Acronym Smackdown: ACORE vs. CEI

smackdown.jpgWow, two Republicans representing two very different groups have been going after each other on the blogosphere with words and phrases like “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar” and “nasty-gram” — OK, nasty-gram isn’t a word, but what do you expect from CEI?

It’s Michael Eckhart, head of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) versus Marlo Lewis a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). You can read Lewis’s side at Planet Gore (where else?) and Eckhart’s side at ACORE’s blog.

I know Eckhart and he’s a solid guy — plus I’m not a big fan of 1) people who post private emails on the internet and 2) professional global warming Denyers — so I’ll take ACORE over CEI/PG any day. Also, this paragraph by PG is illuminating:

Eckhart’s so-called apology claims that I “knowingly mount a false prosecution” against global warming. Upon what evidence does he base this accusation? Eckhart claims that on first meeting him, minutes prior to a debate in which we were opponents, I confided to him that I don’t really believe what I say; I just say it as a “tactic” to advance my agenda. How plausible is that?

Note Lewis makes no denial — he just asks “How plausible is that?” I personally find it very plausible.

Lewis is smart and well-informed, so he has to know just how solid the scientific evidence is for human-cause global warming, and he has to know that all of the Denyer arguments he keeps repeating have long been disproved.

Let’s call this ACORE 1, CEI/PG 0 — and let’s call this PG Disinfotainment Watch #43.

4 Responses to Acronym Smackdown: ACORE vs. CEI

  1. Lou Grinzo says:

    This is big news, and no, I’m not being sarcastic.

    Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Lewis did indeed make the confession about his tactics that Eckhart claims.

    Could there be anything more revolting in the behavior of people seeking to influence public opinion and policy? What kind of person would it take to make that trade off–I’ll work overtime to derail efforts in what could be our last chance to stop a GW catastrophe, simply because I think the fix would include a side effect that I don’t like. The mind reels at the very suggestion of such staggering, terminal myopia.

    I don’t know anyone involved in this food fight, so I can’t conclude who’s telling the truth. But if I had to bet a buck on it, I’d side with Joe’s opinion and what we’ve seen of deniers all along, and say that this really is Lewis’ motivation.

    Why is this a big deal? Simple: I think it finally explains the behavior of at least some among the hard core deniers. I’ve never been able to figure out what drove them, but I suspect this tiff between Eckhart and Lewis has exposed the ugly truth.

    How utterly sad.

  2. Joe says:

    This is a major point of my book — the Denyers hate the solution, so they deny the problem.

  3. Dano says:

    The denialists also hate the notion thatanything other than humanity can be#1 priority.



  4. Joe says:

    Yet ironically, while Denyers like to believe that only the environment will suffer, global warming will in fact have a devastating impact on humanity–indeed if the tragedy in Darfur has roots in climate change, it already is.