Hit Piece In NY Times Against Al Gore Shows Desperation

[RestoreGore]

Today the NY Times posted an absolute piece of tripe that is an obvious personal hit piece on Mr. Gore regarding the Inconvenient Truth of our current planetary state. And of course the usual suspects were mentioned in this report, mainly Richard Lindzen and Bjorn Lomborg, both who have their own little secrets as far as erroneous reporting of this crisis. Let's start with Richard Lindzen, since he is so easy:

Mr. Lindzen, a signatory of the "Leipzig Declaration" which was already revealed for the ruse it was, already wasted no time in trashing Mr. Gore in the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to stifle support of the movie when it first came out, in my view because he is a paid operative for the oil industry. He is a shill for EXXON and all other oil companies that are willfully killing this planet for profit. But notice that in these hit pieces designed to discredit Mr. Gore who based his slideshow on scientific consensus, Mr. Lindzen's "associations" are never mentioned. Well, I think we know why. See the links below.

Now, Bjorn Lomborg:

Fron the Union of Concerned Scientists:

UCS Examines The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Well, at least that is what Mr. Lomborg calls himself.

As far as the others mentioned in this piece, namely Bob Easterbrook (who just had to mention he wasn't a Republican yet said there was no political motivation to his contribution,) Kevin Vranes, and the couple others I never heard of, it is of course logical to understand that there will not be agreement across the board on various points being made in this most important debate. However, it is one thing to have a sincere conviction about an issue one way or the other and express that conviction with the intent of addressing it to the entire scientific community, which this hit piece and their comments do not do which in my mind hurts their credibility.

It is quite another to simply attack Mr. Gore specifically for political, economic, or personal reasons and I personally find it to be beneath any scientific standards for a scientist to condone such a blatant tactic, especially against a man who has done nothing but relay a message that has been corroborated by scientists from the NSA, the IPCC, NASA, and hundreds of scientists from across the world: That climate change is also human induced and that we must join together to reduce our impact upon this world which is clearly seen if you are an impartial witness to what is occurring on our planet right now.

And I would also suppose that these "scientists" have not viewed An Inconvenient Truth, for if they had they would know that nowhere in it did Mr. Gore state that inundation due to rising sea levels was "imminent." He stated the situation clearly enough for those of us without an ulterior motive: Global warming is upon us, it is being exacerbated by human activity, and it is altering the relationship to our planet and unless we take action now to mitigate its affects we could see the very scenarios scientists have and still are predicting.

Therefore, since those critics cited in this article agree that climate change is happening and that is is being exacerbated by humans, why are they not then bringing forth ideas in this piece to deal with it instead of joining the NY Times in attacking a good man who is telling truth? Perhaps that should be the focus of the next NY Times article on this crisis instead of blatantly once again hitting on a good man doing all he can to make this world a better place.

So exactly what is it that Mr. Gore speaking in tandem with hundreds of climate scientists and organizations from the NSA, IPCC, NASA, and the IPCC specifically not telling us that Mr. Lindzen, a paid shill for oil companies is going to tell us?

I am sure he will not tell you this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-hol-testimony/

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html

It surely to me is a shame that this issue is so polarized and politicized because of those who even when evidence is brought before them regarding the responsibility we all have to this planet’s future and what we are doing in contributing to this crisis still feel the need to attack the messenger rather than work together to solve it because it is what is buying policy in Washington DC over what is morally and ethically the right course for our planet.

Even Evangelical ministers are standing with the science in this movie and in general and breaking away from the political chokehold this issue has had on progress and working to bring the truth about our moral responsibility to this planet forward.

Shame on those who continue to make this about everything but what it should be which is our obligation to be good stewards of this planet regardless of politics or position in life and SHAME on the NY Times. I think it is time for many to ask themselves what is more important to the future of this planet and what takes precedence now in the furthering of this debate past rhetoric to action: their jealousy and hatred for Al Gore, or their love for this Earth? I personally have seen enough of the former.

[tblue]

1. I'd like to ask freaks like this if they really love their children & grandchildren

[RestoreGore]

4. Over the bars of gold?

I think we already have the answer to that question.

[tblue]

21. And that, my dears, is the root of the problem

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—* speaking in Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. wtf is up with the NY Times?

Is this William J. Broad another Judith Miller?

[AX10]

3. Too bad Nixon didn't shut the Times down when he had the chance.

I will feel no sorrow the day the Tiems closes shop.

[RestoreGore]

5. David Roberts from Grist gives a good refuation here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/debunking-the-nyts-slopp_b_43310.html

[Robbien]

6. Is anyone even talking about this?

They sure did choose the wrong day to get the NYT to bend over for ExxonEtal.

[RestoreGore]

8. No one ever talks about it, that's the problem n/t

[RestoreGore]

7. Anyone writing to the Times?

I am.

[ms liberty]

9. They're all terrified of Al Gore...

They're terrified that his message is getting the traction needed to put the brakes on their rape and plunder of our planet. They're terrified that their profits and their power will be curtailed.

And most of all, they're terrified that he'll run for President, because he'd win pretty easily, and then all of their other fears and nightmares will come true. They get it - Al Gore is the spark - the leader so many have been waiting for, a person who can move and motivate people like no one in their own narrow world, and he's not on their side. He's the FDR of our time, a visionary and man of action...and they hated FDR and everything he stood for. They've been working for more than 60 years to undo everything FDR did, and they still haven't been able to declare a victory against his populist policies and ideology.

That's why they can't leave this alone, why they are "going to the mattresses" with such vicious energy. They know that Al Gore can be the leader that drives the last nails in their ideological coffins.

[RestoreGore]

10. It is the unsubstantiated political speculation that is partly fueling these attacks

And diverting people from what should be discussed at this juncture.

[ms liberty]

15. I would contend...

that it is due more the attention due to the documentary, the Oscars, the Concerts, the Nobel Prize nomination, and climate change itself, which is becoming more and more self-evident and reported by the press and discussed even in the mainstream media; more and more average Americans are demanding change. The speculation and the op-eds discussing a Gore presidential run are also due to those factors. The truth is that Al Gore has a higher and more visible profile right now - by his own choice, albeit for a vitally important cause - due to all of this. Anyone considered "the enemy" will be pre-emptively attacked by those who feel that their monopoly on power is being endangered. It's business as usual for these criminals.

[RestoreGore]

17. I might agree.

If you show me one hit piece like this specifically naming any other scientist and a breakdown of their electric bill as well. Otherwise, I still contend it is the political speculation for the most part that has escalated the feeding frenzy.

[Psephos]

11. Scientific debate should not be politicized. This is not a hit on Gore.

When we react with religious emotions to opinions contrary to our own then we lose the right to say we've reached our decisions scientifically. Skepticism, refinements of hypotheses into theories based on provable predictions, and repeatability of experimental results are the elements of scientific truth. People who know nothing about the complexities of climate (perhaps the most intricate and nonlinear natural system on Earth) seem to be the loudest in shouting down legitimate questions about why the climate is warming.

Global warming is a given, and is beyond debate. Its causes are not. William Broad of the NYT is a fair-minded and highly-capable science writer. To call him a Gore hit-man is to reveal religious intolerance and ignorance. I'm frightened by the ideological response to global warming. It will, like virtually all religious fervor, obscure causes and prevent the best responses to a serious problem. How can we improve current understanding of what drives climate if we demonize those who help find the flaws in our grossly incomplete models?

The answer is not ideological. It never is. In the 21st Century it's appalling to see the same mentality of the great religious abuses of science three or four hundred years ago.

“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand answers that are invariably wrong.”
H. L. Mencken

[RestoreGore]

12. Really? Who else was it directed to and about?

If those who see flaws actually discussed THEM in relation to the science as a WHOLE instead of targeting Mr. Gore alone, then you might actually have a point.

[smitty]

20. Too thoughtful for this thread.

[RestoreGore]

22. There is nothing "thoughtful" about this article

And attacking me as being religiously intolerant isn't either.

[rebel with a cause]

13. I received an email today from an environmental group

and they are saying that Gore's carbon solution is wrong. This was in the introduction portion. "What's all that fuss about Al Gore's energy bill? David Morris takes a look at what carbon offsets are all about and how there are better solutions to solving our energy crisis."

And this was the link to one of the articles:

Al Gore's Carbon Solution Won't Stop Climate Change
By David Morris, AlterNet
These days, everyone thinks that carbon trading is the solution to our climate crisis -- from Congress members to Al Gore to the folks organizing the Oscars. Here's why they are wrong and what we can do instead.

link to following article: http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/49025/

<snip about Gore>

I disagree. Carbon trading is not a promising strategy. Its costs outweigh its benefits. We don't need carbon trading to reduce carbon emissions. Indeed, it is likely that we will reduce carbon emissions much more without carbon trading.

Unfortunately, policymakers and environmentalists have all but welded together the words, "cap" and "trade." They talk as if a cap cannot exist without a trading mechanism. That's not true. We can have caps without trade.

We should impose an immediate moratorium on carbon trading while imposing ever-more rigorous carbon caps. And stop the use of long-distance offsets. All offsets should be local or regional.

<snip>

I know nothing about any of this, but found it interesting and thought....It begins. Then saw this thread and went...Uh huh, it begins.

[RestoreGore]

16. yes, I saw that too

And while I too believe carbon credits are only one part of the solution, Al Gore also never stated they were the only answer as this article seems to intimate, so that is erroneous as well.

[rebel with a cause]

19. I actually just glanced at it and closed it up.

It was only after I saw the thread that I went back and read it. Personally, I just didn't take it at face value, and since I do not know exactly what Gore has said completely I did not pass judgment on it. That is just how I am when it comes to politics now, even when it is candidates that I do not support. And I don't put Gore in that catogory because he is not a candidate and I don't have anything much (if anything) against him.

[RestoreGore]

14. Broad Irony: Real Climate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419

[RestoreGore]

18. name edit

Sorry, it's Don Easterbrook, not Bob Easterbrook.

[RestoreGore]

23. kick

[RestoreGore]

24. one more kick for the truth n/t