Drudge "exclusive" on Gore questions repeated discredited theory on global warming
On March 19, the Drudge Report, a website run by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, posted the banner headline "EXCLUSIVE: GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP," and purported to reveal several "[p]roposed questions" that former Vice President Al Gore will have to answer when he testifies on the impact of global warming before two congressional committees on March 21. Drudge exclaimed in his "exclusive" report that the questions "could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!"
But one purported question is based on a theory that has been debunked by the scientific community:
How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?
In fact, the claim that global warming on uninhabited planets suggests that global warming on the Earth is not likely caused by human activities has been dismissed by scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a report it released in February, concluded that both greenhouse gases and solar radiation are contributing to global warming. The report included a section titled "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change," which noted that "[c]hanges in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system."
The claim that the sun -- rather than human activities -- is responsible for global warming has been trumpeted by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin, who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which Drudge linked, did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict[s] the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."
Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim on September 21, 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph on July 18, 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."
Drudge also noted that Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, invited Bjørn Lomborg to "appear at the hearing." As Media Matters for America has noted, Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Lomborg purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." His conclusion was that the concerns of scientists regarding the world's environmental problems -- including global warming -- are overblown. But in January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists who lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that they said were "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes."
As Media Matters has previously noted, ABC News political director Mark Halperin has claimed that Drudge "can influence the news like Walter Cronkite did" and said that "[i]f Drudge has a siren up, people know it's something they have to look at." Halperin's book, The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, 2006), which he co-wrote with Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris, includes a chapter titled: "How Matt Drudge Rules Our World."
From the Drudge Report "exclusive":
GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP
Sun Mar 18 2007 20:23:00 ET
**Exclusive**
Temperatures are predicted to reach a high of only 43-degrees on Wednesday in Washington, but look for high-heat to come out of Al Gore's scheduled appearances on The Hill!
Gore is set to appear before Rep. John Dingell's [D-MI] all powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the morning and Sen. Barbara Boxer's [D-CA] Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon.
Both are expected to have overflow seating, and protesters, both for and against Gore.
Gore will get a 30 minute opening and then Boxer and her republican counterpart, Sen. [James] Inhofe [OK], each get 15 minutes each of questioning in addition to their opening statements. Other senators will only get 5 min of Q & A.
"Democrat Dingell is a big global warming skeptic, so do not expect him to go too lightly on Gore," predicts a congressional source.
[Dingell has also invited Gore critic, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Adjunct Professor, Copenhagen Business School, to appear at the hearing. Lomborg is author of the book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.' He recetly [sic] wrote: "The cacophony of screaming does not help."
Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT -- question that could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!
Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.
Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?
Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?
Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)
Developing ...
The more I hear from these clowns, the more I'm convinced that they are propped up by Conservative slush funds. There can't be enough Right Wing sycophants in America to keep these liars in business...can there?
Ack! Not another global warming thread. The Gore-haters and ostriches will be coming out of the woodwork.
I am just not convinced yet.
What would be a convincing case to you? This is a genuine question.
What I am not convinced of is altering my entire life around yet, to make the change to carbon offset.
Isn't right they have only been keeping records since the late 1800's? Kinda hard to base facts on so little research.
How did How did the last 7 ice ages come to end before industialization?
When a animal is taken out of its atmosphere, somehow they have a way of evolving to the new atmosphere over time. Adapting. I do believe the earth will change with us or without us. To think that the last 30 years have had such a great impact, just does not sound logical to me. I am not denying smog is a issue.
it does not "sound logical" to suggest that we could pump massive amounts of pollution into what is basically a thin atmosphere, and be cutting down forests by the acre every single minute, and then suggest that has little or no effect. that's the thing that's not logical.
And I never claimed any of those above did NOT have a affect on the world.
you said they did not have a "great impact", mr. game player and word parser.
And are you suggesting that solar activity plays NO role in global warming? The reason I don't trust Gore and all the loony's that follow him is that correlation does not prove causation. If it did, we could all have predicted the dow jones in the 80's by just knowing which conference won the super bowl. So, constantly saying that our pollution is the sole reason for global warming is delusional, at best.
"And are you suggesting that solar activity plays NO role in global warming?" --autopsyche
Come on. Nobody has suggested that "solar activity plays No role in global warming". It is a pretty silly strawman.
Quite right -- correlation does not prove causality. You know what does? A logical and experimentally verifiable theory of cause and effect that can serve as a basis for counterfactual hypotheses. The scientific study of the greenhouse effect has a track record that goes back to 1824 with Fourier's work, and 1896 the Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius developed a mathematical relationship between rates of increasing temperature and increasing levels of particular chemicals in the atmosphere.
I don't mean to oversimplify the science of climatology -- I don't claim to be an expert -- but it's not like scientists don't take factors like solar variation into account. In fact, I'm unaware of any scientific theory of global warming that doesn't include it as a variable.
So no, correlation alone does not prove causality. You need a scientific model that explains cause an effect -- and the ones that scientists now have are pretty good, and they've been working on the problem for more than a century.
Scientists are certainly fallible, and I take issue with plenty of branches of scientific research; but in the case of climatology, I haven't seen a compelling reason to reject the basic theory of causality underlying theories of global warming.
auto, could you provide examples of anyone saying pollution is the "sole cause" of global warming?
Evil, what you say is actually not true. I have no problem with you being a skeptic or disagreeing with the consensus, but if I were you I wouldn't base my argument on things that have no basis in fact.
Isn't right they have only been keeping records since the late 1800's? Kinda hard to base facts on so little research.
Science uses what are known as "proxy records," such as air bubbles trapped in ice, to determine the composition of the atmosphere in the distant past. We actually know quite a bit about historic levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and how the climate reacted last time CO2 levels were this high.
To think that the last 30 years have had such a great impact, just does not sound logical to me.You are right, it's not logical, which is why the scientific consensus is not based solely on information gathered since 1977.
You can of course take whatever position you wish for whatever reason you wish. I just suggest you look at skeptical information but also mainstream information like NOAA and the IPCC summaries, then make up your own mind. But it's your call, obviously...
Sounds good.
Funny, about the records since the 1800's. You hear, "This is the warmest winter on record". But they do not tell you when the records began.
In the 70's concensus was the world was heading for a freeze. Remember the mumbo jumbo?
It was not the scientific consensus, just a Newsweek article based on a very small data sample.
It was not just a Newsweek article. Time and multiple other major media had articles. The difference today is there is more politics behind it and of course the internet (thanks Al Gore). There was no UN committee on climate change. The prevailing thought in the 70s was there was going to be an ice age.
It is a fact that the majority of scientists in the 70s thought the earth was cooling and we were heading for an ice age. They used as proof increasing ice in antartica and 40 years of cooling temperatures.
20 years from now Al Gore will be mocked liked no other human being in our lifetime. Even his creating the internet will not save him.
"It is a fact that the majority of scientists in the 70s thought the earth was cooling and we were heading for an ice age. They used as proof increasing ice in antartica and 40 years of cooling temperatures." --lh
Any legitimate evidence/links to support your apparent belief presented as if it is a fact? What does it take to get you to debate honestly?
It is a fact that the majority of scientists in the 70s thought the earth was cooling and we were heading for an ice age.
You are talking out your ass. That is absolutely not a "fact."
It's funny you should mention the Time article:
Leather, since when has the phrase "a growing number of scientists" meant "the majority of scientists" as you claim? Furthermore, the article is clear that scientists had only suspicions and no consensus about possible causes and effects.
Now, I'm sure you'll want to defend your position by citing the strongest claims from the Newsweek article, so let me save you the trouble:
So we have one claim that meteorologists were "almost" unanimous that the Earth would cool and thereby reduce agricultural productivity...for thirty years. And there wasn't any consensus about the cause. Or the extent.
Compare that to the current state of scientific opinion on climate change: a majority of scientists agree that the observed increase in average global temperature over the twentieth century (not just a couple of decades as in the Time and Newsweek articles) was due to human activity and generation of greenhouse gases, and to a much lesser extent, solar variation and volcanic activity. This position is held by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007; the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India in a 2005 statement; the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council in a 2001 report; the American Meteorological Society in its 2003 council statement; and by the Bush administration's own Federal Climate Change Science Program in 2006.
Among scholars of the natural sciences, there are, of course, scientists who disagree... but there aren't many, and most of them only dispute the extent to which human beings are responsible.
The scientific study of the Earth's climate has come a long way since the 70s, yet you seem more interested in the research of three decades past than in the latest work. I wonder why that is...
And MY crystal ball says that 20 years from now Gore will be seen as a visionary and you Global Warming luddites will be laughed at and described as those morons who helped destroy civilization as we know it. Of course MY crystal ball has been known to be wrong, but not as often as YOU are wrong so I will go with it.
"20 years from now Al Gore will be mocked liked no other human being in our lifetime."
You're probably right about that Leather. You usually are.
While we wait, can we mock you?
I agree, often the term is used imprecisely. But in general, when your local whether reporter says that this is the hottest year on record, it usually means that no human has documented scientifically a higher temperature in that area. However, as Val pointed out, there are human records and then there are geological records, archaeological records, etc...
I'm curious, though: lately I've been hearing this argument more and more frequently that climate science can't possibly be accurate since humans have only documented climate phenomena scientifically for a tiny fraction of the time that earth has had a climate, and therefore climatologists must be working with an inadequately small sample size. (Feel free to make your inadequate size jokes here.)
But the funny thing about this is argument isn't just that it's illogical, but that it doesn't even resemble a logical argument. The first time I heard it, I was expecting it to be a set up for a joke. If it were true, then physics would be impossible, since the physical universe has existed for so long and we've only been studying its laws for an infinitesimally brief period by comparison. (I mean, we've only known about gravity with any precision for a few centuries, so how can we possibly make scientific claims about it in general?) Likewise, archaeological investigation of prehistoric periods would be of no value, since, by definition, the events of concern to archaeologists occurred prior to a historical record. And, of course, evolutionary theory would have to be scrapped, since we cannot possibly make claims about life before humans began studying it, let alone before there were humans.
Now, I'm not trying to argue that climatology is as mature as other scientific fields, but it's certainly more mature than it was decades ago when Newsweek ran its story about a coming Ice Age -- and although I could be mistaken about this, I don't think that there was anything approaching the level of consensus among climatologists about global cooling then that there is about global warming now.
So can someone enlighten me about this: How is it that this new attack on climatology's scientific legitimacy hasn't been dismissed universally and immediately by more people? What about it is so seductive that people entertain it in spite of common sense and basic reason?
there is also a time magazine article cited from the 70's. what the doubters don't point out is the title: "another ice age?". note the "?". that's far from a consensus.
Time magazine is also not a scientific journal. It's like saying it was on the cover of Sports Illustrated; science is science and the popular media is the popular media.
"What I am not convinced of is altering my entire life around yet, to make the change to carbon offset." --EvilLib
What a backwards way to argue. According to that logic, soda drinks don't make me fat, because "I am not convinced of altering my entire life around yet", by not drinking sodas anymore.
It looks like that is a pretty obvious attempt at rationalization for not wanting to change your behaviour instead of an honest assessment of the AGW theory itself.
"The sun causes global warming..."
Well, duh. This argument is so ridiculous on so many levels...
I guess we could also argue that wearing sunblock is useless, since it is the sun that causes sunburn.
But look how thoughtful Drudge looks in his glamor shot, rubbin' yje old chin and everything.
Probably thinking of doing away with airplane safety standards after proving that gravity is the common factor in all airline fatalities.
His hat is my favorite touch. I mean, I can't stand the guy, but I also can't help but admire his thespian commitment to playing a film-noir newsman. One of these days he's going to lose all sense of the contemporary moment and start mumbling about how he used to know a great speakeasy, see, years ago, before all the rabble rousers and the riffraff came and busted up the joint, see...
I like the hat, too, Vy. I've mentioned here before that it seems to be the same hat that Mallard Fillmore wears.Some sort of Republican totem that subliminally says "old-fashioned", "tenacious" and "facts".
I think the Republican duck actually has the little "Press" card in his hatband. Drudge, M. Fillmore and Fox news must have market tested their audience for different visual symbols. Assuming there is a sizable illiterate and senile demographic, many of them familiar with movies of the '40s, that hat probably is very comforting.
Besides, it covers his bald spot.
"like an obsessive-compulsive bulldog, the right wingers can't let go of their cherished belief that they have a right to consume all the Earth's precious resources without regard to the plight of future generations"
I would argue that the most important information to draw from this thread is that conversatives are eager to believe in global warming as long as man is not the cause. If we can blame it on the sun, the moon, witchcraft, God, hell, even woody allen's last picture flop, then sure, WHY NOT. Global warming exist, the volumes of scientific evidence is now correct, but hey, what can we do about it?
Once we attribute something detrimental to our very survival to actions of the human race itself, then the American habit of not taking responsiblity for one's own actions blocks out the ability of the brain to reason and results in this sort of stupidity.
I think a large part of the denial comes from the fear that once the terrible libs are proven right about global warming it becomes possible that they are right about other things. The noise machine must put out a constant message that all things liberal are wrong, once that proves to be false then the machine starts to sputter.
"Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River. "
You think that above is accurate?
It could be accurate. I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming.
Basically what this means is that the "great hope" of the enviroment doesn't seem to care as much as it seems, at least not if he can turn a profit. If he was as much a true believer as he says he is he would park his jet, become a vegan and kick the miners off his land.
What does that have to do with AGW?
we've been through this before. there's nothing gore could ever do to satisfy you.
You're right so long as he is the person profitting the most for this "science" which he apparently doesn't belive enough to drastically change his life the way he urges entire countries to do, he won't be able to do anything right in my eyes
savage how's that last day of freezing in houston. you know, the one you said usually comes around march 1? but it actually freezes into april. just more of your made up garbage?
I belive I was reffering to the AVERAGE last freeze. I can understand how that concept would escape you.
maybe the concept escaped you. if the average last day of freezing is march 1, then how do you still have an average of 3 freezing days in april.
Gee you are wrong again, what were the chances
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_N.htm
CARTHAGE, Tenn. — Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead, but there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors.Gore has yet to be approached by the new owner, Strategic Resource Acquisition, said his spokeswoman Kalee Kreider, and he and wife, Tipper, have not decided whether they will renew their lease. It was terminated when the mine closed in 2003.
Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national environmental group, to make sure the operation doesn't damage the environment.
"We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices," Gore wrote.
What EL is not telling you...
The fact that EL doesn't leave a legitimate link to where he got his info is instantly suspicious. Apparently most of the time posters omit this kind of information it is because it came either from a dubious source or the source shows some otherwise mitigating information.
First of all, "there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors."
Secondly, "Gore[] own[s] land adjacent to the mine and leased access to the zinc under [Gore's] property."
Thirdly, "Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company [recently attempting to purchase the mine after 4 years of inactivity] to work with Earthworks, a national environmental group, to make sure the operation doesn't damage the environment."
Fourthly, "Previous mine owners released toxic substances into waterways above the allowable levels several times in the eight years before the mine closed.
But state regulators consider those permit violations minor and monitoring reports provide a clean bill of health for the rivers in the area, which are a source of drinking water. Community leaders and health officials recall no health problems ever associated with the mining.
Oh yeah. How can I forget to cite my source.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000067
An article like this? And what of his jet usage? His overuse of electricity? If he truly believed what he spews don't you think he'd be more than just crbon Neutral? Wouldn't he want to be carbon negative?
That is just a sensationalist rightwing editorial/opinion piece. It leaves out the mitigating information in the article just like EL did.
If you guys ever present an honest argument, it will be a first.
Let's give Gore a rest, because he's not a scientist.
Let's turn our attention to one of The Cause's top scientists, NASA's Jim Hansen (Scientific American, March 04):
" Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as synfuels, shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."
So, it's OK to distort as long as you have good intentions.
Another top AGW missionary, Dr. Stephen Schneider, Stanford University:
"On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...which means we must include all the DOUBTS, CAVEATS, IFS AND BUTS. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's IMAGINATION. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. SO WE HAVE TO OFFER UP SCARY SCENARIOS, MAKE SIMPLIFIED, DRAMATIC STATEMENTS, AND MAKE LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS WE MIGHT HAVE. This "double ethical bind" which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. EACH OF US HAS TO DECIDE WHAT THE RIGHT BALANCE IS BETWEEN BEING EFFECTIVE AND BEING HONEST. I hope that means being both."
When the AGW movement has its top scientists recommending a "balance" between "being effective" and "being honest", what do you think that does to the purity of its message?
Pile on. Two of your gurus have spoken.
"So, it's OK to distort as long as you have good intentions." --lemoc
Absolutely not. Hansen wasn't saying that either. If you read the whole appendix C to article (just after where your quote left off) as well as the entire article, you can see Hansen is clearly advocating honesty and transparency of the science:
"Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming."
Hansen criticizes the IPCC report for not taking into account feedback (in the form of changed levels of GHG's due to human efforts to reduce them) that may lessen the effects of AGW in the future as well.
Hansen understands that at one time it was appropriate to talk about possible worst case scenarios when not much was known about AGW in order to stimulate more study and knowledge of the subject. Now that some of the worst case scenarios seem unlikely, they should not be used in lieu of more likely information.
There is nothing unusual about Hansen's position here. I think you have been drinking a little too much of Inhofe's Kool-aide as that is where this smear apparently originated.
Hansen smears himself, and gets pi$$ed when called on it. He's a bit emotional for a scientist.
Hansen doesn't have to defend anything. When the entire context is considered, reasonable people will conclude differently than Inhofe's spin on that snippet.
Schneider's comments are purely about how to make a scientific argument to a non-scientific audience or to the public at-large and the give take relationship of detail.
As an engineer, I have to do this balance all of the time. When people ask me what kind of work I do or I give a presentation to marketing or officers, I usually give an explanation that other engineers would regard as overly simplistic (which could conceivably be seen as dishonest), but an engineer's explanation would be purely ineffective, because it is likely few would understand what I am talking about if I get too detailed.
Schneider's comments appear to be arguing how granular scientists should be when arguing scientific points and the necessary balance needed to do it truthfully and effectively. At no point does he advocate dishonesty as you seem to suggest.
Schneider was the one talking.
If I recall, he said you have to choose between being EFFECTIVE and HONEST. Or did he say EFFECTIVE and GRANULAR? Musta missed something.
Do you have to choose between effective and honest in your engineer's presentations?
"...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but ...which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings..." Schneider
Don't include all those doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. That's just being unnecessarily GRANULAR. Omitting the granularity, and presenting a "consensus"--that's what we need to sell this to peasantry.
"If I recall, he said you have to choose between being EFFECTIVE and HONEST." --lemoc
That is one of the places where you are wrong. Schneider made no such statement. He said, "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Let's please argue this honestly. Shall we?
You're right--I misquoted that last repeat of what Schneider's statement.
I stand corrected.
"Do you have to choose between effective and honest in your engineer's presentations?"
In the precise sentiment that Schneider describes? Of course, I do. If my argument becomes too simplistic it can seem dishonest to those who may know better. Schneider was only talking about the balance necessary to make a technical (scientific) argument to non-technical people. He leaves it to other scientists to discern what to put in or leave out and still leave the argument with its integrity.
If you are not in a technical field, I wouldn't expect you to understand this fairly common dilemma.
The least effective (to the point of being useless) presentations are the ones that include every single caveat and/or criticism to the nth degree. That is why we rely on people like me to dig past that and come to conclusions about the validity/relevance of those caveats and/or criticisms before the presentation is made. It doesn't mean those criticisms are ignored or not addressed in reports, etc. It is about what is being presented often as an overview to suggest what a trusted expert recommends or concludes.
According to Schneider (and I agree), it is simply up to the expert or scientist to determine what is necessary to keep the presentation's integrity, while only telling the truth and being effective at the same time. It is a balancing act.
It is a slippery slope, and easily and commonly bastardized.
I DO understand your explanation. It's just that it is so easy to take liberties w/ the easily manipulated, AND you made the rather apt analogy of the public ( or was it more specifically the electorate) resembling a pro wrestling audience.
I don't think you're denegrating the intelligence of same; more of a comment on how much a lot of the public/voters actually care about issues.
Does anyone else notice that when some of these posters are presented with facts like the USAToday article, they comeback with rightwing opinions like the WSJ opinion piece cited by SavageRocks (when they comeback with anything at all)? Do they not know there are different standards for opinion pieces than there are for articles? I think they do.
Whether you agree with one side or the other, there seems to be a pattern with what some of these posters are doing.
Diffent standards, also, about what objective scientific inquiry is (NASA'S Jim Hansen, Stanford's Stephen Schneider).
Already been addressed above.
If this is from an article, please put the source/link in a further post. I am interested in reading this in full.
Thanks.
"Satan farts CO2"
You think that above is accurate?
It amazes me the extent these people will go to to avoid reality for political gain. Out of all the scientists, organizations, reports and findings for global warming as a reality this committee is bringing forward the "smallest few" of scientific opinion and research who are publicly trying to bring doubt to such an serious issue. Why is it just Gore appearing and not the scientific community at large? Why are American scientists under a gag order? One only has to stand on a bridge overlooking a crowded city freeway where traffic has come to a rolling stop to see the effect of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere. W The obvious motivations behind this hearing will do little to change public opinion.
If you can see greenhouse gasses from a bridge you are standing on I would put down what you are smoking before you fall off.
Botts,
"...avoiding reality for political gain..."
As in Dr. Stephen Schneider's (Stanford) statement: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being EFFECTIVE and being HONEST."
I just love this forum.
I hope you are not becoming to religiously invested in that quote. It does not appear to mean what you seem to think it means.
Apparently, scientists CAN receive absolution for an unpardonable sin: not observing Omerta when considering the doubts and caveats while formulating the mission statement.
You are just spinning away.
It is safe to say that, in presenting a united front (consensus) on this issue, the consenuseurs are continually tempted to minimize and/or not cite data/information that does not support the cause.
It is just too much of a temptation.
Make that consensuseurs.
Although, I may have argued somewhat about consensus issues in the past, I do not put much stock in that kind of argument as it is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum to be fancy.
You are right that simplifying a message can lead to (perhaps unintended or not) dishonesty and deception. I can't argue with that at all. It appears to be a pitfall of explaining this kind of stuff to the regular folk. I would be happy if the regular folk knew more than they did or were more curious to look up mitigating information on their own than they apparently do. Democracy (argumentum ad populum writ large) is a terrible system, besides, of course, all of the other ones.
The mine was apparently closed in 2003.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Read the intro, the rest is debunked junk.
But yet Gore has been touting man caused global warming for how long? It's pretty easy to see he's not as worried about the earth as he his his bottom line. Luckily for him they don't seem to be mutually exclusive. Ladies and gentleman I give you the PT Barnum of our time - Al Gore!
I don't get it.
"[T]here is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors." --USAToday
How is Gore a hypocrite?
Ialready mentioned the other ways he adts hypocritically, his travel habits, for example. My point on Gore is that, as Sonny Bono said "Start walking everywhere or shut up"
The other points you mention have been thoroughly addressed ad nauseum in many other threads in which I have posted my thoughts. I am only addressing the "Zinc Mine" post that EL originally posted. That is the only information that is new here (at least to me).
Oh, well, then I guess he's not a hypocrite if you say so...I think that's your argument. The fact that he's putting chemicals in the ground and CO2 in the air at a level much greater than those of the average person makes him a shining example of enviromental resposibility....I must admit, you're right.....he's 100% viable as the spokesman of the global evils of industrial man. I can only hope that if Al Gore has a stroke he'll have enough conscience to ask for a horse-drawn ambulance in order to save Manhattan from a tital wave.
he pays extra for all his electricity use to come from solar or wind power.
I'm well aware of that, my point is that if he belived as fully as he says he does that doomsday's a'comin', he wouldn't use one drop of fossil fuel. He'd buy green energy for everyone he could (bottom line be damned) and would spend his life planting those CO2 sucking trees.
i quoted a pew research poll a few weeks ago. it showed that 75% of college educated democrats, but only 25% of college educated republicans think that humans are causing global warming. of course, in spite of every bit of evidence and logic to the contrary, it's red state america that believes the earth is 6000 years old.
Wow, you're right, except for that group of scientists out there who dispute the findings ALL of the evidence says we're causing it. Thank god we caused the last few warming periods that melted away the Ice Ages, I think we need to give cavemen more credit. I'm wondering when we're finally going to un-earth the first internal combustion engine invented circa 14,000000 BC. I mean, that IS how the Ice melted right?
well, how could all that have gone on? according to red state america, anything more than 6000 years ago didn't happen.
And YOU'RE telling "Red State America" to START BUILDING AN ARK, Noah (or is it Jeremiah?)
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
could you please show me where i said anything like that?
Excuse me. I guess it was the Blue States, since they'll flood first.
So the only way for Gore to make you happy is for him to die a penniless, obscure, but otherwise absolutely ideologically consistent (at least by your own seemingly arbitrary standards) death? "Bottom-line be damned"?
I think we can easily see that your argument is neither fair nor rational. It would be nearly impossible to meet that ideal and still be an effective leading international proponent of AGW, but why would I expect anything, but a transparently self-serving argument in that regard. What a shocker!
Never siad I wanted him to die penniless, I just wish I could come up with such a beautiful scam. I actaully commend him for probably being one of the world's great capitalist. I just don't get how he (or anyone) could buy into this and live anything but a completely pollution free life.
It is not even the tiniest reach to reasonably conclude you believe Gore shouldn't care about the costs of supplying green power and trees to everyone and the world when you said:
"[I]f he belived as fully as he says he does[,]...[h]e'd buy green energy for everyone he could (bottom line be damned) and would spend his life planting those CO2 sucking trees [ -- Presumably instead of discussing global warming --open_mind]."
Anybody can read your post above. I stand by my characterization of your remark completely. I won't fault you from trying to (albeit clumsily) backpedal from such apparently ill-considered remarks.
Open,
There's something you must understand. Gore's problem is that he was in some way, however remotely, has been involved in (gasp) an EXTRACTIVE industry. Once infected by such a pathogen, there's no way a person can say he's Ma Nature's friend; there's no way he can ever be pure again. No cure for the disease.
My Lib friends told me so. They don't use anything from an extractive industry.
You are conflating my opinions with the ones of your supposed liberal friends.
I have no such prejudices against extractive industry. If others do then that is fine with me. To each his own.
OK. Just checking.
"Oh, well, then I guess he's not a hypocrite if you say so...I think that's your argument." --SavageRocks
I don't see where you are doing anything different. We are just presenting opinions at this point. I would think that is obvious. Do you have a point to make?
That's the primary reason I don't like discussing man caused GW, it's almost like discussing religion. Luckily I'm leaving work and don't have to do it anymore, have fun!
I think both sides treat this as a religious type debate at times. Of course, I can only speak for myself. I am a naturally skeptical person, who has absolutely no investment in the debate. I will follow the science on this to reasonable conclusions -- whatever that may be. If AGW turns out to be false by scientifically determinable means, it makes no difference to me at all.
What I find interesting is that you seem to have never even considered that AGW might be true. I think that is a pretty good indicator of zealotry along with the other earlier irrational standard you set for Al Gore above.
Its like religious faith based dogma on the part of the RIGHTWING. The vast majority of the SCIENCE backs up man made Global Warming.
He can hardly BE a spokesperson if he tries to WALK to China to give speeches. Your argument is ludicrous. It is an attempt to put advocates in a catch 22 situation either sit at home or you are a hypocrite. IF he is going to give speeches all over the world as he has done that means FLYING.
This is an incredibly stupid argument, IMHO. Individual choices make no difference to the load of greenhouse gases. None. For Gore or Sonny Bono to walk everywhere would be a completely meaningless gesture that would be all about showing the world how supposedly "virtuous" these men are.
Adding minimally to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by using a jet to travel in the attempt to change industrial societymakes a lot more sense in the wrong run.
But all of us here know the games you types play. If you can't win the argument, attack the messenger. Doesn't it sting, just a little, to be so obviously pathetic?
Actually this is the most pathetic thing in this debate is your logic
Individual choices make no difference to the load of greenhouse gases. - Valentinian
So let me get this straight....one man can't make a difference but yet one group (humans) who contribute infinately less CO2(<1%) than the rest of earth's inhabitants can virtually destroy the planet? Hillarious! If you don't understand the validity of using Gore's hypocrisy to point out the fact that he's profiting more than he he is "saving the earth" you've got your eyes closed. It's a very valid argument. The simple fact that Gore is not doing as much as he possibly can to save the earth proves that he himself is not 100% sure.
Who do you think has the more potential to reduce CO2...The leader of the free-world and/or the policy makers or one person's supposed contribution to CO2.
Which one has produced incentives for fuel efficient vehicles, introduced CAFE standards? What Gore does personnally is vastly outweighed by what he can do by affecting national policies.
I would think that is a pretty obvious point.
Would you agree that Gore would absolutely win the Presidency should he choose to run? Because I absolutely think he would be a stone-cold lock to be our next President in which case he can save the world. What a legacy, saving mankind!!! So why doesn't he run already?
I would like to see Gore run, but I am a skeptic at heart. I think Gore is a pretty easy target and does not have the penchant for a quick and clever rejoinder that seems to be necessary these days to win over the public at large (whom I view as largely the same as a professional wrestling audience). The fact that Gore wasn't very aggressive fighting the vast amount of disinformation in 2000 leaves me worried about his ability to confront it when it inevitably returns (as this article gives evidence to).
I think Obama will get the nomination for the Dems, although I wish he had more experience. I also like Wes Clark (same gripe with him, though), Chuck Hagel and McCain at times. A lot will happen between now and Nov. 2008. Maybe Gore is in, but I personally doubt it.
Finally saw "Borat" this weekend. After watching the rodeo segment, I grudgingly concur that your "perfessional rasslin' audience" characterization is frighteningly accurate.
I love this forum. Open, whether we agree on anything or not, your contribution of the "pro wrestling audience" analogy makes my day.
Open Mind, this isn't 2000, the Republicans are in the toilet and any Democrat will destroy them. You know it and I know it. The Iraq War has sunk the Republican Party for at least the next Presidential Election. So I ask again: Since we both agree that Gore is a shoe-in if he runs, and we both agree that he could have a much larger role in helping solve this Global Warming "crisis" from the position of President, why doesn't he get off his ass and save us from ourselves?
That is a very good question. I dont think anyone could beat Gore and I think he knows it. My best guess is he just doesnt have the fire in his belly, the DESIRE to become president necessary to put up with all the BS he knows he would have to put up with to campaign.
Yes, in other words he would rather talk about global warming from the sidelines rather than put himself in a position to do something meaningful about it.
I'm not downplaying the significance of Global Warming but if you are the "Global Warming" spokesperson with the powerr to create actual change for this nation and planet moving forward, and you choose not to take advantage of that opportunity, then I think it's fair to factor that into the equation of how serious this situation really is.
Actually he could think, and this has occured to me, that if he RAN then his campaign for raising awareness of Global Warming could be played as partisan politics. He might think it more important to keep the ISSUE at the price of the campaign. No doubt if he DID run people like Limbaugh and Coulter would be saying see, it was all just a way to run for president. Even a president is nor more powerful than overwhelming public opinion, he could not FORCE a Kyoto agreement past the Senate, but if he can get the support of the overwhelming majority of the people that CAN and probably would force the Senate to act.
"Open Mind, this isn't 2000, the Republicans are in the toilet and any Democrat will destroy them. You know it and I know it." --Bruce
Bruce. I respect your opinion, but I thought it was pretty obvious the Democrats would win in 2004 based on the Iraq War bungle.
I don't make any "predictions" until the day after elections these days. Elections can be won or lost with one or two misplaced words. Or an embarrassing photo opportunity. Or an October surprise. I wouldn't think anyone is a shoe-in at this point.
As to this being evidence of supposed disingenousness by Gore, I can say Gore tried to run once in 2000 and lost, all the while emphasizing the environment. Exactly how many more times does Gore need to run in order to convince you he takes that issue seriously?
Do you have to run for president to prove you are sincere these days? I personally have never regarded presidential candidates as a sincere bunch to begin with.
Democrats and liberals were certainly ahead of the curve in 2004 as far as Bushs ineptitude and the Iraq disaster. So from that perspective I can understand why you thought Bush was going to lose.
My take on 2004 was that I agree that Bush deserved to lose, but I was not at all convinced that he WOULD lose. His approval ratings were no where near as low as they are today and I think people were willing to give Iraq a little more time.
Now, looking forward, Republicans have absolutely no advantage in any area, Gore is free and clear from the Iraq debacle unlike Hillary. 2008 sets up perfectly for him.
I'm just asking you to consider why Gore would pass on this opportunity if Global Warming was REALLY the crisis he is portraying it to be. He could affect some real change. Could it be that he has ratcheted up the hyperbole a little bit to further his own interests? You would never read it here if he has.
could we have an example where he ratcheted up the hyperbole?
"So let me get this straight....one man can't make a difference but yet one group (humans) who contribute infinately less CO2(<1%) than the rest of earth's inhabitants can virtually destroy the planet? Hillarious!"
Well now, let's see:
1 person out of six billion = 0.0000001%
Now, I don't know where you got your figure about humans contributing less than 1% of total CO2, but let's say you're right. Hey, let's be generous and say that you're off by a factor of 10, and humans only contribute 0.1%.
So to review:
The relative influence of one person's actions compared to humanity as a total: 0.0000001%, or 10^-9
The relative influence of humanity on the earth's CO2: 0.1%, or 10^-3
The difference? A factor of one million.
Let me repeat this. You were off by a factor of one million. And that's using a conservative estimate. Humanity's relative contribution to world CO2 levels, using numbers lower than those you provided, is one million times greater than the relative impact of one person's actions compared to all humanity.
So here's the bottom line. If the Earth's atmosphere is at all sensitive to CO2 levels, then even a 1% increase is substantial enough to cause some climate change. Think of a human body: a blood alcohol level of 0.5% is lethal. Although maybe I shouldn't be using math examples, since they seem to confuse you.
What about this don't you understand? Al Gore is not Climate Change. One is a person, and the other is a phenomenon about which there is a great degree of scientific consensus.
I don't care if Al Gore has a machine in his backyard that does nothing but chop and burn old growth trees, throw plastic rings from six-packs into the nearest body of water, pour motor oil directly down sewer grates, and runs on a mix of extra-leaded gasoline, coal, and chlorofuorocarbons: it wouldn't affect the scientific consensus on climate change.
(OK, I would care, but it still wouldn't affect scientists' findings.)
You can always find fault with the messenger, but that doesn't mean that the message isn't accurate.
No it isnt you are sticking with your agenda driven propaganda DESPITE the facts not because of them. Gore bought the land from his parents there was a longterm lease and Gore had NO legal recourse as to the mine. He sent the new owners a letter asking them to be environmentally concious. Your assertion that Gore doesnt care about the Earth as long as he can make a profit is specious and without merit.
What is even weirder is when a young person refuse to believe it. I'm old, so it will have minimal impact on me. But Evil, he's 32. If something doesn't start to change soon he will be totally screwed by the time he is my age. What is even crazier, if we get on this we could make a lot of money selling technology and know how. I live in Austin and they are starting to make a committment to carbon neutral. Part of the rationale is that they will be able to attract industries that will provide jobs and green infrastructure as test/demo for further investment.
The EU is eating our lunch on this issue.
LOL. Which president is the renewable energy president?
I thought it was boy George, with his switchgrass.
Have we abandoned the switchgrass initiative already? Crap! All that switchgrass stock.....
So much for retirement by age 75.
It is said that cannibus is a much better converter (factor of five?) than corn for methanol, draws nutrients from deep in the soil up to the usable zone, etc. etc.
Some liberals are already burning it in their homes and cars...
Get outa here...
Sad
Anyone who still disputes or doubts Global Warming is a fool. As for Drudge this is a man who is another Hannity clone.
Man produces 3 percent of greenhouse gasses. Wouldn't you think that possibly the 97 percent part might have a little more to do with it?
Not if humanity is responsible for 100% of the increase...
Weasel stat
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/waste-gases.html
Carbon dioxide (CO2):A naturally occurring gas produced by living organisms and fermentation, CO2 is also produced by the combustion of carbonaceous fuels. A normal component of the breath we exhale, it is hazardous in concentrated volumes.
CO2 emissions from fuel burning, responsible for about 87 percent of global warming, have increased by about 27 percent since the industrial revolution.
Global CO2 production from fuel burning in 1995 was about 22 billion tonnes. Nitrous Oxide (N2O):naturally occurring from microbial action in soil, N20 is also produced by fuel burning. Scientists say its production is increased by the use of nitrogen based fertiliser in agriculture, as well as by the use of catalytic converters in automobiles.
Global Warming Potential: 170 to 190 times greater than that of CO2.
Hydrofluorocarbon gases (HFC) :Man-made specialty gases developed as an alternative to ozone-eating chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the coolant, cleaning, and propellant gases were blacklisted internationally in 1987. Because they do not possess chlorine, HFCs do not directly destroy ozone in the earth's atmosphere. They do, however, contribute to global warming. Principle uses: refrigeration; as agents used to blow foams or insulation; solvents or cleaning agents, especially in semi-conductor manufacturing.
Global warming potential: 4,000 to 10,000 times that of CO2.
Perfluorocarbons (PFC), or Perfluorocompounds:Man-made replacement gases for CFCs but result also as a by-product of aluminium smelting. PFCs also used as a purging agent for semi-conductor manufacture and small amounts are produced during uranium enrichment processes.
Global warming potential: 6,000 to 10,000 that of CO2.
Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6):Very low atmospheric concentration makes it an ideal test gas for gas concentration monitors. Principle uses: insulating material for high-voltage equipment like circuit breakers at utilities. Also used in water leak detection for cable cooling systems. SF6 is a man-made gas.
Global warming potential: 25,000 times that of CO2.
Sources: U.S. Energy Intelligence Agency, International Energy Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IF that three percent is responsible for thousands of time MORE warming potential then it IS significant. Cyanide MIGHT only be 1% of your martini but THAT 1% is what will KILL YOU
Doris,
I disagree. It is possible to be a reasonable skeptic about AGW. Although, I agree with you that not much here would seem to give evidence of that.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html
If you mean socialism, you're 100% right, they are ahead of us.
At first I didn't believe it was a political movement by the socialists, now I am convinced that is exactly what it is.
It's quite brilliant, the rich countries who produce things through industry (and therefore create more CO2) give money to the poor countries who don't produce/pollute as much. "To each according to his needs from each according to their ability", I think that's how it goes.
You mean like when the socialists enacted legislation to curb emissions into the atmosphere and fresh water sources?
[link to eh.net] />
I guess we're living in socialism right now, considering how municipal sewage controls have hindered our economy, stifled our freedoms, and retarded industrial development.
Yes, thanks to those colonial socialists, poor EL had to change his whole lifestyle. Can't crap out in his yard, has to have his trash picked up, can't run his sewer line directly into the creek out back... When will the madness end?
Interesting you bring this up, I never said we shoiuld be a completely free society, that's anarchy. I'm well aware of the fact that we do need some socialism. However, if you just look at which country has contributed the most to society in general in the last century you'll notice it's a capitalist country. I understand that there has to be some government, but once the government gets too big, it stifles ambition in the populace.
I would agree with that. The only thing we are really haggling about then is where the line is drawn.
Marginalizing the debate by calling everything "socialism" or "capitalism" doesn't really seem to help much.
Ten-four.
Don't change the subject: pay attention. It was stated that socialism was behind environmental protectionism. I was pointing out that we have been attempting to protect our environment since before half this nation gained statehood. If it's socialism, I'd have to argue that it managed to move us to first in the world economically and militarily.
Now, if you have a rebuttal about that, let's hear it.
Yes. After all it is obviously more complicated than SavageRocks and Leatherhelmet would lead us to believe. According to their logic, Richard M. Nixon was the biggest freaking socialist of all time.
No doubt his famous anti-communist past was just an obvious front to lul us all to sleep about him.
read your link savage. those bad old liberals stomping on "property rights" by calling for things like clean water and air. damn it, it's american as apple pie to pollute.
Wow, you're right, unfortunately pollution is even more CHINESE and INDIAN than American. While we might be first "per capita" these 2 countries (coming up fast in our economic rearview) are the number 1 and 2 OVERALL polluting countries in the world.
"But MOOOOOMMMMM! They do it tooooooo!!!"
It is a question of standards. As an engineer, I like to look at who is doing something the best (or by using an ideal example) and I try to do it as good or better. I believe we are a nation of engineers in that way. It is one of the reasons we have been so advanced in so many fields for so long.
It is interesting to me that SavageRocks seems to base his standards off of the absolute worst example. We just need to do better than the worst possible example. Or as long as we aren't the absolute worst, we are A-okay. We often see this in the racism argument (Dinesh D'Souza often does this by comparing how good race relations are in the US compared to supposed third world situations) and now SavageRocks does this in the AGW/energy independence issues.
Well, then you should be thrilled when we become the world's third most powerful economy. Then maybe the wolrld will start hating some one else.
What in my post would ever lead you to that specious conclusion?
The fact that you sited my using the WORST example. I was actually using the examples of the 2 countries who are the fasted growing economically and could overtake us if we don't tread lightly
You said China and India were "the number 1 and 2 OVERALL polluting countries in the world". That makes them the worst -- as I said. You never made a superlative comparison to their economies. They are indeed not currently the best economically -- as I think we can agree.
You are not making any sense.
Are you discrediting D'Souza? There is merit in what he says, and I don't think he's saying it's OK to stop improving.
I find it interesting that D'Souza often compares American racial situations to those in the third world to minimize questions of race here.
If you don't mind that, then more power to you. I think we should aim at a higher standard -- not a lower one.
He's not MINIMIZING, as you say. Is it OK to make an observation, in the face of a barrage of self-hate propoganda?
Firstly, what do you mean by "barrage of self-hate propaganda"?
Secondly, as for D'Souza's observations, how is calling it "minimizing" racial relations in any way a mischaracterization of his point? From what I have read and heard from him, he is definitely comparing American racial struggles with third world racial struggles he has witnessed first-hand in an obvious suggestion that American racial struggles are not so bad. "Minimizing" would seem to be an apt description from my understanding of the word.
I apparently assigned a motive to your statement without understanding you. When you said "minimize', I assumed you meant "cover up", and you explain that you were in fact commending him for his perspective.
By "self-hate propoganda", I was referring to Americans who can do nothing but find fault w/this country, its history, and its present conduct (not to mention the much larger contingent of America haters outside the country--some of the most notable from the Third World, where their own human rights record is, as often as not, abysmal.
savage, then, you shouldn't have a problem with the chinese and indians polluting?
I do, I've already posted that I'm all for alternative fuels, however, I'm a realist and understand we're not going to all switch to wind energy tomorrow. My point is that, because there are still debates ongoing about man caused global warming, and the fact that even if we stop China and India will continue to INCREASE their CO2 (not a pollutant, but I digress) thus making our sacrifice moot. I think it would be in our nations best intrest to find alt fuels, just not at the cost of destroying our economy.
and who said we had to destroy our economy? and why bother with alternative fuels? why do that when according to you there's no problem?
Because I see the actual problem that we are funding our major enemies. I can guarantee that you are more likely to be killed in another terrorist attack than spotaneously combust from the outside temperature
keep going. your clown act is a real credit to your side of the argument. take a look folks. this is what passes for logical argument on the other side.
I feel like I'm rubbernecking at the scene of an accident...
Can we have common ground that an alternative to the ICE is needed as Gore said over a decade ago? Or do you just want to bicker for no apparent reason. There is definite common ground here. You just need to recognize that what Exxon is telling you is solely to make you disagree with a position that you should be agreeing with.
It is a false dichotomy that we cannot develop alternative fuel/energy without destroying our economy.
Think for yourself. That is BS that Exxon pumps out to keep people like you and I from agreeing in the otherwise obvious commonground we should share to get us off of petroleum for good. It should be a common goal for strategic as well as environmental concerns.
Actually that IS a problem with the Kyoto agreement. However the answer is for US to get on board then get the world to sanction those countries that DONT agree. Not to say WE wont agree because THEY havent which assures there will be no sanctions.
The most dominant force in the American economy & American political realm is the fossil fuel industry. They dominate BOTH parties, but have found the Republicans to be particularly receptive to their interests. Their greatest champions are the neocons who control the current administration. Their blueprint for our future can be found right there in the Project For a New American Century. It is the only coherent reason why we are fighting in Iraq. These greedy fools have made it America's mission to take firm control of the world's richest oil-producing region, from Saudia Arabia to the eastern borders of Kazakstan.
This explains the rabid attacks that we are witnessing being launched against Al Gore. When he argues against the continued & unending use of fossil fuels & for the development of alternative fuels, he is, in effect, arguing against their ability to continue raking in obscene profit levels. Gore must be smeared because he threatens the oil industry's (literal) choke hold on our economy.
And look what sort of a world they are offering us in return for our continued fealty.
Sadly, we are witness to a plethora of trolls & fools who are more than willing to carry water for this industry and continue to mouth the same old long debunked talking points. I say fools because they Savagely & illogically argue AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS. These are people who will never reap the benefits of oil industry profits. What they will instead reap is a scarred & polluted world. They will reap an economy in which wages & adjusted purchasing powers continue to sag (also reducing the profitability to be found in small businesses) & government that offers them less. They will ultimately reap their own growing marginalization & irrelevancy.
That the corporate media continues to defame Gore comes as no surprise. This is, after all, what they're paid to do. That our own local trolls & cons continue to parrot this disinformation & employ such desperate & delusional attempts at logic is just plain sad.
You are well-meaning and your mindset is not without merit ( the Project for a New American Century deserves scrunity, and thanks forreferring us to it), but you suffer from a lack of understanding of some economic realities.
For starters, if you or anybody else want a share of the "obscene profits" of the oil companies, pick up your phone and buy a few shares (common stock). That's how the evil oil companies are owned--primarily middle class holders of shares of common stock. You probably are already an owner by way of your retirement fund. Your fund owns shares in other business sectors also, for the simple reason that oil stocks do not necessarily return the most to shareholders for their dollar invested.
You
Drudge is just a phoney-baloney closet case. Why does anyone listen to him, for gosh sakes!
guttermouth...
Skeptics are using the black and white fallacy, which as the name implies, is a baseless argument in which only two possible conclusions are presented.
These GW deniers tell us that there are only two possible answers to global warming: Either the sun or humans are warming our planet. They present these two possibilities as mutually exclusive, when in fact they may be and are in fact both true, although human forcing has been found to be by far greater than solar forcing in the last few decades. Republicans purposely deny the coexistence of both forcings because they do not want to have to explain which of the two (sun or greenhouse gases) warms the earth the most. They don't even want to falsely argue that the sun's contribution to warming is greater than the greenhouse gas contribution, because their goal is to absolutely deny that greenhouse gases are capable to cause the minimum degree of heating. This is what makes their reasoning so silly. Can we even call it reasoning?