Me and Al
Posted by Steven Hayward
Over at The Corner, I give a short account of spending the morning with Al Gore. No joke.
2:07 PM / January 4, 2006
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Youre not gonna become a Lib on us, are you Steve............?
Bore Gore ought to be ensconced in his "lock box."
"He has some dazzling graphics, and uses Powerpoint as it ought to be used."
Didnt he invent Powerpoint?
There were several quips from people about "the internet you invented Mr. Vice President," which drew a game smile and chuckle from Gore.
Dan: Not to worry.
Im not sure which frightened me worse, the idea that American conservatism stands alone as the last bastion against worldwide environmental suicide, or that NROites indulged in a "lovefest" with Dr. Death himself!
Well, Mr. Hayward if you were able to be polite to this man I have to give you credit. The only thing I give Gore credit for is calling off his childish fight to try to steal the White House from the rightful winner.
He also is not up to date on a few aspects of the climate change debate, but this is entirely forgiveable in my mind because it is almost impossible to keep up with this fast-moving scene.
And only a true genius like Hayward truly keep up.
The only thing I give Gore credit for is calling off his childish fight to try to steal the White House from the rightful winner.
Isnt it a little childish to be so nasty to Gore all these years later?
If you paid attention youd note that I say very little publicly about climate change, and only on very narrow aspects of the issue. Gore cited several studies that have been subsequently superceded or repudiated, and also made clear a total lack of knowledge about a key point the IPCC has considered seriously. Ive actually said nothing publicly on either of the points that were in dispute. Of course, I could have been snotty to the VP like you I suppose, rather than engage the guy seriously.
Neither Steve nor Al are scientists. It just so happens that Al is, for the most part, on the side of the vast -and growing- majority of scientists on the global warming issue, whereas Steve was willing to put his imprimatur on a libertarian think tank book that refers to global warming as an "eco-myth."
When it comes to sorting out issues like this, Ive found this handy guide to be pretty useful in determining who to put my trust in on various controversial environmental issues. A sample from "Can you spot the real scientist":
"GOOFUS has a PhD.
GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.
GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory".
GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".
GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding.
GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.
GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country.
GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.
GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs.
GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink."
Thanks J. Montgomery- that helps!
Yeah--that helps a lot. Lots of substance there. Funny that the only thing J. Montgomery could find to tar me with is a book dust jacket blurb. Thats really digging! Go one--look harder--torture yourself.
Oh, that was just some of the easy stuff to find. Im not going to play an NSA sleuth and see what else I can dig up on you; not THAT interested. Not into self-torture (or any other kind). I think the positive dustjacket blurb for a book that calls global warming an "eco-myth" says plenty, though, despite any recent attempts to appear nuanced on the issue. Perhaps one is just feeling testy after an unfavorable outcome on the Goofus-or-Gallant test?
If Im not mistaken, this is the same Steve Hayward who was a signatory, representing the American Enterprise Institute, on a 2002 letter to President Bush (not sure if that counts as "public" or not) that declared "the least important global environmental issue is potential global warming, and we hope that your negotiators at Johannesburg can keep it off the table and out of the spotlight." Coincidentally, AEI raked in $230K from Exxon in 2001 and, apparently, at least $250K from Exxon in 2002. But Im sure its just a coincidence that Mr. Haywards "scientific" judgments on the issue just happen to merge neatly with those of Exxons PR crew, and Im sure that none of that Exxon money made it into Mr. Haywards pockets.
Oddly enough, its also the same Steven Hayward who had a blog entry last summer titled "Buy Exxon Gas." A master of subtlety. Do I see someone shooting for $500K by 2010 (or has that goal already been reached)?
Well, Steve, theyre doing opposition research on ya, you must be doing something right. It was that "Age of Reagan" book, sooner or later the Left was bound to learn you unleashed a broadside on em, and then proceeded to rake em.