Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Politics, Science — Rick Moran @ 7:30 am

Being something of an agnostic on the global warming debate, I was amused to watch Al Gore testify before Congress yesterday. Not only was the former Vice President entertaining - as most dogmatic, close minded advocates on both sides of the global warming debate usually are - but watching him wiggle and squirm as he sought to avoid charges of hypocrisy for not taking a pledge to live a life of carbon neutrality turned into either low comedy or high drama, depending on your point of view.

Environmental activist (and former vice president) Al Gore descended on Capitol Hill yesterday, telling two congressional panels that global climate change represents the most dangerous crisis in American history and that the measures needed to fix the problem — such as an immediate freeze on new emissions from cars and power plants — are far more drastic than anything currently on the table.

Gore, whose documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award last month, testified before both House and Senate committees in an appearance that drew international media attention and lines of would-be spectators trailing through congressional hallways.

In both hearings, he had testy exchanges with lawmakers who doubted his scientific evidence or the feasibility of his solutions. Much of his day, though, was spent basking in an odd spotlight: Gore and his cause have Washington’s full attention. But his message, of a feverish planet and dwindling time in which to cure it, made for a grim homecoming.

“This is not a normal time. We are facing a planetary emergency,” Gore said in the afternoon Senate hearing. “I’m fully aware that that phrase sounds shrill to many people’s ears. But it is accurate.”

First, I wonder what Gore thinks of being referred to primarily as an “environmental activist” with his main claim to fame as Clinton’s Vice President given in parentheses. Considering the fact that Gore would probably like to ride his global warming crusade into the White House, my guess is that such distinctions don’t sit very well with him.

As far as his appearances, he was in his element - lecturing the assembled lawmakers and the rest of us that unless drastic action is taken, we’ll be under water before you know it. Or as dry as my Zsu-Zsu’s meatloaf depending on where you live. And we’ll either be hotter than hades or colder than an environmentalist’s heart unless we listen to he and other climate scare mongers.

You see, Gore and I are not scientists but we both share a passion for the subject. The difference between us is that I gather information from both skeptics (the serious kind, not including Senator Inhofe) and advocates who, surprisingly, are in close agreement on a few facts about climate change:

1. The climate is changing.

2. It is getting warmer.

3. Humans have had an as yet undetermined impact on these facts. (Still a matter of some dispute although the evidence has become pretty compelling over the last 2 or three years.)

4. No one knows what the hell to do about it.

For Al Gore to recommend the absolutely most catastrophic “solutions” - measures that would finish the United States as an economic power in the world - is not only irresponsible but silly. An “immediate freeze” on emissions from power plants would mean a helluva lot less electricity. Although I’m sure there would be enough to light up and heat Mr. Gore’s estate, as for the rest of us, I’m not so sure.

And a freeze in car emissions? How do we do that without shutting down the assembly lines and throwing tens of thousands out of work? Well, at least Al will still have a job. He could always latch on to a carnival somewhere as a barker.

Of course, this would be only the beginning. Huge increases in fuel taxes, a rush to shut down coal fired power plants, and other draconian measures that have little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with politics. The fact is, there is no scientific consensus on what to do about global warming and, in fact, there is a large body of scientific opinion that says even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gasses today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

Gore is not pushing science as much as he is touting a political agenda - an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, pro-socialist agenda that would set up a super governing body to act as a carbon nanny, doling out punishments to nations that don’t measure up. The Luddites, the one worlders, the pastoral radicals, and anarchists who are his allies in this cause would basically be in charge of industrial production in the west.

By all means let us work diligently toward a society where greenhouse emissions are limited as much as possible. Let’s get the nuclear power industry up and running full bore. Let’s fully fund research into hydrogen alternatives to the internal combustion engine. Where possible, let’s encourage solar, wind, geo-thermal, and other alternative forms of energy (fat lot of good it will do since the savings in emissions would be minimal in the United States). And let’s start a massive educational campaign to inform the public of what each American can be doing to limit their “carbon signature” on the planet.

But at the same time, let’s tell Al Gore and his hysterical friends to put a sock in it. Their moralizing and politicizing the issue not to mention their filthy smears of not only skeptics but anyone who doesn’t buy in to their end of the world scenarios (some of them contradictory) is making the rest of us sick to our stomachs. Dismissing skeptics as shills for the oil and gas industry is outrageous demagoguery and indicates that, like religious zealots, it is impossible to challenge their beliefs in a rational, reasonable manner.

Perhaps the more outrageous Gore and his friends get in their dire pronouncements and calumnious denunciations, the less people will listen to them. I sincerely hope so. This has been the fate of other zealots in American history. And for Al Gore, such an outcome can’t come too soon.


Check out the video at Michelle Malkin that has a jaw dropping example of Senator Boxer’s arrogance. And there’s a separate video of a CNN newsreader’s reaction (”Good for her.”)

What biased media?

And Dean Barnett has his own “Eco-Purity Pledge.” (Guffaw!)


  1. Although arguments can be made about the degree of intenseness regarding Al Gore and his message, the same can be said about the overzealous anti-Gore response. Yes, some details about climate change and its longerm effects are debatable, but the vitriolic rhetoric and witch-hunt mentality that backs the global warming opposition seems downright irrational in most cases. You’ve got to question the motives of those so vehemently opposed to some rather obvious evidence just as much as you question Gore’s message.

    Comment by Barry — 3/22/2007 @ 7:50 am

  2. Your third point

    3. Humans have had an as yet undetermined impact on these facts. (Still a matter of some dispute although the evidence has become pretty compelling over the last 2 or three years.)

    is not correct.

    Watch the BBC4 video (GW swindle) available on google video and youtube. You can find most of the stuff there linked from numberwatch.com and various other places.

    The correlation of sunspot data with temperature is almost perfect. We have a record high solar activity that must come down over the next 5-10 years. The alarmists know this and are hedging their bets.

    It is true that CO2 levelsare the highest that they’ve been measured directly but they are much lower than levels inferred from the gelogical record (specifically ice core data).

    Try the site http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ for a good summary of the real science and rebuttal of the alarmists.

    Comment by gh — 3/22/2007 @ 8:54 am

  3. I took Gore’s carbon footprint test. I entered in my car, the normal amount of driving for an average American (according to the information contained in the test - IIRC, 12,000 miles) and added $25/month for electricity. Zero for natural gas - zero air miles - zero anything else. I came out as being above the average carbon footprint. The test must be rigged towards folks who live in big cities with mass transit - or folks who walk, and thus don’t have to enter anything into the test. Even the slightest activity by those of use who live in mainstream America puts us over the “average.”

    Comment by Juan Paxety — 3/22/2007 @ 9:20 am

  4. Simple theme…new taxes…new market to trade credits…earth warms…earth cools…Gore makes big bucks…as usual, we pay for the pleasures of the elite left.

    Comment by Kurt — 3/22/2007 @ 9:51 am

  5. Web Reconnaissance for 03/22/2007

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — 3/22/2007 @ 1:33 pm

  6. Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/22/2007
    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

    Comment by David M — 3/22/2007 @ 1:45 pm

  7. gh,

    Thanks for weighing in. I also watched the BBC4 video and was impressed by some of the arguments presented there, particularly the claim that atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually lag global temperatures (however these are defined). I wonder if Al knows what a correlation function is?

    I’m looking for arguments on both sides of the debate presented at a more technical level. I looked at the numberswatch website, but found only a list of “things affected by global warming.” Where am I going wrong here?

    Comment by Larry — 3/22/2007 @ 3:14 pm

  8. Globalistical Warmening Updates

    Al Gore refuses to reduce his energy use. (h/t, Jules). RWNH wonders whether he is the Oracle or a bunko artist. Flopping Aces looks at Gore’s testimony to Congress.NC considers banning incandescent bulbs. I guess they really care. Ed Cone (h/t, Inst…

    Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 3/22/2007 @ 3:20 pm

  9. I saw the video on Boxer and sorry, but I disagree. Inhoff was not letting Gore answer his questions and, in fact, was asking loaded questions regarding his electricity usage. If he was looking to ask about the material Gore presented and tackle its accuracy, I would be more sympathetic. But Inhoff wasn’t interested in that. He was trying to make political points about his lifestyle versus the issue he was raising.

    Let’s say that, worst case scenario, Al is not careful with the amount of CO2 he consumes. Does that, in any way, alter his argument one bit? It would only show he is as guilty as everyone. It does not change the facts.

    Put it this way, you can be a cigarette smoker and still make a presentation on the hazards of smoking. Inhoff, if he were making the argument, would be lecturing the cigarette smoker that, if he believes that it is so harmful, why doesn’t he pledge not to smoke?

    I do not respect people who make superfluous arguments like this just to muddy the waters.

    As for Boxer, she was enforcing the rules that were set up. I saw nothing in her actions that warranted the charge of “arrogance”. She is chairman and told Inhoff she would grant time as necessary. Inhoff was interupting Gore however and so she cut him off.

    Comment by Hallfasthero — 3/22/2007 @ 5:31 pm

  10. Global Warming: Light Bulbs And The Goracle

    Amazing, simply amazing. Democrats really do want to control every aspect of your life
    (CNSNews.com) - A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs - which are less energy-efficient, prompt…

    Trackback by Pirate's Cove — 3/22/2007 @ 6:30 pm

  11. Man does have some responsibility for the warming, but it is minimal. Gore wants to destroy the economy, while enriching himself, and refuses to walk the walk. Typical liberal hypocrite.

    Comment by William Teach — 3/22/2007 @ 6:33 pm

  12. For the most part, Gore does stress the importance of reducing carbon emissions. I think alot of Communist Republicans are jealous that he’s a rich capitalist.

    Comment by Matt — 3/23/2007 @ 9:06 am

  13. Inhofe made a lot of sense at the hearings — and in things I’ve read at his web site . . . What is your problem with him?

    Comment by Sissy Willis — 3/23/2007 @ 2:25 pm

  14. PiratesCove,

    Yes damn those democrats. How dare they use thier power for the good of the Earth.

    Comment by Matt — 3/23/2007 @ 3:40 pm

  15. “More cat pictures, please”

    It’s the closest I’ve ever seen to a cat’s looking like Winston Churchill, says Tuck re the Babe, foreground in the Bachrach-like sibling portrait above, with Tiny’s Madame Thatcher in the background.More cat pictures please! emails the totally awe…

    Trackback by sisu — 3/23/2007 @ 6:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress