Need help debating a wingnut (re: enviroment, RFK Jr. and private planes, etc.)

[hiaasenrocks]

It appears that the favorite rebuttal of right-wingers in the climate change debate is that RFK Jr., Gore, etc., use private planes and a lot of electricity, so (in their minds) the climate change debate is moot.

I'm trying to stick to the science and asking them for specific rebuttals on the known data, but I really need something to shoot down those remarks. I've been saying: "That they fly on a plane once in a while and use electricity at home is no reason to believe they're wrong about the science," but of course that isn't working with these flat-earthers.

Thanks for any help.

[YOY]

1. Al Gore has an office in my building. He arrives in a Mercedes cab

by himself. No entourage. No pomp. Just Al.

When the Pubs show up they have an Armada of SUVs with gun toting tough guys giving everyone the evil eye in plain sight.

Comparitively Al is doing the right thing.

So what would he have Al do differently? Eat pine nuts in a log cabin and flap his arms when he needs to get somewhere?

[Journeyman]

2. To be "pure" in their message, Gore and RFK would have to. . .

be naked and live as cloistered monks. To paraphrase Mark Twain, however, naked monks have little or no influence on society.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. Best thing to do is laugh.

This pathetic smokescreen the wingnuts throw out there -- "Libruls iz hippocritz!" -- isn't getting them any headway with the public.

Fact is, most Americans are on our side. check

http://pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

Most Americans believe "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories."

A whopping 70% believe "the federal government should do more than it's doing now to try to deal with global warming."

As to whether "Building cars that use less gasoline" should be Encouraged or Required, it's 86%!

If these weirdos want to split hairs over which activist is more likely to eat panda veal for breakfast, let 'em. But don't forget to laugh.

[Jim__]

4. They're using a classic logical fallacy.

RWers love to claim that they are logical while liberals are emotional. Since their argument is a classic fallacy (Ad Hominem Tu Quoque), you can forever rebut any claim they make to being logical.

[MH1]

5. It's irrelevant

You could list the things Gore and RFK do that are "greener" than most lifestyles (espec on Gore, if you check around these should be easy to find; I haven't seen similar on RFK but I'm sure it's out there)

But it's actually irrelevant. Although I disagree that Gore and RFK Jr. are hypocrites, so what if they are? That doesn't automatically make their facts wrong.

What wingers try to do is make this all about individual actions. They refuse to acknowledge that societal changes are needed. For example, it would be much easier on the planet if I could trust the water coming out of my faucet, rather than replacing a Brita filter every 3 months. Another example is that the best transportation solution (for distances that can't be walked or biked) is a pluggable electric hybrid (PEHV) yet at the moment it is very difficult to procure one. Another - I would MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer to base my grocery purchasing decisions partly on transportation miles, but guess what - that info isn't available, and won't be made available until we as a society (through either regulations or pressure on producers) agree that it is important.

IMO, the most fundamental difference between the right-wing and the left, is that the right puts individualism (aka "personal responsibility") on a pedestal and acts like community isn't important; where the left believes in the importance of the community. The global warming issue is a powerful example of the fallacy of excessive reliance on individualism and neglect of community. (There are examples that go the other way too - too much reliance on the community by the left - but that's a different discussion.)