I know you’re probably as tired of the Gore hypocrisy news as I am, but it has so many angles yet to be explored.
Compare these two stories about Al Gore:
Gore says media miss climate message
Journalists have leaned toward balance at expense of consensus data, he says
A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.
. . . “I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,” Gore said. “There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say ‘rejected,’ perhaps it’s the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.
“Lately, Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore’s words, ‘undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.’”
. . . He goes on to assert that, “In this case, when 98% of the scientists in a given field share one view and 2% disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented in a format in which each appears equally credible.”
The first quotation is from an article in today’s Tennessean newspaper about a speech he gave Tuesday February 27, 2007 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The second is an excerpt from an article in the Investor’s Business Daily published August 25 . . . 1992!
For well over a decade Al Gore has been consistent on one thing. The former Tennessean reporter has consistently claimed that the media’s skeptical bias and quest for balance has cost the world valuable time needed to avert an impending global warming catastrophe.
Again, Gore is quoted in the early 90s article:
We must act boldly, decisively, comprehensively, and quickly, even before we know every last detail about the crisis.”
That was fifteen years ago when, in addition to censorship, Al Gore demanded “bold,” “decisive,” and “immediate” action. Yesterday he made essentially the same claim, calling global warming, “the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”
The fact that his message of imminent doom is unchanged over the last decade-and-a-half leads us to conclude one of two diametrically opposed beliefs: Either the climate situation has worsened and we are in even greater need of action, or “immediate” isn’t nearly as immediate as we have been led to believe.
Al Gore’s nonchalant personal energy consumption supports only one of those conclusions.
Finally, a related postscript: when you hear some politicians argue for a return to the “Fairness” Doctrine, keep in mind that some of those same politicians argue also against equal time for some opposing views.
(Note: A big ht to Synyx who unearthed this timely article from eons ago. Be sure to also read what he had to say.)
James Taranto of the WSJ’s Opinion Journal is one of my daily must reads. Agree or disagree, he has a way of summarizing the news pithily.
Today he juxtaposed this post with Bill Hobbs’ excellent coverage of the Gore carbon offset plan, and came up with this.
So, let’s sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of “fairness” to his partisan and ideological allies.
Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren’t the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias?
Read the whole thing.