Free Markets, Free People

Al Gore’s fact free climate change rant

I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but Al Gore is again trying to heat up the global warming climate change debate.  In a 7,000 word Rolling Stone article, Gore rails against the news media for being on the wrong side of the debate and giving the “deniers” much more coverage than Gore thinks they deserve.  He’s also not particularly happy with Barack Obama’s progress on that front either.  And finally, he pitches 4 ways activists can reignite the panic he was once successful in creating.

What is conspicuously missing from the rant are any facts.  Other than a few of the same old assertions, and an attempt to tie weather events into his alarmism, he offers absolutely nothing new in the way of science nor does he even attempt to rebut the damning reports that have surfaced since “An Inconvenient Truth” and badly discredited his and other alarmist’s credibility.

Ironically he uses the analogy of professional wrestling as a means of attempting to shame the news media by likening them to the distracted referee in a “professional” bout who always was arguing with one corner or another while the “bad guy” took a metal chair to the “good guy”.

The irony, of course, was that is precisely what Gore, et. al. did early in their fraudulent campaign.  And it was only when the skeptics were able to use actual science to raise so many points refuting key elements of Gore’s thesis that the media could no longer ignore them.

Gore’s attempt to rally the troops ends on the usual alarmist note:

What is now at risk in the climate debate is nothing less than our ability to communicate with one another according to a protocol that binds all participants to seek reason and evaluate facts honestly. The ability to perceive reality is a prerequisite for self-governance. Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends. When it works, the democratic process helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence. That is why the Constitution affords such unique protection to freedom of the press and of speech.

The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable — given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason — of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it.

His first paragraph describes precisely what happened to his climate assertions.  They were destroyed by being exposed as false arguments.  And I think it is telling that he doesn’t try to justify or factually support all the nonsense he presented as “fact” in his propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth”.  Instead he just doubles down, whines about the media (that’s original) and distractions and claims nothing in the realm of science has changed primarily by simply ignoring that which has. 

There is no “scientific consensus”, much of what he has presented as fact has been successfully disputed or refuted and “the democratic process [which] helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence” has worked.  It is he who is in denial – and in this case, the wrestling is real, and he’s losing.


Twitter: @McQandO


20 Responses to Al Gore’s fact free climate change rant

  • The Failure of Al Gore

    The average citizen is all too likely to conclude that if Mr. Gore can keep his lifestyle, the average American family can keep its SUV and incandescent bulbs.  If Gore can take a charter flight, I don’t have to take the bus.  If Gore can have many mansions, I can use the old fashioned kind of shower heads that actually clean and toilets that actually flush.  Al Gore looks to the average American the way American greens look to poor people in the third world: hypocritically demanding that others accept permanently lower standards of living than those the activists propose for themselves.

    If Al Gore really wants to understand why the global green movement has tanked, he should start by taking a long hard look in the mirror.

  • Rolling Stone is still published?  Huh.  Thought it was defunct.

    For me, that’s the big takeaway.   I couldn’t care less what a millionaire who flies private jets and lives in extremely large mansions and uses more carbon in a day than I do in a month says.

  • Oh, sure. That’s exactly what I would expect you political idiots to think. You deniers are sterile, inbred, and just like Goebbels in your propaganda.

    And it’s really not fair to try to paint Al Gore as the one using propaganda. Not fair at all. We all agree around the faculty lounge that he’s right, and he proved it years ago with his movie and all, so there’s just no reason for him to keep trying to pound you political idiots with facts. It wouldn’t do any good any way, since you’re so dense and all.

    And don’t you dare start up with the charts and graphs and Freeman Dyson this and solar minimum that. How can you be so cruel as to try to undermine the glorious consensus that this is the biggest threat to humanity in history? Why, we thought we had it good with the whole “modern society will break down if we don’t put all kinds of welfare state stuff in place” thing that started with Wilson and FDR. This is even better!

    It helps us explain to even the youngest child why they have to sacrifice for the greater good. And, of course, the greater good is determined by wise pragmatic leftists with advanced {STACK INTERRUPT: RETURN TO PREVIOUS ROUTINE} degrees.

    Have I ever mentioned that I have one? Yes, it’s a really important advanced degree, and they didn’t give it to me just to get rid of me, and you should respect me and pay attention to me because of it, and you should definitely stop saying anything about me working in a low-paid position at a moose-infested college in rural Maine that doesn’t even grant PhDs. I like my job! It’s a great place to raise my gender neutral children, and the Pell Grant students I get are so very receptive to all the wise lectures I give them. They look at me and smile for the entire lecture, and when I ask questions, they respond with exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Because I’m such a great teacher.

    Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, beating up on you vicious climate denying political idiots, who want to harm my gender neutral children. Well, I won’t let you. I will, along with Barack of the christlike visage and an entire class of wise leftists, keep on indoctrinating educating young people about how awful people like you are, and how mean and stupid Sarah Palin is and how she hides it with her full lips, ample bosom, and naughty librarian glasses. And of course how the Iraq War was the biggest foreign policy mistake in history with violence that it ready to erupt any time now, and how the Arab uprisings are the anti-tea-party and are wonderful because of demographics and anachronisms and stuff, and how tea parties here are just small gangs of misfits with no influence, and how they’ll never have any serious electoral impact. Because that 2010 thing I was so far off on was just a freak happening. I decree it. Just you wait until you see my 2012 predictions, which will be right on, especially when I tell you that Obama is virtually certain to be re-elected because he has been one of the greatest presidents of all time.

    • Lately I’ve been reading from the left — including Prof. Erb — in the hope of understanding how those on the left are responding to the challenges that current events pose to their worldview.

      It won’t surprise any of the regulars here that Erb is assigning readings from Howard Zinn and on Kent State to his students, and claiming on his blog that it is equally plausible that the Democrats win the White House, hold the Senate, reclaim the House as the opposite.

      • Unfortunately, that isn’t that unlikely. No honest, informed voter supported Obama (with the exception of Rev. Wright and the New Black Panthers). The dishonest ones (like Erb) certainly aren’t going to change their minds, and the media isn’t likely to be any less partisan once election time comes around. People that are still uninformed (like his students) probably won’t be swayed either.

        That leaves voters that simply got duped, those so turned off by McCain that they picked Obama in a toss-up or avoided voting for either, and voters that just go by the latest swing in the economy.
        Key questions: How big are those groups?
         How many of the voters that simply got duped in ’08 are willing to admit it to themselves when it may easier on the self-esteem to just believe that all politicians liars and wait until 2016 before making a decision?
        Will the Republicans nominate a conservative, or are there so many open primaries that they allow the left to come in and nominate another weak candidate like McCain?
        What are the chances the economy is on the upswing next summer and fall? If it does, it may not matter whether it’s due to a normal cycle of recovery or businesses seeing the House putting  the brakes on the administration’s policies, that third category still stays with Obama. 

        • My contention with Erb’s claim is on the word “equally.” Sure, we’ve got over a year before the election and much can and will happen before then. Neither side can be confident. However, one has to ignore quite a lot of data to believe that the chances are equal between the parties. As things stand, Democrats are looking at much more of an uphill struggle, and there’s no signs on the horizon that this will change.

          Prof. Erb, as you may recall, also said six months before the 2010 election that it was wishful thinking that Republicans could take the House, much less emerge with a 49 seat majority. Erb, like Obama, always imagines that he surveys the world from the calm cool pragmatic center of things, whereas they are both pretty far to the left and have large predictable blind spots.

          • The media still has a big “veto” on the candidates by “shaming” people who like a candidate. Try supporting Bachmann when the Daily Show makes fun of her.
            It doesn’t help with some of the socon positions these candidates take, but I think even if they didn’t take socon positions they would be bashed.
            Just for example, some comic was making fun of Romney saying he was an investment banker “you know, the guys who bought your Dad’s employer and then fired him.”
            Actually Romney’s firm invested in NEW companies, including Staples, which might employ a few people, I hear.
            Doesn’t matter. The meme gets out.
            Meanwhile Democrats can be community activisists, or VP of Outreach making 300k a year (if your husband is Senator) and its not brought up or laughed at. AS IT SHOULD BE.
            Dems get so many passes its sick…like who gets more Wall Street money? And if regulation is so great how come Freddie and Fannie didn’t have to comply with the SEC or Sarbanes Oxley? (That’s my new weapon I want to release upon the pro-regulation libs…so if its so great, how come your favorites didn’t have it applied to them?)

        • What a fool…
          Because someone disagrees with you, they’re dishonest and uninformed?  I spent a career serving in the Air Force, I’m honest & I work hard to stay informed.  I’ve been a registered Republican all my life and I voted for President Obama.  Looking at the Tea Party sycophants who are running now on the Republican side, I’m very likely to do so again.  I like a little thought and integrity in my president, EVEN when I disagree with him…

  • Ted Turner recently said:<blockquote>“It’s really easy to understand how some people don’t get it because it’s so complex and complicated. But that doesn’t mean we have to do, all of us, do what we can to try to convince people to do the right thing and then motivate them to take the action.”</blockquote>Yep.  So complex that those “scientists” he is relying upon can not even develop a model that can forecast the weather, or even climate of the past.
    <blockquote>“The only thing I can think of, is we just have to keep working, just like we are doing now, and get as much publicity as we possible can for the issue, and increase the amount of the debate, and persuade people with both the evidence, which is overwhelmingly in favor of climate change being a serious problem, probably the most serious–and in all fairness–the most complex problem that humanity has ever faced</blockquote>I’ve heard quite a few skeptics say they would debate Al Gore and a host of other warmists any time, any where.  One would think that if the evidence was really overwhelming, the warmists wouldn’t be as fearful as they appear.
    On a second note, here is Chris Matthews complaining that the media isn’t more Pravda like:  <blockquote>I hate that so-called evenhanded so-called objective journalism. You know, you know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true in the interest of evenhandedness</blockquote>.I wish I could find the full segment.  It is amazing just how cult-like Matthews and his guests Joan Walsh of and Eric Bates editor of Rolling Stone, are, and pathetically funny how they are doing precisely what they accuse the right of doing.

  • It’s worth noting that the comments are running about half pro and half con on the Al Gore article. Some commenters really excoriate Gore.

    Of course, it’s hard to assess blog comments as indicators. However, it does take a Facebook account to post in Rolling Stone and many people are posting under their real names, so I think it’s somewhat meaningful that even in Rolling Stone, Al Gore can’t command the slavish respect he feels is due to himself and to his cause.

    • On Fark, I also notice more pushback against global warming. I think the leak sprung in the dam a few years ago, and now its got huge gaping holes.

      • Yeah. I can’t quite put my finger on exactly when AGW jumped the shark, but it has and its supporters are still stuck in the denial or anger stages of grief.

    • It’s hard to get respect when you have taken on the mantle of the “Flat Earth Society.”
      Both Gore and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have been unwilling to assess the “facts on the ground” as they are revised with new scientific studies.  Correlation isn’t enough any more (there used to be a report that the stock market was up when the Rolling Stones had album in the top 10, which if it holds would mean a down market for some time to come).  When there are plenty of “peer-reviewed” stuff out there that refutes the stories of the glaciers, polar bears, Medieval Warming Period, etc. found int Gore’s “inconvenient Truth” and the IPCC reports have had virtually no real life data to show the underlying theory of warming at 10 km altitude in the tropics while being shown to be based on the “will of the NGOs” like GreenPeace and the WWF rather than actual facts.

  • Someone a couple years ago pointed out that Algore invoking “reason” in anything is pure insolence.

  • Whups – bummer man.

  • Isn’t “wealth over reason” the same class warfare argument the Progressives have been trying to bludgeon us with since the Wilson era?

  • Former Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado, now the president of the UN Foundation, said the flooding and forest fires in the United States this year are evidence of “the kind of dramatic climate impact” climate change models have predicted…

    This is the kind of intellegent, and respectful of hard science, comments we get from those espousing draconian efforts to reign in anthropogenic global warming. Sen. Wirth (with whom I have had cocktails – a seemingly decent fellow) also said this:

    While you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding…

    Got that? The overall trend is going to be both increased drought, AND increased flooding.

    • Yeah, Gaia is about to void the contract she had with them as children that things would stay the same as they always remembered.