former Vice President Al Gore - grandmaster of exploiting fear

Fear Mongering in Denver

George Nathan said, “Politics is the diversion of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become important in the ideas of more trivial men.” Henry Adams said, “Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.”

Few have combined these sentiments better than former Vice President Al Gore. His comment before the recent Democratic national convention in Denver that, “You understand that the politics of the past are exhausted, and you’re tired - we are all tired - of appeals based on fear.” What we’re tired of is such fatuous statements from the grandmaster of exploiting fear. Within the same speech he said, “We are facing a planetary emergency, which, if not solved, would exceed anything we’ve ever experienced in the history of mankind.” “Many scientists predict-shockingly-that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months during the first term of the next president.

Sea levels are rising; fires are raging; storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions.” Hyperbole heaped on hyperbole based on gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the facts around a nonexistent problem.

What is Gore’s purpose?  It is not personal political gain because his political career is effectively over.  He can claim it is political because he is supporting Barack Obama for President. However, it is more focused and personal because in his speech he identifies Obama as a President who will introduce Gore’s push for alternate energies and the reduction of the use of carbon-based fuels. This would include carbon credits, which although they don’t reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, are already benefitting Gore financially. H. L. Mencken said the urge to save humanity is almost always the false front for an urge to rule. In this case Gore wants Obama to rule so he can continue to benefit personally. The fear mongering is as much to keep Obama on course, as it is to scare the public. It is hard to imagine a Democrat listening in that auditorium who would not demand Obama act.

The mainstream media quickly identified limitations of Gore’s proposals. In a Washington Post article, “Making Gore’s switch isn’t quite so simple”, David Fahrenthold quotes Richard Newell, professor of environmental economics at Duke University.  “this goal is so far outside the realm of possibility, it would be practically infeasible, politically impossible and economically and environmentally unwise.”

What the article fails to consider is the scientific evidence used to buttress Gore’s plan. Despite readily available devastating criticism of the bad science in his main propaganda vehicle, “An Inconvenient Truth” he continues to present scientific misinformation.

If you consider those criticisms too political then consider the ruling of a British court that one week before he received his Nobel prize ordered the British government to produce handbooks for teachers showing the movie to inform students of its political bias and nine scientific errors.

A brief examination of the “facts” in Gore’s Denver speech shows the difference between what science knows and is saying and what a fear monger exploits. it also shows that he is ignored scientific and legal judgments and admonitions. One point he makes leaves the “new President” little wiggle room. He must act immediately to avoid facing the consequences and liabilities in his very first term. “Many scientists predict - shockingly - that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months during the first term of the next president.”

There are a few scientists who have made predictions of an ice-free summer Arctic in 5 years. The “many” Gore refers to is similar to the consensus argument for humans causing global warming. A few scientists present a position then several join the chorus without understanding what is being said or how the information was derived. Surprise, surprise, the prediction was made by a computer model, but what was the basis for the model? We only have meaningful ice conditions from satellites since 1980, although some say 1978.  Regardless, it is a 30-year record and although that is considered statistically significant, it is of little value in climate studies.

The record shows,: