One day when Al Gore gets some evidence he won’t need to call everyone names

Al Gore creates more skeptics everyday

Ross Clark, journalist, met Al Gore to interview him about his favourite topic. But Ross broke the rules; he did some research. Clark even talked to a professor about the scenes of Florida being flooded. The prof explained that it’s not so much that the seas were rising fast, but that the land under Miami is sinking — and by an amazing 16-24cm in the last 80 years. (No wonder some residents are seeing water inundate new areas.)

When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise — why it is rising in some places and not in others — I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn’t counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a denier?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a denier?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a denier.’

That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film’.

Surely if you are going to make a film claiming climate change to be a grave threat to the world, you ought to be prepared to answer detailed questions about it. – The Spectator

Perhaps he just needs more time? Give him another 20 years and Gore may get the hang of the scientific points.

Exposure to climate-denial, “shocking”

It was the same thing a few weeks ago when Nigel Lawson talked about climate change at the BBC. Gore was practically speechless (certainly he ran out of words):

Al Gore said he was shocked after the BBC “engaged in climate change denial” this morning.

Mr Gore told LBC: “It’s shocking how the BBC is engaged in climate denial, isn’t it?

“I had a personal experience with it this morning. It’s really shocking.”

The way climate denial is referred to — it is almost like the BBC was spreading anthrax or engaged in child abuse. And that’s the message, not that Gore can debate Lawson’s points, just that anyone who asks those questions is such a toxic evil person, so beyond the pale, that even if they were Chancellor of the Exchequer of one of the worlds top economies they don’t deserve to be interviewed. (If only Lawson had come second in a US presidential race.)

Gore is trying to scare listeners who found Lawson interesting. His message is both to BBC journalists (how dare you) and to people listening who might be tempted to go to work or dinners and talk about the Lawson interview. Gore wants to keep “climate denial” in the taboo camp by pouring indignant scorn and outrage at the mere idea of a conversation– but he can’t do this forever.

When people lose their fear of asking what their friends think about Lawson (or any skeptic) the infection will spread rampantly.

H/T William Dwyer, and Joe Bast.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait... Rating: 9.6/10 (99 votes cast)