As the world prepares for a deluge of Live Earth concerts featuring the Global Warmingist-in-Chief himself, more and more of his inconvenient hypocrisies are being exposed by scientists and writers across the planet.
The most recent exposé was written by a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute, James M. Taylor.
The op-ed, published Saturday by the Chicago Sun-Times, deliciously addressed the real assault on reason not covered in soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore’s most recent work of political science fiction (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer goldenthroat):
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
Great point, wouldn’t you agree? After all, it’s one thing to write about the need to end scientific distortions for political benefit. However, as Gore has been doing exactly this since he decided to become the planet’s strongest advocate for advancing global warming alarmism in order to impact international politics, he should be taking his own sage advice or be exposed as one of the greatest hypocrites to ever emit carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, he should be willing to engage in public debates on this issue to assist in the finding of real answers and real solutions much as Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did recently. After all, this is indeed the only way the nation can have an honest discussion on this crucial issue.
Alas, Gore really isn’t interested in such a national conversation. Instead, as Taylor elaborated, his modus operandi is to spread fallacies which scientists around the world are exposing as such on virtually a daily basis now.
After enumerating many Gore falsehoods that most readers are likely familiar with, Taylor concluded:
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
Sadly, James, the answer is likely “No.” This charade has made Gore a very wealthy man in the last few years -- recent reports claim that he's made upwards of $100 million since the 2000 elections -- and it seems quite unlikely that he’s going to tell all of his adoring fans that he’s been lying all along for his own personal and financial gain.
After all, does the snake oil salesman ever admit that his salve really won’t cure all that ails you?