ddoubleez

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 15, 2007

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize,
The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring
themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they
devoted their editorial to a long list of people they
thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested
that the prize should have been shared with “that
well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who
implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden
once said something about climate change — therefore,
anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of
the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers
insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when
the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent
somehow ended up in the White House. Both the
personality cult the right tried to build around
President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of
Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the
desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the
Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the
wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best
president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for —
the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown
even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative
point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992,
George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but
three years later the scientists who discovered the
threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq,
“the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater
danger to the United States than we presently face
from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National
Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog
Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as
well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been
telling about how human activities are changing the
climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives,
it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate
change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was
bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad
economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate
change. It’s in the interest of most people (and
especially their descendants) that somebody do
something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like
that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the
free market, and in a few generations Florida will be
underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest
and the common good is to provide individuals with an
incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people
have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse
gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax
on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission
permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an
emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the
U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on
sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing
acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than
acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric
acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned
in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in
America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around
the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the
same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal
burned here. So dealing with climate change not only
requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also
requires international negotiations in which the
United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial —
but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for
president would receive if he acknowledged these
truths at the next debate. Today, being a good
Republican means believing that taxes should always be
cut, never raised. It also means believing that we
should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with
them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that
can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the
science must be rejected, and the scientists must be
slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily
recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen,
the NASA researcher who first made climate change a
national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the
nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates
Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed.
He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and
emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever.
And it drives them crazy.

(Title changed to something more appropriate. PM-Style messages are not allowed here, it is a public forum and we all have the same right to read a topic. If it was meant for a member in particular, use PM or emai.)

fmb

Most times, this Gore stuff baffles me. Claim to invent the internet, participate in a movie with scientific inconsistancies, and have a house that flaunts all he says he stands for. I've only come up with a single word to describe this.......... politician!

It's bait, all the way around. Is any one better than the alternative?

93crawler

I was wondering when someone would respond to this thread, and attempt to discredit all that Gore has accomplished. The internet thing has been blown out of proportion, and as for his movie, have you seen it--or are you simply regurgitating something someone has already said about it--faux news maybe? Virtually every scientist in the world is in complete consensus on this issue, and how the movies explains it. The ones of course that don't agree with it are on payrolls of companies like GM, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Exxon Mobil, and others who stand in the way of policies that would limit, and reduce global warming.

I really don't know where you stand on this issue, or many others, the other posts of yours. Do you just dislike the movie, or is it Gore himself, or his political views, I really don't know. I do know this, he would be the best person for the Presidency right now, regardless of whether he's running or not. And I think he could get a substantial amount done in Washington, because he has just become more and more respected each year. Republicans may say they dislike him, but they certainly respect what he's done since his time as Vice President. How many other Presidents, or Vice President have done as much as he has done out of office?

I can only think of a few, Clinton--regardless of what you may think of him, he has almost singlehandedly, through the Clinton Global Initiative, changed the way the world thinks about poverty, AIDs, malaria treatments, TB, and to a smaller extent, global warming. Carter--another person you may or may not hate, but Habitat for Humanity--he's an extremely important part of that organization, he helped start it. Bush Sr. for his work with Katrina relief, with who else I might add--Clinton! And then you have Gore, who has simply changed almost everyone's mind about if global warming exists, and are now thinking what can be done.

ddoubleez

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said the group's president, Drew Johnson, in a release alleging that Gore's house in the Volunteer State uses 20 times as much electricity as the average household nationwide.

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Gore, called the statement misleading.

"The power coming into their residence is green, renewable power," she said, explaining that the Gores participate in a program called Green Power Switch, which is run through the public Tennessee Valley Authority. Green Power Switch supplies energy from renewable sources to its members.

Kreider added that a renovation of the Gores' house is underway to make it more energy efficient, an update that will include the addition of solar panels.

Gore is a victom of spin..... This is how Rush makes a living.... Taking the law of capitolism into consideration, Gore's large demand for renewable energy, makes capitol avalible for Green Switch to reinvest into more renewable energy souces, so he is accually helping.... Only 2% of american's are on wind or solar power for their homes..... A 400 square foot apartment attached to a coal-fired powerplant is worse than an entire office building attached to a company like Green Switch..... Houston has green mountian energy.....

I would have given the dirt slingers props, if they were smart enough to point out that Gore is a cattle man... Methane is a huge contributor to global warming, and Gore won't tough the subject....

ddoubleez

A media source that would like to dismiss Gore's attempt to educate the general public on Global Warming, should also probe into other politician's home choice....

Misery, Thy Name is Rumsfeld's Vacation Home
Race, power, and history come to a head at Rumsfeld's historic vacation home



Funny to find out the same man that started the torcher of muslems, finds comfort in relaxing in the same house where slaves lives were destroyed or taken from them.. Families shattered and human beings bread like dogs.....

fmb

I was wondering when 93Crawler was gonna see my post here. I'll try to offer some info: a) I have not seen the movie, but may in the next few months; b) I don't like Al, because he's a politician; c) I wouldn't be happy if he really ran; then again, I'm not happy with any of the current candidates, irregardless of party.

Am I really convinced of humans being the complete cause of climate change, global warming, or whatever the current term may be? No. Why? Our planet has a long history and science has only monitored a very short glimpse of climatilogical (sp?)history. To put this into perspective, our planet is about 4.5 billion years old; just 400 years ago, the view of the time was Earth was the center of the solar system, if not the universe; if you disagreed with this view, you were subject to death.

On a more personal note: I was in grade school in the mid 1970's. The "hot topic" of the day was the coming Ice Age! Our world was cooling and we were all to freeze and starve to death, very similar to the "mini-Ice Age" Europe experienced from the 14th -mid 17th centuries. If I remember correctly, the person most responsible for bringing the freezing idea to the attention of the world was Carl Sagan. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that was a long time ago... Anyway, the scientific view went from cold to hot, literally.

BTW, I recycle more than the average joe, use cfl bulbs in ALL my lights, and keep my ride in top shape to get the best gas mileage. Am I a tree huggger? Nope, it's just a good thing to do. When I was growing up, my grandma would say it's "being responsible".

Thanks for letting me toss out my view; everyone stay safe and have some fun!!

93crawler

Yeah, post away dude. I have heard this argument before, my uncle tried to convince me of this last Christmas I think. Yes, I know the Earth has warming and cooling cycles, and you can attribute a number of things to what might potentially cause "warming," but volcanoes and cow's asses aside, we are directly contributing to the gradual increase in climate change--period. I've taken a number of Geology classes, although I'm not a Geology major, and there are ways that climatologists can determine just what conditions were like millions of years ago.

They drill into immensely thick ice sheets, and take ice core samples. They are very long, and the info contained on them is similar to tree rings. They can tell scientists how hot or cold it was at a certain point, within plus or minus a few degrees, probably. I'm not sure how the data is obtained, but this is just another example of science debunking myths, and/or personal beliefs. I think it has something to do with the oxygen bubbles within the ice, but don't quote me on it.

I've never heard of Carl Sagan, probably a little before my time, but all leading and reputable scientists agree on this issue--we are directly responsible for the current climate change. It's pretty evident that an overwhelming majority of the public understands this, and wants something to be done about it. It's even more weird that a Republican is the one who is bringing a bill to the Senate floor, John Warner--from Virginia I think. You know that you have been able to convince people when Republicans are the ones bringing climate change bills to the floor of the Senate!

This is something that needs to be addressed now, and not held up in congress, or vetoed by the President. Not only will we be able to have cleaner air to breathe, but we will also be saving thousands of species of animals and plants from near extinction if we act now. We may also be able to save Eastern part of the US sinking, and disappearing into the Atlantic. This will also spur a huge technology boom, and will employ thousands of new workers, and create many new companies. I live on the East Coast, and the majority of buildings they put up around here are green buildings anymore. They might cost a little more in the beginning, but will save you a ton, in a very short period of time.

If you do decide to watch the movie, try and watch it for what it is, a documentary about the danger our planet is in. Oh, and I respect that you recycle more than most, if only everyone else would do their part--your Grandma was very right. And "keeping your ride in top shape" is another good thing, as long as that ride doesn't get like 12 mpg! I used to drive trucks, and had a hobby involving driving them over insanely big rocks, but I gave all that up because I believe you should practice what you preach. I still miss driving my truck, but don't miss the crappy gas mileage. When you only use a truck for what it's designed for about 5 times a year, is it really worth having one? I drive a car, a Subaru Legacy, and probably will trade it in on an even more fuel efficient car--maybe a Prius. Well, it's 2:15 in the morning, I'm going to bed--don't want to type any more!

ddoubleez

staying on the global warming idea:

James Hanson is not a politician, he is NASA's leading climatologist....

ddoubleez

The Bush administration worked behind the scenes to weaken key language in the Group of 8 proposal for joint action on climate change. The Washington Post reported that administration officials successfully pressed negotiators to drop sections of the report that warned of more frequent droughts and floods and commited a specific dollar amount to promoting carbon sequestration in developing countries.
This follows major revelations published in the New York Times earlier this month that a White House official repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that played down links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. The official -Philip Cooney- was chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality which shapes much of America”s environmental policy. Before coming to the White House in 2001, Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute.

Just two days after that article was published, Cooney resigned from the council and ExxonMobil announced they were hiring him. A recent investigation by Mother Jones magazine found that ExxonMobil has spent at least eight million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming.

ExxonMobile defended its hiring of Cooney by stating that they hire from both sides of the aisle. In a written statement to Democracy Now! The company wrote that “ExxonMobil hired Mr. Cooney at about the same time we hired Matt Gobush, who was the Communications Director for Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. We have always hired highly qualified people for their talent--not their politics.”

michaeljohn

Just to correct your initial post...Gore didn't win in 2000. True he had more popular votes, but Bush won in the electoral college. That's how Bush ended up in the White House. I don't care what Michel Moore says about Florida, it's his speculation. It's also pure speculation what Gore would have done had he been elected, we'll never know. 9-11 still would have happened. By the way, the popular vote winner has not always won the election. It's all decided in the electoral college. Carry on with the topic, Gore doesn't interest me.

___________________________________________

93crawler

The electoral college system should be abolished, we should elect Presidents by popular vote only! That system is extremely out of date and virtually useless, but that's all I'll say about that. I watched the video you posted deez, and it's really good. Just goes to show you the level of incompetence, and disinformation this White House puts out. I mean appointing a former employee of Exxon Mobil to the position of Chief of Staff to the White House on Environmental Quallity? Are you serious, just another example of Bush putting people in key positions that have no credentials for that particular position--he just wants people to agree with him.

PurpleButton

Al Gore created the Internet :-P And now he will save the Earth when two hands wrapped around his award. I do like the man. People always try to bring him down--even his own son with his wacky actions.

ddoubleez

FYI, Cheney, who wouldn't have been VP neglected to give shoot down orders, that this administration changed proceedure on, it was handled by the military before this administration.... So, there is a huge argument that 9-11 would not have happened.... Also take into consideration the vaccation time Bush has had, and logic would dictate that someone that attends work more often may react to whitehouse memos entitled 'Bin Lauden determined to attack inside the US'

Next, as far as the votes go....

http://forums.webrats.com/thread135287.html

And someone needs you help here:

http://forums.webrats.com/thread125646-3.html

ddoubleez

The electoral collage was created, because of how difficult it was to share information.... So 93crawler could not be more right here.........