Supercilious Twit? Hyperbolic Liar? All of the Above?
We report, you decide. Actually, the New York Times reported by printing Al Gore’s op-ed construction of an “Asylum of Ignorance” last Sunday. To briefly review, an “Asylum of Ignorance” is a term from philosophy in which the one so afflicted holds to a proposition regardless of any evidence, contrary or otherwise, thus dissociating themselves from reality and from having anything meaningful to say on the subject at hand. And that is all this op-ed amounts to: an attempt to reinforce the word castle the Globaloney Warmians have constructed despite the recent and astonishingly fast dissolution (sort of like a vampire being exposed to light, or the Wicked Witch of the West to water…) of the bedrock that has served as its foundation for the last decade or so.
Rather than repeat the dissections of this travesty of logic already out there, let me point you to two of the better ones. Jay Richards (HT: The Discovery Blog) rips into many of the specific points with a scalpel of concise analysis here. One of his key observations:
The truly stunning feature of the sentence is its use of logic. He’s trying to refute the claim that there’s been no warming in the last decade by claiming that … the last decade has been really hot. But, of course, even if the surface temperature had been a few million degrees during the last decade (that’s roughly the temperature Gore recently thought obtained a few miles below the Earth’s surface), that wouldn’t mean it had gotten hotter in the last decade. A pedantic logician would note that being hot and getting hotter are two different properties.
All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC’s 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.
Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.
What’s fascinating is Mr. Booker manages to destroy all of Mr. Gore’s arguments without naming Gore personally. In other words, he deals with the data, not the personality.
Read both articles. I close with Mr. Booker’s last paragraph, a fitting summary:
With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager "renewables" developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white "global warming" continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.