Bozell Column: Al Gore's Recycled Doom

Photo of Brent Bozell.

Al Gore may not have won the presidency (thank God), but over the last two years, he’s been given an enormous consolation prize by his friends on the left. He’s been designated as the Savior of the Planet.

First came the warm wave of supportive publicity surrounding his slide-show documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Katie Couric and Harry Smith and Oprah Winfrey all touted Gore as so warm, so vulnerable and self-effacing, and his predictions so impossibly scary. Last May, Gore and Couric sat together on a sunny day in Central Park and unspooled the doom. Manhattan would be under deep water soon if we don’t take drastic measures, they warned.

Now comes another warm wave of media smooches and applause with the news of his plan for an international set of "Live Earth" concerts to promote massive government action to curb humanity’s excessive reliance on energy. Impending global doom has become such a hip cause it’s now pushed by Cameron Diaz, Jon Bon Jovi, and a flock of other Hollywood astrophysicists, the homelessness issue having become passe.

Ever since the whole planet-panic kicked in around Earth Day 1970, there have been repeated predictions of impending doom, which didn’t exactly work out. When will someone in the media ever admit this?

Go back to 1989 and 1990. Instead of NBC’s Katie Couric handing the microphone over to Al Gore to lament how Manhattan’s about to go underwater, the same NBC network handed its microphone and camera crew directly to left-wing "Population Bomb" author Paul Ehrlich, awarding him large chunks of air time to imagine America losing the nation’s capital and the entire state of Florida.

In May of 1989, Ehrlich claimed, global warming was going to melt the polar ice caps, causing a flood in which "we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington D.C., and the Los Angeles basin...we'll be in rising waters with no ark in sight." Ehrlich didn’t give a time frame, but his panicked report clearly suggested doom around the corner.

The panic was necessary to sell an extremely harsh "solution" of "enormous, rapid change." Ehrlich commanded that to forestall doom, the world needed to cut its energy use in half over 20 years. Industrialization needed to be dragged to a screeching halt, not only in America, but especially in the Third World. Ehrlich felt the next generation of Americans should be denied the Earth-strangling prosperity of their parents, saying the world’s ecosystems "cannot support the spread of the American lifestyle to the Third World or even to the next generation of Americans."

Ehrlich was back on NBC in January 1990 to sell his "inconvenient truth" line again. This time, he gave a more concrete timeline. Antarctica’s ice sheets were slipping, and then "we'll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable."

It’s been almost twenty years, we never cut our energy use in half, and Florida is still above water, not to mention D.C. and Los Angeles. We have yet to tie our boats to the Washington Monument. But the media are still handing over their microphones and their accolades to panicky predictions, with no apparent expectation that anyone will ever question their accuracy in a decade or two. How many decades do we wait to question these predictions?

Despite this, too many media outlets approach global warming with a surprising arrogance, insisting that all the facts are in and that anyone who seeks to confuse the public with dissent is too harmful to be heard. CBS reporter Scott Pelley scoffed "It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere" to cast doubt on the doomsayers. He went on to suggest any scientist who disagreed was probably paid off by fossil fuel interests.

Skeptics of global warming are even being compared to Holocaust deniers. It seems that climate science isn’t the only thing leftists monstrously exaggerate.

Don’t expect that in 2027, NBC will challenge Al Gore to explain why his "climate crisis" talk of Manhattan under water never occurred, it being assumed that NBC will still be broadcasting out of New York. By then, the torch of panic will be passed on to a new generation, which will no doubt also ignore the collapsed predictions of yesteryear as they pat themselves on the back as the vanguard of planetary compassion.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Global Warmening

This is getting surreal. Chicken Littles have always been with us but this "holocaust denier" status bestowed upon reasonable skeptics is kafka-esque.

Let's see, LA and NY under water.

Let's see, LA and NY under water.

Tell me again the problems with Global Warming according to Al Gore?

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

It's funny how the ones that

It's funny how the ones that revile excessive energy consumption are themselves the ones most guilty of it.  I'm sure, as a display of their seriousness and genuine committment to stop Global Warming, Cameron Diaz, Matt Damon, Leo DiCaprio will all be car-pooling it to the Oscars this year, right?

France is saving energy like madd, madd I tell you.

France is saving energy, I read just yesterday, that in order to show their immense commitment to stemming the extinction of mankind, on the eve of the new IPPC report, France actually shutdown it's citizen nightshow spotlights surrounding and upon the Eiffel Towerand about the city below, for a full 5 minutes. At the end of the 5 minute energy saving extravaganza, the playlights were fired back up.

 That's exactly how serious these lying retards are about the whole matter.

 On the other hand, there is no doubt global carbon tyranny sales and credits will be enforced upon all incapable of resisting. The Eiffel Tower lights will burn brightly till the last day before the unstoppable escalation of irreversible global heating and planetary flooding and epochal storms,and as Al Gore and his congressional testimony project leaders have stated publicly on the floor of congress and on c-span - an burdgeoning elemental extinction event as we have seen when the dinosaurs were wiped out millions of years ago, is now less than 9 years away. I'm not kidding, I watched 'em say it.

Algore

In France, they burn cars for heat and light.

Gordo

Melmac

Yeah, in France they do eve

Yeah, in France they do everything backwards. They fight with their feet and @#$% with their face.

D

Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.

You can also send faxes to your reps about immigration from Nu

Don’t expect that in 2027,

Don’t expect that in 2027, NBC will challenge Al Gore to explain why his "climate crisis" talk of Manhattan under water never occurred, it being assumed that NBC will still be broadcasting out of New York.

Actually, I think we've already gotten some insight into the strategy.  As we've seen, whether we have 30 hurricanes in a season or just 5, or record highs or record lows, it's attrributed to global warming.  My guess is that when the doomsday forecasts fail to happen, it will be attributed to whatever meager efforts are made to control greenhouse gas emissions.

On a related note, I just watched an episode of Charlie Roase, with Michael Crichton as guest.  Rose must've spent 20-30 minutes discussing global warming with Crichton, who has studied the data and maintains that it won't have the catastrophic results that Gore predicts. But even better, Rose asked him specifically about Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and Crichton said that although he likes Gore personally, much of Gore's movie is just plain wrong.  When Rose -- who told Crichton that he is wrong on global warming --- cited the IPCC report xsummary to the UN, Crichton responded by saying that most of the bureaucrats who authored it (and Gore), haven't read the data!  Crichton cited Prof. Bjorn Lomborg's work several times (Gore declined an invitation to debate Lomborg).. Rose invited Crichton to return to the show to debate a leading (unnamed) scientist/advocate of global warming, and Crichton said he would do so if they could use graphs.

That would be a debate worth watching!

algore

How long do we have to hear about Algore? Such a bloated nothing. Had a lower SAT score than the President and yet, he is nominated for a Nobel prize. So much for those dumb socialist Swedes.

I've often held a similar ide

I've often held a similar idea that whatever happens, they will take credit for it. If the seas rise and flood cities around the world (come to think of it I've only heard that U.S. cities will be flooded...what about London, Paris, Tokyo, et al.?) then they will say, "We told you so!!!" and if it never happens they'll say, "Well it was because of the 4 people that have been driving Priuses for the past 20 years...so changing our lifestyle did make an impact."

They count on everyone having short memories and/or being too busy with the present or worried so about the future to consider the stupidity of the past.

Maybe that's why it's something new they are trying to scare us about...they don't want us to learn from the past, instead they want to keep us worried about the future.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

I think their excuse will be much more sophisticated

I think their excuse will be much more sophisticated. They will cite a volcano or two that cooled the planet with an eruption spew. They will mention that sunspots, although not receding, have been less intense even if more have occurred during the time period. Then they will mention the wobble of the earth's axis, and note the resurgence or decline of the earth's magnetosphere, as determinant factors. Finally, the elliptical orbit of the earth, and it's changing trace around the sun will be given a variance attribution. Lauding the saving of man by reducing hairspray and freon discharges, they will claim the repair of the ozone also helped cool things, and explains the lack of heat at the southpole, and in fact may be the way they saved us all, as it was just enough to keep the earth in balance... they'ell toss in slight changes in oceans patterns that offset the heating and reversed it's effects, just as it was coming on strong. Then they'ell cite droughts as a result of the intermittent heating that caused severe harm by creating drastic weather, but had the effect of reducing cloudcover, and therefore reducing a global warming factor, much to the luck of mankind, this time around.

 Then they'ell all have a public argument over which one of the half dozen to dozen corrections have saved mankind, most supporting the ozone hole reduction as the best possibility, and cut a few jokes claiming we might have to increase emissions to warm things up some if the cool off period doesn't end.

 Then the liberals will descend into NB and screech the various reasons above, telling the conservatives they were bushlemmings and should have argued those points a decade ago, if they knew AGW wasn't "real", but of course it was real because the above factors prove it was, and it still a threat, so the libs weren't ever wrong anyway.

 That's how they'ell do it.

Naw, Sports, it'll just 'disappear' from the planet news.

Naw, Sports, it'll just 'disappear' from the planet news.

Just like it does during horrible winters.

:-)

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."

Sport. My understanding is th

Sport. My understanding is the ozone hole is growing. And how long ago did they ban freon? Apparently the freon had nothing to do with it?

Of course. The first time we looked up there we discovered a hole in the ozone layer. For all we know the hole has always been there. And is a natural occurance.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I'm not sure the ozone hole is growing

I'm not sure the ozone hole is growing. Check the chart. Looks like ten years of data says 1998 was the worst.

chart

Point is they can say what they want,and make the excuses needed. They have the ultimate moral authority, and the "scientific consensus".

I asked this before, and no o

I asked this before, and no one answered: how could CFC use in the northern hemisphere cause an ozone hole over the south pole?  Wouldn't it make more sense if the hole in the ozone layer was over the north pole?

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Even better: ever notice that

Even better: ever notice that the "ozone hole" was only shown to exist in October, and that accounts have been published of an "ozone hole" existing in northern regions in April?

What happens in the Antarctic in October, and the Arctic in April? 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Spring????“The object of li

Spring????

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Global Warming & Rescued Skiers

Will global warming eventually eliminate the appearance of rescued skiers from the Today show?  Gee I hope so.

Gore

Algore---just another liberal nincompoop, propped up by media nincompoops and believed by millions of nincompoops. This is nincompoopish.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Well put, Brent...It's just

Well put, Brent...

It's just amazing that charlatans like Paul Ehrlich can continue to spout their nonsense after having been wrong over and over again, and no one calls them on it! Is gullibility, invincible ignorance, or what? The most plausible explanation is that what these fear-mongers are spewing already conforms to some pre-conceived notions; the old "don't bother me with facts, my mind's made up" syndrome. As I've heard it put once, the fear-mongers mate their will to deceive with their audience's will to be deceived. Pitiful.

Brent's review of Paul Ehrlic

duplicate

Brent's review of Paul Ehrlic

Brent's review of Paul Ehrlich's  statements are sure consistent with Al Gore's, sounds like plagarism to me.  We shouldn't be surprised that Ehrlich is never held to account, all snake oil salesmen know that the so called smart people who realize they were duped, keep their mouths shut to avoid the embarrassment.  Thus the news media can't expose him or Al Gore lest they admit to their gullibility.  Besides, as long as it bleeds it leads, selling doom (fear) is profitable, ask the Hearst family about that. 

It is ironic that Ehrlich means "truthful" or "for real" in German...  These guys are true Confidence Men in every sense of the term.  I have to wonder what the annual tally is on Al Gore's speaking fees?  He must make a tidy sum.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

If only trumpeter of "In

If only trumpeter of "Inconvenient Truth" was named "William Jefferson Teddy Roosevelt Herbert Bush" it might naturally be more popular.  What's in a name anyways - or a good word and its clear definitions? 

I seem to have a theme today.

How about this H. L. Mencke

How about this H. L. Mencken quote- I say it sums up the present situation quite nicely:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Great point, Tim.  And ironi

Great point, Tim.  And ironically, many of the people who accept Gore's Incontinent Truth hook-line-and-sinker, are warning us that Bush had created the terrorism threat in order to scare us into relinquishing our civil rights.

Hey, Brent, can you explain t

Hey, Brent, can you explain this?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=110

Let me be the first to claim ownage...

Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...

It's getting late in the work

It's getting late in the work day for me ferrman but allow me to help with a little math:

$150,000.00 since 1998 = 9 years ($150K / 9 = $16,666.67) divided by 16 (the number of individuals listed under "Key People" & "People" combined) $16,666.67 / 16 = $1041.67 and you come up with a whopping $1041.67 per year per person.

Now thats really buying someone off in my opinion.

/sarc off

"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

Also please note that the &

Also please note that the "ownage" is coming from someone who wants fictional Anime characters in our executive branch after '08.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby

Explain what? Did you read th

Explain what? Did you read their 04 donations list? (your link there needs to get updated) It reads like a G-damn touchy feelie liberal donations list. Oh and I notice in ONE YEAR the Brookings Institute got $155,000. Beats MRC by 5k in one year vs. nine for MRC. (see JABs math above).

Anything else?

MOD, I seen the article was o

MOD, I seen the article was out of date, so I assumed MRC had not received any more monies from EXXON since then.

If we use only the three years listed and the same formula, the amount is $3125.00 per person per year. Chump change compared to what other organizations receive (mainly the Liberal ones).

"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

JAB, And how come it's always

JAB,

And how come it's always Exxon the fall guy? I bet Mobil, Shells, BP etc. donations list look similar. They're hotbeds of diversity & multi-culturalism. Anyone know of a link to donations Universitys or Scientists took in and from whom?

Two things. One, if there's a

Two things. One, if there's a skeptic on global warming, I do a little research first. If he's an honest-to-goodness skeptic, okay, I'll take what they say into consideration. But if I find out that they took money from an oil company, I'd be skeptical about what he says.
Secondly, I think the problem with ExxonMobil is how anti-enviromental they have been over the years, mainly through funding think tanks that simply spout their opinions, regardless of factual and scientific accuracy. Nobody is as bad as them. At least other oil companies- BP comes to mind- make major investments in alternative energy sources.

Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...

ferrarman states: "mainl

ferrarman states: "mainly through funding think tanks that simply spout their opinions, regardless of factual and scientific accuracy". Does this remind you of anyone else recently there ferrman? here's a hint his initials are Al Gore.

In the case with AG it is probably just the opposite though. Your hipocracy is on display for all to see. You might want to rethink your statement before you repost or respond.

"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

Selective questioning

We MUST question ANYTHING ExxonMobil funds,  but must not EVER at ANY cost question the motives or funding sources of those scientists and other organizations who think that global warming is 100% immutable fact?

Besides, why should you care what ANY corporation spends their money on?  Oh, that's right.  You'd rather steal it from them (or have the government steal it for you) and punish the successful, because that is much easier than producing your own wealth.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

That's what gets me. This p

That's what gets me. This person cannot imagine a mind like mine, which places big government in the same category, when it's paying for something, as his mind apparently places ExxonMobil if they pay. I don't get it, I can imagine how they think, but they can't seem to imagine how I think!! On top of that, I'd challenge him to get specific about one false piece of science ExxonMobil has emitted. Of course, I'm sure people here would immediately counter with dozens of examples of lefty-slanting science if -- and this is doubtful -- he can actually produce one. Yeah, the oil companies have a political interest in this & bear close watching, but so do the fans of big government, and blithely-ignoring half of the issue in the name of political correctness is a guaranteed recipe for even-bigger government.
JMR

Yet Another EnviroNut

Hey, ferra, can you explain why you're such an environut? Yeah, probably shouldn't, your troll vapors are quite odiferous. Let me be the first to say that you're another troll bent yet again on not seeing the truth, only what you want to present as the "truth." At least somebody is giving skeptics a voice...you'd already have them bound for Botany Bay. Yeah, you're not without your own hypocrisy. Oh, and BTW Anime sucks!

The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.  Air Force Motto

emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.