The Gore Effect is a term used with various meanings relating to Vice President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. In one use, the term is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and meetings associated with global warming,[1] with particular emphasis on events attended by Gore.[1][2][3][4][5] The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue,[6][7][8][9] and in other ways related to Al Gore.[10][11][12][13]
Contents |
The Toronto based national newspaper Globe and Mail defined the term in 2007 quoting a user's submission to the online Urban Dictionary website as "the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming."[5] According to an article at the Politico website: "The so-called Gore Effect happens when a global warming-related event, or appearance by the former vice president and climate change crusader, Al Gore, is marked by exceedingly cold weather or unseasonably winter weather." The "Politico" article notes that global warming skeptics use the term "half-seriously".[1] "In the weather community, we kind of joke about it", Bob Marciano, a CNN weather forecaster, said in January 2010. "It's just a bad timing. Every time there's some big weather climate conference, there seems to be a cold outbreak. But, globally, we are still warming."[14] "Gore Effect" phenomena are "chalked up as coincidence", according to Joe Joyce, a weather forecaster and environmental reporter.[15] The term Gore effect was utilized in a 2006 commentary by Andrew Bolt where he opined that the effect was first noticed in 2004 when Gore was speaking in Boston.[16]
The phrase has been used in relation to the weather conditions at global warming venues, the first usage referring to a Speech of Al Gore on a global warming rally held in New York City.[17][18] Other reported events have included when Gore visited Australia in November 2006 and an opinion column in the Ottawa Citizen stated "Mr. Gore arrived in the late antipodean spring, together with a remarkable cold front and a late-season boon for the ski resorts."[18] A Gore lecture at Harvard University in October 2008 is also frequently mentioned.[17][19] Other weather issues have allegedly affected global warming speeches and events, such as when Gore testified about global warming before the Senate committee in January 2009 the local schools had a snow day. Other politicians have also allegedly been affected by the Gore effect. Nancy Pelosi had to cancel an appearance at a global warming rally in March 2009 due to a snowstorm.[15][19]
The Gore Effect phrase has also been included and commented on in press reports of several climate rallies.[16][17][20]
A Gloss of Harald Martenstein in the German weekly Die Zeit describes the effect as "Gore's personal climate disaster". According to Martenstein's ironic description of various alleged occurrences of the effect, it seems either to be based on a scientifically proven local cooling occurring in Gore's neighborhood, or based on nature or God having a sense of humour.[21] The general use of the expression is, according to Martenstein, only half ironic, since the purported coincidences happen too often to be discounted. A Competitive Enterprise Institute spokesperson,[22] and The Washington Times editorial staff,[17] have expressed a similar view. Climate skeptic scientist and meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo said: "We used to kid in forecasting that whenever we were very certain about a major forecast, it would wind up being so dead wrong that we’d be embarrassed. It certainly makes you think."[1]
Lisa Miller, Republican spokeswoman for the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, has said the coincidences are without basis in science and mentioning them "doesn’t contribute much to the actual making of policy". Yet some climate skeptics use the coincidences as a humorous way to make the point that either global warming isn't happening,[23] or Global warming isn't occurring as fast as they say some climate experts are claiming.
Tobias Ziegler, blogging for Crikey magazine, opined that the Gore Effect can be described by the availability heuristic and confirmation bias.[24]
Those who treat the Gore Effect as a remotely serious phenomenon are engaging in the same type of flawed reasoning as when people think it usually rains just after they wash the car. They notice evidence that confirms it – say, when it is cold and a global warming event is scheduled – and store it away in their memory. When the same type of event happens on a mild, warm or hot day, it isn’t something that they pay attention to.
Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review has called coverage of the Gore Effect "asinine," noting the distinction between short-term weather and long-term climate.[4] Michael Daly criticized this as a mere delight in noting coincidences between events relating to Gore's favorite subject and severe winter weather."[19] But Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly called focus on the claim "insulting",[25] and environmentalist A. Siegel has called the jokes a "shallow observation" from "those who don't get that weather isn't climate".[26]
The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue, particularly following his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth.[6][7][8][9]
In the New York Times in September 2006, Heidi Mitchell wrote of new investment in environmentally-conscious industry as reflecting an "Al Gore Effect."[27] The term appeared in the Times of India in June 2007, described as "the relentless campaign to alert the world to the issue by the man Bush did not win against."[28] In 2009 the Canadian Press wrote of the Gore Effect that industry experts credited Gore with helping "to accelerate interest in green and socially responsible investing."[29]
A paper entitled "The Al Gore Effect: An Inconvenient Truth and Voluntary Carbon Offsets" by University of California Santa Barbara professor Grant Jacobsen looked at the effect of the film on voluntary carbon offsets.[30] The paper noted polling which indicated that "the number of Americans believing that the earth was warming due to human activity increased from 41 percent to 50 percent" during the period when the film was showing, and that "It seems plausible that at least some of this change was created by the film", adding "Hence, we find support for an ‘Al Gore effect’"
A report from the Swedish Environmental Management Council on socially responsible purchasing among Swedish organizations and corporations notes discussion of the Al Gore Effect, as "raised awareness about environmental issues across the world," and a concern that this may lead to lessened focus on social issues, which the council recommends to treat by integrating the focus on both issues.[31]