Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Five months ago, today, the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank went to town on Al Gore in With Al due respect, we’re doomed with 18 references to the “Goracle”, a right-wing term dismissive of Gore, trying to undermine his strong, science-backed discussion of Global Warming with ridicule suggesting that his substantive work somehow relates to the Delphi Oracle. At the time, too heavily caught up in The Will Affair, taking on yet another Washington Post absurdity on climate issues seems too tiersome. Happily, Daily Kos’ Plutonium Page stepped up with a pithy rejoinder: Dana Milbank Applies for Internship With Sen. James Inhofe

The Washington Post columnist isn’t quite ready to replace GOP Sen. James Inhofe’s communications director Marc Morano, but comes close.

Thank you Page for that good dismissal of Milbank’s mediocrity of a column and the shame of its occupying valuable real estate in The Washington Post. And, thank you for letting me focus on other matters.

Sigh …

Well, Dana Milbank has stepped into –it in a different way recently. And, that reminded me that 29 January absurdity. So, time to go back and take a look. And, that look suggested that perhaps it would have better to do some dissection at the time because searching the ‘google tubes’ shows up up over 1000 references to ‘milbank goracle‘, with the vast (VAST) majority being quite favorable links or comments from members of the Global Warming wing of the Flat Earth Society.

Why did terminal anti-science syndrome sufferers find so appealing about Dana “Goracle” Milbank?

With Al Due Respect, We’re Doomed

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.

So opens Dana Milbank in his discussion of Al Gore’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Like the Oracle descending from Delphi, someone to be awaited with bated breath, every syllable to listened to with rapt attention.

The analogy is of Crystal Ball, of fortune telling that has no relationship to science.

What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”

Almost surprising, isn’t it, that The Washington Post didn’t illustrate this piece with a doctored image implying that Vice-President Gore carried a crystal ball into the Senate committee room to rub and examine before speaking.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.

Ah, ‘humorist’ Milbank doesn’t stop his powerful pen’s ridicule with Gore but turns to others, notably another Democratic Presidential nominee.

“appealed … premonitions … beseeched …”

How many ways can Milbank, so far from the editorial pages, undermine the seriousness of the issues and the seriousness of the discussion in so few words?

“Geothermal energy,” the Goracle prophesied. “This has great potential; it is not very far off.”

“Prophesied”?  What is Dana saying here?

Prophesy:

1. To reveal by divine inspiration.

2. To predict with certainty as if by divine inspiration. See Synonyms at foretell.

3. To prefigure; foreshow.

v.intr.

1. To reveal the will or message of God.

2. To predict the future as if by divine inspiration.

3. To speak as a prophet.

Dana did keep the relevant analogy and framing constant as he states Gore is “prophet” (“Goracle”), of a religious bent, rather than someone knowledgeable of and informed by science.

Back to Dana …

Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. “I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,” the Goracle spoke.

Is Dana’s ceaseless use of “Goracle” growing tiring yet?

A third asked the legislative future — and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. “The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.

Wonder if Dana had to read up on the Oracle of Delphi prior to writing this?  “Spoke in riddle …” Perhaps it might have mattered to his readers if Dana had actually mentioned that Gore then discussed those steps.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

This truly is sad, on so many levels. Well, Dana is skilled enough to keep with that religious theme.   And, he is able to throw in so many paths to undermine Gore rather than discuss how Gore’s decades of discussion of Global Warming is ever more substantiated by scientific analyses and, well, even by awards from such unnotable organizations as the Nobel Prize committee.

“Tennessee,” gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore’s home state, “has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy.” If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”

Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.

Well, Dana, reading this, don’t worry about having to meet high expectations from anyone concerned about the accurate representation and discussion of serious issues in one of the nation’s most important newspapers of record.

The Goracle’s powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. “We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”

Al Gore’s power comes not from long-term study of an issue. It does not come from figuring out how to communicate (translate?) complex scientific issues to larger audiences. No, it evidently comes from his learning how to tell ghost stories at Boy Scout camp fires.

Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be “an almost existential impact” from the climate changes Gore described.

Well, perhaps this more substantive discussion came because this is a committee that is not stuffed with anti-science syndrome sufferers, on the Republican side, as the House committee which he had recently appeared before.  If the Republican Party were dominated, on energy and climate issues, by people like Dick Lugar, then there would be a serious bipartisan discussion and debate to be had about what the best paths are forward for the nation and the globe.

Perhaps, Dana, it might actually have been enlightening for readers to explore this issue — the question of anti-science syndrome and its influence on Congressional inaction on climate change (and other issues).  Why, seriously, did Gore have a different reception in this committee? Don’t you think that is a type of question that a real journalist might have asked and explored?

As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”

Huh? This article is a series of less enlightening quotation after less-enlightening question. So, what was Isakson challenging Gore about, substantively? That’s right, this only appeared in the front-page section of The Washington Post, that national and international news section. No reason to expect substance there, right?

Others sought to buy the Goracle’s favor by offering him gifts. “Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don’t either understand it or want to understand it,” gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: “Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?”

Wow. Senators sought to bribe Gore?  Ha. Ha. Ha. … In this piece, Milbank seems in some form of weird competition to see how many dumb idiocies he can fit in just one piece and how much would make it pass the editors.

The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by “naysayers” who thought it funny that Gore’s testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. “The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,” Kerry said at the start of the hearing.

Really think, Dana, that the issue is whether Al Gore was offended or not? How about dealing with the substance that global warming deniers love to confuse people whenever a weather event works conveniently with their agenda to distort science?

The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Al Gore sweats.

The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as “Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region.” At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. “I’m not proselytizing,” he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.

“Obscure” is the best insult you could come up with for what is, Dana, a pretty self-explanatory slide title?

Really meriting ink in the newspaper to mention that Al Gore, at some point, learned that computers allow sounds to be incorporated in presentations?

The inanities continue.

The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.” Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”

The lawmakers joined in. “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat,” contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. “And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”

Dana Milbank, literally critic.

Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.

From Delphi Oracle to childhood toy, Milbank doesn’t lose a chance to tag Gore with anti-science descriptors.

Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a “practical politician,” how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. “I am a recovering politician. I’m on about Step 9,” the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.

Unlike Milbank, people probably laughed at Gore and actually cared about what Gore actually said.

Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? “There’s a high degree of confidence.” The future of automobiles in China and India? “I wouldn’t give up on electric vehicles.” The potential of solar power in those countries? “I have no question about it at all.”

Of course not. He’s the Goracle.

Substantive reporting on a serious hearing on a serious subject from Dana Milbank? Of course not. He’s the Baron von DickWhisperer.

This travesty of a piece should never have been published. And, perhaps, it should simply been left to recede into obscurity. And … But, Dana has stepped into –it again and the stench brought this back from obscurity for this reader. And, brought it from something dimly forgotten to something meriting focusing some light on the dimness displayed in this laughably inane excuse of an article.

Note, Milbank is not the only Washington Post journalist comfortable with the “Gore-acle” moniker.