Al Gore: Pope of the New Religion

The environmental movement is coming to resemble the pre-reformation church. People fall back on familiar patterns when seeking metaphysical truth. Various types of new age philosophies have filled a void for many believers in search of a creed. Their loss of belief in God does not mean they believe in nothing; it means they fall for anything. Let’s consider the parallels between the church of Leo X and Al Gore’s church of environmentalism.

Just as the medieval Church sometimes had little to do with religion and not much to do with God, the environmental movement is sometimes less about nature than about manipulating human society.

For the medieval Church (MC), original sin. affected everybody, just for being the descendents of Adam, so nobody was free of sin. In addition, most people committed their share of sins on earth. In the environmental Church (EC) original sin is carbon. No human can live w/o producing CO2, so we all are sinners. It is our original sin - and then most of us commit some of our own.

All this sin/carbon made people uncomfortable and they sought ways to get out from under the burden. MC addressed this problem with indulgences. A few saintly people created more grace than they needed. The Church controlled this supply of grace and rich guys could buy indulgences to offset their own sins. EC uses offsets of carbon. In both cases, the buyers get to continue their lives largely unaffected if they can afford carbon/sin offsets, and in both cases their offsets do not affect the total store of sin/carbon.

Another point of similarity has to do with public professions of faith. MC held various conclaves and supported pilgrimages. If you read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, you learn that pilgrimages for most people were a kind of vacation, a chance to get away from the old village, much like going to rock concerts, for which you could get credit in the next world, maybe heal a wound or two in this one. EC pilgrimages are those big rock concerts we read about. People drive or fly to various locations around the world where they drink beer, meet partners and listen to their favorite musicians. The wife of Bath would approve.

Both religions have their declarations of faith. Pope Gore read his live earth pledge to his congregation and they repeated it. The same thing happens in Church for the Nicean Creed. The interesting thing about the live earth pledge is how political it is. I figure since I ride my bike to work, own 178 acres of forest and have planted thousands of trees that I am carbon NEGATIVE. But I could not be a member of the Church of Gore, since I oppose the political aspects of his theology, which brings me to the final striking parallels: anathema and inquisition.

Religions have rules and they sometimes do not wait for God to enforce them. When MC had the support of secular authorities, it sometimes did this with extreme prejudice. When the Church authorities did not have the support of the secular authorities, they had to settle for things like excommunication. In any case, they took their anathemas and inquisitions seriously.

EC does too. The Al Gore creed is very specific about the types of actions required. A similarly effective program could include a nuclear power push, sound management of terrestrial and marine resources to maximize carbon uptake and profits, tax incentives for planting trees and encouragement of biotechnology to adapt plants and animals to climate change. How far do you think that sort of program would get in Gore’s church? A person who wanted to improve the environment with this sort of program would be labeled a heretic and not considered a true environmentalist.

EC rarely has access to secular authorities, so must rely on excommunication most of the time. But it has tried the other route. Heretic scientists can expect to lose funding. The environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg actually faced a court case, by the "Committees on Scientific Dishonesty" (isn’t that a scary term). He did not deny the truth of global warming, but he said it would not be so bad and refused to endorse Kyoto, clearly a heretic.

So let’s just distance ourselves from the religion of environmentalism and get about the task of improving the environment. There are many ways to do that. Harnessing the power of the free market offers the best hope. Gore, to his credit, supports a carbon tax. Others in his party use it as an offensive weapon. If Gore would drop the other BS and use his considerable influence in that one area of carbon tax, I think he could do some good. No chance.

Let’s be careful about what side “greens” are really on. Too many times, green is just a subspecies of leftism, less concerned with environment than pushing anti-market agendas. Angela Merkel, for example, has is facing this now. She has come around to the idea that Germany & Europe cannot both significantly limit CO2 & phase out nuclear energy. The so called Greens are screaming, indicating that they do not really consider global warming such a threat after all. Their goal is to bring down the free market systems. The environment is a tool to them, a means not an end.

The environment is too important to be treated as something religious and sacred. Humans need to live in and use the environment and its resources wisely. We can improve the environment with the proper mix of incentives, market mechanism, regulation and intelligence. That is the good news. It is also good news that we can do that and leave intact the fundamentals of our free market democracies. That is the part where the religion of environmentalism cries anathema.

Posted by Jack at July 10, 2007 10:09 PM
Comments
Comment #225724

Environmentalism isn’t a “right-wing Christian” religion, therefore it must be a form of terrorism, is that right???

Posted by: Rachel at July 10, 2007 10:20 PM
Comment #225725

Rachel

Please read the post carefully and you may understand enough not to mistake me with your stereotype. The talking point you deployed makes no sense here.

Posted by: Jack at July 10, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #225730

JAck,

This is by far the silliest article of yours I’ve read. But sing this hymn and you’ll get a lot of headnodding from your choir ;) After all, the “environmental religion” meme is in the air.

I hope I’m not the only one to notice that you mentioned none of what Gore advocates except the carbon tax. And of course he couples it with eliminating the payroll tax, which I’d think conservatives would love. At any rate, why ignore Gore’s actual positions? Because they are all common sense proposals, given one accepts the reality of climate change.

Gore has done more than most to get people interested in the science involved. Quibble with his presentation if you must, but he would be the first to say that we should examine the facts and the science. He would never say a single movie or book is enough to complete one’s education. As a lay speaker for this cause, he’s always encouraged people to dig deeper.

But I realize that as the Right jumps on board it’ll have to demonize the long-time standard bearers of the Left. Something about saving face, I assume. Why the hell can’t we, on this one crucially important issue, cast aside the partisanship and just deal with the challenges we face?

Oh right. This is a political blog and you’ve gotta find ways to cast every damn thing politically, which, of course, means attacking your “foes.”

Posted by: Gerrold at July 10, 2007 11:00 PM
Comment #225732

The first thought that strikes me is that it seems much of the time anybody, center, left, or independent calls for some sort of organized effort or commitment towards acknowledging global warming, commenters on the right seem inclined to call it a religion.

And why? Because religions, supposedly, are irrational, superstitious, and founded on unprovable notions. I think some Republicans would rethink the use of the term “religion” to smear environmentalism, if they realized what they were implying about religion in general.

We have very good, scientifically verified evidence out there that’s free for public examination and analysis, which supports serious commitments and efforts to confront this problem.

I think if you reread the statement and took it at face value, I don’t think you’d find much to object to. In fact, I think you already do any number of these things.

At the end of the day, this is not something that can be done on an informal basis alone. Policy will have to be written, in corporate American and government alike, and people will have to make conscious, thoughtful efforts to turn the tide.

Let’s just recognize that this partisanship gets in the way of this common goal of ours, and stop moralizing about the other person’s approach.
Surely we can agree on something. Surely we should.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 10, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #225734
But I could not be a member of the Church of Gore, since I oppose the political aspects of his theology

Utter nonsense. Why do you guys on the right always have to pretend you’re victims? Why do you guys always feel you have to take your ball and go home if you don’t get every single thing you want?

Why not just join in the debate over how America will meet the challenge of global warming?

Posted by: American Pundit at July 10, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #225737

Why not have a debate, while there is only minor evidence on WatchBlog.com, there is clear evidence that attempting to have even a dialog results in insults and accusations worried more about being called a “religion” than about that neither side has all the facts.

Let’s leave the earth a better place than when we found it, but for crying out loud let’s acknowledge there is evidence that the global warming issues is not a crisis as constantly shoved down our throats.

Or I’ll take a straight up swap … the right should be allowed to continue to promote terrorism as a crisis and the left can promote global warming as a crisis.

Anyone want to take a bet which will impact us first?

Posted by: Honest at July 10, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #225741

Gerrold and Rachel, on this site Jack has written many, many times about his pro-environment views, his desire to place additional taxes on gasoline to curb consumption and enact other measures to curb CO2 emmissions. Seems to me that he has earned enough credibility on this issue to attack Gore’s approach from what is—actually—the same side of the debate.

Jack is 100& right on in his characterization of the Gore-led version of environmentalism as a kind of religion whose followers swallow whole an unquestioned set of dogmas and assumptions which they refuse to examine and who begin to attack anybody who questions even one tiny article of their faith. Just the other day, RFK Junior said that of global warming skeptics: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

That is very troubling, considering that among global-warming skeptics are a great number of top scientists in the field.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 10, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #225743

The Al Gore creed is very specific about the types of actions required. A similarly effective program could include a nuclear power push…

Gore’s not against any of the things you’ve mentioned. He’s only said that nuclear energy cannot be the total solution, and has good reasons. Namely, that large, dangerous reactors would be necessary to output that much energy, and too many to safely monitor.

Posted by: Max at July 11, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #225748

Here is a link to a series of eight very clear, easily understandable graphs:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24901050@N00/741194013/in/photostream/

It is not religion. It is just data.

Posted by: phx8 at July 11, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #225750

LO,

Some people of all political persuasions fail to use their critical faculties. Gore’s position is based on publically available information; anyone who will take the time can examine it. You make it sound as if he discourages examination of the facts when his whole purpose is to get the facts out there.

People who don’t like Gore for whatever frequently accuse him of distortion. But when you examine what supposedly he distorted, it tends to fade into nothing. He has made some errors; Kilimanjaro is one of them. He should have picked any number of other examples. On the essential points, he’s backed by the science.

No, LO, I don’t buy it. When I read the debate on climate change here, I often see the Right being less than scrupulous. Standard tactics include attacking the messenger, citing counter “evidence” already factored into climatology models, evoking conspiracy theories about worldwide socialism, claiming environmentalists merely use climate change to push a “leftist” agenda, citing petitions of scientists that turn out not to include many specialists in the field, etc., etc. Another tactic you just employed — find some silly quote and paint the entire left-side(?) of the debate with it.

Proponents of action to mitigate climate change point out that the vast majority of major scientific organizations believe man-caused carbon is a large factor. This is simply the truth. A minority of scientists disagree. That’s how it works.

By the way, have you ever read Jack making the climate change case? Nope. He never gets into the nitty gritty of the science on it. Would you accuse him of buying into a religion? Nope, of course you wouldn’t. It’s the other side that is irrational.

Now, could you cite some nutty examples from the Left? Of course, I’ve read some here. The important thing is how people deal with arguments. It is just silly to point to one side or another. If you want to say the Left does that too; I’d agree, and I’ve pointed that out.

If you want to stretch your definitions to the breaking point, you could claim that any movement has a large number of people who rely on faith instead of reason. That’s why Jack’s comparison of environmentalism to the Medieval Church is simply absurd. If you want to label any belief structure as religion, then you’ve just made the term meaningless. (The same tactic is used against atheists.) You might as well say it about Conservatism. You might as well say it about any damn thing that has captured the popular mind.

At any rate, look at the “evidence” Jack uses. A nutty case in Germany, Dingell’s trying to sabotage a carbon tax (not exactly Gore’s position), and the controversy about nuclear power in the EU. This is the “evidence” he uses against Gore. Good grief.

This is a facile article, one that just gets in the way of constructive debate on the issue. A more substantive article would deal with the atrocious energy policy of the current administration. But I’ve avoided in my comments that kind of stuff because of the importance of moving forward.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 11, 2007 1:07 AM
Comment #225752

Jack,
Given the fact that Every Human is given by Birthright the Self-Ability and Self-Knowledge to Breathe, Drink, and Eat, I do believe that somethings in Nature needs to be protected from the Hierarchy of Society. Because I do believe that you will agree with me that your Unalienable Rights matter.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at July 11, 2007 1:16 AM
Comment #225754

Well done, Gerrold! Take a bow.

Jack, poor showing. Nothing but spin.
Your cheerleaders here will no doubt love it though.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 11, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #225759

LO-
Jack at least admits there is a problem and sees fit to do something about it. But what makes or break his argument about Gore is not whatever credibility he’s built up, but rather the premises of his argument.

To be sure, he’s not on the same side of either the contrarians, or the Liberals. His got his own interesting position on things. That said, his characterization of Gore’s position as a religion seems more about the rather strong appeal and force of the movement he’s got going, and less about the actual character of what is believed.

Meanwhile, the contrarians cling to tons of different positions, many without a great deal of research to back them, or worse, factors that eliminate them.

And this is what Gore and other folks have to deal with: Folks who want to believe, no matter what, that human activity can’t be to blame, that warming either isn’t happening or we’re not to blame for it. Anything goes, so long as CO2 from us doesn’t.

RFK Jr., to be quite sure, probably has his heart in the right place, but not his head. You don’t get anywhere, especially with science, with attacking people.

But as for your claim that top scientists are among the skeptics? let’s not be vague about them, let’s see them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2007 1:51 AM
Comment #225764
New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet’s climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun’s output and not carbon dioxide emissions.

But a new analysis of data on the sun’s output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun’s activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 11, 2007 2:05 AM
Comment #225769

Gore as Pontiff…
Actually this would be great!

1. No gilt-coated Vatican required — a grove of trees will do nicely.
2. No donation basket to fill with greenbacks — just go green in your living habits.
3. No ridiculous headgear will be worn.
4. The Pope can now have sex, and be happily married, with children, and grandchildren.
5. Contraception is sanctioned, indeed, it is enthusiastically encouraged.
6. Women are considered to be in full control of their reproductive organs.
7. Electric Pope Mobile!

:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at July 11, 2007 2:52 AM
Comment #225770

Al Gore may very well be insane…


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
become rich on false fear

write books and sell movies
truth is inconvenient


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
America is evil…

the best country is too free
makes other countries look bad
.

Posted by: USpace at July 11, 2007 3:01 AM
Comment #225771
Humans need to live in and use the environment and its resources wisely. We can improve the environment with the proper mix of incentives, market mechanism, regulation and intelligence. That is the good news. It is also good news that we can do that and leave intact the fundamentals of our free market democracies.

While I can basically agree with the above statement:


Too many times, green is just a subspecies of leftism, less concerned with environment than pushing anti-market agendas.

This quote and the many previous statements that you have made would seem to indicate that you are also afflicted with an irrational religion. You seem to bow to the almighty dollar without concern to any other consequences. The pursuit of the almighty dollar does not sanctify any path taken. The free market is not a solution, it is only a mechanism used within our social fabric.

Posted by: Cube at July 11, 2007 3:02 AM
Comment #225777

Jack,

Ok, now I really regret using looking religious imagery with Gore.

Let’s look at all the ways that global warming is NOT a religion:

There is no need for God, gods or any supernatural agent.

There are no revelations or holy texts that are supposed to be divinely created.

There are no key individuals who are supposed to have connection to the divine. Al Gore is just a guy who gives slide shows.

It is based on observable data.

I give an example on the left column of what a religious argument really looks like:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8596

Jerry Falwell says that global warming contradicts Psalm 24:1-2 and and 8:22. He is using an ancient, divinely-inspired text to dispute empirical data. THAT, my friend, is what religion looks like.

As a final note, I am puzzled why you would dismiss climate change as a religion. You believe in it! Does that make you an adherent?

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 7:32 AM
Comment #225780

Ya ever notice that, when the global warming debate…oh I gotta say it, warms up, (ducking out of the way of thrown objects), you always find the naysayers mentioning the “top scientists” that disagree with man-made climate change. Yet you never see anyone linking articles to such claims. I am not saying that there aren’t some eggheads out there that disagree, just that I have yet to see any hard evidence, or at least as hard as evidence ever gets in Cyberspace.

Little note to Henry Schlatman

While you make some good points, your Continued Use of Emphatic Capitalization tends to Distract from your Logical Arguements. Kinda makes you come across like a revivalist preacher. Just my well-meant 2 cents. Of course, this coming from a guy with a fetish for bad puns. ;-)

L

Posted by: leatherankh at July 11, 2007 8:08 AM
Comment #225781

Gerrold

One reason I pick on Gore personally IS political. It is fun. I do many things just because they are fun.

I pick on the “religion” of environmentalism for real ones. I do sense that the movement has long moved beyond science. Since the 1980s, it has been influenced by “deep environmentalist” and species equality, which are virtually completely ideology based. When you start talking in terms of things that are sacred or things that are rights, you know you have moved beyond science and reason.

Another reason I am annoyed at Gore is his promotion of this silly personal carbon offset thing. It is exactly parallel to indulgences. I hear the Prince Charles has also bought his way into carbon neutrality. It makes no sense. I agree that a person can and should reduce his own carbon footprint, but you buying a carbon credit from someone else is just silly and meaningless.

I own 178 acres of forest, plant trees, preserve water resources and own a hybrid which I use little because I ride my bike to work. I bet I am just about the most carbon virtuous person who writes on this blog, if you use a Gore like calculus. That is good and that is just my lifestyle. Should I be able to sell some of my virtue to you? Would that make any real changes?

The third thing that annoys me about the Gore approach is its overtly political. Read his seven points manifesto. Kyoto was a failure because it was too political and redistributive. We will need to take action, but we should aim at the environmental problem, not world redistribution or what some people define as justice.

Stephen

See above. I have been an environmentalist all my life. I knew about global warming and gave a presentation on it in 1983. A true environmentalist balances the risks of various energy sources and does not reject nuclear power. A true environmentalist supports hunting as a way to manage wildlife populations. A true environmentalist looks for practical solution to how humans can use resources. A true environmentalist knows that there are trade offs and that no place in the world can be really free of human influence and so we MUST manage. The religious environmentalist rejects most these things in defense of the faith.

We can and will solve his set of environmental problems. We will do it must faster and with less disruption if we do it in a practical manner. There is way to much moralizing in environmental movements. It is a practical problem best solved by practical measures where we recognize that nothing is indispensable and in the long run no system, natural or human, is forever.

BTW - your pottery barn metaphor re rent to own was very amusing. Good job.

AP

I am not a victim since the Church of Gore cannot punish me. As I mentioned above, I bet my carbon footprint, as measured by the Church of Gore (COG) is among the best on this blog. I bet I have personally planted more trees, established more meadows and safely applied more biosolids than almost anyone else here. But ideology would keep me out of COG, while some clod who attends rock concerns and mouths the litany would be in.

Re the debate over global warming, I have been in it for longer than most people too. My solution is too radical for most people. I expect they may come around.

Phx8

We agree about the problem. We disagree about the solution and how to debate it.

As LO said, we get some people who want to make it a crime to question. I think global warming is a problem. I think there are many possible solutions. I think most of the best ones will involve using market forces couples with taxes and regulations. I am like Gore in many ways. We part company on the religious aspect (as above) and the idea of many in the environmental movement (not Gore in this case) that the free market is bad.

Henry

There are three broad categories of nature. One is what should be preserved. These are things like the Grand Canyon or the Redwoods. There is not really a “natural” reason for this. Humans think they are impressive (I do too) and should be preserved. The other two categories are used wisely. One is a mixed use, maybe a general use forests. The other is something used intensively like cropland. We need all three of these sorts of nature for practical reasons.

My goal or result is often the same as the religious environmentalists, but my way of getting there and reasoning are different. In the long run, the pragmatic approach will do more good than the sacred.

Stephen (2)

I thought about what you wrote and why I feel the way I do. It is actually not completely rational. I look down on many “environmentalists” who sing the songs and talk the talk, but do not actually do much good. I am offended that someone like Madonna, who makes enough pollution for 100 people, can win absolution by singing a song and taking a political stance. This is my “religious” side.


Cube

You finally understand. The market is a mechanism. It is not means to worship the dollar. It is a means to solve societies problems and meet societies needs with a dispersed decision making and information gathering procedure that no government bureaucracy, no matter how wise or honest, can duplicate. You understand that my respect for the market is not based on greed, but rather on wanted to use the best solutions.

Woody

I am not dismissing climate change as a religion. I believe it is a serious, practical problem. But just as organized religion sometimes has little to do with God, organized environmentalism sometimes has little to do with nature. Humans are part of nature and have to be part of any solution and our technologies will be the answer. That is my practical answer.

All

Vison without means to accomplish it is just a hallucination.

Posted by: Jack at July 11, 2007 8:32 AM
Comment #225783
I agree that a person can and should reduce his own carbon footprint, but you buying a carbon credit from someone else is just silly and meaningless.

I’m really confused here. I thought you supported carbon trading as one of those sensible, free-market solutions to global warming.

Honestly, I don’t see much disagreement between you and Al Gore. For some reason you just don’t like the sumbitch.

Your argument that environmentalism is a religion is paper-thin. You yourself are an environmentalist for all practical purposes, but I don’t think you see your own beliefs as irrational.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 8:47 AM
Comment #225788

I think I can boil this exchange so far down to a simple dialogue (not actual words used):

Jack: Environmentalists are fools who believe anything Al Gore says with religious fervor.

Liberals: No, it’s about the data! Look at all the data supporting global warming.

Jack: Yeah, I know, that’s why I’m an environmentalist.

I believe the appropriate response at this point is “HUH?”

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #225795

Huh?
You all just have to find something to disagree about don’t you.
Jacks message, IMO, is very easy to understand and very true.

gore and his followers are the same as a Falwell(?) and his followers.
Hardcore and they are the only ones who are right. If you do not agree with them about everything, you are wrong. Differing opinions are not allowed.
Pointless to discuss the issue with.

Joe Blow environmentalists are the same as Joe Blow religious people.
Levelheaded and do their best. Willing to accept that there are other beliefs and willing to work together with them to reach a positive consensus and productive end.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2007 10:29 AM
Comment #225798

I own 178 acres of forest, plant trees, preserve water resources and own a hybrid which I use little because I ride my bike to work. I bet I am just about the most carbon virtuous person who writes on this blog,

Posted by: Jack at July 11, 2007 08:32 AM

Jack,

This is the most impressive thing I have see in any of your posts on the environment. Yes, I like your carbon tax idea also, if it is applied properly not to cause hardship for some of us. Like I have said before there is not just one single solution to this problem. I don’t think you need to pick on poor Al, he is trying to do his part just as you are. He has some good ideas also. Your post is a new approach to getting people to discuss the problem with the environment. We do need to get to work on it. But I think you need to talk more about your own life style and how others can do what you are doing to make a difference. We are all in this together and we will have to work together to solve this problem. I know it can be hard to work on projects with others who see thing differently than I do. Some people can let testosterone and ego effect there job performance. I think we should bring all our ideas to the jobsite and go to work. We can make adjustment as we move forward. After all this is new ground we are breaking.

Posted by: Outraged at July 11, 2007 10:56 AM
Comment #225801

Jack,

Underlying your “practical” approach are a set of supra-logical premises. That is not a slam; all of our values are based on such premises. It is not more logical to place the interests of Man at the center than it is to place the interests of a Cat or of the complete biodiverse ecology of the planet. It is a question of perspective, or values. If you want to be logical with the use of the term “religion,” then use it across the board. As I said earlier, such a use makes the term meaningless. It also makes the term “religion” into an insult, which, I must admit, makes it amusing when truly religious people resort to the word when they insult people with whom they disagree.

So much for that.

As for specifics of Gore’s proposals, all are fair game for debate. I obviously don’t agree with all of them — I don’t think a single person on these boards agrees with all of them. The single issue of imposing a carbon tax drives most of them away. Gore has been far more successful in attracting attention to the challenge than he has in pushing any particular solution. That’s as it should be. Once you envigorate a debate, you can’t predict the outcome.

Also interesting — the people on these boards who have cheered your article are doing it for the wrong reasons. They use your charge of “religion” as an attack on the reality of man-caused climate change. But that’s not what you are attacking; you are attacking a set of proposals for dealing with the challenge which differ from your approach. Before we can get much done, the naysayers have to come around. As an opinion leader here, you’ve given them a rhetorical angle which they are using to attack a cause you support.

Finally, Jack, I’ve noticed at times a certain ideological blindspot of your own (ideological is a more useful term here than religious, I think). You are opposed, with some exceptions, to regulation, and insist that CAFE standards do not work even though I and others have repeatedly cited analysis that say they do. You never cite analysis to support your belief; you merely sketch out a theory. Further, your approach to mitigating climate change comes down to one proposal — the carbon tax — although no analysis of which I am aware suggests that will be enough. (And of course I support a carbon tax, too.) You’ve found, you think, against all analysis that suggests otherwise, a Holy Grail, a Magic Bullet, An Answer to Trump All Answers — cue the Heavenly Choir.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 11, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #225808

kctim,

I think it is Jack who is trying hard to disagree with someone. He is looking at the same data as Gore and reaching essentially the same conclusions. But Gore is “religious”, whatever that means, and he is not.

Jack’s claim about environmentalism being a religion isn’t wrong. It’s actually meaningless.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #225814

Woody
People also look at the same bible as Falwell and “reach essentially the same conclusions” but do not hold the same hardcore, my way is the only way, beliefs as he does.

Their in your face, you are wrong no matter what, have govt force you to accept their beliefs attitude, is what makes people call them crazy right wing religious extremist nuts.
Is it really that hard for you all to see that is the same thing gore and his followers are doing?

“Jack’s claim about environmentalism being a religion isn’t wrong. It’s actually meaningless”

Jacks post did not make that claim. That is what YOU came to after reading into it. Probably because Jack is a Republican and everybody knows lefty’s are the only ones who care about people and the environment. Ha!

He isn’t saying environmentalism is a religion, but that it is the people who take gores interpretation of the facts and treat it as the end all, be all “gospel” that makes people view them as being religious like, IMO.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2007 12:27 PM
Comment #225818

Jack-
Who’s worse, the few who consume much, or the many who consume much more as a collective group? We could argue all day and get annoyed at those who seem to contradict themselves in our eyes, or we could remove the log in our own eyes to get at the sawdust in theirs and everybody would be better off.

Our current energy dilemma could be see as a tragedy of the commons. Others aren’t going to conserve, why should I?

In truth, Whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not is a distraction. The real challenge is changing society in general, and that takes collective political effort, a movement. Movements can spin out of control, become unaccountable, out of touch with reality, so it is right to be cautious about such things.

However, it is not right to be dismissive. Market forces will no more prevent a heavily subsidized fossil fuel heavy system from remaining in motion on account of its own inertia than it could prevent similarly subsidized fishing fleets from collapsing the fisheries offshore.

A change in national policy is necessary, a movement forward.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #225819

kctim,

Who does that? Who takes Gore’s word as the end-all, be-all? In these debates on Watchblog, no one cites Gore and no one shouldn’t. He’s an educated layperson, but just a layperson, as are most of us here.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 11, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #225824

kctim,

The main point of Jack’s piece is that environmentalism is a new religion.

I did not say or even suggest that Jack doesn’t care about the environment.

You should really read more before you start pointing fingers.

Comparing Gore to Falwell is just name-calling. There methods of determining truth are totally different.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #225833

No Woody,
It is “Al Gore’s church of environmentalism” that Jack is talking about. Trying to lump real environmentalists in with these nuts is sad. Its sad when the left makes everybody on the right out to be some type of blind Falwell follower and its sad when the right makes every atheist out to be some liberal. (I REALLY hate that one)

“I did not say or even suggest that Jack doesn’t care about the environment”

Did you miss the Ha! at the end there? Sarcasm maybe? Maybe I’m not the only one who should read more before “pointing fingers” eh.

“Comparing Gore to Falwell is just name-calling.”

Sigh. Falwell tells people that God is judging them and to live by his interpretation of the Bible. These people then want to save others so they have the in-your-face attitude that we all have seen.
gore tells people his interpretation of global warming. These people then want to save the world so they have the in-your-face attitude that we all have seen.
Its less about Falwell and gore personally and more about how their followers go to the extremes to support what they believe and how that turns people off and how that does more harm than good for the movement.

“There methods of determining truth are totally different”

Really?
Both have “studied” the writtings of others and both believe their interpretation is right.
Both have followers who believe the end is near, unless we act as they say.
Both profit from their “teachings.”

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #225837

kctim,

I saw the musical “Cats” once. It’s about cats. At least I think it was. There were a lot of cats on the stage.

Look at the first sentence: “The environmental movement is coming to resemble the pre-reformation church.” If you don’t like that kind of broad generalization, complain to Jack.

The way you put it, pretty much any expert or activist is interchangeable with Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #225849

By the way, there is a huge difference between environmentalists warning about an environmental collapse and Christians warning about the Apocalypse.

The Apocalypse is supposed to be welcomed. Environmentalists, on the other hand, like life on Earth as it is, and aren’t yearning for some supernatural state of being.

One of many fundamental differences.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #225855

Woody
I don’t need to complain to Jack, I understood.

“The way you put it, pretty much any expert or activist is interchangeable with Jerry Falwell”

Yes! and IF they have a following, they can be even more annoying. It is not always just the message that turns people off. Many times, its the “we are right, you are wrong” or “the end is near, we must act this way now” crowd that turns people off.

Look, I’m a pretty enviro kind of person and I do what I can for it. But when people start getting all amway or used car salesman on me, I don’t care what they have to say.

How about, rather than listening to a political baffoons profit driven opinions, we instead get the scientists to produce educational films, based entirely on facts, and make them readily available to the public? No spin, no what ifs, just this is what we have found points to this, type of stuff.

Art Bell and al gore have their place in entertainment, lets keep them there.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #225857

Jack:

I’m disappointed in you. I thought you like logic. But this is as ridiculous as the rantings of Ann Coulter.

You present a pure example of the Republican method of attack. Karl Rove would be proud. Here’s the technique: Whenever you don’t agree with someone just attack and make the attack emotional. For no reason you call Al Gore a pope of a new religion: environmentalism.

You offer no arguments against anything Gore says. Just that we have here a new religion.

Then you turn around and say Gore has something - there is an environmental problem. YOU have the solution: carbon taxes. Everybody who disagrees with you is part of Gore’s religion. Even Gore, who favors carbon taxes, is so wedded to his religion that he recommends stupid [in your eyes] things.

The Earth is warming. Eventually it may cause catastrophic harm. Prudence says we must prepare. You want carbon taxes. OK, let’s consider this. Also, let’s consider many other solutions.

I consider the probable warming of Earth as the most important threat we face. Does this mean I belong to this new religion? Crazy!

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 11, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #225858

Ill post it again:


If the Great Storm of 1900 had hit Galveston two years ago, it would have inflicted $72 billion in damage, nearly as much as Hurricane Katrina, researchers say.

This doesn’t make the far left wrong, but it does pull Katrina out of the argument as a proof that “global warming” or even “global cooling” is catastrophic!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #225863

Gerrold,


“In these debates on Watchblog, no one cites Gore and no one shouldn’t”

Check your computer, I think you have been debating on a fake Watchblog phishing site!


I think that’s kind of like when in another post you stated that Katrina is not used as a proof of “global warming”.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #225866

scottie,

Please don’t misquote me as you just did about Katrina. We can discuss your misunderstanding on the relevant thread, if you like.

Point me to a post on Watchblog in which someone on the Left cites Gore on a point of climate change science. The most people say is that he is substantially correct on the science. That’s not the same thing as saying we should blindly follow Gore; it means we should listen to the scientists. Gore was instrumental in popularizing the issue, but if we are going to examine the issue, we have to dig deeper. The people here making serious cases are citing the IPCC, other scientific organizations, or individual scientists.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 11, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #225875

kctim,

Calling Gore an entertainer is unfair to entertainment. :)

He is a popularizer. Scientists can do that, too. I like your idea of people with more traditional scientific credentials taking a shot at making their own documentary. In fact, I’m sure they have been made, we just don’t know because they aren’t celebrities.

And Jack can make a movie promoting the carbon tax. Then Sean Hannity can call him a left-wing nut who hates civilization. :)

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 3:18 PM
Comment #225897

Jack,

In your example of Germany, how is anti-nuclear equal anti free-market? I assume you are referring to Germany’s Green party when you say “Their goal is to bring down free-market systems.” Is that actually a part of their platform? What do you base that on or did you make it up?

Many liberals want to protect the environment and many liberals are anti-corporate but to boil it down essentially to liberals believe Al Gore and global warming because he is a liberal is useless. Many people of all political persuasions believe what they are told if it is told often enough. Look how many Americans though Saddam Hussein and Iraq were directly involved in 911 because of Cheney/Bush’s fear mongering in the same sentence mentioning Hussein and Iraq. Ends do not justify the means, even if they were right. There is a big difference in promoting a difficult subject and making a religion. It’s the facts and debate that matter, let’s not attack the messenger.

Saying people will believe anything because who says it doesn’t change the veracity of those who are saying it.

Posted by: chris2x at July 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #225909

Climate Change, or Global Warming, is a global problem. It is recognized as such around the world.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

Attempting to discredit the problem by suggesting it is like a religion of the US, led by Al Gore, that people who accept the evidence of Global Warming are often intolerant “hotheads”, mere “believers” who have been duped into talking up a non-existent crisis, well, this is total crap; in the fashion typical of Bush Supporters, it pretends the US is the world, and that the problem can be personified and demonized in the person of a single Democrat, Al Gore. But we have grown used to this kind of right-wing, conservative garbage, haven’t we, so used to it that we are just staring at our own round bellybutton, oblivious to the concept of a globe, hardly even noticing our own national self-centeredness and self-absorption anymore.

Posted by: phx8 at July 11, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #225931

Gerrold

I put man ahead of the cat and all other animals. I understand that is a value judgement. You can count me in on that one. When I have varmints like beavers, rabbits or woodchucks on my place, I do not consider their rights equal to mine and we take care of them.

I do object to those who would put animals first. If that is a religious dispute, I suppose that is where I stand. Humans are more important. Humans have to live in harmony with nature and work for reasonable sustainability. If that means not killing some animals, I am happy; if that means killing some animals, I am not troubled.

Re religion - I am not truly religious. I am referring to religion is the sense of dogma and ceremony. I do not think the medieval church represented most of what I would consider good in religion. Like the COG, it was more concerned with things other than its main mission - i.e. God.

I do believe in the carbon tax. Other things are subspecies and not as effective. A cap and trade, for example, is a less efficient form of carbon tax. Re CAFE standards, I explained that I do not believe they work because they encourage more driving. We have no proof of that either way. We know that the miles driven have increased enough to counteract the benefits. Whether this would have happened anyway, we do not know. We do see that price of fuels has a strong effect on demand and on creation of alternatives. CAFE, BTW, does nothing to encourage alternatives. If you just get better mileage, it doesn’t matter if you are using oil, biodiesel of ethanol. In fact, the latter may suffer, since they produce poorer mileage.

Woody

It seems to me that environmentalism has duplicated many aspects of medieval religion. Indulgences/offsets are an obvious parallel. We should not accept them because they take us from the real goal.

I do not say environmentalism is a religion. Some environmentalists have copied many of the bad aspects of religion. Just as the medieval church got rotten and to some extent ruined a good movement, I fear environmentalism could go that route.

Stephen

We should cut subsidies to energy and things like fishing. We should let the market at them.

Re Gore, Madonna etc - they can use what they want. They should just not pretend that they are virtuous because they can buy indulgences/offsets.

Paul

I disagree with Gore re the need for an urgent political solution. I prefer market methods. Generally, however, I do not disagree with Gore broadly. I do not like his tone, which I consider semi-religious and I think he exaggerates the real problem.

Think of it like a diet. Most dieters fail because they try a crash diet. Those who succeeded make gradual changes to their lifestyles. COG is looking for a radical change. We cannot sustain one and like the crash dieter, we will end up worse off if we try.

Posted by: Jack at July 11, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #225932
I do not say environmentalism is a religion.

You just did. I quote,

So let’s just distance ourselves from the religion of environmentalism and get about the task of improving the environment.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 11, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment #225933

Woody

I am not trying to be pedantic, but the religion OF environmentalism is not the same as calling environmentalism a religion. The bank of the United States does not mean the United States is a bank. The religion of environmentalism is the dogmatic & “mystic” part. The practical nature of environmentalism is what I advocate.

Posted by: Jack at July 11, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #225934

Here are a few ideas for cutting pollution that might also help support American jobs.

1. Cut off all imports of Chinese manufactured goods since they are made at some of the worste polluting factores in the world.
2. Add a tariff on all goods imported from over populated countries such as India and mexico as a overpopulation tax since these huge populations add to global pollution.
3. Use more wind/wave generated power where possible such as in massachsettes where Teddy won’t let this be used since it affects his ocean his view.
4. Build a huge solar power generating facility the lenth of our border with Mexico. Its sunny along the border virtually the entire year and since you would want to build a protective fence around it you would kill two birds with one stone.

Posted by: Carnak at July 11, 2007 9:08 PM
Comment #225944

Jack
I agree. This is the silliest piece I have seen you write. Wrong side of the bed this morning?

As another history buff I find it vagely interesting how people always have some sort fertility goddess. Isis,Mary,Mother nature etc.That is not particularly germain to the important subject of carbon caused climate change.
You know it is a real problem,calling for real solutions. Haveing 2 billion or so people excited about change seems to have struck your conservative trepidation about change,any change.If that was not true you might have mentioned it in your “Good News” postings.
There are very powerful forces with a fundemental stake in keeping fossil fuels as the primary energy source. They are spending big time to protect their dominence. They have the propaganda machine running at full capacity. I hear tell that Savage stooge is comparing Al Gore to Moosalini and he is trying to shift the worlds wealth into his own hands etc. Just more evidence they will not get off the throne easily. This is a shame as we need all hands on this. Pieces like this just feed in to that crap.

Posted by: BillS at July 11, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #225984

Jack,

The important thing is that you yourself are an environmentalist for all intents and purposes. Whether you come from it from more rational viewpoint than others is really academic. By propagating the meme the environmentalism is largely a “religion”, you are essentially giving skeptics a reason to be dismissive of your own arguments.

Think about it — where does your beloved carbon tax fit in your religious paradigm? It’s another “sin tax”: cigarettes, booze, CO2. It fits the idea of selling indulgences, too. You crazy medieval Catholic, you. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 12, 2007 7:18 AM
Comment #225988

Woody

Carbon tax influences use of carbon. Indulgences/offsets merely makes people feel good about using it.

RE practical v religious enviromentalism. It is like the dieter. A person who goes on a too strict a diet fails and ends up fatter than before. The only way to lose weight in the long run are reasonable lifestyle changes. The religious environmentalist have trouble compromising. I have no trouble with some animals getting killed and some trees being cut. Let me get to real apostacy, I do not think it would much matter if the California condor went extinct, since there are so few of them already and we seem to be getting along fine w/o them. If you think that goes over as a mere alternive opinion with the COG, talk to some of them.

Posted by: Jack at July 12, 2007 8:13 AM
Comment #225989

Jack,

Re carbon tax: Either way, you can buy your way out of the “sin”.

What you do think about carbon trading?

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 12, 2007 8:30 AM
Comment #225993

Speaking of practical environmentalism, I fear that the carbon tax, or anything that directly raises the price of gasoline, is impractical.

Sure, it makes sense theoretically, but politically it is a very very tough sell. Consider this chart showing the relationship between Bush’s approval rating and the price of gasoline:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/gasindex-long_files/zzzBUSHINDEX_24497_image001.gif

Now, correlation doesn’t prove causality, but future presidents would have to be pretty brave (or lame ducks) to sign an effective carbon tax into law.

See also you link to John Dingell’s action. He knows a carbon tax won’t fly, at least not yet.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 12, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #226038

Woody,

If we are serious about mitigating the effects of climate change, then we have to find a way to sell a carbon tax. No single other proposal promises as much beneficial effect. That’s not the same thing as saying we should address the issue on other fronts. Dingell has done this country a huge disservice. Politics as usual will screw us big time.

One way to sell it is to couple it with progressive return of revenues. The poor get more back, the middle class get what they paid, the rich get hit. Considering that the rich per capita use more carbon, we can sell that on “fairness.”

Posted by: Gerrold at July 12, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #226039

That should be, “We should also address the issue on other fronts.”

Posted by: Gerrold at July 12, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #226090

Global Warming: Greatest scam upon the history of the West, if not the entire human race.

Al Gore: Greatest con

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 12, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #226111

Woody

Carbon trading is a less efficient means of carbon tax. It drives up the prices of goods containing carbon. I would accept it if the better alternatives were politically impossible.

We do not have much choice about the carbon tax. We MUST reduce carbon. There is no alternative. All other solutions are BS.

Posted by: Jack at July 12, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #226161

Jack,
Why you make a good point, my question to the Left & Right of the Global Warming issue is simply. Can any Human tell me the what it would take to make it so we could enjoy 70 degree weather year round?

Because why you and I may not agree on how exactly to get there, without an understanding of how & why the Earth warms and cools itself is not all knowledge on the subject found to be stupid?

Leatherankh,
Sorry if the capital letters throws you off; however, since Government & Society forces me to maintain a Natural Gap in Human Knowledge I use the letters to allow others to think.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at July 13, 2007 6:22 AM
Comment #226245

Jack,

It’s kind of like the Y2K thing…

What if Gore is right?

Are you willing to gamble away the whole world - all of human civilization…

…merely for the sake of your own shallow-thinking allegience to the republican party label?

Posted by: RGF at July 13, 2007 8:10 PM
Comment #226880
All this sin/carbon made people uncomfortable and they sought ways to get out from under the burden. MC addressed this problem with indulgences. A few saintly people created more grace than they needed. The Church controlled this supply of grace and rich guys could buy indulgences to offset their own sins. EC uses offsets of carbon. In both cases, the buyers get to continue their lives largely unaffected if they can afford carbon/sin offsets, and in both cases their offsets do not affect the total store of sin/carbon.

Please read up a little more on carbon offsets. Offsetting has nothing to do with faith or sin, it’s actually based on science. Of course people who want to make a difference might use it to make themselves feel better but so what? No one is arguing offsetting can be used in place of other measures, or saying you have some obligation to do it to avoid punishment. In fact in a sort of way it’s a little odd conservatives attack this one idea. I thought afterall that donating to private charity was the proper solution to poverty, since government “can’t do anything right.” But now you’re telling wealthy individuals who want to feel better about themselves that it’s wrong of them to spend their money how they want, or so it seems.

Another point of similarity has to do with public professions of faith. MC held various conclaves and supported pilgrimages. If you read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, you learn that pilgrimages for most people were a kind of vacation, a chance to get away from the old village, much like going to rock concerts, for which you could get credit in the next world, maybe heal a wound or two in this one.

So basically because Al Gore speaks out about a problem in different places, it must be a “pilgrimage.” Seems to me the same could be said about nearly anyone that has promoted change (but doesn’t support the status quo or have easy access to the media) such as Martin Luther King, Paul Revere, or what today about John McCain’s “straight-talk express” around America.

So let’s just distance ourselves from the religion of environmentalism and get about the task of improving the environment. If Gore would drop the other BS and use his considerable influence in that one area of carbon tax, I think he could do some good. No chance.

What specific BS are you referring to? Can you give any specific examples of Al Gore’s supposedly absurd beliefs?

This article hasn’t proven that Al Gore is somehow a cult leader in any sense, just bizarre rhetoric and innuendo to suggest it. The same things could apply to Republican beliefs, in some cases even more so. What about the people showing up at a Bush rally a few years back, with the slogans and quasi-fascist overtones of such events? Or the belief of some GOPers that Bush is appointed by God to save America. Or the idea that to show your patriotism you should buy a ribbon-shaped bumper sticker with a meaningless slogan to “support the troops” not by doing anything to help the actual mean and women fighting, but by bashing anyone critical of Bush. By your logic that would probably be a religious relic (Although you may be right that making real sacrificies is more of a liberal thing. Afterall,i f I support some war so much, why bother actually signing up to fight or actually do anything when I can just buy a cheap sticker and say how much better I am than everyone else).

Posted by: mark at July 19, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #378238

Emporio Armani AR0100 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0101 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0106 Subdial Silver Bracelet Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0115 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Brick Link Bracelet Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0121 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0137 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0141 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0142 Men’s Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0148 Men’s Watch Men’s Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0257 Classic Black Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0154 Classic Rectangle Face Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0259 Men’s Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0264 Brown Leather Strap Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0266 Black/Brown Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0273 Classic Silver Dial Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0283 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0284 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0285 Classic Leather Strap Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0286 Mens Classic Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0292 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0293 Black And Gold Leather Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0294 Chronograph Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0297 Solid Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0298 Stainless Steel White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0299 Stainless Black Dial Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0308 Gold-tone Steel Black Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0310 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0311 Leather Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0315 Mens Stainless Steel Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0320 Mens Rose Gold Plated Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0321 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0168 Rose Gold Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0180 Men’s Classic Black Leather Band Watch
Emporio Armani AR0186 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0187 Classic Chronograph Men’s Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0203 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0206 Men’s Classic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0235 Tan Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0241 Stainless Mens Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0322 Classic Chronograph Rose Gold Men Wrist watch
Emporio Armani AR0333 Classic Chronograph Champagne Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0334 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0337 Men’s Classic Brown Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0362 Men’s Classic Black Dial Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0363 Men’s Black Crocodile Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0402 Classic Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0403 Men Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0405 Mens Black Dial Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0406 Men’s Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0407 Mens Analog Watch Brown Leather Band
Emporio Armani Men’s AR0409 Large Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0410 Men’s Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0412 Womens Brown Croc Leather Classic Watch
Emporio Armani AR0425 Classic Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0426 Brown Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0427 Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0428 Men’s Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0429 Men’s Classics Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0431 Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Band Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0433 Classic Silver Dial Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Classic Collection Men’s Quartz Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0455 Classic Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0456 Brown/Rose Gold Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0457 Classic Rectangular Watch Stainless Steel Case
Emporio Armani AR0458 Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0463 Men’s Classic Leather Quartz Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0464 Mens Classic All Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR0465 Mens Classic Black Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0466 Two Tone Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0470 Women’s Champagne Dial Gold Tone Ion Plated Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0472 Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0473 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0474 Chronograph Quartz Men’s Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0475 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0477 Classic Amber Dial Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR0478 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0479 Men’s Classic Chronograph Leather Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0480 Men’s Classic Chronograph Stainless Steel Blue Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0482 Gents Classic Watch Stainless Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0483 Classic Chronograph Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0484 Men’s Dress Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0486 Men’s Classic Silver Dial Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0487 Men’s Digital Silver Dial and Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0489 Men’s Classic Taupe Textured Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0490 Classic Mens Brown Leather Dress 30MM Watch
Emporio Armani AR0492 Men Large Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0493 Men’s Stainless Black dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0498 Classic Quartz White Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0499 Mens Classic Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0506 Men’s Black Dial Black Canvas Watch
Emporio Armani AR0508 Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0525 White Leather Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0526 Sport Analog Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0527 Black Mens Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0528 Sports Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0531 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Strap Quartz men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0532 Men’s Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0534 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0539 Classic Black Face Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0540 Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0547 Sports Style Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0552 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0548 Men’s Watch Men’s Rubber Strap
Emporio Armani AR0549 Black Rubber Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0555 Men’s Black Sport Watch
Emporio Armani AR0560 Black Dial Stainless Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0563 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0566 Mens Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0571 Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0572 Men’s Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0573 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0574 Rose Gold Mens Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0575 Watch Men’s Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0576 Gents Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0577 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0578 Leather Collection Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0580 stainless silver watch
Emporio Armani AR0581 Classic Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0582 Men’s White Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0583 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0584 Black GOLD Rubber Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0585 Men’s Classic Stainless steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0586 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0587 Quartz World Time Watch
Emporio Armani AR0588 Black Rubber Band Bold Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0589 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0590 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0591 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0592 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0593 Black Rubber Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0594 Men?s Chronograph Mango Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0595 mens sports style rubber strap designer watch
Emporio Armani AR0597 Men’s Sport Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0599 Mens Sport Rubber Strap Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0619 Leather Gents Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0624 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0627 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0628 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Movement Watch
Emporio Armani AR0629 Unisex Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0630 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0631 Men’s Sport Black Textured Dial Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0632 Classic Mens Designer Posh Watch
Emporio Armani AR0633 Sport Analogue Stainless Steel Bracelet Silver Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0634 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0635 Quartz Gunmetal Gray Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0643 Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0646 Classic Womens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0649 Sport Chronograph Blue Rubber Band Blue Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0653 Sport Analogue Black Rubber Strap Black Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0654 White Silicon Strap SPORT WATCH
Emporio Armani AR0655 Orange Rubber Strap Designer Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0656 Men’s Classic Silver Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0658 Mens Chronograph Rubber Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0660 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0661 Men’s Black/Grey Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0662 Mens Sports White Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Chronograph Watch Silver Dial Mens Quartz
Emporio Armani AR0665 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Mens Sports Chronograph Divers Watch
Emporio Armani AR0667 Men’s Gunmetal Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0668 Women’s Leather Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0671 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0677 Men’s Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0683 Rubber Sport Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0684 Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0685 Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0686 Grey Sport Strap Gunmetal Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0687 Sport Blue Man Watch
Emporio Armani AR0696 Classic White Leather 2-Hand Silver Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0926 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Steel Case Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0932 Stainless Silver Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0933 Classic Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0934 Mens Amber Brown Watch
Emporio Armani AR0936 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0937 wrist watch man black steel chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR1400 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1403 Men’s Ceramica White Dial Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR1404 Ceramic Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR1406 Mens Marco Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR1408 White Ceramic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1410 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1411 Women’s Ceramica Chrono Watch
Emporio Armani AR1412 Women’s Ceramic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1413 Sport Watch Quartz Chronograph Black Analog Mens
Emporio Armani AR1416 Quartz White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2006 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2007 Slim Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2008 Men’s Classic Roman Numerals Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2010 Men’s Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2011 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2012 Silver Strap Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2014 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2016 Men’s Classic Mesh Goldtone Mother-Of-Pearl Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2020 Round Case Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2022 Super Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2023 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2026 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2027 Men’s Classic Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2028 Gents Classic Watch Black Stainless Steel Mesh Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR2030 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2032 Men’s Rectangular Amber Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2034 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2036 Gents Stainless Steel Watch with White Dial
Emporio Armani AR2041 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2043 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2053 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2055 Super Slim Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2411 Men’s Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2413 Watch Men’s Brown Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2415 Mens Classic Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2417 Classic Silver Dial Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1700 Mens Black Valente Watch
Emporio Armani AR2421 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR2423 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Analog Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2425 Gold Plated Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2427 Classic Men’s Leather Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR2429 Men’s Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2430 Men’s Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2431 Men’s Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2432 Men’s Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2433 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2434 Classic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2435 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2436 Unisex Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2440 Men’s Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2442 Classic Leather Strap Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2444 Classic Black Leather Date Strap Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2447 Men’s Renato Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR2448 Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2452 Stainless Steel Pink Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR3151 Diamond Mother Of Pearl Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4200 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4201 Meccanico Automatic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4203 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4204 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4205 Mens Meccanico Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4206 Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4207 Mens Meccanico Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4208 Meccanico Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4209 Meccanico Small Seconds Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR4210 Brown Leather Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4213 Classic Chronograph Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4214 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4218 Mens MECCANICO Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4219 Mens Rose Gold Classic Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4224 Meccanico Open Heart Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4226 Black Rubber Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4228 Meccanico Automatic Black Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4229 Meccanico Automatic Brown Leather Yellow Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4231 Mens Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4601 Jungle Combat Mens Leather Wrist Watch
Emporio Armani AR4602 Black Leather Mens Designer Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4603 Men’s Watch Automatic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR4604 Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4606 MECCANICO Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4607 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4608 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4609 Mens Meccanico Automatic Dk Blue /Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4610 Meccanico Mens Stainless Steel Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4611 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4612 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4613 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4619 Meccanico Men’s Automatic Rose Gold Watch
Emporio Armani AR4620 Men Meccanico Calendar Watch
Emporio Armani AR4625 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4627 Meccanico Mens Automatic Watch
Emporio Armani AR4628 Men’s Meccanico Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4630 Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4633 Gents Automatic Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4634 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4635 Meccanico Automatic Black Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4643 Men’s Meccanico Brown Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR4644 Men’s Meccanico Brown Leather Strap Silver Dial watch
Emporio Armani AR5300 Striking gents dress watch
Emporio Armani AR5316 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR5321 Black Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5324 Men’s Stainless Steel Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR5327 Stainless Large Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5328 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5329 Leather Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5330 Classic GMT Dual Time Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5331 Stainless Gents Watch

Posted by: burberry watch steel at May 8, 2014 8:28 AM
Post a comment