The Hardcore Hysterical Ambivalence of Al Gore

Wag on

There is no indication whatever in the experimental data that an abrupt or remarkable change in any of the ordinary natural climate variables is beginning or will begin to take place.  ~Robinson AB, et al. [Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. JPANDS (2007) 12; 79-90]

The global warming debate goes on. Emotions run hot and cold. We cannot help getting angry and quixotically wanting to laugh until we cry at the hysterical blindness and mind-numbing hypocrisy on display and feeling silly when we hear or see something that gives us hope that truth will prevail over evil.

AL GORE — When it comes to running the table Al Gore really brings it home when it comes to juggling all the disparate elements involved in human persuasion — even that old time religion he learned as a seminary student. Born to wealth and privilege, Gore was raised in Washington, literally following in his fathers footsteps to become a U.S. Representative and Senator of Tennessee. Gore went to the most prestigious schools. He even claims Roger Revelle as a mentor, which is the science equivalent to a civil rights leader claiming to be there when Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered. The package includes an unrivaled talent for self-promotion —e.g., did you know Gore invented the internet and was awarded a Nobel for helping the U.N. bring peace to the world? Gore is a champion mesmerizer and left-wing hoodwinking fabricator par excellence who gives up nothing to Adolf Hitler about whom it is said, “Many  writers have commented upon his ability to hypnotize his audiences.” (see—e.g.,  Jewish Virtual Library, A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler His Life and Legend As the German People Know Him). Certainly, the powerful effect Gore has on the typical Democrat Party audience is beyond question; and, Gore could have been president: the NYT claims Gore went through a period of post-traumatic stress syndrome over his loss to George Bush in 2000.

MICHAEL CRICHTON —

There was a time when I worked in a clinic and, uh, one day a young woman came in, she was in her early twenties for a routine checkup and, I said what‘s going on with you and she said I‘ve just become blind. And, I said, oh my gosh, really, when did it happen, she said, well just, uh, coming into the clinic, walking up the steps of the clinic I became blind. And I said, oh, and I‘m—by now I‘m looking through the chart and I said, well, has this happened before, she said yes, it‘s happened before. I‘ve become blind in the past, and, what she had of course was hysterical blindness. And the characteristic of that, is that, the severity of the symptom is not matched by the emotional response that‘s, that‘s being presented. Most people would be screaming about that but she was very calm, oh yes, I‘m blind again. And I‘m reminded of that whenever I hear, that we‘re facing, whether we wanna call it a crisis or not, a significant global event, of, of, of importance where we‘re gonna have species lost and so on and so forth— that we can really address this by changing our light bulbs. Or that we can really make an impact by unplugging our appliances when we‘re not using them. It‘s very much out of whack. And so if… we’re only gonna do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn‘t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] let‘s have the NRDC, the, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their, all of their members, cannot fly on private jets, they must get their houses off the grid, they must live in the way that they‘re telling everyone else to live. And if they won‘t do that, why should we. And why should we take them seriously. [APPLAUSE] ~Michael Chricton

[Media Transcripts, Inc., IQ2 Program: ,” (March 22, 2007) — Moderated by Brian Lehrer with a six-member panel: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen and  Philip Stott (for the motion); and, Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard C.J. Somerville (against the motion)]

Result

After our debaters did their best to sway you… you went from, 30% for the motion, that global warming is not a crisis, from 30% to 46%. Against the motion, went from 57% to 42%… And — “undecided” went from 13% to 12%. The hardcore ambivalent are still among us. So, in terms of opinion change, those in favor of the motion, have carried the day, congratulations to the team for the motion. And thank you all again very much, good night. ~Brian Lehrer

According to Dr. Spencer the null hypothesis of global warming theory — that all observed climate change is natural — has never been rejected. Like Spencer, Dr. Happer also believes in the scientific approach to knowledge; and, he probably also believes that the EPA’s politics of fear is a symptom of the moral bankruptcy that is leading to the fall of Western civilization.

Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten  our liberties and wellbeing. Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800′s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years. Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate. ~Dr. William Happer

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less… Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. (Robins, Ibid.)

Do we really want to know the truth. How badly do we want to know?

One ‘sensed’ that there was something wrong. But you see, sensing isn’t knowing. One hears things which make one feel uncomfortable, without being able to put one’s finger on anything specific. It’s almost an atmosphere — a way people talk, their conduct, or perhaps their gestures or even just their tone of voice. It is so subtle. How can one explain it to anyone who hasn’t experienced that time, those small first doubts, that kind of unease, for want of a better word? We couldn’t have found words to explain what we felt was wrong. But to find out, to look for an explanation for that… that ‘hunch’, well, that would have been very dangerous… One did know very early on that there were dangers in knowledge. (Sereny 1996, 458; my emphasis, as taken from, Thomas S. Kubarych, Self-Deception and Peck’s Analysis of Evil)

“Because we have for millennia made moral, aesthetic, religious demands on the world, looked upon it with blind desire, passion or fear, and abandoned ourselves to the bad habits of illogical thinking, this world has gradually become so marvelously variegated, frightful, meaningful, soulful, it has acquired color – but we have been the colorists: it is the human intellect that has made appearances appear and transported its erroneous basic conceptions into things.” ~Nietzsche

Advertisements

About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. A Chance Meeting– We toured south along the Bicentennial Bike Trail in the Summer of 1980, working up appetites covering ~70 miles per day and staying at hiker/biker campgrounds at night along the Oregon/California coast (they were 50¢ a day at that time). The day's ride over, and after setting up tents, hitting the showers, and making a run to a close-by store, it was time to relax. The third in our little bicycle tour group, Tom, was about 30 yards away conversing with another knot of riders and treating himself to an entire cheesecake for dinner. He probably figured Jim and I would joke about what a pig he was eating that whole pie and decided to eat among strangers. Three hours later after sharing stories and remarking on a few coincidences that turned up here and there, Tom and one of the former strangers realized they were cousins, meeting in this most unlikely place for the first time. ~Mac
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Hardcore Hysterical Ambivalence of Al Gore

  1. Wagathon says:

    Your graph looks more like a curling brush than a ‘hockey stick,’ and that is… Taking the data at face value (i.e. ignoring claims that it hasn’t been properly adjusted for urban heat islands or that it has been manipulated).

  2. Matt Stats says:

    Interesting thoughts on the climate change debate. Here is another blog post to add to the discussion. http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/12/the-surprisingly-weak-case-for-global-warming/

Comments are closed.