The Gore Delusion? (Updated)

Al Gore is still trying to get America Republicans to believe in Global Climate Change.

According to one attendee of his talks, he’d like you to believe in more than just that.

During his live slideshow today, however, he showed his true colors. One of his slides was a quote from Genesis, which he used to show that humans are the stewards of biodiversity. I have no problem with people quoting from the bible (as long as it makes sense), but I found it kind of funny that he went out of his way to announce that he did not mean to push his religious beliefs on people by using the scripture in his slideshow. I didn’t really see the need for this disclaimer, because I actually agreed with the use of the scripture.

The slide I found particularly interesting/shocking/sad, was his new(?) slide containing a graph of human population growth over the past couple hundred-thousand years. It started off good. He pointed at the beginning of the graph, showing the population of humans on Earth from 200,000 years ago, and referred to the “rise of humans.”

Cool beans. So he believes that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominid ancestors, right? Nope. In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this “rise of humans” was God’s creation of mankind – apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption “Adam & Eve” above this starting point.

Has anyone else seen this slide? I have no reason to doubt this – but ouch!

I also find it very interesting that despite Al Gore’s activist side, there doesn’t seem to be any way to download his information. Arguably the official web site, The Climate Project is a nice looking, easily sold usability train-wreck. That shouldn’t make me too sceptical.

Nevertheless, can anyone confirm this? It would nice to see Adam and Eve left out of this issue. I mean what did they do wrong? Oh – yeah – that apple thing. *sigh*

I just watched the video of the presentation (not the movie) and it seems to be one of his standard depreciative humor points.

First off. The video is of the presentation given to MoveOn.Org so it is not in front of a big religious crowd. Nevertheless, Gore starts by saying it was his religious beliefs that brought him to environmentalism – stewardship, not activism is the driving force.

But at one point of the presentation, Gore is talking about the three factors leading to the environmental collision with civilisation. The first is population. My transcript from the video.

There are three factors responsible for [the collision] and the first is population

We’re seeing some success in slowing the momentum of population growth, but it is still growing rapidly all around the world.

And if you look at a graph of population from the beginning of the human race until now. Uh. If you go back… now I don’t want to get into a debate about when. We had a trial in Tennessee [Scopes] about this and um. And we lost and I’m very sensitive about it. And uh. But for purposes of argument, if you accept the scientific view that we emerged in our current form 160 thousand years ago, it took more then 10 thousand generations, before we reached a population of 2 billion people when my baby boom generation was born.

So, yes. He might be pointing out a YEC standpoint. On the other hand it doesn’t seem either dogmatic nor terribly serious. I suspect he tailors the talk to the audience.

15 comments so far

  1. Thinking Ape on

    “So he believes that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominid ancestors, right? Nope. In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this “rise of humans” was God’s creation of mankind – apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption “Adam & Eve” above this starting point.”

    From what “the attendee” has presented, as I have not seen the presentation, I’m not seeing much a contradiction – if Gore wants to give some explanation that God was a factor in mankind’s evolution, I’m game. Showing a picture of Adam and Eve is simply catering to his American audience as there tends to be a gag reflex by certain Americans upon any mention of evolution.

    That said, anyone who thinks Gore actually cares about the environment is delusional. He had his chance and blew it while Clinton/Gore bombed Iraq in 1998 (which Democrats and the American public have conveniently forgot about). This whole charade is about politics and keeping otherwise politically “aware” people suppressed.

  2. blc303 on

    Thinking Ape-
    I’m sorry. I don’t quite get the connection between Gore, the environment and Iraq. You’ll have to spell that out a little more clearly.

    Gore has a very long history of environmental involvement dating to before his election as VP. His association with Iraq (or perhaps Clinton’s, because until Cheney, the VP didn’t drive foreign policy) was limited to merely supporting the president’s position.

    So, what is exactly the charade? Global Climate Change? Gore’s involvement? Or was it Gore that subtly led to an American involvement in Iraq?

    Please clarify for me I’d like to know.

  3. Teresa on


    I recall something about the Clinton administration strategically bombing anti-aircraft positions in Iraq when they fired on our planes patrolling the “no-fly zone”.

  4. blc303 on


    They did even better. In late December 1998, in response to being fired upon in no-fly zones, several months of being lit-up by air-defense radars, and the ouster of UN inspectors, in a mission with the (historically challenged) name of Operation Desert Fox, Clinton authorized a massive attack on Iraq, including air-strikes and cruise missles, aimed at air-defenses and WMD sites in Iraq.

    From Air Force Magazine,

    Saddam had ousted UN weapons inspectors in late 1998, and, in response, in mid-December 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, four days of air strikes that targeted suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, Republican Guard facilities, and air defense systems. After those strikes, the Iraqis became even more aggressive in their attacks on coalition aircraft.

    Before Desert Fox, the coalition tended to confine its response to an Iraqi attack to the attack’s immediate source. On Jan. 27, 1999, the Clinton Administration revised the rules of engagement (ROE), permitting US aircraft to target a wider range of Iraqi air defense systems and related installations. Pilots could not only defend themselves but also act to reduce the overall Iraqi air defense threat to coalition aircraft.

    The really technical stuff at DefenseLink.

    According to my reading, among the major targets were installations designed to help the centralized command and control structures. These were using fiber optics to link up the anti-aircraft installations. The 1998 destruction really helped the 2003 invasion, even if the Pentagon didn’t realize it until after the ‘mission was accomplished.’

    At the time, conservative media decried the attacks (probably correctly) as Clintons attempt to ‘Wag the Dog.’ The last day of strikes coincided with Clintons impeachment vote. Funny Thinking Ape didn’t mention that part.

    But I still don’t understand what environmental stewardship has to do with enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq. Perhaps because the aircraft use kerosene? Because the dust thrown up – um – blocks the sun…? That’s the connection I don’t get. I don’t understand “He had his chance and blew it while Clinton/Gore bombed Iraq in 1998” Huh?

  5. Thinking Ape on

    There is no connection between Iraq and “environmental stewardship”. The point was that this is a game of politics. Gore’s platform during the 2000 campaign was just more of what happened over the previous 8 years: empty talk. Any action that was taken place was done so for purely political reasons with little input from the people working on the issues. Gore’s record concerning the environment has been talking about the environment. Once upon a time he had the authority to do something about it and didn’t. Instead, he followed the political line like they all do (i.e. bombing Iraq).

    The fact is that the environmental movement was for hippies, nutjobs, and the political fringe just 5 years ago. Now that it is becoming more mainstream, the politicians are jumping the bandwagon because it gets votes.

  6. Teresa on

    Gore’s environmental efforts as a Senator and as Vice president recieved mixed reviews and ratings…but the environment most certainly WAS part of his legislative record.

    I seem to recall quite a lot of mocking and criticism from the Presidential campaign on that front.

    I honestly think that criticism of Al Gore is the fashionable political bandwagon.

    But then again, when he wrote all that legislation about the internet, and passionatly promoted it as a useful tool for both business and information and civic activism, he was mocked. And when he tried to claim credit for his work after being vindicated he was mocked.

    I’m not 100% pro Gore or anything (I didn’t vote for him for President, for instance, but the Gore bashing has made me much more sympathetic, and cause dme to take a closer look at his actual record.

  7. blc303 on

    Thinking Ape

    Just to help you remember the history you seem to have rewritten – from the presidential campaign in 2000. The link is from a pbs newshour ‘debate’ looking at the environmental efforts of the candidates.

    TOM BEARDEN: Gore’s well-established environmental record makes it easy for people to grade his performance.

    RICK LAMONT, Audubon Society: A-plus.
    CARL POPE, Sierra Club: Al Gore, I’d give a B+.
    BRENT BLACKWELDER, Friends of the Earth: I would say probably a C.
    SHANNON McDANIEL: I’m going to give him a D.
    AMY McHUGH: Probably a D-.
    ANGELA ANTONELLI, Heritage Foundation: An F.

    Both the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society were fairly impressed with Gore over five years ago.

    Brent Blackwelder was unimpressed with Gore’s record because “he knew the issues, but he did not legislate and get results.” In other words he hadn’t done enough.

    Two panel members were directly opposed to Gores involvement on the creation of the Hanford Reach national monument, a wilderness protection area. Shannon McDaniel, South Columbia irrigation district manager next to the river and Amy McHugh is a farmer both opposed Gore’s stepping in to end a 10 year battle over protecting the river. It would seem Washington hasn’t imploded yet.

    I would assume you know the Heritage Foundation (when was the last time they gave a Democrat an A?

    Remember this was 5 years ago. When the environment was something for “hippies, nutjobs, and the political fringe.”

    A quote from Al Gores 1992 book Earth in the Balance

    I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the political winds and proceed cautiously…. [E]very time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [on the environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone far enough…. [T]he time has long since come to take more political risks–and endure more political criticism–by proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for their enactments.

    It would seem Gore has been on the ‘political fringe’ for far more then 5 years. You seem to think that the environment is becoming mainstream because … the Democrats like it?

    You know, of course, that the only people who think Global Climate Change is a problem are the ‘hippies, nutjhobs, and the political fringe’ – um – like the scientists. You know, nut jobs like Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (PhD – human physiology) and Rep Vernon Ehlers (Ph.D. in nuclear physics, Ranking Republican of the Subcommittee on Research & Science Education). Gentlemen who probably aren’t qualified to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

    Because they are obviously hippies, nutjobs, on the political fringe or just don’t know enough — about the Republican party line.

    Nutjobs Thinking Ape? Look in a mirror.

  8. Thinking Ape on

    Wow, ad hominem attacks as a conclusion – classy.

  9. blc303 on

    Look on the bright side. I gave you an easy out instead of trying to fight the issues I raised.

  10. Teresa on

    Thinking Ape in glass houses…

    You are awfully self-rightous, considering you BEGAN this comment thread with an ad hominem attack.

    But then again, I should not be surprised. Par for the conservative course. *yawn*

  11. Thinking Ape on

    Teresa, can you point out my ad hominem attack?

    blc, if you haven’t noticed we are on the same side of the issue. I did not respond to the “issues raised” because I would have to spend the next week gathering all the evidence which would be a waste of my time. I just happen to believe Gore is not loyal to the environmental movement or anyone else that might label themself as a “liberal”.

  12. Teresa on

    “That said, anyone who thinks Gore actually cares about the environment is delusional.”

  13. blc303 on


    I just happen to believe Gore is not loyal to the environmental movement or anyone else that might label themself [sic] as a “liberal”.

    Wow. Ad hominem left and right.

    Look. There are few things here.

    First. No. We can’t be on the same side because I am, per your definition, not loyal to the environment. You would need a week to fact check your first comments? Excuse me. And you get on my case for one sentence in a post full of information and links and then tell me you can’t back up what you are talking about?! Excuse me?

    Your initial comment was that “Gore had his chance” (and apparently did nothing) while in office as vice president. He did do things. See his involvement in the Columbia River issue. You added an ad hominem on Gore by making a rather bizarre non sequitur about Iraq. I called you on that and you admitted it had nothing to do with the issue. Now you admit you don’t know the facts; you are simply spouting dogma. It is Gore bashing. The definition of what you are doing is an ad hominem attack on Gore.

    My definition of a nutjob? Someone who says things and can’t back them up. Someone who believes but doesn’t know. Someone for whom dogma is more important than facts. So yes. Subjectively, per my definition and on my home turf, you do seem to meet my criteria. Slur? Ad hominems? Perhaps. But I seem to be losing that battle.

    Look at my posts. I when I say something, I try to find a link to back it up or I say something like – “I seem to remember reading but can’t remember where.” An argument I haven’t needed yet.

    Please, since you are speaking from knowledge and not dogma explain to me, slowly and use short words – I’m a liberal – what powers that Gore had, as vice president, to further environmental issues. Exactly what he didn’t do. How exactly could any policy or idea have passed a Republican controlled congress so interested in the environment that they chose Senator Inhofe to be chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee? What environmental issues did the Republican congress and senate bring before Gore to have them shot down?

    You know. I still haven’t figured out whether you think global warming is an issue. And I certainly haven’t been able to glean your standing on environmental issues out of anything you have written. All I see is someone who sees the name Gore and sees red. Nothing else.

    So. No. We are not on the same side Thinking Ape. I don’t think Gore is pandering to environmentalists. I think Global Climate Change is a very important issue and that a driving factor has become human intervention in the environment. I think facts are important and that you need to be able to backup comments with facts, not the other way around.

    Finally just to point out.

    There are two kinds of ad hominem attacks. The first is called the ad hominem fallacy. This is saying that what someone is saying is wrong because the person is untrustworthy. This is wrong because even the most untrustworthy person can present correct information. Think of a crack dealer telling you the sky is blue on a sunny day. Would you loan him your car? No. Is he telling the truth. In this case, yes. Facts are more important than the messenger. Attacking the position by attacking the person and not the issues is called the ad hominem fallacy. Often just ad hominem.

    The second kind of ad hominem attack is to say all your facts are wrong and you are stupid. While this lacks decorum and is considered uncivilized, it is fundamentally different from the first case.

    So Thinking. In this case, I’m just going to have to stick with my definitions. I’m sure you have been able to glean from this post what I think of you.

  14. Spiritual Monkey on

    I certainly agree with your solid definitions on logical fallacies (and TA should probably know better – my guess is that he simply took offense to being a “nutjob”).

    I prefer not to get involved in this debate since I know absolutely nothing about Al Gore’s environmental record (other than he was in charge of the environmental portfolio under Clinton). I just want to point whoever is interested (including my co-writing counterpart, TA) in the direction of these two articles written last year from a “lefty” perspective (be sure to check out some the responses to the articles):

    Some Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore
    More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore

  15. blc303 on

    Spiritual Monkey
    Thanks for the agreement.

    I know absolutely nothing about Al Gore’s environmental record

    You know. I know that Gore has been both been accepted and attacked on these issues. While I have looked at a couple of these things and have spent a little time with it, I am by no means an expert. I would argue Gore is first and foremost a politician not an ideologue. He doesn’t do everything right but does did do a lot to get elected. I have no illusions about his sainthood.

    But since TA doesn’t want to spend the time, I probably will, because looking at both articles will make a good post.

    I’ll do some more research on the articles but one thing is just a little strange.

    The first article is basically an interveiw with Gore Vidal who spends an entire article eviscerating Al Gore ostensibly about environmental issues. If you read it, the only connection is the Elk Hills/Occidental Oil ‘scandal,’ which I will look into more closely. It is good to remember that Gore Vidal is first and foremost an ideologue and not a politician.

    But while we are on the subject of ad hominem fallacies, I may as well indulge a little myself. 😉

    The authors of those two articles do seem to have a bit of an axe to grind. They seem to decry the collapse of what they consider the historical principles of the Democratic party. (Of course those principles only go back to the 1960s. Before that the Democrats was the “White Man’s” party and the left/right leanings almost diametrically reversed.)

    But what have these two authors written? Well…

    “Some Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore” was composed by Stephen Marshall who also penned the tome Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, described on Amazon with,

    Faced with the collapse of the American dream at home and the decline of their global empire abroad, American liberals have dumped the 1960s-era radicalism of their youth and become complicit in a complex game of bait-and-switch, selling the world a vision of liberal democracy that is, in reality, a failed system on the verge of social and economic collapse.

    Joshua Frank, author of the second article, “More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore” wrote Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush which doesn’t really look like a moderate title either.

    I find this information very revealing about the point of view being presented – not exactly moderate.

    Of course, who these gentlemen are has no bearing on whether they have uncovered unreported scandal after unreported scandal. Thus, I must dig further.

    Expect a post next week sometime.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: