Al Gore's Hysterical NYT Op-ed: 'Our Home -- Earth -- Is In Danger'

As I begin my much-needed vacation, I awoke this morning to frantic e-mail messages from concerned readers all including the same link to the same  New York Times op-ed submission from the Global Warmingist-in-Chief himself, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.

As a kayak and a beautiful lake beckon, it is impossible to really do this piece the injustice it so badly deserves.

However, needless to say, the planet's greatest climate change alarmist was truly in unfortunately not so rare form when he input this factless, feckless. feculent foolishness that sadly will be eaten up like fine caviar by his sycophant devotees across the globe.

As such, without further ado, here are a few of the lowlights (emphasis added throughout, better strap yourselves in for a bumpy ride):

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Excuse me. What kind of nonsense is this? It is unprecedented for us to make a conscious choice as a species? So all of our choices up to this point have been unconscious? This guy was actually once the vice president, and was a few electoral votes away from being president? And there are people who voted for him back then, and believe him to be sane now?

He's right. We really are in danger. But I digress:

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

Um, Al...let me draw your attention to a study done recently by a scientist named Ernst-Georg Beck, wherein after researching papers done many others in the past two centuries, he concluded that as recently as 1940, the atmospheric CO2 level was above 400 ppm:


Of course, science is unimportant to Gore:

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

Imagine that. It's all because of the carbon dioxide. Of course, Gore conveniently neglected the fact that life on our planet depends on CO2. Also, that man is likely only responsible for about 3 percent of this gas in the atmosphere. As such, if man stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, we would only reduce the current level by about 11 ppm.

I guess all would be better then, huh Al?

Yet, the disingenuity was just beginning, for having told us earlier that this isn't a political issue, but a moral one, Gore became quite political:

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.

Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.


There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?

Unbelievable gall and revisionist history, wouldn't you agree? After all, in 1997 when Kyoto was first being discussed, Gore stated, "We will not submit this for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations."

Forgot about that, Al?

Oh, that's right. Like the rest of your ilk, everything that happened prior to the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003 has been erased from your memory.

Now THAT'S an inconvenient truth.

Have a Happy Fourth of July!

Environment Global Warming Weather New York Times An Inconvenient Truth
Noel Sheppard's picture