Promoted from the diaries by Caleb. I noticed that "attacks" line right away too.
You know, I hate it, absolutely hate it, when leftists hijack quotes from the truly great people from history. They've lifted sayings from Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others in order to make it appear our Founding Fathers would be very much against the way the U.S. has fought the war against the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. Of course, most Americans have seen these attempts as nothing more than spin by the leftists; because, in reality, that is all the left has, spin.
Today's New York Times will contain a long and rambling missive from the Goreacle, who has hijacked this quote from the great Winston Churchill: “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” First, this is the quote: "It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required." (You figure the guy who invented the Internet could have found the right quote on Google; but I digress.) Second, Gore attempts to spin the quote to justify the economic destruction of the United States in order to stop the completely unproven theory of man-made global warming. To steal the words of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), I would say to Gore "You lie!!!"
Worse yet, Gore's tirade reads like a homily given by a preacher to his congregation.
It starts with his opening:
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
Gore says "the recent attacks" as if that is what is going on and if it were true. What we've all seen over the past few months aren't attacks as much as they've been an exposure of the flaws and potential fraud of the anthropogenic global warming alarmists. Even his use of the phrase "the science of global warming" is an obfuscation since much of what has been heaped upon the world by the AGW alarmists have been based on the political views of activists like Gore, not activities that anyone would call science. Sure there is an activity that can be rightfully be referred to as science that is trying to make a case that man is causing global warming. But the science is far from settled, as what has been exposed expands almost daily. Gore's choice of phrasing in his opening is just another typical leftist and statist attempt to dismiss the opposition outright and state that his opinion is fact.
Adding to the dismissive nature of Gore's opening are his statements about the Climategate emails [emphasis mine]:
In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.
He calls those emails stolen; in many circles, the exposure of those emails was done by a whistleblower tired of the ongoing BS that has gone on amongst the alarmists. Acknowledging that as a possibility, however, would divert the narrative Gore wants to force down. But it doesn't end there [emphasis mine]:
I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
O, if it were but true. Alas, it isn't. We aren't talking of at least two mistakes, but a very large number of mistakes. Gore mentions the Himalaya glacier melting and Netherlands sea level errors; but that isn't close to all of the errors that have come to light: the African crop yield reduction, Amazon deforestation, and the number of references to activist groups (like the World Wildlife Fund) by the IPCC instead of actual, peer-reviewed studies. While Gore does highlight the fact that there were errors, his phrasing is meant to divert the reality towards Gore's reality.
With his opening, Gore sounds, to be generous, like a kook. He states that as a requirement, "large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it." Why? Gore mentions that the U.S. faces the crisis of depending on foreign oil and trailing China as that country is expanding the development of "green" technologies, which will supposedly include the most important jobs needed for the 21st Century; but these aren't the reasons for what he wants done. He answers the why with this:
But what a burden would be lifted!
It didn't take long; he's taken on the role of a preacher. Note how he, like so many of the AGW alarmists, avoids the obvious answer to the first problem, U.S. dependency on foreign oil. That is a problem with a simple solution; having the U.S. government allow the land it leases to energy companies to drill, and passing legislation to lessen the impact of both overreaching regulators (like Lisa Jackson at the EPA) and the courts to curtail these efforts. Naturally, this is never mentioned by Gore. An explanation of why is provided by the Times at the bottom:
As a businessman, [Al Gore] is an investor in alternative energy companies.
The bottom line is that expanding the business of traditional energy companies could have negative consequences for Gore's bottom line. So Al Gore has to become the preacher. Unfortunately for him, he comes off as a secular version of Elmer Gantry.
Now that Al Gore the preacher of the religion of Anthropogenic Climatism has come to the fore, he has to relate the effects of America's, and the world's, sins: "Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease" (the latter is to counter the lack of storms following 2005); "Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases"; "The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture"; "The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels"; "...displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases." So what's to be done? How about this [emphasis mine]:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
Is he kidding? Gore might as well have been dictating this line to a scribe with a Bible in one hand and a scepter in another. Of course, the ACLU would then have been all over him for trying to have a God-based, state-sponsored religion established. Naturally that won't happen because the ACLU will conveeeeniently refuse to acknowledge Gore's statement as one of religious expression, which it is.
You would think that Gore is trying to top Moses as a lawgiver. At least Moses received the law from a higher power, God; for Gore and those like him, God isn't a factor, and probably doesn't exist.
Remember, this is a religion. If Al Gore believes this to be true, then to him it is The Truth. So for Gore, The Truth must be enforced by the law. All those who do not follow The Truth as defined by the law, then they must be punished through the law. And then suffer eternal damnation.
Hey Al, "You lie!!!"