It’s been all quiet on the Al Gore front recently, as Climategate and the falsehoods in the IPCC report undermined the credibility of global warming hysteria—that is, the attempt to panic us into dismantling our economies, radically redistributing wealth, and empowering unelected international bureaucrats and a scientocracy to control it all. Now, in his distinctively haughty style, Gore has finally come out of hiding to pitch the same old fear in the New York Times. From his column:
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it. Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.
But we have reserves that Gore and pals don’t let us tap! And once again, we see the global warmists’ love for the Chinese tyranny. And get this:
But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.
I don’t think he would be relieved at all. He’s a true believer, who is also making a bundle off of this whole thing. And get the language: It would be “criminal” not to do what Gore wants done, despite the entirely reasonable doubts about the validity of the existence and/or extent of the warming problem.
I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate.
Oh, only two “mistakes.” Please. And the “mistake” about the Himalayas—that the glaciers would be all gone by 2035—was intentionally not corrected before Copenhagen for the very reason that it sowed panic.
But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.
That’s simply not true.
Similarly, 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.
And that’s very misleading. There has been no statistically relevant global warming increase for 15 years. Scientists don’t know why and want to figure that out.
And it’s all our fault for engaging in a little caveat emptor:
Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution. The political paralysis that is now so painfully evident in Washington has thus far prevented action by the Senate — not only on climate and energy legislation, but also on health care reform, financial regulatory reform and a host of other pressing issues.
Obamacare has been rejected by 60%+ of the American people. Global warming is only seen as an important issue by about 28% of the American people. Gore and his co-believers are losing the debate. That’s not gridlock, that’s democratic guidance.
And here comes the religion part:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
Redemption? Hardly a scientific or a public policy term. But Gore has always pitched his advocacy around “meaning” and “purpose.” Moreover, from what are we to seek redemption for having done? Building the most astonishing prosperity ever dreamed of by humanity? I’m sorry: I’m not sorry.
Do we need to transition to cleaner, more efficient and renewable sources of energy? Of course, just as we transitioned from horse and buggy to automobile. It will be progress. What we don’t need is hysteria and a handover of freedom to technocrats out of the Al Gore School. What we don’t need is to dismantle the very prosperity that will result ultimately in the transition that Gore wants.
