A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been. This gentle treatment hurts both Gore and the greens; he does not know just how disabling, how crippling the gap between conduct and message truly is. The greens do not know that his presence as the visible head of the movement helps ensure its political failure.
Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve. The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.
But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.
Never say I haven't done my part in the mocking department.
UPDATE: More. Part two on Gore. This summarizes the problem with the whole scam:
The idea was to develop and present a scientific case that global warming was happening, that it was caused by human activity, and that its consequences in the near future were so devastating that a binding and effective GGCT (Global Green Carbon Treaty) was the only way out.
I reject the totality of this, which is why my Ex once called me the last global warming denier in the world.
One, while I admit that the temperature has generally gone up since 1850, it has fluctuated by decades (and I'm old enough to remember being taught in middle school that a new ice age caused by man was going to happen) when their theory says it should keep going up. And since the starting point for their conclusions begins around when a little ice age was ending, it isn't too shocking that temperature are going up over the last century and a half. I just don't think the time scale is long enough to conclude that temperatures will keep going up.
Two, given the inadequate time scale, the starting point of data that has caused the alarm, the small fraction of human contribution to the small part of carbon dioxide in the air that supposedly causes global warming, and the problems with the models, I don't accept that the global warming we are seeing is caused by mankind.
Three, even if our temperatures are actually warming in a long-enough time frame to be real and even if we are the cause of it, I don't buy their solutions that would cripple our economy and put somebody in charge of our very lives to regulate everything we do that emits carbon. The suspiciously socialist solutions to the problem
But for that I am a dangerous global warming, anti-science "denier." I for one think that Al Gore deserves whatever happens to his reputation and fortune--as along as it is all bad, of course.
