AlGore: It's morality, stupid.

Last night’s coronation of The Goracle was truly wonderful theater. It had everything: glitz, glamor, beautiful people, song and dance, and the man of the hour, The Goracle, himself, making the claim that “This [global warming] isn’t a political issue, it’s a Moral Issue.”

To many people, this entire issue appears to be nothing but a political power grab. So, for Gore to try and re-frame global warming as a “moral issue” is interesting. These neo-moralists™ are the very same people who claim that Christians are trying to force morality down their throats to establish a THEOCRACY. Yet, here they are, applauding The Goracle for staking out a claim on the “moral issue” of our lifetime. An issue, that to accept in toto, requires more faith than science.

And, just in case he’s forgotten, since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 1 year, 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 43 minutes, and 34 seconds have elapsed.

I for one, don’t buy into The Goracle’s version of morality. Forgive me, but I’ve heard all the weasel words before. Furthermore, I am extremely suspicious of anyone who wants to shut down the debate by claiming that the debate is over before it has even truly begun.

Especially, since The Goracle himself, declared that his entire premise for global warming hysteria is based on a classic Gore trait – exaggeration.

I had forgotten about this interview The Goracle gave last year. He admitted he was exaggerating about gorebal warming, but it's ok if the issue is serious enough.

Here's what Gore told Grist:

[Grist's] question: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
[Gore's] answer: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.

Thanks for linking the interview, but please, do everyone a favor and actually pull such quotes and let people read them. It leads to the spreading of the facts rather than a flip characterization of what was actually written.

It also prevents people from pulling Clintonoid games and accusing someone of lying if they don't get the words exactly right -- something that still goes on when a conservative errs in saying Gore said he "invented" the Internet when he actually said he "took the initiative in creating" it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.