Al Gore: “You Always Hurt the One You Love”

The whole accusation about the fossil fuel industry running disinformation campaigns employing skeptic scientist ‘shills’ to deceive the public about the certainty of man-caused catastrophic global warming is enslaved to a pair of literally worthless, never-implemented ‘industry memo sets.’ It’s been the best the enviro-activists have ever had in their accusation arsenal, going all the way back to the 1990s. The accusation is unsustainable, it will ultimately sink. It’s a mathematical certainty.

Choose any one of myriad questionable situations surrounding the apparently interconnected people who promulgated the narratives about the memos, and you have the tip of the proverbial iceberg that can sink this whole thing. Investigators with more power and influence that I have will be seeking answers about those questionable situations. For quite some time, I wondered if there was no connection at all between Naomi Oreskes and Kert Davies, but as I briefly showed in my May 21, 2020 blog post, there certainly is a questionable situation involving those to together.

Investigators will be asking why Davies was lurking in the doorway of Oreskes’ appearance at a pretend House hearing.

They’ll be asking about Al Gore’s connection to the others. Why would Oreskes say she’s on a first-name basis with Gore, when all he did was cite a single ‘100% science consensus’ figure of hers in his 2006 movie? Why would Gore say Ross Gelbspan discovered the “reposition global warming” memos – the set that gained their first ongoing media traction via Gelbspan and John Passacantando’s Ozone Action publicity about them, when Gore quoted from the set years before Gelbspan ever mentioned them?

And what did Gore mean, in the situation reported by the LA Times, where ….. 

….. “The Clinton-Gore administration has been excellent on the soapbox, excellent at talking about global warming–but in practice, the United States has been almost the most counterproductive nation, a leader of the forces of delay,” charged John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

When a reporter relayed those complaints, Gore smiled wanly, arched an eyebrow and warbled: “You always hurt the one you love.

What an absolutely odd thing to say.

Surely, the expected response would have been something much more in line with a standard statement from a politician, about the White House providing all the leadership it can to stop runaway global warming. But instead, Gore implies he’s somehow owed Passacantando’s unwavering love?

Think about it in a far larger context: In a section of a major 1992 Boston Globe report written by no less then Ross Gelbspan (who oddly did not say late last year his 1992 article was his first on the climate issue), Al Gore was already talking about an established science consensus while simultaneously – with Gelbspan’s assistance – aiming anger at a particular skeptic climate scientist, namely Dr S Fred Singer. Wouldn’t Gore need some kind of official science journal-published study to back up his ‘overall weight of the evidence’ claim? Meanwhile, Naomi Oreskes claimed she was alerted by Anthony Socci to the assortment of industry documents, including the “reposition global warming” memo set she (falsely) claims was stored in the archives of the at the Washington DC offices of the American Meteorological Society. Socci was a Senate staffer connected with Al Gore at a 1992 hearing partly concerning questions surrounding the organization allegedly tied to those documents, while more than one prominent person puts Socci in direct association with Gore.

So, from whom did John Passacantando and Gelbspan obtain their copies of the worthless “reposition global warming” memos? Neither of them ever disclosed their source. Was that memo set part of the “Western Fuels Association” docs that Gore was prompting ABC News Nightline reporter Ted Koppel to obtain from him in 1994, when Gore approached Koppel about his ‘concern’ over of Dr S Fred Singer, the particular atmospheric physicist who had the most potential to sink Gore’s entire climate agenda? And when Gore’s effort backfired— Koppel admonished Gore heavily over that anti-science character assassination effort — did Gore then resort to Plan B on utilizing a reporter with impressive-sounding credentials (who never deserved such accolades) who’d publicize the memo set without question, while aiming right it at Dr Singer?

Just askin’. But it’s plausible that it won’t just be me seeing how many of these dots are all connected together. In order to understand how the smear of skeptic climate scientists became the core of the ‘industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns‘ accusation — label the accusation as an egregious hoax if that fits — all of these connection angles need to be deeply investigated ….. because when they are collectively and thoroughly examined to see if any provide proof that industry-led efforts to deceive the public ever took place, these details only prompt increasing amounts of questions about whether the liars-for-hire accusation actually has an iota of evidence to back it up.

This isn’t just a concern about a “he said / she said” situation; the biggest question of all is why – outside of Ted Koppel nearly two decades ago – has the mainstream media never questioned any angle of the character assassination efforts that are used to keep the global warming issue alive, when so many problems are so easily found about all those efforts?