When Danger Reared Its Ugly Head Al Gore Bravely Turned and Fled

GoreLooks like Al Gore has been pulling a Jimmy Carter with his film An Inconvenient Truth. This from The WSJ Opinion Journal:

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore’s agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

It’s pretty clear what happened. Liberals constantly refuse to face their critics out of fear they’ll be called out on their distortions.


19 Responses to “When Danger Reared Its Ugly Head Al Gore Bravely Turned and Fled”

  1. Ed Darrell Says:

    Constantly? Gore’s met with more reporters in the past few months than Bush has in his entire 6 year term.

    What are Lomborg’s criticisms? Why should he be taken seriously? What was the explanation Gore gave for cancelling? Why can’t conservatives tell the whole story — what are they afraid of?

  2. rizzuto Says:

    Reporters or sycophants?

  3. Ed Darrell Says:

    Did you meet with him?

  4. Ed Darrell Says:

    Were you referring to Bush, or to Gore? Gore doesn’t screen the public out of his meetings. Gore doesn’t ask for an oath of fealty to the Republican Party before meeting Boy Scouts.

  5. rizzuto Says:

    An oath of fealty? I love how you can’t make an argument without resorting to hyperbole and snarky conjecture.

    Please, point me to where Gore seriously debated the facts of his movie. Doing press and meeting with reporters is not the same as facing critics.

  6. seejanemom Says:

    The trolls have been at my blog for two days. Two posts worth of Global Warming and they STILL WON’T ENGAGE ME ON MY PREMISE that Global Warming (big G, big W) is POLITICAL, not scientific in nature.

    The new head of The Weather Channel is a flaming Lib from CNN and actually has STATED that she wants to bring more “EMOTION” to the weather.

    Emotional SCIENCE?

    NICE AVATAR, Rizzuto.

  7. rizzuto Says:

    Thanks Jane! I need you to counterbalance the trolls!

  8. Ed Darrell Says:

    Yes, oath of fealty. You’ve missed the stories of how Bush will not speak except to hand-picked audiences who are asked to sign oaths they support him? Sheesh. Are there newspapers where you are?

    You criticized Gore for refusing to meet with the press. I pointed out he’s met with lots of reporters. Now you want me to show where he debated . . .

    Well, moving goal posts aside, Gore’s record with the press is considerably better than Bush’s.

    I note that I asked what the criticisms were you claim Gore missed. No response. I asked what the reason was that Gore gave for cancelling the ONE interview cancelled. No response.

    Hyperbole? You take one spun article from one cancelled interview, and you project a trend. On the other hand, Gore’s film got nominated for a couple of Academy Awards, something that is almost impossible for anyone who dodges the press. Gore’s film was reviewed widely, and he did a national publicity tour, with dozens of interviews.

    Don’t let reality slap you in the rear on your way to find any documentation to backup anything you’ve alleged.

  9. Ed Darrell Says:

    BTW, here’s the Chicago Tribune interview, in the Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/16338487.htm

    Here’s Gore meeting with 4,000 unscreened people in Sioux Falls, South Dakota: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/NEWS01/701210303/1001/NEWS

    Gore takes the message to a crowd of 10,000 unscreened people in Republican stronghold of Boise, Idaho: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/01/dodd_guliani_gear_up_for_2008.html

    Associated Press story on Gore speaking freely with reporters and unscreened high school students: http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/APE/701240511&cachetime=5

    Idaho Press-Tribune report on Gore’s public appearances in Boise: http://www.idahopress.com/articles/2007/01/23/news/news1.txt (noie that Gore was in Boise for a session on public affairs that was open to the public, unscreened, at Boise State)

    The reason conservatives are nervous: Gore’s out front: http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A216154

    Gore gives free tickets to 500 UNSCREENED high school students: http://www.localnews8.com/story.cfm?nav=news&storyID=341

    Gore’s interview with Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535460/site/newsweek/

    Bush won’t even watch Gore’s film, he’s so frightened: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12930351/

    Here’s Gore’s interview with Katie Couric at NBC’s Today Show (back in May): http://preview.tinyurl.com/2halwu (you can preview the thing)

    Al Gore grilled for an hour by Charlie Rose: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729

    Al Gore interviewed by NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5439305

    Al Gore interviewed on video by The Guardian: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3681222751225228441

    What was it you were grousing about, again?

  10. Ed Darrell Says:

    My many-links-to-Al-Gore-interviews post isn’t showing up — check your spam filter and free it up, please.

  11. rizzuto Says:

    Ed, I didnt move the goal posts nor did I ever criticize him for refusing to meet with the press as you say I did. I can’t even understand how you can get that out of what I said seeing as my commentary is limited 4 lines.

    The whole post was about him facing critics, not doing press. Thats pressty clear by the line “It’s pretty clear what happened. Liberals constantly refuse to face their critics out of fear they’ll be called out on their distortions.” Notice that I explicitly state “refuse to face their critics” not “refuse to face the press”.

    Also, i link to Jimmy Carter ducking Alan Dershowitz, so “pulling a Jimmy Carter” means refusing to face critics. Jimmah has done a ton of press behind his tract, but never debated the content.

    I don’t know where you started equating facing critics to doing press but you might want to stop doing it, you’re embarassing yourself.

  12. seejanemom Says:

    Mr. ED says:
    “You take one spun article from one cancelled interview, and you project a trend.”

    HEY ED—-

    You mean like one bad storm season means it’s a “TREND” and the end of the world as we know it? You mean like THAT?

    Like the LAME stochastic math models they use for “climatology” being the same dart game they use to “predict” the stock market?

    AGAIN, Mr. ED—
    “Gore’s film got nominated for a couple of Academy Awards, something that is almost impossible for anyone who dodges the press. Gore’s film was reviewed widely, and he did a national publicity tour, with dozens of interviews.”




    Sorry so late to cover your six, Rizzuto, been beating them off over at my place.

  13. Ed Darrell Says:

    Rizzuto go back to your first post and distinguish — Gore cancelled an interview with a newspaper, you said he’s not facing his critics. I can’t be responsible for your writing problems.

    Is your complaint that he didn’t meet with Lonborg? Then make that complaint. It’s a stupid complaint, because Lonborg could get a lot more mileage just printing his criticisms. There’s no inherent reason he has to meet with Gore, if he has any science on his side. I suspect Lonborg’s case is melting away, however, and so a WWE-type event is necessary if he’s to get into the news at all.

    Regardless, Gore’s dishing more to critics than Bush, and he’s meeting with more critics, and more reporters. You take ONE cancelled newspaper interview — you have no other such occurrences, and at that you’re borrowing it from the WSJ — and you claim a trend. Seejanemom, truth is always a defense, never a crime.

    But I guess, seeing where you guys come from, I can see why you’d yell that telling the truth is a crime.

    And, do you have the technical savvy to free my captive post with the links? Or are you afraid to face your critics?

  14. Ed Darrell Says:

    Lonborg claims there’s no malaria in Nairobi. Most other sources agree with Gore. Who to believe? Here’s a story on the spread of malaria, directly due to man-made changes in the environment around Nairobi — which is Gore’s claim, as I recall: http://www.pbs.org/journeytoplanetearth/hope/nairobi.html

    Doesn’t Lonborg know how to use Google?

    Here’s a paper from the Centers for Disease Control discussing the recent rise of malaria in and around Nairobi: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no6/01-0309.htm

  15. rizzuto Says:

    Ed, enough already, this post was about him ducking critics, that was explicitly stated in the post as I have said over and over again, there’s no problem with the writing…just with your reading comprehension.

  16. seejanemom Says:


    This is the SAME dogmatic crap I got at seejanemom.com , only his name was “GARY”. He did the same thing. He side stepped my premise then started his rant.

    Do these guys have JOBS?

    Thier voices must be SO LOUD in their ears.

  17. Ed Darrell Says:

    Thanks for freeing up my post with the links.

    My point is simple: Gore has faced criticism, Gore is open to interviews. One cancelled interview, cancelled for reasons we don’t know, does not establish a trend of not facing critics. Quite the contrary, it indicates that there is no a priori bias against meeting with critics (it was scheduled, after all); and the fact that Lonborg gets his criticism into the Wall Street Journal shows that critics have access to the media just like Gore.

    On the other hand, Lonborg’s criticisms don’t look so serious if one checks them out. One of the chief complaints he makes in the opinion piece is that Gore claimed there is malaria in Nairobi, and Lonborg disagrees. But when we check it out on the web, we find that while Nairobi has traditionally been free of Malaria since the 1930s, that is no longer the case. Gore was right.

    Why should Gore be expected to face scientists who are 30 or 40 years behind the times? Lonborg’s books was soundly and roundly debunked. Even George Bush called for action on global warming in his State of the Union. It appears that the deniers of global warming effects, especially those who deny we need to take action to protect the environment, are going the way of Holocaust deniers, and those who claim the Sun orbits the Earth. They can’t be taken seriously anymore.

    The opinion piece in the WSJ is a real whiner in context, by a guy who wished to make a career bashing the case for action on global warming, but whose evidence just didn’t measure up. Sour grapes.

    Gore has no responsibility to meet with such people, no duty, and they don’t have the privilege to complain when they have access to high circulation newspapers who will print their off-base whines.

    Are there any serious critics Gore has not faced? I don’t know of any.

  18. Kasia Says:

    Nowhere in his book does Lomborg deny that global warming does not exist. How did you ever get that idea??? In his book he emphasizes that the “doomsday conceptions of the environment” are exaggerated. Sounds like your opinion of Lomborg is a little hysterical, which I suspect would tie in nicely with your views on the environment. You should check your facts before you criticize others for not doing the same. You should check your facts in particular when trying to draw connections between sound ideas and those of Holocaust deniers, and believers in a geocentric view of the world (17th century?).

  19. Ed Darrell Says:

    So Lonborg says global warming is real but we don’t need to do anything about it?

    Which is worse: Telling the kids it’s okay to play in the street because there is no traffic, or telling the kids it’s okay to play in the street because the traffic won’t hurt them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: