I simply must follow up on this from yesterday’s post: This post over at Drudge is taken from a Tennessee group that did the research and, I think, it’s proof positive that global warming is a big hoax–at least the way Al Gore describes it….Gore says it is not a political issue, it’s a moral one. Really? Well then…
Gore has been not only vocal, but has attempted to sound a note of patriarchal maturity on his notion of a warming planet. He has claimed both in his movie and in his book that his commitment is not political, but is moral. He even made that claim at the Academy Awards directly stating with a completely straight face that this was a moral choice.
To be honest, I cannot fault anyone for believing him. He comes off as sincere, at least as sincere as a talking tree can be, and while he’s good for a joke, he’s aware of his own shortcomings when it comes to public speaking. Bill Clinton he ain’t. Heck, he’s not even George Bush, though one could argue that he doesn’t butcher the language as badly…most of the time.
That said, it’s pretty apparent that Gore is all hot air and CO2. Short of calling him a liar (which as a politician is, of course, his God-given right), it’s pretty easy to argue that he is, at least, disingenuous. How, you ask?
Well–look, Gore’s own expenditures at his own house in Tennessee exceed the national average by about 20 times. Thats pretty amazing, isn’t it? The man who spends a good deal of effort telling you and me what we can do to slow down or stop global warming, isn’t doing much at all to stop it. In fact, if his own science is to be believed, he’s adding to it in a tremendous way. Why is that, I wonder? That information alone is enough to simply shut off the political aspect of the debate, isn’t it?
Really–it comes to this: In light of Al Gore’s obvious hypocrisy about what people should be doing to stop global warming, one can only conclude that this particular cause du jour for him is either A) a way to keep him in the limelight B) a vehicle for him to use to run for the Presidency or C) an admission that while he believes global warming is happening, he doesn’t believe that he should have to do much to stop it–but you and I should. Which one do you choose? It really cannot be much else can it?
If you support Al Gore in this crusade of his, how can you possibly respond to the idea that his own home is a living monument to the “destruction of the planet,” because its “carbon footprint” isn’t just big–it’s gargantuan. The man’s own house burns 20 times more electricity than the average American household. So, how do you respond to that? I’m curious.
This, for me, brings me back to my original idea here (I dare not call it a thesis as I don’t think my thinking is that organized, but it is starting to be…) which is that after reading so much of the actual science on the issue of warming–on both sides–what’ s clear is that there is no consensus on what is causing what has been a one degree increase in the earth’s temperature in the last 100 years. That’s pretty much it. If you go much further than that, you are on shaky ground when it comes to whether or not the planet is warming and why. And as I write this, the United States, particularly the Midwestern U.S. is experiencing the coldest February in 70 years. So–earth temp gone up one degree, coldest February in 70 years. Are you seriously telling me that you understand the “science” on this issue?
There are some who want to split the difference and say, “yes, the planet is warming, but we’re not sure why…” At this point, I’m only willing to go as far as “the planet has increased in temperature by one degree.” That ain’t much–and even the IPCC says that sea level rise in the next 100 years is going to be about 17 inches. Does that matter at all? With the human ability to adapt to such things, does that even count? Does it require radical restructuring of our economic engine so that the sea level rise is, say, closer to 4 inches or not at all? Will that 17 inches endanger so many lives–so quickly, so devastatingly, that there will be no time to ameliorate? Well, no. That doesn’t seem a rational argument in any way.
And to think–all of that (and I’m just scratching the surface when it comes to asking questions about this stuff) comes from the very simple fact that the man who put this particular ball in play is a hypocrite. In fact, I should go one better: Global warming is as big an issue as it is largely because Al Gore has pushed the issue so hard. He has made a movie, written books and worked on policy that would attempt to ameliorate global warming. So important is the issue, he says, that lives are in the balance–people may actually die and we are, very rapidly, destroying mother earth. That’s Gore’s position.
But, apparently, it’s not the position of his 20 room mansion that uses 20 times the electricity of the average household. It’s apparently not the position of the private jet he travels on which burns fuel at, what Gore would refer to as, an alarming rate. In fact, so alarmed about global warming is Al Gore–that he apparently hasn’t done a damn thing about the plight of the earth other than talk about it and get everyone worked into a lather about it.
Global warming not political? Make your argument. I’m listening.