On the subject of Johann Hari\’s fact checking

So he goes to meet the environmental activists who are trying to stop this poisoning of their children, and watches as – terrified – they are carried away to prison. (Imagine if Al Gore had been imprisoned for exposing Love Canal, and was still in solitary, and you get the idea.)

Oh Aye?

\”I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue,\” Gore said.

\”That was the one that started it all. … We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved.\”

In August 1978, Gore did chair hearings on the matter by the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations – two months after the Love Canal homes were evacuated and President Carter declared the neighborhood a disaster area.

It would appear that Johann doesn\’t realise that the Al and Love Canal story is as true as the Al and Love Story story and the Al and inventing the internet story.

7 comments on “On the subject of Johann Hari\’s fact checking

  1. I had a conversation (argument) with two environmentalists recently. They had noticed the destruction of China, which they blamed squarely on people in the UK allowing British industry being exported to a country with no rules. ” We should have stopped it so we could regulate the industries and prevent them from destroying our planet.”

    Strangely the same two people were showing off to me a few years ago that the UK was leading the world by shutting down filthy industries and opening nice clean businesses.

    It seems that greenies don’t know the meaning of ‘unintended consequences’.

  2. He wrote last year that the former Japanese Prime Minister had “nearly been killed by a robot”. You what? I thought. Nearly killed by a fucking robot?

    A moment’s Googling found video of the incident on YouTube. The robot sprayed some steam in his face and everybody laughed.

  3. Chris:
    What’s really striking about the attitude of those environmentalists is their assumption that Chinese economic policy is somehow determined by what they can get from Britain. You should have pointed out how incredibly parochial they were being, and how patronising their attitude is to the Chinese.

  4. Did Al Globe ever point out that the Love Canal imbroglio was a product of a reckless local government?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>