.

Gore's credibility is zero or unimpeachable, depending on which camp you're in. Fortunately, somewhere in between is reality, and Gore's credentials throughout his career, particularly since "Earth in the Balance," allow him to continue to serve as a point man for climate change in the U.S. and abroad. The man has done more to raise the level of conversation about climate change than anyone else, at least here in the United States. The O'Reilly Factor may be a popular show, and Ingraham a visible component of it, but she is not respected as a journalist, who must present themselves essentially as neutral on subjects. Ingraham rails against the "left wing smearmongers" while herself, apparently, serving as a right wing smearmonger. Is this unhealthy? Nah, it's politics, it's ratings, it show-biz.

Al Gore may be a convenient target for non-believers with an agenda, but he has the information at hand he needs to refute their claims, and the attention of world leaders in a position to address climate change. Therefore I don't think the obsession is unhealthy, but it is an indicator of a radical, fringe element of society. Their tactics speak for themselves.

What is really unhealthy is to lie in public. About a year ago Al Gore announced a $300M advertising campaign against man-made climate change [1]. During an interview with CBC, he and his wife were asked how they can afford to pay for it, $300M. Their answer was that they paid for the ads with proceeds from their "An Inconvenient Truth" movie, and with their share of Nobel Prize. However, no one asked if any of these sources have sufficient funds. As matter of fact, the world-wide box office for the movie is less than $50M [2], and the entire Nobel prize is only $1.2M [3]. So, they were short of about $250M. Dana, who paid for the rest?

Deniers that are obsessed with Al Gore are tacitly admitting that they can't debate the science. The deniers are following a losing strategy by focusing on Al Gore. Let them be. If criticism was coming from a credible source such as a fellow Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore should be concerned. He has no reason to be concerned by denier criticism.

Wow, terrific answers so far.

Come to think of it, I can't even think of a single denier who does not mention Gore regularly. Just search through Inhofe's report of 650 scientists. It averages something like 1.5 "Gore" mentions per page.

I think it says something about the inherently political motivations that made 'skeptics' be 'skeptics' in the first place. It's no secret that the vast majority of them never liked Al Gore to begin with, nor had they ever heard of AGW before An Inconvenient Truth. It was the perfect storm of ignorance.

And for that reason I do think Gore was perhaps among the worst possible people for the task of introducing the American public to AGW. A bit like having a priest introduce teens to the dangers of unprotected sex--no doubt that the dangers are real, but people who belong to other faiths or to no faith at all would naturally be skeptical of anything that a priest says.

He simply makes an easy target for them. It doesn't take a lot of work for them to criticize him and they don't have to think much. They simple find something he may have done wrong or someone who doesn't like him and play on that. Its not about science its simple about trying desperately to disprove Global warming no matter what. As for why they do it well one theory is fear. Otherwise because they are told its bad (and don't think for them selves), they don't wish to change there life style, or simple lack of understanding of the world around them.

Its fairly undisputed in other country's now so its odd this debate only continues in the US. And as for the answer about Gore doesn't in Norway. General Norway doesn't have a lot of heavy industry, most if not all its power is renewable, and they are investing in incentives to get people to drive less or take buses and other public transport. So from the point of view of Norwegians im guessing most are largely unconcerned by his ideas. They would have bigger problems on there minds than him.

Tell me why Al refuses to answer many question about global warming. Why do the people that support this ridiculous theory refuse to encourage the leadership to openly debate this issue with scientists that disagree with their findings?

The main reason I think Al shouldn't be taken seriously is due to his profiteering off his fear-mongering.

Why is it that anytime we "deniers" post finding that are at odds with AGW you sheep just claim it was sponsored by big oil and refuse to look at the actual evidence?

House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than ! the ave rage American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds ; geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer! The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore;

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas ; it is the residence the of the President of the United States , George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".