Robert Redford, the self-described "original eco-alarmist" (well, I might be paraphrasing) has had enough of the Goracle stealing his spotlight. According to Redford, back in the '70s it wasn't so fashionable to see apocalypse at every turn and, as a result, Redford fell upon hard times for his radical views. Redford points out that, 30 years later, ecochondria is finally in vogue and now, instead of being laughed off movie sets for fighting the good fight, Gore gets Nobel prizes thrown at him.
What Mr. Redford is missing, of course, is that in the 1970s the Nobel prize actually meant something and I'm fairly certain Gore's glorious victory over those worthless Burmese monks was a cleverly nuanced attack by the vast right-wing conspiracy to discredit him. What's the best way to undermine a person's legitimacy? One assumes it is to point out the obvious factual and intellectual flaws in his argument. But since that hasn't worked, why not give him a prize even his supporters know he doesn't deserve?
Hat tip to AllahPundit over at Hot Air.
Posts
