An Unbearable Truth?

It was pretty amazing that a guy named Al won the Nobel Peace Prize this week.

Al, as in Al Gore, looks and sounds like an Al, a Dave, a Sam or a Fred. An ordinary guy with an ordinary name is now on a pedestal that includes Martin Luther King Jr. and Albert Schweitzer.

That pedestal also includes Yasser Arafat, but that's another column.

Al did not win the prize for conceding the 2000 US presidential election peacefully, despite beating George W. Bush in the popular vote. He did win it for the world's hottest PowerPoint, An Inconvenient Truth, his attempt to alert people to our contribution to global warming and the possible consequences.

Even more amazing than Al's prize is the reaction to Al's prize.

In some circles, it has been almost deliriously hateful. The Internet has broken out into an unprecedented case of Al-induced hives. Here's Damien Thompson of the Daily Telegraph, for instance: “The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet." Here's one from another respected editorialist, David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen:

"A bit of a sociopath like his old boss Bill Clinton, he will enjoy the adoring company at Oslo City Hall, and the distance from his critics, including the High Court judge in England who, last week, noted instances of "alarmism and exaggeration" in Mr. Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth."

These are just a couple highlights of the mud slung at Al in the wake of last week's award. There are thousands upon thousands of mostly Angry White Men fulminating against Al for his take on what might happen if nations don't find a way to reduce carbon emissions.

I wonder what would happen if he'd actually done something bad. But let's try to see this clearly: Al made a movie about his PowerPoint presentation, in which he reasonably argues that based on what he's learned, bad things could happen. I've seen “An Inconvenient Truth" and was impressed by the reasonableness of its tone, which went something like this: “It may not happen this way, but you can't rule out that it could."

The British High Court judge, cited in the above quote about Al the Sociopath (!?) last week ruled that Al made some errors of “alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis" as if this was unusual for a politician. But he also said that Al's film makes a powerful case that global warming is caused by human beings and that urgent means are needed to counter it.

Al's critics have completely ignored that part of the judge's statement and instead are emailing Al's Nine Errors to each other, punching the air with self-righteous indignation, and calling Al the most uncomplimentary things like “sociopath" and “lardass".

Ever thought you'd like to get involved in the debate over global warming? Fair warning that the kitchen is going to get hot on account of all that carbon dioxide being emitted by both sides.

Yep, both sides. As I watch the critics bark at Al, I was struck by how similar it is to the reaction to Tim Ball's piece here on Orato, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Professor Ball, a climatologist with unimpeachable credentials, argues that while there may be global warming, it's a natural phenomenon and cyclical, not the result of human activity. As a result, he's been called everything from a shill for the oil companies to a lunatic.

To tell you an inconvenient truth (for me at least), I'm not sure what's going on here. I don't understand why reputable, reasonable people are so viciously and aggressively attacked by people who really don't know what they're talking about. Why shouldn't Al get a Nobel prize for trucking his ample booty around the world and patiently displaying his PowerPoint for all to see? Hasn't he paid his dues? And there may be nine errors of “alarmism and exaggeration", fine, but why focus on them when even the judge says he makes a powerful case for human activity as a cause of global warming? What is it about Al Gore that infuriates his opponents? Or have they been crazed by the abuse hurled at their own champion, George W. Bush, who seems for all the world like a nice guy who's in over his head?

I often hope that the Internet will save the world, but sometimes I wonder. It seems to amplify the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Nasty little people can instantly get in touch with other nasty little people and feed on each other's spite and vitriol. Yum.

Meanwhile, I despair about ever being allowed to have a fair and open discussion about global warming. I'd like to hear the anti-human activity scientists explain the remarkable retreat of polar ice and glaciers. And I'd like the human activity scientists to roll up their sleeves and address the anomalies - for example, why is Antarctic ice increasing?

I suspect that most of us would just like to lay the facts out, talk about them and problem solve in an atmosphere of goodwill. But what really worries me is that the atmosphere of goodwill has been polluted by anger and hate and that we'll all drown in it long before the seas rise and shut us up for good.