What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Feb. 28 2010 - 1:31 pm | 262 views | 1 recommendation | 3 comments

Al Gore in the New York Times

I agree with almost everything Al Gore writes in his New York Times op-ed today, but we all know that people who despise Gore (and there are more than a few on the right) are going to reject it out of hand.

Gore is a very polarizing figure, partly because of his rather extreme attacks on George W. Bush during the Bush presidency (such as the red-faced yelling speech in which he accused Bush of betraying the country).

This animus from the right damages his ability to be a good spokesman for climate change, which is unfortunate because he has a pretty good grasp of the science, and a realistic assessment of the political issues, and can argue effectively on both fronts. But the populist hatred of Gore is fully exploited by Republican politicians, who relentlessly demonize him as a hypocrite, a liar, etc.

Even if you hate Gore, though, try to put it on hold long enough to give his article a chance. There are some thoughtful points in here that deserve to be discussed instead of dismissed, starting with the title: We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change.

(I checked the comments on Twitter’s conservative feed ‘#tcot’ just to see how bad the Gore Derangement Syndrome is, and it’s raging out of control. A typical tweet: “When do Congressional hearings start into Al Gore’s criminal fraud and the man-made #GlobalWarming lie?”)


3 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    Many on the right may reflexively distrust Al Gore, but many on the left reflexively believe him. I do wish he knew the science as well as you believe he does – if he did, maybe he would be confident enough to correct the scientific errors that he has made and popularized and to debate a “skeptic” in a way that would do his position credit. But we certainly don’t see him engaging in those constructive activities.

    It should be noted that Gore’s piece is a reaction – an often unacknowledged reaction to the fact that there has been considerable back-sliding in the AGW science itself. Most in the U.S. don’t know that because it’s gone unreported here. As a consequence, the popular culture here in the U.S. has not kept pace and seems to be about four or five months behind actual developments in the science and public opinion in places like the U.K, Australia and even India.

    Anyone that has been following science rather than the politics – and that means going outside of and around the msm here in the U.S. – understands the significance of this interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm [the warming is not unprecedented, CO2 ramped up but there has been cooling since 1998, the WMP probably did occur, which raises the question of why it's been scrubbed out of the data].

    So the scientists at the very core the AGW theory are clearly not certain and they are slowly backtracking and starting to open up their science and admit it was practiced poorly.

    The real revelation here is not that there were some mistakes made in a young, complex and politicized science. The revelation is that people want to keep believing in AGW as a “settled science” and certainty, even after the scientists behind the theory admit it is not settled and not certain.

    I’d rather Al Gore called for these scientists to get back to the scientific method, and to practice their craft in a transparent manner worthy of trust.

  2. collapse expand

    “There are some thoughtful points in here … starting with the title: We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change.”

    Why would we want to wish away climate change? It is natural for our planet to constantly change. It is a dynamic flux of creation and re-creation by forces beyond our control.

    As for the rest of the essay, Gore has thrown in everything but the kitchen sink in order to push cap and trade. It is time for people who do care about the environment to realize that corporate interests took over the top of the movement a long time ago. Our natural desire for a clean, healthy world has been co-opted for a scheme to make the banksters richer.

  3. collapse expand

    Please watch my video

    It’s about climate change (extreme weather conditions), earth catastrophe and our planet as we lives in.
    Recent Earth catastrophes – Continental Drift: One huge continent became 2 continents, then 5 (or 6) and then?

    Thank you.
    p.s: Extreme greenhouse gas emissions makes climate change move faster.


Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    Programmer, guitar picker, cat herder, and janitorial engineer of the dreaded Little Green Footballs.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 88
    Contributor Since: January 2010
    Location:Secret bunker far beneath the Denver airport