Certain movements in current events compel me to share the incredible true story of how I was once at a party with Laurie David and the former Vice President. Perhaps the most important Topics, Etc. you’ll ever read. At The Daily Notebook.
Speaking of which, and if I might do a little kettle-calling, as it were: For my sins, one of my e‑mail boxes is frequently gifted with a newsletter from Pajamas Media TV, and I see that today, thriller author turned delightful right-wing personality Andrew Klavan (did you know he wrote the screenplay for A Shock to the System, of all things?) is also having a little fun with Mr. Gore, as in: “LEAVING AL GORE: Love a good sequel? Then get ready for An Inconvenient Truth 2: This Time It’s Personal. Andrew Klavan has the inside story on the Gore’s break up. Klavan’s sources are as impeccable as the scientific basis of global warming.”
Yeah, har-dee-fucking-har-har. Seriously, does it ever bother anyone that so much of the, um, skepticism concerning climate change seems to stem from, and be driven by, some sort of personal animus against Gore? I dunno. I do admit to having unkind thoughts as to whether Klavan will still have that smug look on his mug when his bare scalp begins bubbling in the upcoming real-life remake of The Day The Earth Caught Fire (see above). But that’s just me.
I think you have it backwards here. The “skepticism” about climate change is driven by a conviction that anything that prevents business from doing exactly what it likes is Bad. And conservatives cheerfully adopt personal animus against anyone who opposes them on policy—in fact, they prefer to keep the discussion personal rather than policy-focused (hence the obsession with “character”). So: They don’t deny climate change because they hate Gore; they hate Gore because they deny climate change. If Gore declared tomorrow “Climate change is a myth! Freedom is slavery! 2+2=5!” they would enthusiastically clasp him to their bosom and skree away at anyone who dared talk about his marriage.
A Shock to the System, the Michael Caine movie? I saw that movie years ago, when I was in high school, on VHS. I remember thinking it was very good–similar in a lot of ways to Mary Harron’s adapatation of American Psycho, and maybe even a bit better–or at least defter in its narrative. I wonder if it’s on DVD.
Just popping in to say that The Day the Earth Caught Fire is a lovely bit of business. Can’t get enough of that movie.
During the summer of 2000, Mr. Gore dined at a Greek restaurant in Dearborn. It wasn’t a particularly nice or expensive rstaurant– you could have an adequately-cooked meal for between 6 and 10 dollars– but I guess it was one of those “I’m an ordinary guy” kinda things. The photo of Gore shaking the owner’s hand was still in the restaurant the last time I was there. But that’s not the important part of this story.
The important part of this story is that this Greek restaurant was two buildings down from a White Castle, and that my friend Brandon and I were in that same moment gripped in what Castle afficiandos refer to as The Crave– an emotional and perhaps physioligical state captured so effectively and memorably in the motion picture HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE.
THe problem is that the Vice President’s visit apparently necessitated a cordoning-off of the road with a number of very shiny limos, very fresh-looking orange construction pylons, and athletic-looking Secret Service agents. The street for the entire block was reduced to a single lane, and it was the lane facing away from the various entrances, including the White Castle. And we probably should have said, oh well, there’s some kind of nonsense going on there (as we did not learn until later that day that the VIP was the VP), no slyders-and-terrible-crippling-diarrhea for us, but, like I said, we were Craving.
And so we made a Michigan Left onto the other side of the road (four lanes South and four lanes North with a median in the middle), parked in an Arby’s lot that was slightly kiddy-corner to the White Castle lot on the other side of the street, and made a run for it.
We had passed the first four lanes, the grassy median, and the next lane or two before we were spotted. We got a “hey, you kids, stop!” before a couple of them gave chase. We took a brisk leap over the pylons and, huffing and puffing, reached the door of the White Castle. We swung open the door, and the agents stopped chasing us.
“They’re just going to White Castle,” said one of them, and he kinda batted his hand at the air as if to say, it’s nothing. We were kind of relieved– we had been hoping they wouldn’t see us at all– but were also kinda shocked– no search, no warning about how it’s probably not a good idea to start running across a heavily-guarded road. We had figured they were some kind of security person, but when we learned that it had been Gore, and that they must’ve been secret service, it was doubly troubling.
Anyway, we got in, and we had our White Castles, with extra onions, and they were delicious. Part of me wants to say I had some clam strips and their Yard Cup (three “meters” of soda in an hour-glass shaped plastic container that, while less than a yard, was about the length of my arm and came with a ridiculously-long straw), but that’s a little fuzzy, and being unsure of when exactly they introduced them/made them available, I don’t want to risk the believability of my little anecdote.
I had always thought A SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM was a stinging satire of the Thatcher ethos; I hadn’t realized Caine was supposed to be the hero.
Totally unrelated: Glenn, did you notice that Jim Thirlwell is giving a free concert in Prospect Park tonight?
@ FB: I was not aware of that, but thanks for the tip. Not sure if I’ll make it; it’s not really my scene anymore. (And even less so my wife’s!) I remember WAY back in the day, seeing Thirlwell when he had a quasi-Morrison schtick going, screaming to his background tapes shirtless, in leather trousers. I imagine his live show must be somewhat different nowadays.
That is one barreled-out shot up above there. Pretty good movie, though, considering it mostly consists of people in offices shouting at each other.
I remember that, during the 80s and 90s, the idea of global warming due to the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 emissions was as uncontroversial as it gets; it was reported in scientific magazines, articles, etc. simply as Something That Would Happen, like the sun turning into a supernova once its fuel runs out.
Then Al Gore made his movie, and suddenly the entire conservative movement started arguing against the idea.
@ Glenn: Very different indeed—this is JG Thrilwell’s Steroid Maximus, a kind of Morricone-ish big band, playing mostly selections from the Ectopia album: http://www.amazon.com/Ectopia-Steroid-Maximum/dp/B000066HIY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1276883316&sr=1–1
The “skepticism,” as Fuzzy Bastard labels it, is driven by the fact that the so-called settled science is riddled with conflicting data. And the consensus among scientists is not as overwhelming as one would think, Gore’s pronouncements notwithstanding. Moreover, “skepticism” is not the same as “denial” and should not be used synonymously.
PaulJBis remembers global-warming articles printed in the ’80s and ’90s. I remember global-cooling articles printed in the ’70s, by such newspapers as THE WASHINGTON POST and such magazines as TIME and NEWSWEEK. Some of the same people who blame CO2 for global warming *now* blamed it for global cooling *then*, among them NASA’s vociferous climate “expert” James Hansen, who over the years has shown himself to be nothing if not malleable, as well as politically astute.
One would think global-warming adherents might be at least mildly skeptical given, for one example, last year’s report that the supposedly disappearing Antarctic ice sheet was reforming at an unexpectedly accelerated rate. But orthodoxy operates the same way both on the left and the right; you just ignore whatever data refutes or undermines your claims.
To the extent that Gore has made himself the Pied Piper of global warming, he’s naturally become a focal point of global-warming skeptics and deniers alike. And I suspect he enjoys it. He probably sees himself as a Christ-like figure resigned to dying for our sins – figuratively, of course – while us selfish bastards fill up our Hummers and blast our air conditioners. But trust me, Glenn, there’s nothing new about animus directed toward him. We righties thought he was a tool long before he made fossil-fuel reduction a crusade. And his own energy abuses simply reinforce our view of him as a typically venal, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do pol. When he stops taking Gulfstream jets and stretch limos to his speaking engagements, maybe he’ll be taken a little more seriously. I doubt it, but maybe. And I sure hope somebody will be measuring the size of the carbon footprint left by that new Xanudu of his up Montecito way.
In Shock to the System I did feel I was being made to root for Graham (Caine’s character) because he was so put upon and basically not hurting anyone. And that was interesting, since when he starts killing people I STILL feel the need to root for him, because he’s finally taking control of his life, and getting what he wants. I chalk this up majorly to Caine’s performance. Near the end, however, it dawns on me that he’s becoming a truly scary, monstrous person, and the movie stops before it gets into truly troubling territory.
It’s a terrific entertainment written by a man who knows for certain I don’t think for myself. Whaddaya gonna do?
@ Ed: You see, the beauty part of the scenario is this: You find Gore insufferable. (And I don’t entirely disagree with you, by the way.) I find Klavan insufferable. And if this potential catastrophe is as bad as it’s been hyped to be, and the whip comes down in our lifetime, it won’t matter. We’re all gone. Whether your “carbon footprint” is as big as Gore’s or Michael Bay’s or as small as an Amish bachelor’s, it won’t matter. We all fry. Mark Steyn’s sarcasm will finally fail him. And, as Curtis Mayfield sang, if there’s a hell down below, we’re all gonna go.
One reason I wasn’t overly impressed with “An Inconvenient Truth,” incidentally, is that it seems to think that raising “consciousness” about this issue will make a difference. It doesn’t. All it does is make some notion of environmentalism more marketable, and further enables the corporations that manufacture the various pollutants to throw the problem back into the laps of the consumers, by concocting campaigns encouraging them to be more “green” and whatnot. A lot of hooey, really. Hooey that will not, finally, inhibit that bubbling on Klavan’s scalp when the time comes.
So you are, I take it, Glenn, rather more pessimistic than the city of New York (as ref’ed in the article you linked) about our ability to weather a little dose or two of climate change.
This never would’ve occurred to me, but I was with a female colleague when the Gore/Laurie David “story” broke, and her comment was that Gore is (1) a major studmuffin these days and (2) routinely mobbed by young groupies wherever he goes. Eh, whatever … just as long as nobody’s trying to argue Maria Bello’s cougar status with me.
…Just considering the worst-case scenario here, y’know?…
Graig – yes, it’s available on DVD.
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-System-Michael-Caine/dp/B0001US85S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1276904084&sr=1–1
If I could answer your rhetorical question about why righties dislike Al Gore, I’ll give you my personal view – Aside from his pomposity and general smugness, which I suppose is a subjective thing, maybe he doesn’t seem pompous to some people, there is his hypocrisy in preaching one thing while flying around the world on private jets, traveling in SUV caravans, living in a 10,000 sq. foot house, his refusal to take questions at lectures, closing them to the press, his attempt to stifle discussion by declaring the science settled when it is not settled, his certainty about what will happen when science can’t predict with any certainty what will happen in a system (earth’s climate) with so many variables. He’s made himself the face of the global warming is coming movement, so he is the one who is going to take the heat from those who are skeptics. I did watch An Inconvenient Truth, as much as I could stand, found it dreadful, full of all sorts of speculation and improbable what-ifs and scenarios that are very nearly impossible (what if sea levels rise by 20 feet? Manhattan would look like this. True, but no way sea levels rise by more than a few centimeters in the next 100 years. Even the IPCC says that much.).
If you want to disagree with my statement that the science is not settled, first I congratulate Gore on his marketing of global warming such that anyone who disagrees with the theory is almost by definition someone who is part of an unhinged fringe group of “denialists”, when in fact there are some very serious scientists who are still trying to understand how the climate system works. Read Anthony Watts site for a few weeks and you’ll see a substantial amount of sober analysis.
Was that Klavan thing supposed to be funny? I can appreciate good satire as much as anyone, whether the target is right or left, but that was pretty sad. I guess it doesn’t help his cause that I can only think of the word “KKKLavern” when hearing his name. And note this is the first time i’ve ever heard his name…or seen his ugly mug. Hope it’s the last.
Having been a teenager in the late 80’s, my first exposure to Al and Tipper Gore came when they had that PMRC/anti-nasty rock lyrics shit going on. Years later I saw Nikki Sixx of Motley Crue give an interview where he talked about welcoming the warning labels the PMRC campaign ultimately resulted in because they gave the Crue’s albums the aura of forbidden fruit, making kids that much more likely to purchase them. I wonder: Is rejecting global warrning science for right wingers simply an updated version of buying SHOUT AT THE DEVIL?
The emphasis on Gore, if indeed it is connected to growing “skepticism” on the part of the right, is a red herring. Public concern over anthropogenic global warming has dipped in the last several years (most dramatically in the last two) due to massive propaganda on the part of the corporate sector. It’s a dose of institutional insanity, and it’s having very serious effects.
Hulse – the science is not, as you say “riddled with conflicting data.” The overwhelming majority of the scientific consensus points to real and dire consequences coming from increased and prolonged carbon in the atmosphere. No respected actual scientist, nor any report, has said that there will be some kind of uniform upward shift of temperature everywhere. The hallmark signs are: increasing acidity of the ocean, an increase in global AVERAGE temperatures, which will have far-reaching and serious ecological consequences, not all of which are easily predictable, although those effects that have been roughly predicted, such as the increasing severity of tropical storms, were right on the money.
This idea, promulgated by the corporate sector through right-wing media (which overlaps frequently with mainstream) that it’s all some kind of vast conspiracy on the part of the liberal establishment, isn’t only pathetic, its nonsensical. What possible motivation could thousands of scientists, many of whom are working independently and coming up with the same results, have for falsifying these results (a feat requiring massive coördinated deception) en masse?
“Skepticism” is a cheap dodge, and amounts to dangerous willed ignorance. If you’re talking about the number of “meteorologists” (note, not climate scientists, which should illustrate just how far one has to go to find a committed “skeptic”) – such as Anthony Watts – who have lately taken up the skepticism drumbeat, than I don’t know what to tell you, except that I wish you would pull your head out of your ass.
Thanks, Zach, for that closing grace note. It’s exactly what I’ve come to expect from the folks on your side of the debate.
What, accuracy and honesty followed by justifiable frustration and annoyance? Ignoring the entire post aside from the last half-sentence is a good demonstration of your own myopic cherry-picking.
Hmm, the conspiracy by corporations to promote the idea that it’s all a conspiracy by left wing scientists. Sure, I buy that.…
The image of the melted typewriter platen in “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” is permanently seared into my memory.
Screw Al Gore. Hail Steven Frickin’ Seagal!
1) ‘On deadly ground’ came 12 full years before ‘An inconvenient truth’; but if you are a pony-tailed Aikido master instead of an ex-VP of the USA, nobody will take you seriously.
2) ‘On deadly ground’ preaches an eco-conciousness based on breaking the wrists of your enemies, metaphorically fighting a bear, and finally blowing up a refinery to prevent an oil spill.
3) ‘On deadly ground’ stars John C. McGinley, R. Lee Ermey and Billy Bob Thorton. AND Michael Caine.
4) One Direct To Video Seagal movie costs about 10 million dollars. One Michael Bay movie costs about 200 million. Therefore, you can have about 20 DTV Seagal movies for every one Bay shits, and deep down you know very well even a DTV Seagal movie is a more honest and enjoyable crapfest than any chosen ‘Transformers’ movie. Plus, you will be helping the economy of Bulgaria.
“Hmm, the conspiracy by corporations to promote the idea that it’s all a conspiracy by left wing scientists.”
Which proves you already have your agenda established.
Tell me how much in millions do SCIENTISTS pay to have their environmental point of view explicated to the world?
Now quick – how much does Chevron Exxon and BP spend to counter enviromental data?
Exactly.
Look, Hulse – if in closing I was prickly, its because the position you appear to be holding is worse than distasteful or offensive to my sensibilities or whatever else tends to characterize political debates; its fucking dangerous. Maybe I should try the honey approach, rather than the vinegar – please, and I mean this honestly, look at the science. Sites such as RealClimate -
http://www.realclimate.org/
‑do a good job of fleshing out and reporting on the massive amount of science that has been committed to this topic, and if you read them, I think you’ll find nothing like the wasteful partisan bickering that goes on in the political center stage.
As far as Patrick’s comment goes, although I’m not sure it merits a serious response – the various overlapping corporate interests do not constitute a “conspiracy.” What they do share is a common interest in profits and growth, both of which are currently tied to carbon dependency. It’s an institutional problem, and it isn’t monolithic – plenty of corporations are gradually coming around to recognizing the problem this will cause for the future of their companies – but their influence is vastly outweighed by overall systemic dependence on carbon-based fuel; hence you see the paradoxes and half-measures being offered up by the private sector, like cap-and-trade and moving from one form of carbon fuel to another, such as oil to natural gas. It’s a problem woven into the fabric of state capitalism – profits – short term, above all else, and a steady exclusion of the overall systemic costs of their practices.
This is, it should be needless to say, very different than the spooky stories being told by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, which don’t even make sense by their own tortured logic.