Al Gore Post-Hysteria Wrap-Up

By March 22, 2007Global Warming

As you know, climate expert wannabe and movie mogul Al Gore testified before both the House and the Senate yesterday on his favorite topic. The press (many Gore supporters among them) of course gave him pretty much of a free pass on his testimony, fawning like so many groupies over the former Veep.

However, all didn’t go entirely smoothly for Al. Following on the news of Gore’s huge carbon footprint, Sen. Jim Inhofe asked him if he’d take a pledge to consume no more energy than the average American household — in other words, to limit his consumption to something approximating that of non-millionaire jet-setters. Gore refused. What?!? He’s not willing to lead by example?? Inhofe showed a frame from Al’s PowerPoint/film asking, “Are you willing to change the way you live?” Apparently, Al is not. Alrighty, then.

Over on the House side, Ranking Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) took Gore to task, saying incredulously:

“You just gave us an idea for a straight CO2 freeze, if I heard you correctly. …Every person emits 0.2 tons of CO2 a year, so an absolute true freeze would be no new industry, no new cars, and no new people.”

Good point — exactly why scientists are saying he’s over-reaching. Barton went on to spell out the disastrous effects that a carbon tax would have on our economy and the middle class.

Not to be outdone, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) had the temerity to call for balance in this whole debate. Balance? Does he really think Al Gore and his Amen Chorus on Capitol Hill and the media are interested in balance? Blunt also noted the potentially great economic impact on consumers of testing Al’s various theories.

Here’s a link to an old piece we did called, “Does This Look Like Consensus To You?” It shows how many folks are out there who just flat don’t agree with this theory, but they are effectively muzzled in this debate.

So Al had quite an outstanding day if you read the press reports — or hear the gushing NPR reports. But if you were there and saw if for yourself, you heard some very uncomfortable questions and saw more than few awkward moments as Al tried to steer the twin shoals of science and hypocrisy.

Join the discussion 4 Comments

  • SwampWoman says:

    The earth has historically been much warmer and with far higher CO2 levels than now so the earth reverting back to warmer temperatures and much, much higher CO2 levels would be the more “normal” climate.

    We are currently in an ice epoch during an interglacial and very, very happy that the previous ice age and resultant glaciers ended about 12,000 years ago.

    I’m not quite sure how the Paleoindians melted the glaciers that were a mile thick over north America and created the great lakes in the process when they didn’t have the benefit of SUVs or even lots of Bic lighters, but I am very happy that they did so and want to give them a hearty job well done. Paleoindians, this Bud’s for you.

  • MIke says:

    Al Gore’s bloating of the “global warming” story is in direct proportion to his physical bloating. I’d give Al another 5 years before he blows. I wonder how much co2s that would release? Al you can send me in advance $10,000 for “carbon credits” to compensate for this event. I’ll take Beano 2days a week to do my part….cash, check or money order please.

  • Greg says:

    What really interests me is that there are so many self-appointed experts out there who suddenly feel they must dismiss climate scientists.

    Whether or not Gore exaggerates shouldn’t be the point. Climate change, due to human activity is happening. To what extent? Well that depends on who you listen to and what you read.

    Importantly, it’s the media who often provides scepticism, not the scientists.

    We must act now, it’s that simple. To use the excuse of “the economic impact upon the middle class” is perhaps as exaggerated as some say Al Gore is.

    Not acting now would be to neglect the middle class of future generations. And that would be foolish. This should have never been a debate of industry versus the science. For industry and manufacturers to survive, they, like nature, must evolve and adapt.

    If you have the time take a look over my posts in my blog (

  • Matt says:

    Mighty intelligent reasoning there, disregard a message because the preacher doesn’t follow it in the manner you wish. I think in logical fallacies this is called the Genetic Fallacy.