The Oklahoman editorial board has decided former Vice President Al Gore has a “blood vendetta” because he gave his normal speech warning about climate change and putting a price on carbon emissions.
A snarky mini-editorial that appeared Saturday in the newspaper’s Oklahoma ScissorTales section begins with a typical ad hominem attack on Gore and ends with illogical clichés and basic craziness. The writer was apparently reliving the 2000 presidential election that Gore actually won but was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in George W. Bush’s favor. But what does that have to do with global warming and rising sea levels? Nothing. Editorial writers at The Oklahoman don’t want to deal with science and facts when it comes to global warming.
Gore spoke at the South by Southwest Interactive Festival last week, and, as usual, called for putting some type of price or cost on carbon emissions. He also used apparently the word “punish” when referring to politicians and people who deny scientific claims about global warming. This is Gore’s regular speech about climate change. It’s nothing new as far as I know. The right-wing got stuck on the word “punish.”
But this is the way an editorial writer at The Oklahoman saw it:
It’s been almost 15 years since Al Gore narrowly lost the 2000 presidential election. He continues to demonstrate why that was such a positive outcome. Speaking at the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas, Gore again displayed the blind zealotry that made him unfit for the presidency.
Well, if we want to relive 2000, let’s remember that Gore received the most votes in the election, and he only lost because the U.S. Supreme Court essentially awarded the presidency to George W. Bush, who later began two long and costly military occupations. Who is the real blind zealot? The environmentalist Gore or the warmonger Bush?
The editorial goes on to note:
. . . instead of urging attendees to develop technology that allows people to shift away from power sources that Gore believes harm the environment, he called on them to pursue a blood vendetta and promote high taxes on working people who can’t afford trendy, niche environmentalism.
There’s much wrong with this sentence. First, it’s highly doubtful an editorial writer for one of the country’s most conservative metropolitan newspapers really wants anyone to “develop” anything that would lower the profits of the oil and gas industry. Second, note the term “blood vendetta.” Isn’t that “overkill” in this case? Newspaper hyperbole is one thing; this rises to another level. Third, what in the world is “trendy, niche environmentalism”? I guess the point is to dish up the tired cliché and stereotypes perpetuated by the right-wing about some mythical elite group of people flying around in their fuel-guzzling private jets while trying to save the environment. It’s not based on reality. It’s a lie. Many, many people from all walks of life throughout the world believe in the reality of global warming and want to do something about it.
What IS the reality is that “working people” will be harmed the most if the world does not get serious about reducing carbon emissions because of human migration from certain areas of the planet that become unlivable and widespread economic devastation. Or do you think it would be wealthy politicians, such as U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who would suffer the most if rising sea levels destroy coastal communities?
Gore, who founded the Climate Reality Project and whose environmental efforts were featured in the 2006 award-winning documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, has the stature, intelligence and experience to speak about climate change and suggest ways in which we might address it. The fact that the right-wingers who oppose him consistently rely on ad hominem attacks and hyperbole is telling.
Instead of attacking Gore and cherry picking his speech, why didn’t the editorial writer try to refute the scientific evidence about global warming and the cause for rising sea levels that have already led to flooding in coastal areas? The answer to that should be obvious.