Another inconvenient truth

Poor Al Gore. He thought his inconvenient truth was that poor frog in the boiling water. It’s beginning to look as if the real inconvenient truth, however, may be that the anthropocentric global warming hysteria convulsing the Western world is fiction:

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

I urge you to read the rest of the above article here, for full information about this new study.  You may also ask yourself if, at the top echelon of climate change advocates, this hysteria has ever been real, or if it was always a weapon in the anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Capitalist arsenal of those who dislike Bush, America and Capitalism.  (And while Gore has made himself phenomenally wealthy riding the back of global warming hysteria, there is no doubt that he hates both Bush and America.)


Exposing liberal loopiness and the media that hides it

Nicholas Wishek has used Bore’s Nobel Prize as a leaping off point for a pointed expose of the looniness that is modern liberalism, and the complicit media that protects and serves the liberal agenda. Here are some nice little gems from the column, but I do think you should read the whole thing:

Now, I truly believe that most liberals are well-meaning. I just don’t think that they have a clue. They have no clue about history. They have no clue about human nature. And, worst of all they have absolutely no clue about what makes sense and what doesn’t. If their perception of the world didn’t affect my life, I wouldn’t care. People have the right to be as out of touch with reality as they want. The trouble is that liberals want to change the world in which I live, which does affect me.

For instance, liberals want to put government in charge of health care. That must mean they want the same level of efficiency for our health care system as we have in the IRS, the DMV and the post office. Are you kidding me? Any reasonable person realizes that these government agencies are disasters. Call the IRS with a tax problem, and you get as many different answers as the calls you make. All of us have been to the DMV. Do you really want your life-and-death health care decisions handled the same way? You’d take a number and hope you live long enough to get to the head of the line. And as for the post office, why do you think that UPS and FedEx are doing so well?

Continue reading

Maybe he’s afraid of a vast Clinton conspiracy

Al Gore is refusing to run:

The win is also likely add further fuel to a burgeoning movement in the United States for Gore to run for president in 2008, which he has so far said he does not plan to do.

Kenneth Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College in New York said Gore probably enjoys being a public person more than an elected official.

“He seems happier and liberated in the years since his loss in 2000. Perhaps winning the Nobel and being viewed as a prophet in his own time will be sufficient,” says Sherrill.

Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it more likely that he will seek the presidency. If anything, the Peace Prize makes the rough-and-tumble of a presidential race less appealing to Gore, they said, because now he has a huge, international platform to fight global warming and may not want to do anything to diminish it.

One of the advisers said that while Gore is unlikely to rule out a bid in the coming days, the prospects of the former vice president entering the fray in 2008 are “extremely remote.”

Frankly, that’s all a lot of blah-blah. The guy’s been lusting after the President Presidency since 1991, and he’s felt since 2000 that it was stolen from him. (And on that last, you might find interesting this Big Lizard’s post.) With this kind of momentum push, you’d think he’d leap for the ring.

Thinking on that this morning, it occurred to me that, perhaps, just perhaps, Gore doesn’t want to have to go up against Hillary Clinton. And that’s not just because she’s a fierce campaigner, but because she knows him. With Edwards and Obama, Clinton is digging around, trying to learn things about them. With Gore, however, Hillary shared the White House with him for 8 years.

It’s not inconceivable that Hillary has information about Al that he simply wouldn’t like to have come out. And by that I don’t mean blackmail type information, which could start an ugly tit-for-tat that Hillary wouldn’t want any more than Al, but more what I would call intellectual information: stories about bad decision-making, ill-thought out remarks, etc. Little bites, not big chunks, but things that would, nevertheless, work to Al’s serious detriment over the course of a long campaign.

Gore and the Nobel

I was glad to see that the Nobel Prize committee hasn’t lost its touch. Al Gore, the man whose movie is so inaccurate it needs to come with a warning, has now joined the august panoply of other recent Nobel Peace Prize winners. In case you’ve forgotten, here are some of the highlights in this rogue’s gallery:

Yassar Arafat, one of the bloodiest killers in the Arab world, and a man who easily deceived a credulous West as he unrelentingly, to the day of his AIDS-induced death, plotted to destroy Israel.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian who is probably single-handedly responsible for both the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and for the fact that we went to war with Iraq. As to the latter, if there were in fact WMDs, it happened under his watch; and if there weren’t, it was his regime that allowed Hussein to create the nuclear Potemkin village that led to the war.

Wangari Maathai, who claimed that “the West” bio-engineered HIV and realized it on Africa, one of the most paranoid of conspiracy theories around.

Jimmy Carter, one of the worst Presidents in modern American history and one of the worst ex-Presidents in modern history.

Kofi Annan, who should be remembered for Rwanda, Oil for Food, the increasingly virulent anti-Semitism that’s become the UN’s hallmark, the Congo sexual transgressions, and just about every other horrible thing that happened on his watch.

Rigoberta Menchu Tum, the Marxist confabulator.

Interestingly, once you start looking into the way back machine, past Rigoberta, you start seeing that the Nobel Committee was still awarding the prize to people who, at least as of the time the prize was awarded, weren’t charlatans, crooks, cowards, con men and, most importantly, devoted to “putting America in her place.” In other words, with some exceptions I’ve detailed below, in those early years, the prize seemed mostly to go to be people of greatness and humanity. Still, there’s even a caveat to that. Some of the institutions or people that, at the time they received the prize, seemed decent, have since descended into anti-American madness, such as Amnesty International, which really did used to focus on bad places, not American or Israeli places, or Betty Williams, the Irish peacemaker who wants to kill George Bush. One of them is just plain funny: the United Nations Peace Keeping Forces, an organization that has distinguished itself by doing nothing in Yugoslavia, the Congo (except for the sex slaves, of course), Rwanda, and the Israeli/Lebanese border.

All I can say is, now that the prize officially become just a pathetic anti-Western statement, Al Gore truly has found his rightful place.

UPDATE:  Too funny.  I just found out that Scott Johnson, at Power Line, did almost exactly the same list I did, putting Al Gore in perspective.  You know you’re thinking smart when you discover that your thinking is in line with smart people.

Green crime

Gore’s son may be a punk, but he’s a punk who learned his lessons well.  His little “endangering the public” crime spree was committed in a green vehicle (emphasis mine):

Al Gore’s son was in jail on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after he was pulled over for allegedly driving a hybrid vehicle 100 mph on an Orange County freeway, a sheriff’s spokesman said.

Al Gore III, 24, of Los Angeles, was allegedly driving a blue Toyota Prius on the southbound San Diego (5) Freeway about 100 mph about 2:15 a.m. when a sheriff’s deputy stopped him at the Crown Valley Parkway exit, said Orange County sheriff’s spokesman Jim Amormino.

The deputy allegedly smelled marijuana and a search of the vehicle turned up less than an ounce of suspected pot, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used to treat attention deficit disorder, Amormino said.

Nobody’s perfect

A liberal friend told me today that it’s okay that Al Gore lives high on the energy hog because, while his message is important, you can’t really expect him to change his lifestyle:  “He’s entitled to expect a certain standard of living.”  Same friend was unfazed by the fact that Al certainly seems to expect the rest of us to change our way of living.

Gore’s real goal?

Jonah Goldberg’s analysis of Gore’s approach to climate change sounds entirely accurate given the way in which Gore is presenting the problem and the changes he’s demanding:

Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism. Global warming is what William James called a “moral equivalent of war” that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. As liberal journalist James Ridgeway wrote in the early 1970s: “Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society … (and) developing a more coherent central state.”

This explains Gore’s relentless talk of “consensus,” his ugly moral bullying of “deniers” and, most of all, his insistence that because there’s no time left to argue, everyone should do what he says.

Isn’t it interesting how the same people who think “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when it comes to the war think that dissent when it comes to global warming is evil and troglodytic?

As Czechoslovakia’s the President of the Czech Republic pointed out, the hysteria attendant on climate change is only Marxism in another name. (By the way, take as read here my usual points that I too want less pollution and more alternatives for dictator-owned oil, but for the right reasons, not the wrong, hysterical, anti-societal ones.) | digg it