I am not a credentialed psychologist, but I have a psychological theory about why ex-vice president and presidential near miss Al Gore is such a rabid advocate of global warming hysteria. It goes something like this.
For many years, Gore believed that the eventual attainment of the presidency was something akin to a birthright and would almost certainly be his ultimate destiny. In 2000, when he missed it by a gnat’s eyelash and his hopes were dashed, it must have been psychologically devastating for him.
So he dropped out of sight for a while. Eventually, he turned up again, sporting an uncharacteristic and unflattering beard, and, whether out of sour grapes or ideological extremism, began his relentless criticism of Bush administration policies, particularly where they pertained to the war in Iraq and the environment, Gore’s pet subject for years as evidenced by his book “Earth In The Balance.”
Sometimes adopting the speaking style of a fire-and-brimstone, Pentecostal-type preacher during his harangues against that “renegade band of right-wing extremists,” he was transmogrified into something worse than simply the old wooden, monotoned and personality-challenged automaton he had always been. He gave every appearance that he had become instead a fairly nutty guy who seemed to have sorta, kinda gone off the proverbial deep end.
Because of that new perception, future presidential aspirations seemed accordingly dim. But if you can’t be president, then what might be the next best thing? Well, how about the guy who saved mankind and all of civilization? Not too shabby if he can pull it off. And that’s where the global warming hysteria-mongering comes in.
Gore fancies that he can go down in history as a visionary who saved the world from a self-induced climatic disaster, contingent, of course, upon the world’s politicians waking up and doing something before it’s too late. And according to Al in his new movie, the world has approximately ten years to make some pretty dramatic changes before the effects of global warming become irreversible and we plummet headlong into a downward spiral that will culminate in civilizational destruction.
Saving mankind is a pretty tall order, but nobody thinks any more highly of Mr. Gore’s abilities than Mr. Gore himself. So, he dragged out the old slide show he’s been carting around the country and the world for years, turned it into a motion picture and gave it the dopey name “An Inconvenient Truth.” And in that movie he very matter-of-factly states that scientific debate on global warming is over, all scientists are now in absolute agreement and the only remaining dissenters are right-wing nut jobs.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Amusing take on Gore's 'disorder'. But I think it's more than just psychological since it seems to be contagious.
Dave
2 - simeet dude
Interesting post, if not original. Nearly all your points are wrong.
- Yes, when he was a boy, Al Gore was seen by his father as having a political future as US President. But Al Gore was not the only person to have that pressure, and Al Gore had no reason to feel his life was a failure because he did got become US President in 2000. The man had a solid political career, and likely was the real winner of the election anyway. Now, after Gore was out of politics, he changed. His activites, his appearance, and his priorities. Big deal. The man got really rich with Google stock, and was the assumed Democratic candidate in 2004, and possibly 2008. So your judgement that Al Gore went off the deep end, is not backed up by anything. He is a celebrity.
- Al Gore did not come up with an idea to make himself the savior of mankind after the 2000 election. Al Gore has been passionate about global warming since he was a college kid. He wrote a book about it in 1990. In the past few years, there has been stronger date and scientific consensus on the issue, so the timeing for his new movie and book is good.
-There are plenty of skpetics about the reality and danger of climate change. But there is a overwhelming scientific consensus. And the effects of global warming are here already.
To conclude, who is crazy, Gore or Bush? Bush mocked the idea of hybrid cars in 2000, and he has limited environmental regulations, he has disputed the impact of global warming, and has spent hundreds of billions for wars in Iraq and Afganistan to secure vast reserves of oil. Gore supports major research to clean up the environment, find alternative energy sources, and promote peace and justice in America and throughout the world.
3 - RedTard
Civilization will NOT be destroyed by a few degree temperature change. Anyone that believes so is an idiot blinded by ideology. This is being used as a scare tactic by left wingers to get government in control of industry. (conveniently what they wanted all along)
4 - Jeff
"For many years, Gore believed that the eventual attainment of the presidency was something akin to a birthright and would almost certainly be his ultimate destiny."
I think you've got the wrong 2000 candidate there, guy. His name is Gorge, um Georeg, well, he goes by "W" - I think because he has a hard time with soft consonants and blended vowels.
5 - JustOneMan
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96
6 - Maurice
Greg -
well written and fun to read. I think you could chase your tail for a long time as far as what is really going on in the Al Gore mind. He definitely considers himself relevant even if many of us consider him comical.
"Sometimes adopting the speaking style of a fire-and-brimstone, Pentecostal-type preacher during his harangues...".
I think there is certain amount of religious fervor on this topic. It certainly requires a leap of faith to commit yourself to the 'belief'.
7 - Dave Nalle
There are plenty of skpetics about the reality and danger of climate change. But there is a overwhelming scientific consensus. And the effects of global warming are here already.
There was an overwhelming scientific consensus that the plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells too, but it turned out to be a political opinion rather than one based on empirical evidence.
To conclude, who is crazy, Gore or Bush? Bush mocked the idea of hybrid cars in 2000, and he has limited environmental regulations,
And he's passed more pro-environment legislation than any president since Jimmy Carter, raised the CAFE standards and increased penalties for violations of environmental rules.
Dave
8 - MCH
Speaking of protecting the environment, what have you done with the hundreds of carcasses of dogs you've killed on/near your property?
9 - JustOneMan
Dave,,,you mean the that the plague was NOT caused by Jews poisoning wells...
well Ill be....
10 - DrPat
In academia, where Mr. Gore has been tending his beard lately, there IS a substantial concensus of thought that any warming seen in global climate is the result of man's activities, especially those activities that take place within US borders.
It is only when one considers the opinions of scientists working outside the groves of academe that one sees there is no concensus. In fact, we can't assess the influence of several major factors in global climate that are non-anthropogenic. Weather is the definitive chaotic system; perhaps we should be swatting butterflies instead of signing Kyoto.
11 - John Conlin
As for the bigger picture, RedTard is on the mark. Many politicians (and socialists) cynically support the whole issue of global warming since the preferred method to attack the problem is through a carbon tax (which is almost a tax on everything). There are varying estimates of how much $$ this will provide to politicians to then spend on their favorite causes (simultaneously increasing their power) but it runs into the tens if not hundreds of billions annually. Not a bad chunk of change to support a dubious scientific theory.
12 - Albanesse
Nice write up... now I am neither a Bush or Gore fan... wow, never really thought of those two words together before. Well, this is my take on it. We as humans, right up there with dolphins and smart pigs need to feel like we impact everything and everything impacts us. Actually I don't think pigs feel that way. Global Warming or GW, is the new thing that has taken hold of everyone. This reminds me of when AIDS was first seen in the US. A horrible thing at best, but how many experts stated we would be gone as a people in 10 years time due to it. West Nile virus that killed maybe a dozen older people in NYC and we all went crazy. More people die from heat stroke in the summer.. just saying. Will 2 or 3 degrees make difference. I doubt it and why I think that way is that the world is always changing and always be changing. If I was gone tomorrow the world would keep spinning... and spin it will.
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
If climate change is gradual, it doesn't matter all that much in the short run how much carbon or other elements that don't belong we pump into the atmosphere.
If climate change tuns out to be a sudden event, on the other hand (which is what the evidence seems to point to), we should be thinking about when the slow incremental change becomes the straw that breaks the camel's (and our) back.
14 - krw
The consensus is in regarding global warming. Bill Gray and Richard Lindzen are now in the vast minority. Lindzen is also known to accept money from oil companies for his research, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt.
There will never be 100% consensus on any matter of scientific debate; there will always be dissenters. That's even true with generally accepted theories such as evolution. But the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world agree that global warming is not only a reality, but that it's being caused, at least in part, by human activity.
That doesn't prove that Gray and Lindzen are wrong, but I'll put my money on the great majority of respected scientists over the few lone holdouts.
Besides, what have we got to lose by accepting this theory? Why are right-wingers so opposed to the whole notion? Because it would force them to stop driving gas-guzzlers? Because this is an idea that's being championed by the left? Where's the threat? The technological sector will leap to meet the demand for more fuel-efficent vehicles, cleaner means of heating and cooling, better means of recycling, etc. There's huge money to be made off this. It'll be a shot in the arm to Detroit and to our economy. It's a win/win situation. Why so much hostility?
15 - Maurice
"That's even true with generally accepted theories such as evolution."
A lot of holes in that theory too!
If you have joined up in the church of GW you have a hell of a lot more 'faith' than the average Christian!
The sky is NOT falling.
16 - Dave Nalle
KRW almost hits on an important truth. There are a lot of good reasons for fuel economy and other positive ecological measures which have nothing to do with global warming. So long as we pursue free market approaches to these issues and avoid buying into the socialist agenda that's behind global warming and accepting transparently draconian measures like Kyoto which have political goals rather than real environmental goals, we can do a lot to help the country and the environment with little harm along the way.
Dave
17 - methuselah
It seems to me that anyone who looks at the world, solar system and galaxy that we live in must be struck by the violence and hostility of the stars and planets that we live among. In particular, the planets seem to be divided among those which are essentially dead and cannot support life, and those whose atmosphere is so unstable as to not permit the development and evolution of life over long periods of time. Alone among the planets we know of is this insignificant planet Earth which has had a remarkably stable atmosphere and climate over hundreds of millions of years. It is this stability that has engendered life as we know it. IMO It is simply foolhardy to gamble this heritage on the guess that maybe it's OK to pollute the environment or that when a disaster starts to appear we will have time and means to pull back from the brink of disaster. Especially if we choose technological positions dictated by political notions which have proven to be frail in the past.
18 - JR
Greg Strange: Do you believe with absolute certainty your local weather forecast for three days out? How about two? How about for tomorrow? Then why would you believe a forecast for decades in the future when it is infinitely and impossibly more complicated than tomorrow's forecast?
Dr. Pat: Weather is the definitive chaotic system; perhaps we should be swatting butterflies instead of signing Kyoto.
Weather is chaotic, but is climate?
I keep seeing this argument, often from people who should know better. Surely you can see the difference between predicting events and predicting trends. Earthquakes are even harder to predict; does that mean we can't make any statement about how the plates are moving?
The fact is, we make all kinds of reliable predictions about climate - that's how we know where to put the ski resorts. Whether we really can make a reliable prediction about climate change is a reasonable question. But the implication that it is on the same level of uncertainty as predicting weather is bogus.
19 - Greg Strange
Comment #14 KRW said:
"The consensus is in regarding global warming. Bill Gray and Richard Lindzen are now in the vast minority. Lindzen is also known to accept money from oil companies for his research, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt."
The pro-global warming guys are getting tons of research money from the gov't and they know it will keep coming as long as global warming is presented as a threat to the world. Do you take what they say with a grain of salt?
Comment #14 KRW said:
"But the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world agree that global warming is not only a reality, but that it's being caused, at least in part, by human activity."
Yes, but they don't all agree, like Al Gore, that the planet is doomed. That's part of the point to this article. Gore latches on to the absolute worst case scenario possible. Of all possible gradations of seriousness to this problem, why should we only believe the worst?
Comment #14 KRW said:
"Besides, what have we got to lose by accepting this theory? Why are right-wingers so opposed to the whole notion? Because it would force them to stop driving gas-guzzlers?"
Personally, I've never owned a car that had more than four cylinders and I'd be thrilled if most people did the same. I think one of the big reasons "right-wingers" are opposed to the whole notion is because it has been elevated to something resembling the status of a religion. It doesn't seem very prudent, especially considering that back in the 70's the majority meteorological opinion was that the planet was cooling, with the next stop being an ice age. Again, if you can't trust a local weather forecast for two days out, how can you possibly trust an infinitely more complex global forecast for decades out?
Comment #14 KRW said:
"The technological sector will leap to meet the demand for more fuel-efficent vehicles, cleaner means of heating and cooling, better means of recycling, etc. There's huge money to be made off this."
I believe that very thing will happen in time. Apparently it's a very difficult problem to solve, but I have no doubt it will be solved long before the planet is destroyed. And in the meantime, we shouldn't have to throw modern civilization out the window, which is what a lot of radical global warming proponents would like to see.
20 - Greg Strange
Comment #18 JR said:
"The fact is, we make all kinds of reliable predictions about climate - that's how we know where to put the ski resorts. Whether we really can make a reliable prediction about climate change is a reasonable question. But the implication that it is on the same level of uncertainty as predicting weather is bogus."
I think your last sentence is wrong. We know exactly what causes the daily weather to change. The reason weather forecasting is so inaccurate is because the atmosphere is so immense, but we are only able to measure a tiny portion of it. Physics is an exact science as long as everything can be measured. When it comes to the atmosphere, that simply can't be done.
But when it comes to climate change, we really don't know much at all about what causes it. And it is indeed infinitely more complicated than day-to-day local weather forecasting.
21 - JR
Greg Strange: Physics is an exact science as long as everything can be measured.
Physics can quite reliably predict whether and when a pot of water will boil without measuring the kinetic energy of each molecule in it.
But when it comes to climate change, we really don't know much at all about what causes it. And it is indeed infinitely more complicated than day-to-day local weather forecasting.
In other words, it's on a whole other level of uncertainly?
22 - Dave Nalle
The fact is, we make all kinds of reliable predictions about climate - that's how we know where to put the ski resorts.
There's a big difference between predictions like this - the farther north and higher up you go the colder it is - and predicting global changes into the future. And since you mention ski resorts, it seems interesting to me that the volume of snow and the days of snowfall have both increased in the major ski resort areas in the rockies in recent years. But of course, global warming advocates will just say that global warming causes more snow and more cold days. Uhuh.
Dave
23 - JR
Dave Nalle: There's a big difference between predictions like this - the farther north and higher up you go the colder it is - and predicting global changes into the future.
Yes, the two problems are qualitatively different; finding a solution to one is not the same as finding a solution to the other. However, those two problems are on a similar scale relative to the problem of predicting day-to-day weather. My point being that the difficulty of predicting weather is not necessarily indicative of the difficulty of predicting climate. My suspicion, based on the analogous differences in scale and scope I've mentioned, is that predicting global climate will prove to be a much easier problem than predicting local weather.
24 - Baronius
Greg - That's an interesting take on Gore. I have my own theory, that every few years Gore completely changes his personality. Not just his image - many politicians flip-flop - but he actually becomes a different person. In each phase, he believes what the current Al Gore is saying.
I admired the pro-military moderate Gore of the mid-1980's. He first turned environmentalist in the early 90's, at the same time that he became anti-military. He was the government reformer during the first part of his vice-presidency, then reversed himself as Mr. Insider. I think his phases as a candidate in 2000 were deliberate, but he's moulted and reemerged twice since then. Once as the scruffy, shouting Unabomber, then recently as Powerpoint Guy.
I've argued elsewhere on these pages that one shouldn't try to psychoanalyse one's political opposition, because it makes one discount the candidate or his position. But I don't see any way around it with Gore.
25 - JR
Baronius: He (Gore) first turned environmentalist in the early 90's
That's interesting; he was on The Daily Show a couple weeks ago and he said he's been giving this talk for thirty years. One of you seems to be mistaken.