The subject of Al Gore always sets me musing about the press. So pardon a paragraph of exposition before I get to Gore’s new movie.
It seems to me that the political press has always felt more comfortable with amiable doofuses than with people who genuinely care about what they’re doing. If I wanted to psychoanalyze freely (before you protest, check the name of this blog) I would say that political reporters generally have egos bigger than their intellect and just feel more comfortable around the limited and slightly sleazy politicians who fit their cynical view of how politics is supposed to operate.
Of course there are other ways of winning over reporters. At least one investigator has shown that dumping copious amounts of booze, attention and cocktail weenies on reporters can win you an enduring reputation as a straight talker.
Maybe Clinton was a bit too bright and wonkish to sit at the kool kids table. Certainly Al Gore, brighter and more earnest than your average handful of Brookings scholars, was out before he was ever in. That explains as well as anything I’ve seen how a smear that made no sense – Al Gore makes things up to please people – took on a life of its own in the press. The Heathers had such a good time dissing the bright kid that they rarely if ever took time to note the equally-(not)egregious whoppers told by Gore’s amiable, limited opponent.
To his credit Gore the almost-president went on campaigning for the same issue as always: people, pollution and the climate. Five years on the speaking circuit has clearly punched-up Gore’s presentation to the point that director Davis Guggenheim has assembled the Gore lecture, some voiceovers and a scattering of graphics into a film that two reviewers that I usually trust, NY Times and The Onion, describe as an emotional punch in the gut. Now honestly, when was the last time you heard somebody describe a powerpoint presentation like that? Add to that informative and intellectually convincing and it seems like high praise for what is basically a movie-length slideshow. A successful movie will force “skeptics” to try a lot harder than recent ads and op-eds by folks with a weak grasp of the science and obvious conflicts-of-interest.
Not to worry though, climate skeptics may have an ace in the hole: years after the fact media Heathers can’t seem to stop writing their hackneyed ’90s narratives. Case in point, the dreaded CLENIS. So here is this week’s assignment for the folks at TechCentralStation: find a factual innacuracy in Gore’s presentation. It doesn’t have to be a big deal, just a result misattributed to one scientist instead of another or a misplaced date. In 90-some minutes there has to be something. Then just step back and let the good old Gore-lies-to-please-people credibility smear (that falls under Mentally Imbalanced for those keeping score) take off under its own power. If the kool kids can’t stop themselves from obsessing about the Clintons’ marriage then they won’t mind a chance to kick the smart kid again.
I don’t mean to say that the folks at TCSDaily and elsewhere are fundamentally dishonest, although that may be, but they have to cut down this message before it becomes a phenomenon. The last thing Republicans need is a million or two Americans reacting like the reviewer at the Onion:
The first response to An Inconvenient Truth is horror. No matter how reliably genial and measured Gore’s oratory style, no matter how much hope he dutifully tries to squeeze into the proceedings, it’s hard to come away feeling anything but a prevailing sense of doom. The second response is outrage. How could the press and our leaders allow for the debate over global warming to center on the issue of whether it even exists?
…Quite apart from its environmental agenda, the film is a reminder that there’s no space for substance in political discourse: A 30-second soundbite on global warming could easily be brushed off as tree-hugging rhetoric, but after 100 minutes of level-headed elaboration, it’s chillingly undeniable.
Maybe fear is the greatest motivator. It is depressing to think that Democrats may ride a wave of fear akin to 9/11 demagoguery but hey, that strategy worked out pretty well for Karl Rove. I bet the prospect of the same phenomenon running in reverse has him at least a little bit frightened.
Provoking fear of gays and fear of catastrophic climate change might not be on quite the same level, morally speaking.
Well, the Republican response basically relies on arguing that if Al Gore gets his way, we will all have to change our fundamental way of life, all our major industries will be put out of business, etc. So I don’t think either side has a monopoly on the fear factor here.
Tim, I’m going to post the link I sent you via email. Hopefully you won’t mind.
This is a start of a RTFM for sceptics of climate change
RTFM for Sceptics
That has always been a relatively easy point to answer: talking about climate, the pain of taking sensible preventative measures is quite a lot less than the pain of not doing so. Ask NOLA. That is why the majority of the Republican pushback has been against the science itself, because if the nation becomes convinced that climate change is real and caused by us then the question of whether to make short-term sacrifices to prevend long-term agony becomes a no-brainer.
HEY! I’m much more scared of the ghey than I am a little warm weather.
I’m telling you, Tim, within 10 minutes someone will show up to argue that the Kyoto Protocol would bankrupt our economy.
Rebuilding Manhattan would bankrupt our economy. Rebuilding New Orleans just might, and moving it upriver probably will. Maybe I’m missing something, but it just doesn’t seem like that hard a point to answer.
I’d be less skeptical if I didn’t remember learning in school a mere 25 years ago that by the mid-90’s, global cooling would kill us all. I am impressed, however, with the level of faith we place in computer climate modeling. Admittedly, the daily weather forecast is a lot different from projecting long term trends, but as I was out for a 30 mile bike ride the other day, in a downpour, I had an hour and a half to ponder the actual meaning of “10% chance of precipitation.” Perhaps our long term predictions are much more reliable than our predictions for events two hours from now. While I’m sure there is a warming of temperature, I’m not positive that it’s all due to cars and to Rush Limbaugh’s oral emanations. I’m still not sure the science explaining global warming is as rock solid as old Al makes it seem.
Here ya go Al, let me fix that Global Cooling Myth you have been carrying aroung for 30 years.
The Global Cooling Myth
Just for good measure I’ll toss this link in as well so you can save your time when posting.
How to talk to a sceptic
Please go RTFM first.
Here’s an idea Al… go see the movie THEN consider the issue.
Prediciting the impact of global warming is more akin to carpet bombing than a laser guided missle strike. That is to say, it only has to be correct within a range to have a brutal impact in the end result.
Yes they are! Pat Roberston has proven it.
Did you come to the conclusion that a 10% chance of rain means that it might rain (1 in 10 chance)?
But it was raining 10% never actually happens…
Well, who I am to doubt a man who can leg press 2000 pounds?
But we’ll win a lovely bag of moon saphires.
And taking simple steps to help curb pollution or write a letter to your congressperson demanding we look for alternative sources of energy puts you out so much, Al.
If Gore is right and catastrophe is on the horizon, what will be your mea culpa, Al, when that catastrophe hits?
Oh, I know. You will hope to God you are dead by then.
Why not be the stand up guy and just admit that you don’t care about global warming at all and you never will?
I guess you’ve got to keep up–I remember from a mere 15 years ago about precisely how screwed we’d all be in 2040 due to global warming / climate change / tiny black holes / etc… of course, that was science fiction with some (now quite dated) climate projections thrown in, but anyhow…
Damn the Diet Coke Nasal Geyser! Now I’ve got to use this backup keyboard!
As Peter Griffin of the Family Guy put it: “Look at me, Lois! I’m the two symbols of the Republican Party — an elephant and a big fat white guy frightened by change!”
That was just a problem with dihydrogen monoxide pollution. Congress should start regulating that stuff. Dihydrogen monoxide kills more than 3,000 people in the US per year!
But if you look at Lee’s “debunk” link, you’ll see why that was a myth — the scientists back then, you see, were wrong. Now they say they are right. Well, there’s that debunked.
Hey, any politician who could do Futurama not once, but twice, and deliver the best line of the series(“I’m a 10th level vice president!) has my ear.
You forgot the obligitory link
dihydrogen monoxide org
Nepotism — his daughter Kristin wrote for the show on occasion.
The Other Steve
But haven’t you heard? The Democrats want to declare Carbon Dioxide a toxic substance!
We breath out Carbon Dioxide! Democrats want to declare Humans an Illegal polluter and FINE US ALL!!
It’s true! I heard it on Rush Limbaugh!
I’m no meteorologist, nor even a weatherman, but it strikes me that a 10% chance of rain would mean that when the particular current set of environmental factors have been observed in the past (prevailing winds, barometric pressure, etc), it rained 10% of the time.
Alternatively, the computer modelled a set of reasonable possibilities for possible outcomes based on current weather fronts, wind patterns, and temperatures, and under 10% of those scenarios, it rained.
In any event, it doesn’t strike me as an unsolvable quandary, nor something that should’ve taken that entire hour and a half to come to some reasonable conclusion. A couple of minutes, and then you could’ve tried to figure out what the hell is up with that TV show “Lost” for then next hour and 20 minutes.
Mac is the reading or the comprehending your weak point?
Quote from the article
The shorter version is that they saw a period of cooling of temperatures and because they did not have good models for climate they could not make predictions. The popular press took the cooling of temperatures idea and ran with a ‘Global Cooling’ story.
Having grown up with a father with a Phd in chemistry, I will personally cease your oxygen exchange mechanism if you make another dihydrogen monoxide ‘joke’.
Toxins in our food, air, and water kills fetuses too.
Why bother? What’s moral consistency to people who hold a bunch of shares of Exxon-Mobil?
“The” scientists were wrong then, and maybe “the” scientists are wrong now? I thought that a pretty small group of scientists was floating the cooling idea, and it didn’t get much traction in peer-reviewed journals, although it did get play in newsmagazines. On the other hand, global warming has a hell of a lot of support among the majority of climate scientists today after years of research, questioning and investigation in peer-reviewed journals. Nice use of “the” scientists to muddy the waters, though.
This does make me feel a little better about the car payments for my brand new (picked up yesterday) Prius.
This is the “teach the controversy” tactic of the right. If you demand equal time in the media for an unsupported claim, the audience sees equal weight given to two unequal ideas, hence the “controversy” over ID.
/me whistles and walks away
Rush must’ve seen the funny commercials by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) about (scare quotes) “Global Warming.”
Carbon Dioxide CO2 – we breathe it out, plants breathe it in. They call it pollution – we call it life!
The Other Steve
It seems to me that if humans are outputing a level of smog and CO2 that’s not been seen before in history, it is not unplausible that this may be having some negative effect.
But then, I’m a skeptic at heart. It’s not that I totally believe the Global Warming stuff on faith, it’s that I am incredibly skeptical of the people claiming there is absolutely no effect.
It’s what he doesn’t say:
It is interesting to me that so much energy is expended by the “anti-global warming” crowd splitting hairs about the cause rather than accepting that it is happening.
Ask arctic villages, heck even ask governments with interests in shipping lanes in the arctic (including ours) what they foresee in ten years. The rush is on for pieces of the pie (arctic basin) in the melting north.
I’m not sure about this. Consider the national debt. Republicans have pushed back against basic economics, with supply side theories and so forth, but I don’t think anyone finds these seriously convincing. And yet they don’t seem to have suffered at the ballot box (not yet, anyway) for putting off solutions into the distant or even not-so-distant future. I know that polls show Americans to be concerned about this issue, but many seem to base their voting on other considerations.
I’m just waiting for someone to release a commercial claiming that New Orleans wasn’t flooded and the refuges have nothing to complain about. It was just water, after all, and now the Democrats want to reform FEMA to make water illegal. How could anyone object to a little thing like water?
Tim in SF
Or ask the drowning polar bears.
Hey guys, didn’t you know that Al Gore has driven cars and flown in airplanes??? Such blantant carbon-prducing hypocrisy clearly disquialifies Gore from making any comment on climate.
This message brought to you by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Tom, I just LOVE point 6 in that quote there:
So we shouldn’t do our share because we’re not sure if other countries won’t do theirs? If we can’t do everything, we shouldn’t do anything.
That’s a weak rationalization. All we can control is our own actions. Making a small dent might not fix the problem, but it sure comes closer than choosing to not care. “But everyone else is doing it,” didn’t get me permission to stay out late when I was twelve, and it sure shouldn’t excuse behavior that could cause serious problems.
If you don’t believe in the science, that’s one thing. If you can’t afford to take action, that’s understandable. If, however, you choose to do nothing because it’s easier and others aren’t doing their share, that’s inexcusable.
The only way this problem is going to be fixed is by many people changing their behavior. Every person who stays out of the game makes it that much harder.
I live in Minnesota and you would have to be blind not to have noticed that the winter has gotten shorter. We have not had any long conld snaps in a while. By my crude (unscientific) estimation, we have probably lost at least a month of actual winter. September is as warm as August and October is just like September was.
Just ask the snowmobilers who get visibly testy how much snow we have had. I steer clear of them until after the first couple of good snowfalls now.
The issue is whether man effects Global warming to any significant extent. Didn’t we have an ice age with much higher levels of CO2 before man appeared on the scene?
Regarding the TCS article.
1. Just maybe science has advanced in the 16 years since he published that?
2. So there is no such thing as climate change because of this one poor example?
3. So there were variations he did not address adaquatelty enough for you. Are you asserting that temperatures are NOT increasing?
4. Others (NOAA) have indicated a difference of opinion from that IPCC.
5. That is the point we want to AVOID a rapid rise of the ocean level. One set of pacific islands is already undergoing an evacuation as the ocean level is rising.
6. People are forecasting that China and India will overtake the US in CO2 emission. Currently that is not the case. The small difference is only if they BOTH overtake our CO2 emissions.
If that is the extent of the criticisms of the movie, I think the agrument is over.
Silly liberal. Polar bears can’t talk!
Is this just not convincing, or what? (Apologies if I’ve missed a debunking or something.)
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MITBushbot spokes-puppet:
Thank god for TCSDaily. If all the have to attack is omissions then Gore did a better job that I though possible.
Let’s look at their comments:
My god, a scientist pointed out that we didn’t yet know enough over ten years ago. Too bad ten years isn’t nearly enough time for science to make any significant advance in an underfunded field like climate change. Cough.
Glaciers all over the Earth are in retreat. You can certainly pick one or two that have mitigating factors without dampening the overall point, unless you want to claim that precipitation has decreased all over the planet. Plus, the mountain has gotten warmer.
The author shows a remarkable inability to distinguish between local and global phenomena.
There’s a softball. The ocean is a lagging indicator, meaning that sea surface will warm up more slowly than the climate in general. Since storm severity depends on sea surface temperature, we will also not see an increase in storm severity until warming is well underway.
He is confusing cause with effect. If the climate grows warmer then sea level will rise. There isn’t any question whether it will happen, the question is how much warming will cause how much melting. The best models suggest a threshold effect, in which sea level rise begins slowly until temperature reaches a certain point and then the ice begins melting very rapidly. That happens because water has a higher albedo (it absorbs more sunlight) than ice or land so more water will make warming happen faster, causing a positive feedback effect.
We call that the “half-assed solutions won’t work so let’s do nothing” argument. As the writer knows Kyoto was never meant to be a fix. In fact that is why many scientists opposed it. Kyoto was meant to form a framework agreement around which the world’s nations could start hashing out a more meaningful solution. So of course Kyoto isn’t enough. The problem with climate is that the longer we wait the more expensive the solutions get, until eventually we might as well just accept disaster. That is why Al Gore stuck to his guns back when Bush’s dad was still calling him “ozone man.”
How’s this for a justification. Re-inventing our economy. Leading the world in new fuel efficient and clean technologies. NOT raping the planet of its resources. Withdrawing from the volatile oil market. Keeping the planet cleaner than we found it.
You know, some of us have to live here after the rapture.
Does anyone recall a theory floated out there called OFALS (the name of the theorist, an acronym, I don’t recall…) or something like that? The argument was that impending enviro disaster if not addressed would result in the rise of totalitarian governments to impose draconian mitigating measures. If so, please give me a link. Thanks.
There is a significant difference between the global warming debate and the ID debate which is that there is no real element of religion involved.
For the record I am concerned about warming, but not sure how concerned I should be or what can/should be done. I am against permitting the teaching of ID as a legitimate theory in public schools.
Sounds like all our climate problems could be solved by inventing the Gi-normous Aerosol Can.
When I get really bad allergies because of pollen I go out and buy a case of AquaNet and let loose on the ozone layer.
Good work — just think of how many hurricanes you have aborted! You, and old Italian women from New Jersey…
Ever notice how the people saying “the science isn’t all there” are the same people who so obviously can’t comprehend science. I mean my lord, the above has got to be the most blatantly ignorant thing I’ve read in a couple weeks. And let it be known, I read all sorts of blog comments sections.
Oh man I’m still laughing. 10% chance of rain and it rains and “OH MY GOD THE NEWSCASTER LIED.” ha ha ha ha
What manner of head injury produces a thought process like that? Do we have a neurologist on the board?
Or is the science not all there yet.
Yeah, like that MIT atmospheric science researcher cited above.. what a clown, right?
It’s not unexpected that there’s disagreement about global warming; consensus doesn’t mean unanimity, and you never get absolute certainty with science anyway (with obvious caveats that I won’t go into). Most climate scientists appear to agree that global warming is real, that human contributions to it are significant, and that if we want to do something about it, earlier is better. I think MAX HAT’s observation applies to most non-scientists who say that the science isn’t all there yet.
Why on earth would anyone regard TCSDaily as any type of authority on this, or any other subject other than politics.
For instance, they turn to a law professor to comment on reducing the negative effects of web use on worker productivity. Oh, wait, he’s also an Uberblogger so it’s a safe bet he’s part of the productivity problem.
Oh, an Al..
Vegas just called.
They’re offering a free suite and airfare if you’re willing to come “play the odds”.
Especially when their drowning… 8D
From Slate’s review:
Funny you should mention gambling. Richard Lindzen, the MIT researcher who is apparently the world’s foremost authority because he agrees with Darrell’s position, famously offered the scientific community that he would take bets that global temperatures would actually be lower 20 years from now. When another scientist said “Great! Let’s bet $10,000,” Lindzen’s response? “Only if you give me 100:1 odds.”
To be fair, Lindzen did subsequently offer to negotiate it down to 50:1 odds. But the moral is clear – don’t let your mouth write checks your wallet can’t cash!
Wow… ah Tom that article is smoking something strong cause last I checked the average airliner gets about 33 miles per gallon per passenger. And unless your driving around with 3 or more people in your hummer, and lets face it most people don’t a hummer gets 10 miles per gallon per passenger with only one person in the vehicle.
Here’s a review of some of the science issues from realclimate.org.
Damn, I was just about to post that link, Steve.
Well, I tend to agree with Tom that a private jet is not exactly enviro-friendly, although I couldn’t care less if some random film producer happens to be a hypocrite. But criticizing Gore for using commercial air travel, that pretty much smacks of desperation, like the “CO2 is life” ads.
I can’t get upset at Laurie. Larry David’s whole family gets a pass. And that’s just for “Seinfeld.”
All the Zeppelins were booked?
Right, and that was the focus of Easterbrook’s review: the moral angle. He’s calling Gore et al. hypocrites. But that’s a pretty minor issue when it comes to the bigger message of the movie.
Both of which have made daily appearances on the corner
No desperation over there. Noooo, siree.
What most bothers me about this movie, and Gore’s fellow travelers in the Global Warming crowd, is their absolute assurance that the issue is settled. Done. No argument needed, because consensus has settled in and you’d be a FOOL to have an opinion that differs.
This is simply nonsense. First, there’s hardly a consensus out there. Second, the Earth is and has always been a violent, unpredictable place, and will easily survive the actions of its inhabitants. In fact, when she’s good and ready, Mother Earth will flick us off her back like the fleas we are. Mere pests amind her greatness.
It’s arrogant and grandiose us to believe we have that much power over this globe. But it makes for good print in Moonbattia. Me?….I prefer a healthy dose of skepticism.
Brian, If we are wrong, we’ll end up with a cleaner environment, less dependence on oil, and lead the world in new industrial technologies.
If you are wrong, God help us all.
I do. I’m surrounded by these well-meaning twits out there in L.A. It’s the hobby of the well-heeled, those who can “care” about the planet, because they have few cares in the world otherwise.
Global Warming — the affliction of the comfortable.
You need all the help you can get.
As for what happens “if you’re right…”, well, that’s the common thread of liberalism nowadays, isn’t it? “We know what’s good for you, so just follow our lead”.
What’s wrong with being skeptical, anyhow? There’s a consensus on the law of gravity, but hardly a consensus on Global Warming, my friend. You can do whatever you want within your little world, but pressuring or shaming people to change their ways on the basis of specious science is, again, arrogant.
I’m a big fan of the scientific method. The problem is that the skeptics are great at writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, and offering to make bets as long as you give them 100:1 odds, but they seem to have an aversion to actually publishing peer-reviewed studies. What we’re left with is the attitude that “how dare we do anything until every last scientist is in agreement!”
If people like Al Gore were calling for us all to stop using electricity and to live in little mud huts, I could understand some people’s determination that we must wait until there is complete agreement on every issue. But the dirty little secret of this whole issue seems to be that we can make a real difference with current technologies and without huge sacrifices.
You just don’t give a shit about anyone or anything but yourself.
To you evolution is a specious science. Don’t you want to produce more and pollute less? Don’t you want to preserve this planet for future generations? Don’t you want to kick the Big oil habit?
How’re we going to do that with the status quo?
The issue we have is whether or not the Earth survives with humans living on it or not. The “Earth” is a big rock like a lot of big rocks floating in space. Not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.
Contain yourself, Sparky. If you don’t have anything nice or constructive to say, don’t say anything at all.
If you were, you wouldn’t diss the dissent. Referencing the WSJ is the best you can do? Yet you wet yourself over Al Gore. People like him have predicting death, misery and destruction ever since the eco-movement came into being. None of their predictions came to pass, and I suspect Gore’s won’t either. If you want to believe them, fine. Some people believe all sorts of horseshit, but don’t try and shove it down my throat before I can inspect it and decide if it’s healthy.
Again with the spoofy bullshit.
Nothing specious about it. Science has presented us with the good possibility that a serious problem exists. Nobody is suggesting that humanity board rockets and abandon the planet. Just that it might be prudent to slow down the rate of adding to the likely problem until we know for sure what we’re in for. Prudent.
Pretending there is no problem, or turning the possibility of it into a political football by deliberately whipping up the people who are afraid of science …. worse than arrogant. Even worse than spam spoofing. Irresponsible, and reckless.
I’m with Brian. I simply refuse to accept the opinions of those who possess the leisure to formulate them. And it is for this reason that I have absolutely no opinions.
Sometimes people have to be forcefed, like with slavery and intergration, and sweatshops.
You live in L.A., right Brian? Tell me, how much better is the air now than it was 20 years ago? Stupid eco-terrorists forcing you to breathe better air. Fuck em right?
Even more… look at smoking and cigarette consumption just in the last 20 years. Massive behavioral changes occured due to a combination of forced legislation, advertising and serious market pressure. Being a smoker, I hated the process, but being a person who doesn’t like it when someone talks behind me in a movie theater, I understood I need to make my habit not affect others in workplace environments, bars, restaurants, etc. In the end, I’ve learned to adapt in how I kill myself with my own bad habits.
The other aspect of the dirty little secret was already mentioned. There’s a HUGE market opportunity and growth opportunity waiting in the wings here. If we don’t do it, someone else will, and they wil reap the benefit.
How many times must American businesses, like Detroit automakers or early electronics manufacturers, be made an example of in this regard for the rest of the American population to get the point?
Just show me where the dissent includes a peer-reviewed scientific study, and I’m quite thrilled to read all about it.
Of course I do. The Left is always so good at taking on topics in such a superficial way. “Let’s solve world hunger”, “End poverty”, “Give peace a chance”, “No more Big Oil”.
It’s all fine and dandy. They’re great slogans, if not at times impossibly idealistic. The world is more complicated than you give it credit for. We’ll wean ourselves from oil dependence, but that dependence has been encouraged by the world’s population for decades. The internal combustion engine is very efficient and very omnipresent. Finding an alternative will take time and, yes, consensus, among everyone, including the environmentalists. WE made it this bad, and WE will have to correct it, but it will take a very long time, and the demagoguing about the “End of the World”, or posturing with touchy-feely and overly-idealistic slogans is not going to help matters.
Show me a peer reviewed scientific study which ‘proves’, or at least persuasively demonstrates, that man has made a significant impact on climate change.
erm, no, it’s precisely why he disses the dissent:
I agree, but there’s more junk science surrounding the issue than real science. Too much R&D money at stake for sober analysis from that community. Hence, my skepticism.
Do your own homework.
Sorry, where are those meetings held? I have never seen or heard anyone suggesting that we should “solve world hunger.”
That’s to the left …. of what? To the left of the second bench at the park? Or … east of the sun, west of the moon? Ya lost me.
Oh, it’s to the left on your Spoofapalooza Ouija board. Sorry.
Wow… that’s basically what Al Gore is saying.
Really Brian… Stop arguing for the sake or arguing. It’s fucking boring.
I love it. This represents the best of the Republican War on Being Moderately Intelligent.
The eco-movement came into being and led to legislation and action that cleaned up the god damned environment, in spite of millions of Darrells talking about consequent economic devastation. It’s because of those damn eco-weenies that you’re breathing clean air and drinking clean water. It’s because of their work that death and doom hasn’t come to pass.
Man, it’s a lose-lose situation for liberals. If you win the day and protect the environment, functionally retarded half-wits like Brian say, “Look, the environment is fine! You doomsayers are so negative!” If you lose, you get to choke on the smog and sit through the hurricanes with the morons.
Isn’t there a schoolyard you like to stalk somewhere?
War on Drugs, War on Terror.
This isn’t about touchy feely. This is about PROFITING from doing right by the planet on which we live. We all love PROFIT, right? You’re one of those people that would cut off your nose to spite your face. Normally I wouldn’t have a problem with what you do to yourself, but the oil spills, and deforestation, and superfund sights that you don’t give a shit about, affect me and my family’s future.
Ah, the Imhoffian ‘Junk-science’ charge…if we’re going to analyse the science based on economic incentives, I think there is rather more reason to be skeptical of the skeptics, if that makes sense.
Just because the flies make you swat at them doesn’t mean that they are taking over. They are still just flies.
There are hundreds, literally hundreds. Can you show me ONE that disagrees?
The Other Steve
I found this link on airplane fuel efficiency.
This article appears to indicate that a jet plane fully loaded is pretty fuel efficient in terms of moving passengers. The key is keeping them loaded, and the improved engine technologies.
The Other Steve
Out of curiosity, do you consider a report sponsored by an oil company claiming oil causes no pollution junk science?
That’s a dishonest as hell characterization of what Lindzen said. He did not announce some arrogant betting challenge as Steve is suggesting
Amazing what a little honest context will do
Gore is saying there is consensus. I am saying there is not consensus.
Really? What are the top 1 or 2 studies which ‘prove’ man is a significant cause of changes in the earth’s climate temperature? And how then, does such a paper explain the ice age with higher CO2 levels before man existed?
Amazing that someone who says he is willing to bet on a proposition, and claims “I think the odds are about 50-50,” yet won’t actually bet you unless he gets 50:1 odds, isn’t an obvious liar. Only on Planet Darrell!
I’d also like to see the study which demonstrate this ‘consensus’ among scientific researchers that global warming (or cooling) is caused by man
One peer-reviewed study that concludes man is not a significant cause of the current climate change. Only one, that’s all we ask.
Yeah, some “bet” jackass. Kind of like saying, ‘I’ll bet KOS is still hoping for Fitzmas’ constitutes any sort of real betting challenge. Do you see how dishonest you are?
Where is the evidence of any consensus on the causes of global warming? Is there any study, peer reviewed or otherwise, which demonstrates this consensus?
Wait … The architects of the Iraq War were liberals?
Now, I anticipate some accusatory reponses to this, but I still don’t see how climate change can be blamed squarely on humans and not attributed to natural occurence.
Before you slam me with a thousand links to climatechange.org or whatever, think about my question.
I am not questioning the existence of climate change. It has always been changing, and always will be changing. Anybody who warns us about “climate change” isn’t making any sense. It’s like warning someone about the sunrise.
And I am not questioning the fact that humans have a detrimental effect on our environement. We obviously, and unfortunately, do.
I am asking for some proof to show that DRASTIC measures are needed to save the world from impending destruction, which is what I am being told.
I don’t defend Big Oil. I don’t appreciate people who litter or who drive Hummer’s for no good reason. And I don’t reject the global warming obsession simply because it’s largely a ‘liberal’ obsession.
I also don’t appreciate computer models being touted as valid, reliable science. I know that THEY AREN’T.
And when someone, whoever, denies the existence or intelligence of the thousands of esteemed climate change skeptics, then I am forced to look very skeptically at the individual, organization, or film which wants to discredit or ignore those skeptics and there legitimate questions.
AND, to add to this, up above “Steve” threw in a quick comment about Kyoto…and it’s that kind of, shall I say…err…illogical acceptance of delusional policy which makes me doubly doubtful of the climate catastrophe crowd.
Kyoto has been a monumental failure in the countries which ratified it. And even if you don’t want to dub it a failure, you can’t deny that many of the countries which ratified it have failed to implement it fully or properly, and still other countries openly debate dropping out of the treaty. That, to me, is anything but success.
I keep up on my reading about climate change, and I have done a lot of reading on it. I am not expert, and I don’t claim to be, but I am still not convinced. I am in college, as a graduate student, and I have not seen any evidence to put me into the catastrophic climate change camp.
Does that evidence exist, or are we still relying on computer models? Are we still blaming a nasty Hurricane Season on gas guzzlers? Are we still going to insist that faulty, half-assed policy like Kyoto is going to fix the actual problem of pollution?
Are we still getting worked up by movies?
Still, something must be done to limit human pollution and to correct previous damage done. But marching lockstep to the climate change drum isn’t necessarily the best plan.
Well, this comment is far too long. I hope I remember to come back and reply to any responses I get because I would like to see the evidence that supposedly merits the warnings of doom. Real evidence would convince me, I want to be convinced.
I am very environmentally-minded and wouldn’t mind in the least knowing that I was formerly wrong to be skeptical. I actually want to be proved wrong, really! But so far the “facts” have been questionable.
We already went over this once, Darrell. A review of over 900 peer-reviewed studies on climate change over the last decade found that three-quarters of them found human activity was a significant contributor, and the other quarter expressed no opinion. And you were all like “oh, but the person who reviewed the 900 studies was only a professor of science history, not a climate change scientist, so they were incapable of evaluating what the studies concluded.” You will forgive me for not wanting to go through that sham debate again.
This is why Democrats can’t win elections.
You have a very, very serious reading problem if you think I was endorsing the Kyoto Protocol.
That’s like asking if there’s any one tree that demonstrates the forest.
Where’s the science for the global warming skeptics? The dog must’ve buried it and the ID science in Exxon’s back yard.
Steve, if not endorsing it indrectly by characterizing its opponents as dishonest or dupes, then what were you doing?
BTW, although I would guess that you do, I didnt say you endorsed it. Reading problem, anyone?
And, as for your 900 STUDY REVIEW…that isn’t really proof of anything except for the fact that more studies have been done by people looking to prove global warmings existence or to prove man’s culpability than have been done by skeptics.
The proof might exist in those studies, it certainly doesn’t exist in a running tally.
I am equally interested in the 25% that formed the opposition…and the other “significant” factors…
Yes. As we all know, science has a well-proven liberal bias.
So you”ve discounted the majority of global warming studies as the product of people simply looking for what they want to see, but because the other 25% might tell you what you want to see, they’re worth looking at?
Robert C. Balling, the author of the” fact-checking” piece at TCSDaily, represents the oil industry on global warming issues. He is a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Nevada Petroleum Society, Western Fuels Association, ad infinitum.
While everyone is entitled to entitled to an opinion, asking Balling for a scientific opinion on global warming is about the same as asking the Tobacco Industry’s “medical experts” whether cigarettes cause cancer.
QuickRob, I doubt you’ll find what you’re looking for in the other 25%. Your best bet is to go hang out at some wingnut website where you can receive your insta-degree in climatology and start talking about all the questionable evidence and junk science without ever mentioning it.
QuickRob, your last comment shows, at the very least, an ignorance of how scientific peer review publishing works.
Wow, QuickRob is like a particularly dim-witted Al Maviva, and yet he has the ability to use paragraph breaks.
So you’‘ve discounted the majority of global warming studies as the product of people simply looking for what they want to see, but because the other 25% might tell you what you want to see, they’re worth looking at?
No, what I meanis that you can’t take for fact ANYTHING that can be considered scientifically lacking 1 out of 4 times.
Why don’t you educate me since you are so intelligent.
Show me how dumb I am for not taking as fact something which is not yet a fact.
So far no one has any FACTS.
Can anyone tell me why the planet has been considerably warmer – even, dare I say, HOTTER – in the past.
Without man-made pollution?
Before the advent of the Hummer?
Before, even, the discovery of fire?
Can anyone tell me how they know that the Earth’s surface temperature hasn’t been in flux for all time? Can anyone illuminate me on how they have come to KNOW that ending pollution today would somehow stop the globe from warming?
I am eager to know.
Please read Steve’s post again before you waste any more time with this nonsense. The 25% expressed no opinon – they weren’t in “opposition,” and the fact that they expressed no opinion certainly doesn’t mean that the other studies are “scientifically lacking.”
Based on your work here so far, I don’t think this will ever be a problem for you.
Yes, I’ll concede that the earth was hotter before the discovery of fire. Back when it was still a molten sphere of magma, before it had cooled and life formed.
As far as the rest of your questions, I’ve got my own 3-year-old to deal with. Go find a patient parent to walk you through it.
Once again…short on facts.
And as for proving me wrong, no one has proved anything right or wrong. We are arguing about something which is, insofar as scientific fact goes, not proven.
I’ll try once for good measure (though my inclination is to ask for better skeptics…)
No, it means that 3/4 of 900 peer reviewed (likely methodologically sound) studies have found such a link, while 1/4 can neither confirm nor deny. If you are trying to prove something, there is all kinds of stuff you can do with the data, but people can tell – (see the debate over the Abortion/Crime statistics Re: Freakonomics)
Again, we are short on facts.
Leaving aside the Earth being a molten rock at one time why dont you try and actually put forth a genuine argument…if capable.
Tell your kid I said Hi, though.
Congratulations, everyone, because so far I am getting just the lame, accusatory replies I expected. And, as expected, no facts. NONE.
It takes remarkably little imagination to understand why so many skeptics agree on the lack of evidence to support the rabid global warming advocates.
Was that hour 2 of the first day of Creation or hour 3?
Date May 6 2006, from the website of the Climate Change Science Program. This is the president’s own program, the one he announced in June 2001.
Who can tell me what the work product of this program has been, and what message to Congress and the public has been delivered by this program?
What is the purpose of this program? No, really, without looking … can anyone tell me?
I will admit my sentence you blockquoted was poorly worded, and you are right to argue with my semantics.
Regardless, that study proves nothing. The individual experiments MIGHT prove something, but they were all done differently (or at least most of them are quite unlikely to be done the same, although I assume some of them could have been repeats to verify results or whatever)…
All the studies, clumped together, prove nothing. If they had such value, they would be cited individually and fleshed out instead of clumped together as is being done.
And I bet they all have varying definitions of “significant”, varying contributors funding the research, etc.
Talking about the study does zero to prove anything. Maybe a link to the study would be nice, I didnt see one so far. But ultimately one would need to examine the individual experiments to guage the validity of the study, something none of us has time to do right now.
Timmy referenced TCS (but provided no link, from what I could tell). So, here’s a link from the same site that just might answer some of his questions.
Quickrob I have no facts for you, because I’m not too worried about global warming. I dunno if it’s true but a part of me kind of hopes it is. I believe a 90% population wipeout from global warming/human induced ice age is preferable to a 100% population wipeout from global nuclear war, which on our present course as a people seems inevitable. Bring on the next ice age to save humanity lol.
Quick rob, instead of sitting here waiting for proof on a blog, how about going to google…I just did…entered “scientific opinion on global warming” and bob’s your uncle, there is a ton online. But it is easier to carp here rather than go find out yourself. Of course if your worried that the information may not be to your liking, of course, flail away here. :)
First, go educate yourself about the scientific method. Then, go do some reading about Venus.
In other words, come back when your scientific literacy level equals that of a 10-year-old and we’ll talk.
And, to repeat, I agree that human pollution is damaging the environment.
I cant agree with the rabid, wild prophets of doom. And I can’t accept fauly science based on computer modeling.
And to repeat, the Earth is warming. That’s undenyable. And many scientists think it’s mostly caused by humans.
Besides the fact that scientists aren’t infallible, and have been gravely wrong in the past, no study so far seems to deal a decisive blow to the fact that the planet has warmed and cooled at varying speeds since it came into existence.
What is there to prove this is not more natural, as opposed to more human-caused.
You can show me ten scientists saying it’s all human-caused, but what study do they cite which discounts nature’s normal effect?
capelza, I am a student earning a doctorate right now. I have googled all about global warming and I am not nearly convinced. thanks for the tip, though …
First, go educate yourself about the scientific method. Then, go do some reading about Venus.
In other words, come back when your scientific literacy level equals that of a 10-year-old and we’ll talk.
How nasty! I know enough about the scientific method to not have any desire to argue about it with you.
But its your style of “Im smarter that you” attitude that can fuel any skeptic. It’s not easy to take someone with such arrogance seriously, especially when they rely on vitriol instead of cold, hard FACTS
Welp, not that Im not having a dandy time getting insulted by people unwilling to present coherent arguments or reply to actual questions, but it is dinner time.
Really, it’s been, errr…enlightening! In fact so enlighting that I think I detect some warming.
Probably because no one is debating that point, Rob.
Go read. Please.
There’s no question that policy should be directed by faith, and not science. Our faith-based president knows that his instincts and love for America will guide him in the direction. He knows that discrediting science, and emphasizing tradition and faith, are the right course for America, and the world.
Can anyone here prove that prayer is not the best action item we can take away from this discussion?
Exactly, a resounding “No!”
Sure has. This is the climate version of the ID movement we are witnessing here. Just as we know that when we hear people say “The dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago” we can respond, “Oh? Were you there?” … in the same way, when we hear people say “Our carbon footprint is warming the earth” we can say, “Oh really? Can you PROVE it?”
Science never has proof. It has theories, and we can’t run the world on theories. The earth is a big greenhouse? Really? DO YOU SEE GIANT PLATES OF GLASS UP IN THE SKY?
No, I mean WHAT?
Ok, I’m done, we need better skeptics.
So to satisfy you and Darrell, we both need to show consensus and discuss each of the 675 or so studies that provide scientific proof of global warming? Yeah, I’ll get right on that.
Maybe Rob would find a more receptive audience for his wide-eyed scepticism here.
Let’s see…sinister conspiracy, or already linked by a previous commenter? I’ll let the jury decide.
Well let’s just say that a modicum of reasonable skepticism is in order.
What, then, is the correct posture WRT policy and treaties?
What would the intelligent, prudent government be doing right now?
As opposed, you know, to the one we actually have?
Surely you jest. Scepticism stops at the edge of science. Economic forecasts predicting the failure of imposed carbon controls are the equivalent of divine writ. They should be followed as if they were Bush himself.
Well, I gave it a shot ;-)
Gregg Easterbrook, a recent convert to the camp that subscribes to the Global Warming theories, has written about the new movie in mixed terms. He notes that “An Inconvenient Truth asserts that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is a realistic short-term prospect…[He notes that] the latest major study of austral land ice detected a thawing rate that would add two to three inches to sea level during this century. Such findings are among the arguments that something serious is going on with Earth’s climate. But the science-consensus forecast about sea-level rise is plenty bad enough. Why does An Inconvenient Truth use disaster-movie speculation?” In general, he doesn’t appear to think much of the movie.
But he loves football cheerleaders…
I just wish all the wonderous “skeptics” posting here would actually question all the “evidence” concerning: 1)Iraq; 2)tax-cuts for the wealthy; 3) levee construction in New Orleans. Apparently evidence is only necessary when your a liberal.
Par’s argument reminds me of an old pilot joke.
Flying at night over unfamiliar terrain with no chart, the pilot and copilot discuss what to do.
P: How high is that highest peak in this region?
CP: Well, it was either 4,000 feet or 6,000 feet, can’t remember which.
P: Okay, let’s split the difference and fly at 5,000.
Dinner was good.
Back to the point. Like I have been saying:
Who can prove global warming is due to human involvement to a degree great enough to warrant the kind of action Al Gore suggests?
I dont want total scientific consensus, as someone above said. I never said that. But if 1 in 4 dont agree that humans are the cause of this warming, then that goes to show something important.
I recognize that the planet might be being warmed due to the influence of human pollution. It seems logical, but its equally logical that this warming is yet another in a long series of warmings and coolings that have taken place repeatedly, including numerous times in the past few hundred years.
I dont require rock solid proof that humans are causing this global warming we see today, but I do require SOMETHING to show me that this is not the kind of global warming that has occured so many times already in the past, before humans polluted.
As of today, that evidence does not exist. To craft policy around something that isn’t adequately supported by evidence seems to be a bad idea.
It’s always a good idea to pollute less and to work towards cleaner technology and fuels. No one is contesting that.
BUT when we have people lying about hurricanes, misrepresenting science, and relying on computer models, then we have a problem. And I am still waiting on the proof that makes global warming a problem that government policy can or should fix.
I don’t really believe it’s a problem government can fix, just like they can’t make drug addicts change if the addict doesn’t want to change. It will have to be a change in peoples perceptions, attitudes and habits. To me that doesn’t seem like something you can legislate … Sad too because some people will reject those kinds of changes completely. Srill, it’s better than the alternative(nuclear holocaust).
I saw the movie tonight. It is really worth seeing.
Let’s be clear about this figure. Of the 900+ climate change papers written in the last decade, 3 out of 4 conclude that human activity plays a significant role in the present warming trend. But that doesn’t mean that 1 out of 4 papers disagrees; in fact, not a single one of those papers disagrees. It just means those 1 out of 4 were about other climate change topics that don’t touch upon the issue of human involvement at all.
I would recommend that most of the non-Darrells out there set aside the notion that Al Gore wants us to radically change the nature of our society in some awful way, which isn’t the case, and just go check out the movie. It’s very worthwhile.
We all know that QuickRob is DougJ, right?
Hate to clue you in, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We emit CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 260-280 ppm (~1750) to 365 ppm. Logically, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in trapped heat. Meaning that CO2 would be responsible for an increase in global average temperature, which is what we are showing.
Stop trying to confuse the issue with all of your ‘facts’ and ‘logic.’ Listen to what your gut is telling you instead.
My gut tells me that CO2 is harmless, and makes your voice sound hilarious when you inhale it.
Cleaning up after you guys …
Yes, DougJ has at least one new spoof on this thread.
And … it’s helium that makes your voice go squeaky, not carbon dioxide. All good cuts of meat know that!
Say “what” again. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker. Say what one more goddamn time.
Sorry, Timmy. I should have known that that link was posted SOMEWHERE on this blog in the comments, right?
Saw this nice post which illustrates one of my earlier comments in this thread. Happy reading, moonbats.
The problem, however, is that there are plenty of middle-aged men who think that driving a Prius is tantamount to death. “I’m going to drive my goddamned SUV to PROVE that I still have a pecker in my pants” is the mentality you are dealing with. And to them, asking them to give up the Lincoln Navigator for even something with better gas mileage is a radical change.
Sadly, the world suffers because middle-aged Marty really thinks that the blonde sexpot will really be in love with him if he drives the Navigator.
Color blind and can’t see the big, bright, blue text indicating links?
Or just ADD?
Or just laziness?
I would like to submit this piece, a speech by Michael Crichton a couple years ago, as the voice of a person I will listen to on this topic. This line echoes what I wrote up-thread:
Translation: much more powerful than we imagine, yet we think we have power over the world.
Gore, David, et al, represent Environmentalism as Religion. I prefer to seek out the voices that represent scientific reality, not fantasy. There may be some truthiness to Gore’s film, just like there may have been some truthiness to Michael Moore’s movie. It nevertheless picks its science very carefully (cherrypicking the intel, as you like to say) in order to remain within the religion’s dogma.
I hope you read the link, but I won’t be surprised if you don’t, instead preferring some witty comeback or snide swipe at Crichton or my fellow skeptics, anyone who dares to challenge your eco-religion or touchy-feely liberalism.
Where is the link to TCS in Tim’s post? This was my issue. If it’s not there, it should be. Why is this so difficult for you people? The simplest things you can’t grasp, why should I think you can grasp something like Global Warming?
The Other Steve
So Michael Crichton now represents the latest in Junk Science?
Tim in SF
more here. It’s a good read..
Tim in SF
It sounds like many here (QuickBob, et al.) are confusing consensus with unanimous. My dictionary defines “consensus” as “general agreement.” You aren’t going to get complete unanimity among scientists on anything, and I mean *anything* *(see scientist, tobacco.) Consensus, a general agreement, is the best you’ll ever get. And there is a general agreement among climatologists that human activity is causing some of the warming we are experiencing. That number goes up much higher if you exclude the scientists on the take from Exxon.
I was reading your comments and so skipped to the end to put something down. I apologise if I end up repeating what someone has said that I have missed.
The Sun is the originator of the vast bulk of energy that you enjoy on the Earth. Most of the energy comes in the form of radiation and a substantial part of that is in the visible spectrum though we are also hit by UV and X-rays. The latter are mostly absorbed by the upper atmosphere. However the layered atmosphere operates under a series of complex interactions with mass, momentum and energy passed between the different components of the coupled system.
Now this is not a static coupled system, it is dynamic on very short and long timescales. For example the output of the sun is cyclic in nature, it operates on an ~11 year cycle (actually 22 years) determined by the orientation and complexity of the Sun’s magnetic field. At the moment we are in a period of solar minimum that occurs when the sun’s field is generally more dipolar, in a couple of years it will swing towards active again. This can be seen by the number of sunspots on the sun, at present there are few, during active times there are more. It was the lack of sunspots during the Maunder minimum that helped alert scientists to the influence these cycle could have on climate; the Maunder occurred at the same time as the Little Ice Age. Of course the 11 year cycle occurs on a background of longer cycles, some of them stretching to thousands of years. We are currently on an upswing in one of these trends meaning that activity from the sun is on average higher now than it was a few hundred years ago. At the simplest level without resorting to complictaed climate models we know that empirically we can take things like sunspot numbers and correlate them with various historical temperature indicators and we find good to excellent correlation (correlation of cause does not = causation). At least we did, until you hit the 19th century when things start to go amiss. There are additional increases that cannot be accounted for by purely solar input, this dovetails nicley with increases in CO2 and methane and watervapour in the atmosphere. And here is the worrying thing for me as a solar-terrestrial physicist; if we are on an upswing and we are deviating from the predicted path, what does that mean for the natural cycle?
Look at it this way. Imagine an oscillatory system like a pendulum. Neglecting friction in the system, this pendulum will swing backwards and forwards forever in simple harmonic motion, converting from potential to kinetic to potential energy all the while. Now lets say you start flicking the ball with your finger, you will break up the pattern, if you do it in time with the swing you will enlarge the amplitude. If you apply a constant force in one direction, you will break the SHM and at some point the system breaks down with the restoring force of the pendulum unable to overcome your additional forcing. That is what seems to be happening with the climate, the temperature is deviating from the expected pattern and looks to be heading to a point where the system will break down.
So in brief (heh). The Sun has been responsible for the various changes in climate since the Earth began (with a little help from volcanoes and asteroid strikes). This time, though the Sun’s influence cannot explain the changes that we observe. The Earth is in no danger from what might happen as a consequence, but we and other species are.
Apologies for the length of this comment. I hope it is clear. I recommend reading about the subject in journals such as Geophysical Reserach Letters and the Journal of Geophysical Research. You will get much better information there than you will get from people such as, for example, Michael Crichton, who quite frankly as far as this subject is concerned, couldn’t find his arse with both hands and an atlas.
sorry to be repetative but you said this:
Okay this isn’t true, just because you have not seen it does not mean it isn’t out there. I recommend that you go and immerse yourself in the scientific literature – I can’t supply links to most of it since it often requires subscription (particularly the AGU journals) but try your local library or local university library.
I really don’t buy into this whole thing yet. As others have mentioned, I too lived through the whole “the ice age is coming” thing in the 70’s. Yeah I know – the science has matured and this time I really should believe you because now you really do know what you are talking about…
At the same time, I don’t see anything wrong with trying to do something about it mainly because it aligns with something I do believe strongly in – reducing our dependency on the oil ticks in the ME.
So I do my part. I take public transportation whenever I can, even when it is not convenient. I spend more time on the city bus rubbing shoulders with folks whose last exposure to soap and water was some time ago then I do in my car. I keep the thermostat as low as I can stand it in the winter and only run the AC in the summer when the fan just doesn’t cut it and the dog is about to die (yes – future generations will suffer for the comfort of my dog). I don’t think the hybrids are quite there yet but I will buy an alternative-fuel vehicle as soon as alternative fuel is locally available and a gallon of ethanol costs less to produce energy-wise than burning a gallon of gas.
But what chaffs my ass is these limousine liberals, telling me how to live my life while they take their chauffeured Towncar from their 20,000 square ft. mansion where three people live (not counting the domestic help) to the airport to fly in their private jet across the country to the next hot premier.
Tell you what Arianna – you can tell me how to live my life just as soon as you raze the mansion and put in a nice little economy-friendly three bedroom pre-built in it’s place. Also of course you have to lose the private jet and start flying tourist class with the low-lifes. You and all your friends – start walking the walk. Maybe then I’ll give you the tiniest bit of respect and grant you some credibility.
What chaps my ass are wingnut conservatives like OCSteve that come up with these pithy little terms that are based mostly on specious bullshit that shows up on the Drudge Report.
Brian, Michael Crichton’s speech was just as inane as his book was and yes, I have read both. At least in the speech he laid out more clearly what exactly he was trying to say.
Let’s try an analogy. Michael Crichton claims that some environmentalists warned about overpopulation and overpopulation is correcting itself. Arguably so, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Since they got that and a few (mostly unnamed) other things wrong environmentalists cannot be trusted to make predictions. Now I could argue that rightwingers, let’s say you for the sake of argument, argued feverishly that Saddam Hussein had WMDs or at least actuive WMD programs and could/would hand them over to Al Qaeda like tomorrow (!!). They/you were completely wrong and I could list a dozen or more national security-related matters about which rightwingers were also wrong to varying degrees. Maybe the important thing is that they were wrong but in being wrong served a purpose that was ultimately right. Sound familiar?
Clearly the only conclusion that I could take from that is that rightwingerism is a religion full of mentally imbalanced people who cannot be trusted on matters of national security. You would obviously disagree so let’s do the honest thing and set aside Crichton’s cheap character smear.
This doesn’t actually play a significant part in Crichton’s talk, which is good for Crichton because if it did Crichton would be a twit. He instead argues that of course people are impacting the world, but it is (in his view) wrong to say that our impact is bad because the Eden to which many environmentalists want to return would be a very bad place to break your ankle.
This is not a wrong statement per se, in that many environmentalists actually are vapid enough to think that like that. That means that all environmentalists are tools, right? Using similar logic I could discredit rightwingerism because all rightwingers think we should nuke Fallujah. The fallacy is called composition.
In fact the larger portion of environmentalists don’t care about any ‘eden’ state, they care about keeping the world just intact enough for people to go on living on it in perpetuity. You don’t hear about these people so much relative to the dreadlocked activists because they’re otherwise known as ‘ordinary people.’ We environmentalists have a big tent, which both you and Crichton want to deny because small tents are much easier to kick over. Acknowledging that people who disagree with you might have perfectly rational, well-intentioned and diverse motives makes dismissing them harder but it’s the first step to maturity. Maybe even the last.
Sorry, ppGaz. My gut says you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It was really traumatic for me. That’s probably my most intense childhood memory — the discussion of the coming ice age. I remember lying awake at night, worrying about the coming cold, having nightmares about the glaciers, thinking “what if the ice age starts tonight, will my cat live through the night outdoors, will the bus still come in the morning”?
And it was everywhere. Turn on the news, you hear the local weatherman talking about the ice age. Put on the radio — more of the same. There was movie after movie about it — “Back To the Ice Age” with Michael J. Fox, “My Favorite Ice Age” with Alan Alda and Peter O’Toole. There were ABC after school specials about it.
I tell you, it was everywhere. Everywhere I turned it was ice age this and ice age that. It was terrible, just terrible.
I’m kinda with OCSteve on that one. Getting lectured by jet setting liberals, especially a guy like Gore who rolls with a four car posse, is pretty funny. I recycle. I drive a fairly fuel efficient small pickup. I ride a bicycle to work most days, as well as to the coffee shop, and whenever the errands are minor enough that I can carry the booty in a backpack. And no, I’m not an urban rider, I live in a high density (i.e. “sustainable growth”) suburb, but the nearest coffee shop is 6 miles, the drugstore and grocery are 2, so it’s a bit of a hike. I believe we need to cut wayyy back on the oil we are using, grow up about the idea of nuke power because that’s a fair to middling interim solution, and pour a lot of money into alternative fuel R&D. Our next family car is likely to be a hybrid.
But getting lectured about all this by very rich conspicuous consumers is galling as all hell – it is like getting lectured on my dietary habits by Marie Antoinette. Driving a Toyota Pious, indeed.
Al is right too. When it comes to arguments, I have no interest in the merits of what the other person is saying. If the other person strikes me as “liberal” or a “jet setter”, then he’s wrong. I don’t care what the facts are.
And my posts are so long and incoherent that no one can make heads or tails of what I am trying to say, anyway, so I can always claim I’ve won the argument. That’s why I don’t worry too much about what the moonbats call “facts”.
That’s what works for me. That’s why three or four people visit my blog every day. No, it’s not because they thought “Cold Fury” was the title of the new Sam Jackson movie!
And if Gore had taken a bus to the screening, what would y’all have said then?
I’ll tell you: You’d have said “Oh, come on. We know he really doesn’t take buses most of the time. What a lying simp.”
How about if I lecture you? I drive a civic HX which I use maybe once a week and live on a grad student “salary.” Heck, I even have a relevant graduate degree! You should pay me to do it.
Shorter OCSteve and Al Malviva:
Al Gore is a hypocrit. Oh, and ignore Fat Hastert getting into his SUV and driving to the Capitol after giving a press conference about conservation.
Come on, Purple, Denny’s just doing his part to fend off the coming ice age we heard so much about the 1970s. Anyone but me remember rocking out to that great Foreigner song about the coming ice age? It’s amazing how much we heard about that in the 70s, just amazing. It was like Natalee Holloway, 911, Monica Lewinsky, and American Idol all rolled into one. That ice age talk literally dominated the national debate for the entire decade.
One point that I drew from the movie is that the solution has to be political. Yes, on a personal level, you can recycle, drive a hybrid, whatever, and that’s up to you. But if the policymakers don’t care about the issue, it’s ultimately not going to matter if you turn down your thermostat.
Anothing thing I took away from it is that any solution has to include the rapidly industrializing countries of China and India. It won’t matter much what you and I do if there are 2.5 billion people on the other side of the world who aren’t doing it.
The final lesson I learned is not to waste my time arguing the topic with the Darrells of the world. There are enough people who simply don’t know enough about the subject, and are more than willing to keep an open mind, that those who are opposed to action just because icky liberals favor it can simply be dragged along kicking and screaming.
Try some Pepto-Bismol?
Of course I know what I am talking about. Haven’t you seen my url? I drive a car that gets 40 mpg. I bought a house 2 miles from the office. I am personally saving you from global warming and high gas prices. It’s a thankless job, but somebody has to do it. My carbon footprint is so small, you’d need a magnifying glass to see it.
Not to mention, DougJ, that Carter was in league with the glaciers. Turn down the thermostats? No thanks, El Presidente de Frío, that’s our last line of defense.
Thank god we turned out that objectively pro-ice age peanut farmer for a president who saved us from speaking Russian and living in New Siberia.
ppGaz, for the last time: your facts are meaningless to me. I don’t need a dissertation from a book nerd to make up my mind; I just need my gut.
And right now my gut is telling me that the greenhouse effect is great, and it’s going to let us grow some wicked awesome plants. I’m talking tomatoes the size of Denny Hastert’s head, man.
I just don’t know why people bitch and moan and keep saying, “Oh well, we don’t KNOW that all of these measures will help the environment.” Maybe we don’t. But why not do what we can anyway? Is it really that much of a horrible inconvenience?
When you consider the horrible lives that some people have, I really don’t have a whole lot of patience for people who whine about being pressured to recycle or not drive a gas-guzzler, or (heaven forbid!) walk. My county has a mandatory recycling and composting program. It took some getting used to (“Honey, what bin does this go in again?”), but I’m now so used to it, that when I go to someone else’s home, in a place with no recycling program, it feels really weird and wrong to be tossing recyclables and compostables in the garbage. My boyfriend and I produce one kitchen-catcher size bag’s worth of garbage a week. That’s it.
And, no, we don’t know the exact effects that all of our efforts will have. But it’s really not that much of an effort, and it sure as hell won’t make things worse. And we do know that humans are producing too much garbage and too much pollution, even if we haven’t yet determined the long-term effects of this. And if all the whiners stopped splitting hairs in regards to global warming, and just gave environmental responsibility a try, maybe we would actually see changes. But we’re sure as hell not going to see changes if everybody just stands around saying, “Well, I won’t give up my SUV because you can’t provide me with incontestable proof that it affects global warming.”
The Other Steve
I thought someone looked that up after the wingnuts reported it, and it turned out to be false? That they walked from the Hotel.
It’s interesting how Limousine Morons like Al continue to repeat falsehoods long after they are deemed false for the sole purpose of justifying their moronitivity.
The Other Steve
Clearly everything Al Malvo has said is completely and utterly false, because I caught him in one lie.
The Other Steve
I moved 4 miles away from work. It’s an incredible thing, knowing you can get to work in only about 10 minutes no matter how bad the weather.
All that stuff is fine and dandy in a micro sense. I’m with you on all that stuff. But as for gas guzzlers, if someone wants to drive a Hummer, I may not approve of their choice, but I’m not going to begrudge them of the choice, if they’re willing to pay the price.
It’s people that think that someone who drives a Hummer is somehow affecting the lives and health of other people, like some hard form of second-hand smoke, who I part with. It’s become a relgion, that the true-believers think gives them the duty to shame other people into changing their behaviors in very micro ways in order to SAVE THE PLANET FROM EXTINCTION!!! It’s all so absurd.
I have a jet? I have a limo? Well alrighty then…no more walking to the store for me! Now, can anyone tell me where I parked them?
DougJ…“My Favorite Ice Age” with Alan Alda and Peter O’Toole. Best.movie.ever.
To make another point:
Do you believe the planet will be extinct in 50 years? This is what some of the tru believers think. Is this what you believe? It’s this sort of over-the-top nonsense, all in the name of “science” that I find so unacceptable.
Brian…come to Portland Oregon, where smokers are very thin on the ground, when there is an inversion layer keeping all that sweet smog, that acrid, dirty yellow stuff, in the basin. That ain’t second hand smoke my friend.
Brian, as for the planet being “extinct” in 50 years…the Rapture wing of the GOP thinks so, too. I know, because I saw it on TV.
Here we go again. Did you know that some rightwingers want to nuke Fallujah? Truth. Ergo, rightwingerism is at its heart childish and impenetrable to real-world considerations.
A cold biscuit to whoever spots my fallacy.
50 years? Probably not. Do I think that asthma and allergy rates will be through the roof in another 50 years. Oh yeah. Do I think that there will be many days where there are advisory warnings, saying that people with weakened respiratory systems should not go outside? Yes, I do. Do I think that large, inefficient vehicles are contributing to air pollution? Yes. Do I think that the vast majority of people who drive these vehicles only do so for show, and really have no need of a vehicle that size? Yes. Do I think we should ALL try to do our best to reduce our fuel consumption, energy consumption, and garbage and pollution output? Yes. Do I think that people who don’t do that, because they just don’t want to inconvenience themselves, are selfish arseholes? Yes.
Glad to see that we agree on the micro level. We may disagree on whether or not large vehicles affect air pollution. However, should we still not be encouraging people not to drive those behemoths, whether it’s in the interest of air cleanliness, or in the interest of reducing the dependence on oil? Either way, there would definitely a benefit, even if we don’t agree on the exact nature of the benefit.
I think I’ve got it. In reality, the correct statement would be: “ALL rightwingers want to nuke Fallujah.”
Do I win?
You do realize that you are talking to a spoof?
Very well could be, but then the whole Rapture crowd is s spoof, too. Except they don’t know it and one of them is our President. Watched “Left Behind2” yesterday. And people say “The DaVinci Code” is the worst movie ever…ha!
Well, the worst movie ever was The Wiz. That fact is not debatable.
But … who watched Left Behind 2? You, or the bushmonkey?
Yeah, but where you live, it might take you another twenty minutes to make it from the parking lot to the building. Depending on whether they salted the sidewalk.
Warlords of the 21st Century was far far worse than any other movie and quite a bit more relevant to this thread.
I watched it… :(. Actually my non religious step son had control of the remote and he thought it was just another cheesy scifi movie…it is, but he didn’t realise that it was a religious movie.
The Wiz? Well, yeah, you could be right. Anyone catch those 10.5 movies on TV this past weekend? Yikes.
I think anti-environmentalists are sorely under represented in this thread. Here are the facts:
– we all live in the environment
– 100% of the people that live in the environment DIE
Therefore the environment is dangerous! We must do all we can to stop the environment. I propose we start a War on the Environment.
Bad to the point of being campy. Makes me appreciate Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster.
Well, I consider the Apocaplypse-Rapture theme to be basically thinly disguised sociopathy. Those people have some balls calling that crap “religious.” There is nothing remotely religious about it.
Sorry, didn’t know about the retraction. Guess that removes the merit from everything I ever said. Man, it’s tough commmenting on a blog where I’m the only person that ever happened to.
The only times I’ve ever celeb spotted Gore in D.C., he was getting out of large black SUVs or limos. But they may have been hybrids. It was hard to tell, if I’m trundling into the Kennedy Center to find my cheap seats at some event, or trying to con my way into one restaurant or another, rest assured I’m on the wrong side of the rope line, kept well away from my moral and social betters.
Tim – you want to lecture me, that’s cool. You’ve established a prima facie case you have that right. But if you with your craftbrew/oatbran/bean sprouts HippieFuel diet fart more than me – thus releasing more methane and CO2 than I do – then you lose that privilege. I will not take correction from an individual with a greater carbon footprint than myself. As Al Gore reminds us, it’s a moral issue, and my New Year’s resolution was to reject environmental immorality. That, and stop committing serial violations of the Mann Act.
I loved the use of a “lever”. Effort, load and fulcrum were correct, but you were not using a lever you stupid twits. Our schools need to teach more about incline planes.
To me, the underlying thing about any of the arguments against global warming is the fact that these people are not willing to change ANY aspect of their lives. If one denies it ENOUGH then it just won’t happen.
You’d think that the idea that weaning ourselves off of oil would be a GOOD THING, poltically and environmentally. The huge denial that our interests in the ME has anything to do with our addiction to oil. That’s the biggest knee slapper of all. And I’m talking about PRE 9/11 you wingnuts.
One word… Beano. I live around meat eaters, let me tell you, farts aren’t just a hippie thing.
Next year, replace “Mann Act” with “Strunk & White.”
And what can I really say about my lying lying of lies about Al Gore taking cars to photo ops in Cannes?
I suppose I shouldn’t trust Reuters News Stories stating that kind of stuff any longer.
So, The Other Steve, I think that counts as a “here, have some crow now go pound sand” moment. Your turn.
And once again, the great Al Malviva ignores Hastert.
Really… how could you miss him?
Everything you do affects other people. You don’t live in a vacuum. Its the same reason why when you go to a national park they tell you not to pick up things and pick flowers.
Because even a miniscule change multiplied over millions of people and decades can have a dramatic effect.
So when you drive your 10mpg hummer its like driving 3 regular cars, and automobile pollution is a major contributor to smog, and smog is a major agrivator of asthma( lets even leave AGW out of it for a second). So if you could reduce by 1/3 the amount of smog pollutants you generate, thereby reducing the affects on asthma sufferers even by the smallest amount. Then multiply that by however many 10s of thousands of 10mpg vehicles. I think you will find the change quite large.
The Other Steve
What are you talking about Al?
Right here from the article…
Seriously, the point really goes back to Tim F’s comment about how ridiculous you want to paint things. Has Gore ever argued we should eliminate cars completely? What about planes? How stupid would that argument be?
So this claim of yours that he drove 4 cars, as though all 4 cars were solely for him. Didn’t cross your mind that they might have needed 4 cars because there were a group of people with him?
Whatever, you make a mockery of your self with your strawmen.
The Other Steve
None of you have seen the movie adaptation of Gor, have you?
Warlords got 3.6 stars out of 10. Gor got 3.1! And GOR had Academy Award winning actors Jack Palance and Oliver Reed!
You guys don’t even know the definition of BAD!
Let’s take this slowly.
QuickRob, what exactly are you disagreeing with? Let’s start at the top: Do you agree that there’s overwhelming evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing dramatically, due largely to human activity?
(By the way–as one graduate student to another–learn to spell “undeniable” before using it in arguments. Also, if you’re going to use your status as a grad student as a badge of authority, it would help to indicate your field and institution. If you’re in Earth Sciences at Caltech, then you have some actual knowledge that it’d be helpful to share. If you’re a sociologist at CSU Chico, you might as well have casually mentioned that you’re a professional acrobat, for purposes of this discussion.)
Michael Crichton is an ignorant celebrity activist. He’s like Barbra Streisand but less masculine.
Yeah, he thinks global warming is junk science, a giant international conspiracy, but if you read his autobiography “Travels” you will see that what he considers to be good real science includes psychic spoonbending, demonic possessiona and exorcism, and that plants can speak out loud–for real, seriously–in audible proper English–again, FOR REAL, SERIOUSLY.
He is a crackpot–the 9/11 Truth equivalent of the extremist anti-science wingnuts. Most of his arguments aren’t even scientific (except for the times when he cites in support of himself papers that actually CONTRADICT him–he’s a liar, y’see), but instead are rhetorical: “every dollar spent saving the environment doesn’t build schools or feed the poor; extinction is natural; the effects of this or that problem-solving policy are so bad that you should ignore the science behind the problem.”
I’m trying to find any discernible difference between global warming denialists, and Holocaust denialists.
And so far I’ve failed.
In both cases this meaninglessly tiny minority of freaks claims that a giant global conspiracy of lies is holding them down. That the very MECHANISM of examining the field (science or history) is biased towards the conspirators and enslaved towards their conspiracy–thus explaining why their side has no evidence. In both cases they attempt to cast doubt upon the fundamentals (“the Holocaust happened,” “global warming is real”) by using sentimentalized valence issues (“Wasn’t it wrong for Israel to bomb the U.S.S. Liberty?”, “Kyoto is a bad idea anyway!”).
And in both cases, they’re loud enough on the Internet to trick you into thinking they have any consequential presence amongst real people in reality.
One question for the so-called skeptics–QuickRob and Al Maviva, assuming any of you are actually serious:
What would it take to convince you?
What volume of scientific evidence, what amount of rigor in correlating causes to effects, would make you change your minds?
I ask because I really do think that once people have chosen to define themselves by denialism, it becomes impossible for them to ever actually learn. In one memorable, almost heartbreaking debate on Nova about evolution between William F. Buckley Jr. and some people who actually know what they are talking about, Buckley claimed that there were no transitional fossils and the scientists directed him to a reconstruction of the development of early mammals from mammal-like reptiles.
Buckley demanded they produce ANOTHER sequence of equal thoroughness.
I think that’s what we’re up against here.
Environmentalism is not a religion. Denialism is.
One last thought: The “global cooling of the ’70s” canard has been so thoroughly debunked so many times already that it is fair for anyone who ever again uses it to be just called a liar.
The conservative narrative on this thread:
One day in the community of Balloon Juice, Tim walked over to Darrell’s house and said, “Hey, all that loose trash you are dumping in your yard is really ruining the community. It is attracting vermin and the smell is really bad. Do you think you could stop?”
Well Darrell would have none of it. “Hey you hypocrite,” replied Darrell, “I see you put trash out in your yard, so why should I listen to you? And besides, the vermin are naturally occurring – they would be there anyway, regardless of my actions.”
“But, Darrell” said Tim, “I place my trash out in closed containers, not loose like you do. And though vermin do exist in nature, it is the consensus of the neighborhood that the extra trash left out in the open is not only attracting excess vermin but harming our community’s environment.”
“There is no unanimous opinion that the trash is causing the vermin or the smell,” barked Darrell. “Ask Al Maviva and Brian. They seem to think that my yard full of trash isn’t a threat to anyone. And besides, I’m an American so it’s my right to do whatever I want. Fuck off, Tim.”
I know it’s just a parable, but sadly we all actually live next to assholes like these guys.
Okay, Other Steve, now you’re just being tendentious. Why don’t you put the whole quote from the Reuters article in there?
That’s the whole quote. You have some nerve calling me a liar, Steve.
And Ancient Purple, hey, that’s a nice argument you have there, shorter version: “Because you failed to raise off-point arguments, you’re a POS.” If I fail to discuss Hastert in the midst of a discussion on global warming, all it means is I’m not addressing Hastert, nothing more, nothing less. I’m actually on record elsewhere as being ass pissed about Hastert as I feel I can be within the limits of libel law, and believe he is either corrupt or stupid, or possibly both.
Finally, TTT, I don’t doubt there is such a thing as climate change, I believe that’s well documented going back as far as the high Middle Ages. I do have serious questions about the accuracy of the predictive models cited by Gore, however, and the religious insistence that (1) the problem is immediately millenarian in scope; (2) that only immmediate, drastic action by the U.S. and Western Europe is going to head off the end of the world; and (3) that any of you are willing to accept the consequences of any remedial plan formulated starting with the premises that #1 and #2 are true. What exactly was debunked about it? That it wasn’t taught as science? Because it was what I was taught in middle school in Earth Science class, along with arguments out of Paul Ehrlich’s malthusian The Population Bomb. I was there, TTT. What is there to debunk about the fact that it was taught to me then? My skepticism stems largely from the nearly religious fervor with which the unsettled science was taught, which reminds me a lot of the “oracular” confidence (Howard Fineman’s term) displayed by Al Gore and some of his adherents today. I’m skeptical because I remember getting fed shit before by similarly confident people, and believing it. On the other hand, TTT, you’ve already defeated my argument and recitation of facts, by saying “anybody who disagrees with me is a liar.” So I probably shouldn’t even bother. Apparently, exclusive, objective, even oracular truth exists, right here in B.J… Who would have suspected it?
Whoa, major problems with the text editing cut & paste today. Sorry about the gibberish. Y’all seem to understand DougJ’s rambling though, so I assume you’ll be able to translate.
The Popelation Bomb? I remember that! When I was a kid…and the earth’s population was about half of what it is now…3+ billion then, what’s it now? 6 billion?
Have you seen the movie?
Look, Al, it’s simple. Whatever you heard about “global cooling” 30 years ago was based on popular twaddle from Time, Newsweek, and novels. The scientific community never got behind it. Global cooling was to the 1970s what cloning dinosaurs was to the 1990s: the media made it up.
I defy you, or anyone else, to cite so much as five (5) peer-reviewed published scientific sources, at any point in time, that claimed human activity was causing global cooling in the near term and that we ought to stop it.
If you were taught it in school, your teacher was wrong. Teachers make mistakes. My AP American History professor swore furiously that Robert Kennedy’s middle name was Fitzgerald, yet it was actually Francis. Teachers make mistakes–but their mistakes are not the mistakes of atmospheric scientists, yet it is the latter group you blame.
Shorter Al: If a guy who smokes tells me that smoking is bad, I’ll look no further into it, and assume that smoking is actually good for me.
In other words, I’m stupid, but my excuse is, I’m cranky.
Got a cigarette?
Oh man, don’t get me started. I has a 7th grade male math teacher who told us, IN CLASS, that girl’s weren’t very good with math and that he would focus on the boys. And then there’s that super duper Sociology prof I had that said multiple=partner marriages were the wave of the future. We’d all have husbands AND wives. Don’t get me started on the Anth prof who used the “Urantia Book” as a text book.
Actually am I the only person old enough to remember the late 60’s when Californis was supposed to sink into the ocean after an earthquake. “The Late, Great State of California”? That wasn’t taught in school, but it was a big pop culture thing. Much like “global cooling” and “ancient astronouts”.
Yes, it’s true – the “bulletproof” bubble-mobile that John Paul II rode around in was actually a WMD capable of ending all life on Earth. I thought everyone knew that.
Ha….that’s a good one. I can’t type for crap and I’m not wearing my glasses… :P
Still, I was suprised to see the Population Bomb thrown in the mix…the population of the planet doubling in 30 or 40 years? I think that can safely be called an explosion.
Google scholar is a great tool. Try an advanced search for “global cooling,” say between 1969 and 1980, and you get 40 references, most of which talk about past ice ages. Some few papers talk about the aerosol effect on cooling, in the most obscure journals imaginable.
Try a search for “Global Warming” during the same period and you get 72 references, nearly all of which specifically pertain to anthropogenic warming, and the credibility of the journals referenced spans the spectrum from obscure to preeminent.
The cooling idea simply never had any credibility in the scientific literature, especially compared with the much more prominent and mainstream concerns about carbon dioxide-induced warming. People who “remember” their teachers squeaking about cooling either had shitty teachers or a malleable memory.
Or they are simply conservative shills resurrecting yet another GOP zombie talking point.
Tom in Texas
Fool, or traitor — can’t they be both?
As do I, Brian…
Threat Level Yellow!
QuickRob = Spoof.
Yes, first on the list was the ever so disreputable “Journal of Geophysical Research”, followed by “Nature” magazine.. “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society”, and “Geographical Journal”.. and that’s just the first page.
Look Tim, you want to make a point, fine. Just don’t be so dishonest about it, characterizing the global cooling research as from the most “obscure journals imaginable” in contrast to the “preeminent” sources supporting global warming when that clearly is not the case. Anyone doubting me need only click Tim’s links to see for themselves.
The always-magnanimous Darrell gives permission to make a point.
What a great country!
Yes that noted natural sciences publication “Foreign Affairs.” Point well made Senator.
The Other Steve
Ahh, but you are a liar Al. You based your entire argument off some limousine liberal argument that turned out to be bullshit.
You’re just upset that I’m playing the same game against you.
Darrell – Tim didn’t say that all 40 of those references were “obscure” – he said:
Maybe you should avoid accusing him of being dishonest when you’re making dishonest characterizations of what he said.
You don’t read too well do you? Among the ‘preeminent’ atmospheric sciences journals in Tim’s google search list supporting global warming include “Foreign Affairs”, as well as the noted “The American Economic Review”, and “The American Journal of Legal History” to name just a few of the preeminent journals Tim refers to.
I looked over the names of ALL the journals on both searches, and I see nothing which justifies Tim’s dishonest (imo) characterization of the sources as anything close to an “obscure” vs. “preeminent” contrast as he claims.
Everyone, please, let’s just SIMMAH DOWN NOW.
As we all know, Darrell is The Decider. Darrell will decide which journals are which, which are significant, which are obscure, and which are gay.
I’ll keep my resolution and not get involved. I do think it’s pretty amazing how Darrell keeps getting away with calling people “dishonest” when it’s clear he either (1) failed to read what they said, or (2) blatantly mischaracterized what they said. And yet, after about 50 comments when it’s clear he has lost the argument, he slinks away to return yet again the next day to proclaim a new person “dishonest.” Isn’t he kind of out of credibility at this point?
yes, so very clear Steve. You’re like a f*cking 4th grader declaring how he’s “won” when nothing could be further from the truth. No mischaraterization necessary, ‘blatent’ or otherwise.
Darrell, think some more about what I said before dashing off angry accusations. I observed that of the forty journals (actually forty-two if I don’t want to be called liar) mentioning ‘global cooling’ the vast majority were talking about cooling that happened in geologic history. That means, not today. So for the question of contemporary cooling those references are irrelevant.
Now look at the references which detail actual concerns about contemporary cooling. This is a much smaller list than forty and constitutes the citations that actually matter here. At least two are a letter in response to an article and the author’s response to that letter, both in a journal that doesn’t seem to exist anymore. One is in an obscure ornithology journal and only seems to mention the question in passing. Of the rest, which amounts to something between three and six references, I could not find a single journal that I have heard of. As far as science is concerned we’re talking about fringe ideas in the extreme.
Saw this quote from none other than Al Gore:
See that? “Appropriate to have an over-representation of factual representations”.
As usual, liberals are only doing this for our own good. Good intentions = good feelings = good society = good behavior. Right? Even if you have to over-respresent the facts to git ‘er done.
Please see BJ Rule Number One: Darrell Can Do No Wrong.
If there’s a problem, please refer back to Rule Number One.
Brian, you’re acting like a dunce again. Gore is obviously saying that we should spend more time talking about the problem until people accept that there is a problem, and then start talking about the solutions. Interpreting it any other way shows a characteristic helping of bad faith on your part.
And of course, lest I be accused of discussing a quote without providing context, the link.
We have an immediate opening in WMD intelligence. You’re hired.
The White House
The Other Steve
Interesting point from TPM, on how successful environmental interventions have been in the past. That is, reduction of smog, acid rain and such made tremendous reductions at a fraction of the cost critics claimed.
Actually this was an interesting point brought up by Clinton in 2004. He suggested that working to solve the problem would create a economic growth, as it opened up a whole new industry with competitive R&D to find cheap alternatives, etc.
The Other Steve
Hey, at least we’re using facts instead of just making shit up.
Does anyone in this thread, other than Kav, have any relevant background knowledge or experience?
Global climate change is fundamentally a thermodynamics problem and it is not trivial. There is only one significant heat source, a variable star. The climate modelers claim their models can not track such small changes due to solar variations. Yet scientists that study the sun have shown a very high correlation between solar variation and pre-industrial climate changes (See Kav’s comment). Some, between 1/5 th to 1/3 rd, of the post-industrial climate change is most likely the result of solar variation. I suspect they can not model solar variations because it was never included in the underlying model. I recently read that the ice caps on our nearest planet neighbors have shrunk since we first viewed them. I haven’t followed up on this, but if true, Mr. Sun suddenly seems more important.
As for my background, I was involved in Lighter-Than-Air thirty plus yeas ago and met many atmospheric researchers. These programs ran the gambit from high-altitude free flight balloons, supper pressure balloons (constant density to primarily map mid and upper level currents), to tethered aerostats. In fact, I designed the tethered aerostat used for GARP (Global Atmospheric Research Program). GARP/GATE formed the basis of most, if not all, of the first models. Now I have to get back to creating a simulation model for a remotely piloted airship. And yes, I am using the 1976 Standard Atmosphere model.
This will give you some information about GARP and GATE.
Full Gore quote:
Brian thinks “over-representing” means “exaggerating” or somesuch, or wants it to mean that, but unfortunately that’s not what Gore said. All he said is that the “mix” between discussing the problems and discussing the solutions needs to be weighted more heavily in favor of discussing the problems, until there’s widespread acceptance that problems do exist.
As is the list of credible references supporting global warming much smaller than 72 you mention.. which you don’t bother to point out (how fair & balanced of you). That you are able to cite an ornithology journal is no different than my citing a source from a British pain society in the other list. We’re talking about the ‘overall’ credibility of journals on both sides, which there appears to be little difference that I can see, despite your attempt to paint a large contrast between the quality of sources between the two groups of research
For example, among those making the case for global cooling include the Atmospheric Sciences Division of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, which itself has some impressive looking citations. I didn’t see any studies on the other side supporting global warming with equivalent or greater preeminence than that research done by one of our country’s most prestigious national laboratories. Did you?
My objection is to your overall characterization of the sources suppoting global cooling as mostly all ‘obscure’ vs the much more ‘preeminent’ research supporting global warming. I call bullshit. Anyone doubting this can simply check your google searches themselves to see my point.
Give us a break and be honest. Gore’s quote clearly called for an an “over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous” the problem of global warming is. He essentiallty recommends lying your ass off exaggerating the dangers of global warming because the ends justify the means. Hilarious to watch you spinmeisters ‘interpret’ what Gore ‘really meant’ to say, when it’s right there in plain English.
So it’s the Bush War Strategy?
Some of us have a ‘dictionary’ that defines ‘words’. We use that ‘dictionary’ to ‘understand’ what people ‘say’. You should try it sometime.
I knew you were dishonest, but not that dishonest. It takes a lot of chutzpah to spin the words Gore actually said into
You first, Darrell.
Depends on the meaning of the word ‘first’, right?
It takes a lot of chutzpah to spin the words
GoreTim actually said into
yep, “over-represent” must mean “exaggerate,” because it wouldn’t work very well as a smear otherwise!
I really don’t understand how Darrell can be so shameless as to sit here and lie and lie and lie day after day, and then have the balls to call his opponents “dishonest,” even after they’ve shown that he plagiarizes his arguments and consistently misrepresents what other people have said. Can anyone explain this person’s possible motivation to me?
Looks like quoting Al Gore’s words verbatim and in context now constitutes a “smear”. Brilliant
Read a great compendium of information about “global warming” on another good conservative site. Check it out for more ammo…
Yep, that’s a quote verbatim and in context!
Seriously, people, what motivates this guy? He must know he’s just making shit up. Why does he bother wasting his day lying on a blog where everyone knows he’s lying?
Can we believe the gall of this mealy mouthed, lying dishonest piece of crap, known as Darrell?
Constant, relentless, shameless pimping and defending of the most dishonest and discombobulated administration in history, no matter what, no matter the depth of the betrayal and manipulation and mendacity … and then the gall to attack somebody for “over-representing” something.
Who could invent such a colossal hypocrite? Where else could you find this kind of crap every day, regular as clockwork, just like Old Faithful?
The small states are over-represented in the Senate, you know. That means they’re lying!
Why should I have to ‘make shit up’ when the reality of your side’s position is more ridiculous than anything I could invent. Al Gore says:
So since nobody is interested in solving global warming, it’s up to all us well intentioned environmental extremists to “over represent” how dangerous it really is.. to make them realize what we’re saying is what’s really best for them. Even if we have to distort the truth to get there.
Yep, over-representing the number of factual presentations is the same as misrepresenting the facts. I totally agree! Who else wants to lie along with me and Darrell? Remember, you must be completely willing to ignore that the question asked for the “right mix” between talking about problems and talking about solutions. As the media proved in 2000, it’s fun to lie about what Al Gore says!
Even more ridiculous than your habitual invention of randomly lumping people together for the sake of making a windmill-sized strawman to attack Don Quixote style?
All I really want to know is why Darrell bothers to keep lying when everyone knows he is lying. Do you think it’s all good fun for him, or do you find the behavior more sociopathic?
Gore is so adorable when he’s screaming that his political opponents are brown shirt Nazis, don’t you agree?.. or is that another “lie” that Gore actually said those things?
Darrell doesn’t think he is lying. He’s as nutty as a fucking fruitcake. Darrell is the real deal, that the spoofers can’t simulate. You can spoof some things, but you cannot spoof this guy.
See, what you guys are missing, is that to Darrell, this isn’t about global warming, or carbon, or CO2.
It’s about Gore. Gore is on trial here, and whether the Earth is actually being completely fucked is really of no interest to Darrell.
I think that’s why Gore doesn’t want to run for President, really. He knows from experience how the GOP machine teaches its followers to hate, hate, hate the Democratic nominee every four years, and he cares more about this issue than he does about being President. You’ll notice how almost every attack on the movie is just an ad hominem against Al Gore, and he knows it would be 100 times worse if he were actually running again, meaning everyone would be distracted from the message.
He still ought to do it though. If there’s one thing the movie made clear to me, it’s that a political solution is the only real fix. Badgering your neighbors to recycle is cute and green and all but it doesn’t really get us there.
I suppose now is as good a time as any to announce that I’ve appointed ppgaz as my spokesman.. he will hold a Webex BJuice press conference later this evening to address my detractors, answering all questions regarding my opinions, thoughts and ideas.
“ppGaz, what the hell is wrong with Darrell?”
“I’m not going to comment on an ongoing investigation. Next?”
Questions? First you have to have a thought or an idea.
Besides “Gore is a poopyhead,” I mean.
As a thought experiment, if Brian and I were to somehow switch handles for a day yet continue to make the same points we already do, who would Darrell accuse of dishonesty? (Which, for those of you who remember, is F1 in the Darrell Macro Jingle-Bank)
You’d have to ask my spokesman about that.
This is no time for the blame game.
Darrell was for nannystatism before he was against it. Darrell, Radley Balko wrote an article for you.
Darrell shares your concern for your liberties and freedoms. But Darrell also understands that we have no liberties when we’re dead. So that’s why the War on Terror requires us to be ever more vigilant and ever more likely to want information about you, and also the right to tell you how to live your life, and with whom.
The Founders, Darrell points out, were so sure that all Americans knew that marriage was between One Man and One Woman that they didn’t even bother to write it into the Constitution. Why address something that obvious?
Thank you for your comment. It made total sense. I understand your point.
All I had been asking for was some intelligent, logical, scientific information to support the case being put forth in these comments.
You, evidently, are the only one capable and I applaud you for your effort and knowledge.
AL GORE is insane he has been since he lost the 2000 election and he is just trying to use his rediclous movie based on junk science to convince us all to worship GAIA the same pagan new age deity he and the rest of the enviromentalists wackos worship
Steven Joseph Christopher
How silly of Mr. Gore…
To actually propose such an idea, that the earth is warming…and to use the old greenhouse gas analogy, as if there was a gigantic sheet of glass covering the entire globe.
No sir, the only way I would ever beleive him (that there is global warming) is if, and only if he could actually PROVE beyond any shadow of any doubt, that there is actuall real glass up in the sky.
h-ha, but he’d have an uphill battle, let me tell you.
I mean first off he’d have to prove that rainbows were a result of the white light from the sun, filtering through a glass plane and projecting onto cloud vapors in the air.
He’d have to debunk the accepted explanation that there are billions and billions of tiny raindrops in the air which individually produce the complete spectrum of colors. And the notion that these raindrops are not SMART raindrops, which cannot synchronously align themselves together to form a perfectly arced bow.
I mean these intelligent raindrops are everywhere, even in garden hose spray and water bottle mist.
He’d have to deduct that these raindrops did not have synchonousity intellect and that the real reason the rainbows formed on these surfaces were because the sunlight was already filtered by the glass way up high at the top of the sky.
He’d have to compare these surface or vapors, as merely reflective projection screens. Ha, let him even try.
He’d also have to attribute all the auroral phenomena to glass in the sky. He’d have to say that the electrons from the sun were hittling the glass and causing it to glow, just like a tv screen glows when electrons hit the phospourus coated glass. He’d also have to prove that there was phosphorus in the atmosphere. Oh, wait a minute, there is.
Ok, but he’d have a hard time explaining ham radio waves if there was glass in the sky. I mean how are the short waves going to bounce off the ionosphere if there was a layer of glass in the sky?
Er, wait a minute. Actually ham radio waves reaching the other side of earth ARE compared to waves bouncing off the ionosphere as if it were a sheet of glass.
ok, ok, now if there was really glass up in the sky then how could he explain where tektites came from. If you all don’t know what tektites are, they are little globules of almost pure silica(glass). They are found in strewnfields in Australia, Georgia and a few other isolated regions of the world. To this day no scientist has conclusively, without any shadow of any doubt, proven their true origin…some say terrestrial, a result of a meteorite slamming into the ground and penetrating deep into the sedimentary layers of the earth with high velocity and extremely high temperature, and causing “instant” liquification of sediemntary glass(obsidian) and squirting this glass out from beneath the ground and propelling it WAY high up into the air…miles high..all the while cooling off as it makes it decent to the ground. yeah right…(physics deem thim stunt truly impossible)…some say extra-terrestrial….maybe from the moon or a planet far far away. Bu the chances of the moon propelling a few tektites earth way are very slim, as well as havin ZERO similarities to moon rock, as well as the tektite have NO cosmic rays exposure. (This would mean that it is not from outer space)
No, AlGore would have to say something like a meteor skidded across the glass up in the sky and caused it to get really hot and melt and drop down globules…well I guess this wouldn’t be as hard an explanation as I originally thought.
okay, but big Al would have to explain why fusion crust(the glass coating on meteorites) was not possible to creat on terrestrial rock but heating it to the same temperature as the meteor entering the atmosphere….uh…wait a minute, I guess WE’D have to explain this, not Al.
Alright, what about a comet’s tail. He’d have to trash the solar wind explanation in lieu of his glass idea. He’d have to say that the tail of the comet was curved and always facing the opposite of the sun because of the optical distorion effect called “coma abberation”, actually NAMED for the similarity of the comet’s tail.
ugh!!!….I guess WE’RE in the hot seat on this one too.
Alright alright, I’m not down for the count yet.
Let the OZONE man himself, prove that there is glass up in the sky by explaing how ozone is present in the atmosphere, if there is glass up in the sky.
HEE HEE -I can SMELL my victory now.
oh – no, wait a minute. Ozone generators and air ionizers (only the ones with glass plates), produce ozone and cause it to smell like the fresh scent after a thunderstorm. So the glass screening the ultraviolet light causes ozone.
ok, but Al, come on really, how would the Space Shuttle and all those satellites have penetrated this ficticious glass ceiling?
I mean you’d have to penetrate this glass by easing into it, you know at a really acute angle and you’d have to go really, really fast to get enough temperature to melt the glass. Also, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to coat all the tiles with a special dichroic glass, that would have very little thermal conducivity and have it powdery, like sand paper, creating more friction….
DARN! He got me again, that’s exactly what is on the Shuttle’s tiles. They call it ‘frit’.
alright, if there really WAS glass in the sky, why don’t we see a reflection of the earth up in the sky? I mean, you’d have to say that there was some kind of non-reflective material coating the glass – like a non transparent sheet of ice, one that is translucent, blocking a good potion of the sunlight from entering.
But, come to think of it, that would explain all the mysterious huge chunks of ice that have fallen to the ground. Most recently in Oakland, CA this April.
ok, what about stellar spectroscopy?…RATZ, glass would explain it better…
what about red shift only visible from beneath earth’s atmosphere – DARN, glass explains it better.
what about halos, circumzenith arcs, glories, superior mirages, fata morganas????
SHOOT! glass explains all these things.
Never mind, can I erase my posting here? I’m new here and don’t want to be ridiculed by the fact that AL Gore beat me in proving that there is glass up in the sky. And also proving that there is global warming.
I mean we all know why he can’t be president….
because of the glass ceiling.
there is global warming.
there is also global cooling