Climate Change Battle Space Prep

In a few weeks the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will begin releasing its next big whopper assessment report—typically more than 3,000 pages in all, if past assessments are any guide.  (The official press conference is scheduled for September 27, so mark your calendar.  Power Line’s climate bureau will be there.)

Unlike previous assessments, the next one will not release all three parts (Science, Impacts, and Mitigation) at once; rather, the IPCC will roll out each major section over several months, likely as an attempt to get fresh news headlines spread out.  Think of it as a repeat business and PR strategy.  Only the report of Working Group I, on the science of climate, will come out next month.

I’ve noticed an uptick in climate change stories in recent weeks, all based on “leaks” of drafts of portions of the IPCC report.  The IPCC officially deplores these “leaks,” and insists that the final report may yet change from any drafts that have leaked.  In any case, most of these stories and “leaks” are of a certain character that can be summarized as: “the climate science community is more scared than ever.”  All that talk recently of declining climate sensitivity?  Pay no attention to the current halt in global temperatures.  Look, over there—squirrel!  Melting ice (or not)!  Sea level rising (or not)!  More storms (or not)!

This looks like deliberate “battle space” preparation to assure that the media coverage conforms to the standard “end-of-the-world” narrative central to the carbon prohibitionists, and skips over what may well be some important changes in the estimations of climate sensitivity that we and others have been covering for a while now, and which had dribbled out in previous leaks.  Few in the media working on deadline on a Friday in September will be likely to wade into the internals of the main text of the report, and will rely instead on what they’re spoon fed in the always politicized “summary for policy makers.”

Which brings us to today’s battle space prep story: Al Gore says he’s “optimistic” about stopping global warming.  Now, being the contrary indicator that he is, Gore saying he’s optimistic is a good enough reason to write off the whole issue, and move on to something else, like the Minnesota Twins’ frigid won-loss record.  Gore’s interview, if you have the stomach to read through it, is completely delusional.  Why would Gore—or anyone—suppose that the agenda of carbon suppression would be any more plausible today than it has been at any point over the last 25 years?  With the economies of India and China slowing down, does anyone think those nations are going to reverse their stand against near-term hydrocarbon energy constraints?

There are so many egregious and laughable (and offensive) parts of the Gore interview that it’s hard to know where to start (or stop), but this one takes the cake:

And all the while there was this massively funded climate denier campaign by the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobile and others that hired tobacco industry veterans to work with them on consumer advertising and lobbying activities.

First, the Post apparently doesn’t know how to spell “Exxon-Mobil,” but never mind.  “Tobacco veterans”?  I’d like Gore to name one, but only after filling us in when he stopped growing tobacco himself.  “Massively-funded” skeptic campaign?  My cautious estimate is that the privately-funded climate campaign (that is, excluding the billions government ministries spend on behalf of The Cause) has outstripped the skeptics by at least a margin of 10-1.  Just one foundation I know of—the Hewlett Foundation—spent more than $300 million on climate all by itself.  (And they now regret much of their strategy, but that’s another story.)  Add in Rockefeller, Ford, Pew, etc., etc., and Gore doesn’t just look delusional here; he’s pathetic.  As is the increasingly desperate and forlorn climate campaign.

Oh yeah–one last item.  Gore says climate skeptics “fly into a rage” like alcoholics.  Doesn’t Gore know about this picture of himself?

I’d give Gore the Green Weenie Award, but it would overshadow his Nobel Prize and Oscar on his fireplace mantle.  (Wait–Gore has a fireplace??)

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.