Gore Derangement Syndrome
Conservatives had a bad case of Clinton derangement in the 1990s. Liberals caught the same bug with Bush in the 2000s.
Marc Morano doesn’t really have Gore Derangement Syndrome. He just works hard at feeding the deranged who are afflicted with it. To whit, see his spread at Climate Depot today. It’s nearly an unbroken three column mash up of Gore.
Yes, sir, quite a banner day for Gore mania over in Morano World.
For a guy who was cheated out of the Presidency that he won fair and square, folks sure aren’t very nice to him. 😉
The Goracle is the denialists best human resource. Pachauri a distant second.
Great action photos of the Goracle on MM’s site.
Can’t stand Morano. The first time I saw him on TV was with a scientist when climategate broke, and Morano was acting like a complete child. It’s a fairly funny clip, made so at the end when the scientist- thinking the interview was over, mutters to the camera- “what an a**hole…”
I was inclined to agree…
Oddly enough, Gore’s meltdown is being reported far and wide, so I don’t know any reason to focus on Morano- who you seem to think is the Al Gore of skeptics.
I’d like to know what people think of this statement from Gore as reported in The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/175967-gore-climate-skeptics-are-spreading-bullst
“There is no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened.”
So, is “shared reality” a new term for the “science is settled” and is there really no reason to suffer any debate at all about the idea that “the very existence of our civilization is threatened?”
If so, how do we now view the last 20 years of delay from greens who insist only on failed policy and reject functional alternatives to coal?
jeffn:
Morano’s regular “AGW in utter scientific collapse” pronouncements are part of the same rhetorical funhouse you cite. That is why I single him out (along with WUWT).
Because they are just as ridiculous and political.
KK, Oh, I get it- I really do. I don’t read him for that reason. But what is Gore saying in this meltdown other than “skeptics in utter scientific (and moral) collapse.”
I don’t believe either of those themes. I also don’t believe either theme is helpful to the debate but then again, I don’t think there really is a debate. If anyone seriously believed civilization was threatened, we’d be debating which alternatives to coal are most promising. We would not be debating Roy Spencer and Michael Mann’s relative competence at statistics.
And for the record, I don’t care what the alternative to coal is so long as it’s the most cost-effective and reliable and this for the simple (and only) reason that you can’t get either widespread third-world adoption or electrified transportation without inexpensive, plentiful and reliable electricity. By the way- 100 years from now nobody will remember the people who advocated policy or reasons to switch fuels- they’ll only remember the people who designed and built the alternatives. We remember Ford, not the guy who whined about horses.
@6
“By the way- 100 years from now nobody will remember the people who advocated policy or reasons to switch fuels- they’ll only remember the people who designed and built the alternatives.”
When I think of emancipation and it’s the early advocates, who were considered crazy at the time, they may not be as well-remembered as Lincoln, but we certainly remember them fairly well. Same for women’s suffrage. Early advocates seem to be well remembered in our history. And respected as well – much more so than they were in their own day. I expect that history will be kind to Gore.
Keith,
Al Gore has created more skeptics than Watts and Morano combined. Think about that.
Right now I suspect that the former VP would be happy with any type of coverage including GDS. While it is still early I would say that his Climate Reality Project is not garnering much media or even internet attention. Gore pulling a “Dean Scream” is not a good sign.
Anyone who believes this was an unplanned speech has a bit of stupid in them.
Anyone who thinks this speech will be effective has a whole lot of stupid in them.
#7 Dean
That’s a very interesting analogy. Do you really see global warming as comparable to emancipation? It’s not a trick question, I see it as more of a technical issue. Emancipation wasn’t a question of what would replace slaves in the field, it was a question of the wrongness of enslaving people.
I think if you approach this as a moral imperative rather than an urgent technical need, you will continue to have a difficult time getting buy in. If this is a moral imperative and not a technical question, then I don’t know what the advocates want. Emancipation outlawed slavery, what would you outlaw?
Come on Keith you can’t lump WUWT in with Morano. I know you have a thing about Anthony but always worth an occasional check whilst Morano, no way.
#6 is interesting.
“I don’t believe either of those themes. I also don’t believe either theme is helpful to the debate but then again, I don’t think there really is a debate. If anyone seriously believed civilization was threatened, we’d be debating which alternatives to coal are most promising. We would not be debating Roy Spencer and Michael Mann’s relative competence at statistics.”
We try to move the debate there. We have been for years. It shouldn’t be about climate science at all. But what are we to do about the people who keep going on about the minutiae as if they mattered.
“100 years from now nobody will remember the people who advocated policy or reasons to switch fuels- they’ll only remember the people who designed and built the alternatives”
Absolutely, but that presumes that the switch happens in time to keep enough civilization going that people care about history at all.
If, however, the world wants enough arrows in its quiver to respond with geoengineering, in case things get really bad for whatever reason, climate science ought to be left to get on with its job and not subject to character assassination and public humiliation, or revenge defunding, or political manipulation. We may do something memorable in the end, but only if the career path is made attractive.
I agree, then that fighting over climate science rather than about energy policy is immensely destructive in many ways. So why don’t we just accept the (by now blazingly obvious) need to decarbonize as quickly as possible, and move on to how to achieve it?
MT, until those models start getting some predictions right, I’m afraid the debate is about climate science!
But you can continue to live in a little world of your own if you like.
#8. Jon P writes:
“Al Gore has created more skeptics than Watts and Morano combined. Think about that.”
Couldn’t agree more. As I’ve suggested here before, Gore does more harm to the CO2 Team than anyone, and the sooner he disappears the better.
But poor Keith, re “quite a banner day for Gore mania over in Morano World”
Who created Gore mania? Why was his science fiction movie so hyped and how did that pile of junk ever win an Academy Award? How did this charlatan and Patchy et al get a Nobel Peace Prize?
The AGW crisis industry created Gore mania. Tsk tsk. Too bad they bet on such a lame horse. And so much for the wisdom of the Goldman Sachs gang who partnered with him on his Carbon Exchange scam.
For those who actually still believe in the CO2 fairy, I hope for their sakes that Gore goes off to some island exile ASAP. But for me, who thinks the whole AGW project is as phoney and self-serving as Gore is, I hope he stays in the limelight as much as possible.
Now that Gore has reached the tipping point, his next act could be spectacularly hilarious and stupid!
A Gore, Hansen and Romm road show could be a real winner.
MT: “We try to move the debate there. We have been for years. It shouldn’t be about climate science at all. But what are we to do about the people who keep going on about the minutiae as if they mattered.”
I have no doubt you genuinely believe you have tried to move the debate away from the science and to the policy, the problem is that the set of policies advocated in the process are so divorced from reality that we cannot get away from people asking the obvious- why on earth would you want to do something that dumb?
In all seriousness, if anyone had simply said in 1988 that we need to start building nukes there wouldn’t have been any debate about global warming and our emissions footprint would be down. We actually have proven models for that- France and Sweden for example. Instead we’ve been chit-chatting for two decades about tax increases, global policies to limit economic growth in the west, fantasies about windmills and solar, and fueling it all with some of the most ridiculous exaggeration in the history of leftist politics (and that’s saying something!) Then the advocates dishonestly blamed the delay on Republicans to guarantee the alienation of half of the government.
Nobody who’s serious about emissions would do that unless they’re really, really dumb, in which case I don’t want them for my science or policy advisors.
I point to Bill’s comment, and I point to jeffn’s comment, that is all.
EdG says-
“Now that Gore has reached the tipping point, his next act could be spectacularly hilarious and stupid!”
I don’t think Gore has reached the tipping point. I listened to his talk last night and tbh I found most of it quite engaging. The few times he mentioned the word ‘bull****’ came across as Gore just being candid- actually an attractive look for a politician. I did feel he went flat when climate change was bought up (do we really need another comparison with tobacco companies?).. anyway, Morano’s and Anthony’s reading that this was Al going off the deep end, was false imo. It was nothing like that.