Inglorious Goreious

Jillian Bandes
|
Posted: Mar 01, 2010 3:33 PM
I love, love, love Al Gore's new screed, Why I Hate You Backstabbing Anti-Environmentalist Wingnuts (okay, it's not really titled that) spanning a full three pages in the New York Times' online edition. It features gems like:
...even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.
Gore fails to mention, of course, that modern records have only been kept for about a century. That's kind of like saying your puppy is completely house trained because, after nine months of defecating on the rug, you took him for a walk in the park and he happened to go in the bushes. Then, this:
Some analysts [argue]... that a cap-and-trade approach is too unwieldy and difficult to put in place. But...there is no readily apparent alternative that would be any easier politically.
So, even though everyone hates this solution, we should push forward, because, well, Al Gore wants to. And he doesn't even address the fact that cap-and-trade is unwieldy and difficult because there is no scientific consensus on the matter. Eat your vegetables, America.

As Jay Richards at The American points out, the biggest problem with Gore's piece is the angle at which he approaches the debate. His approach to critics is to tell them: "you're wrong because it's hot outside!" while completely dismissing evidence that things are not getting hot, or that things may be hot but there's no evidence of a warming trend, or that there might be discord over what to do about it.

Instead, Gore's dreamy-eyed puppy love for Climategate scientists oozes out between bombastic declarations of emergency, and petulant insistence that the taxpayer simply must pay for his dreaded plans.
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
The last guy I knew who was lobbying for human redemption seemed to have slightly less inflammatory rhetoric.