Media revive, retool, and create anti-Gore smears and attacks
In recent weeks, in the wake of the Academy Award nomination and subsequent victory for former Vice President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), in the best documentary feature category, followed by his testimony in both the House and Senate on global warming, the media have resuscitated old smears and falsehoods that may have been decisive in the 2000 presidential campaign. In some cases, media figures have retooled these attacks to apply to his work on global warming, and, in others, have come up with entirely new smears.
Gore as a "liar" or "exaggerator"
- On March 21, following Gore's testimony on global warming before the House and Senate environment committees, McClatchy Newspapers uncritically reported Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) assertion that Gore is "totally wrong" that the burning of fossil fuels and coal contributes to rising global temperatures. McClatchy reported only that Barton "scolded" Gore for being "not just off a little," but "totally wrong," and did not note the scientific consensus supporting Gore's beliefs.
- In a March 22 article, The Washington Times reported that "[t]he only scientist to testify at either hearing called Mr. Gore's assertions 'wildly exaggerated,' and quoted Bjorn Lomborg, "adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Denmark," as stating that Gore "has got carried away and come to show only worst-case scenarios [that are] unlikely to form the basis for sound policy judgment."
As Media Matters has noted (here and here), Lomborg has a history of misrepresenting Gore's global warming claims, and his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, September 2001), has been discredited by several well-known environmental specialists.
- In his March 22 "Inside the Beltway" column, Washington Times columnist John McCaslin suggested Gore's global warming warnings to be exaggerated. McCaslin asked: "Where's spring?" and wrote: "Normal high temperature for March 21 in Washington: 57," adding, "Temperature at 2 p.m. yesterday when former Vice President Al Gore testified on Capitol Hill about global warming: 43 (wind chill 38)."
- Reviving a familiar falsehood from the 2000 campaign, on the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Republican strategist Terry Holt stated that Gore "claimed to have invented the Internet, among many other things." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Gore did not claim to have "invented the Internet"; rather, during the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth, Gore actually said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
As Bob Somerby noted in a March 22 post on his weblog, The Daily Howler, during the March 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News contributor Fred Barnes called Gore "a wild exaggerator" and stated, in support, that a "U.N. panel ... says, over the rest of this century, the sea level, because of global warming, will rise 23 inches, Al Gore talks about 20 feet. There's a big difference there." Barnes was presumably referring to a March 13 New York Times article, which repeated a false comparison made by Gore critics to suggest that his claims are contradicted by findings in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
- Also, as Media Matters noted, on the March 21 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, NPR science correspondent Richard Harris reported that "scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts" Gore presents in his film and elsewhere and suggested that Gore has exaggerated some of the facts. Harris apparently distorted Gore's statements about melting Arctic ice in asserting that Gore made "a few scientists a bit uncomfortable" by making predictions that "sound[ed]" overly "precise."
- As Media Matters has noted, in his March 19 column -- titled "Whose Ox is Gored?" -- Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund repeated misinformation from the March 13 New York Times article and produced some of his own to accuse Gore of "environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy."
Gore as a "hypocrite"
Numerous media figures and outlets seized on a recent press release by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), which made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about Gore's home energy bills to suggest Gore is hypocritical in his fight to combat global warming. The reports on Gore's energy bills often omitted some or all of the steps Gore has reportedly taken to reduce the effect of his energy usage, including, as the weblog Think Progress noted, signing up for green power through Green Power Switch and "purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint." For example:
- On March 22, the Associated Press reported that Tennessee State Rep. Stacey Campfield (R) considered "adding an amendment to name Gore the 'hypocrite of the year' " because of "high energy consumption at his Belle Meade home." The article did not report on the steps the Gores have taken to reduce the effects of their energy use.
- On the March 21 edition of Scarborough Country, Holt stated that Gore is "just a hypocrite" because "he himself uses more energy in one month at his house in Tennessee than most people use in an entire year at their house."
- Also in his March 19 column, Fund wrote that TCPR "obtained public records showing that for years Mr. Gore has burned through more electricity at his Nashville home each month than the average American family uses in a year." But in explaining Gore's attempts to reduce his effect on global warming, Fund wrote only that "Mr. Gore's office responded by claiming that the Gores 'purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero,' " while omitting Gore's use of "green power."
- As Media Matters noted, in a column appearing in the March 26 issue of Time magazine, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer repeated allegations that Gore's "Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home," but in explaining Gore's attempts to reduce his effect on global warming, Krauthammer wrote only that he "spends pocket change on carbon credits."
- On the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, as Media Matters documented, host Tucker Carlson said he was judging Gore by "the rules [Gore] set out" and asked Competitive Enterprise Institute president Fred L. Smith Jr. if Gore was "living like a king, at the expense of our planet. Am I missing something?" Carlson noted the "quote, 'offsets' " as Gore's "defen[se]" of what Carlson called "quite a big carbon footprint," but agreed with Smith that such "offsets" are like "indulgences" from "the Middle Ages."
- On the February 27 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Kitty Pilgrim noted that TCPR "says that Gore's own home uses 20 times the national average for power." Radio host Joe Madison argued that "put[ting on] solar panels" is "a good flip-flop." Radio host Mark Simone claimed that Gore was only installing panels " 'cause he got caught."
- On the February 27 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, host Glenn Beck asserted that Gore "has a huge carbon footprint" and said that the "the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric in 2006." Beck did not report any of Gore's reported efforts to reduce the effect of his energy usage.
- On the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asked actor Ed Begley Jr. if Begley had the "the courage to say, when [Gore] travels around in private jets, when [Gore's] using this type of energy, 20 times the national average, that [Gore's] a hypocrite?" Hannity added that Gore's energy use "is pure, Class A hypocritical living." In response, co-host Alan Colmes noted the Gores' use of "green power."
- In his February 28 "Inside Politics" column, Washington Times columnist Greg Pierce cited part of a February 26 ABCNews.com article, which noted TCPR's criticism of Gore's "environmental hypocrisy." While the ABCNews.com article quoted a Gore spokeswoman saying that the Gores "purchas[ed] their power through the local Green Power Switch program," the Times included the same Gore spokeswoman saying only that the Gores "work out of their home" and that all that "Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
- In a February 28 editorial, The Washington Times not only asserted that "Gore apparently thinks he should be exempted personally from his own carbon morality," but repeated the myth that Gore was "busy inventing the Internet" as apparently the reason for his high power consumption. As Media Matters noted, the assertion that Gore claimed to "invent[] the Internet" has been thoroughly debunked.
Gore as an incompetent campaigner
As Media Matters further documented, in a March 20 column, Politico Editor-in-Chief John Harris blamed Gore for his loss in the 2000 election: "A more poised, focused and self-confident campaign surely would have won the election and not just the popular vote in 2000. As the chosen leader of his party, Gore had a responsibility to wage that campaign." But Harris did not mention the treatment Gore received in 2000 from the "Freak Show" media -- a term Harris and former ABC News political director Mark Halperin coined in The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, October 2006) and identified as a factor in the 2000 election. As Harris and Halperin noted in the book, in 2000, the media "exerted intense destructive pressure on Gore," seizing on Gore's "petty frailties" and making them his "defining" characteristics while downplaying Gore's "substantial strengths as a man and politician."
Gore as fat -- "a little puffy"
Numerous media figures have taken to recently ridiculing Gore for his physical appearance. For example:
- On March 22, the Los Angeles Times described Gore as looking "slightly grayed and a little puffy."
- In his March 22 Chicago Sun-Times column, Michael Sneed wrote of "ballooning" weight.
- On the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson referred to Gore as "the big guy" and "Big Al" and cited a March 21 New York Times article, which, Gibson said, described "the new fullness of [Gore's] face, rather than saying he gained a lot of weight." An onscreen graphic read: "Big Al Weighs In." Gibson then claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign was "watching [Gore's] weight" because "[t]hey figure if he loses weight, he's running" for president. Politico chief political writer Mike Allen agreed, adding: "[I]f he stays shaven, another indication."
- During the March 21 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck called Gore "Fatso" and claimed: "I also know that Al Gore is on a diet. I'm not making that up. He is on a diet, trying to lose weight."
From the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): Terry Holt, why do conservatives dislike Al Gore so much?
HOLT: Well, what makes the criticism so effective about Al Gore is that Al Gore himself is -- generates the problem. It's not that he's just a hypocrite, and he is, but he's a braggart. I mean, he's claimed to have invented the Internet, among many other things. He claimed to have discovered the environmental problems that exist today, when, in fact, he himself uses more energy in one month at his house in Tennessee than most people use in an entire year at their house. The pristine grounds of Al Gore's house in Tennessee are backed up on the other side of the mountain by a zinc mine that his family has leased for some 30 years to a mining company.
From the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Hi, everybody, the big guy is back. Al Gore took center stage on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congress as part of his ongoing global warming crusade.
[...]
GIBSON: Mike Allen, now, you're a political correspondent. My question about Big Al -- he weighs in -- and The New York Times described this as a "new fullness of his face," rather than saying he gained a lot of weight.
I know Hillary's people are watching his weight. They figure if he loses weight, he's running. So, what's the judgment today?
ALLEN: Right, and if he stays shaven, another indication.
From the March 21 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: The United Nations has already developed a global carbon tax. Canada has initiated theirs. Politicians are in love with the environmental movement, not because they care about the Earth -- some of them might; some of them may not -- they just see it as a way to raise taxes, all in the name of saving the planet.
I also know that Al Gore is on a diet. I'm not making that up. He is on a diet, trying to lose weight. How come, Fatso? You think -- really -- I mean, really, you think people care about what you look like during your slide shows? Everybody is asleep during the slide shows, Al. This guy, I believe, is preparing a candidacy.
Here's what I don't know. I'm not sure when Al Gore will announce -- this summer, winter -- but it's coming. Was today's testimony actually a de facto campaign stop?
















I also know that Al Gore is on a diet. I'm not making that up. He is on a diet, trying to lose weight. How come, Fatso?
Project much, "Slim?"
Given the growing rate of obesity in this country, not only is it unforgiveably rude and demeaning to level insults concerning body weight, it is also incredibly short sighted as these type of insults alienate a (please forgive the unavoidable pun) growing body of voters. I guess overweight Republicans will just suffer in silence along with their Republican homosexual counterparts...
hahaha well they dont and cant do this with clinton, so its really gore's own fault for giving them material
hard to make fun of clinton for getting some without looking like youre jealous.
you really don't read the articles do you? Or is it that you can't?
Hey Joystick Jockey:
Because I don't think you've conceived this yet, the "material" of which you speak is made up of lies and distortions, exaggerations and rumor. The media feeds it to us because people like you eat it up. See, their mission is to sell advertising time, and advertisers prefer to include their propaganda in media which many people view. They especially prefer media which caters to conservatives, because it's easier to sell something to people who don't do much research or give things a whole lot of thought. You're precisely the type to believe that you can grow hair from a bottle of St. John's wort, or increase the size of your manhood by buying a Hummer. Therefore, to attract such an audience, the media prints or broadcasts that material of which you speak. Note the abundance of reality programs, soap operas, and the adolescent level of humor on the sit coms. So giggle away. It's all out there just for you!
Bon appetit!
Sources please.
1. Gore has the relationship between co2 and temp backwards CO2 goes up after temps (at least that's what a noted paleoclimatologist says)
Where's his peer reviewed study. Your handful of skeptics somehow never bother to author peer-reviewed studies. Strange, that is.
2.Sunspots are historically linked more closely to temps than CO2.
The key thing is the word "historically". Historically we had a fraction of the people on Earth as we do now, and a fraction of the consumption.
3.There are cases where IFCC scientists had to threaten a lawsuit to get their name removed from the UN report.
So what? There are crackpots in every group. Luckily, there are only a few of them and easy to marganlize.
4.Throughout the history of the earth we have cooled and warmed, but by all means if you can explain the reason for the world heating up after various different ice age please enlighten me. And what of the midevil warm period? I'm pretty sure my SUV didn't cause that.
That was due to the waxing and the waning of the sun's energy output. But that effect variance is dwarfed by the influence that CO2 is now exerting. We've gained 1 degree of global temp in a century, and this is unprecedented in any era.
I guess you're right, evidence IS piling up....but just not on the side of Gore.
If you call no peer-reviewed case studies, "piling up", I'd suggest you consult a dictionary.
That was weird. What happened to Savage's post? It makes you and I look like we're speaking in non-sequiturs.
They yanked it on outta here for some reason. Maybe he was making personal attacks in it? Don't know...
I don't get it and I don't like it. Tim can be boring sometimes, but he's no worse than any of them and better than most.
Agreed. I don't like it either. Unless the author is topically challenged or a rhetorical gangster, there really isn't any reason to yank posts from threads. Tim was misinform(ed)(ing) but was not off topic or radical.
I didnt read the post so I cant say whether yanking it was justified, overall I agree, while when he first came here SR did make troll posts lately he has been pretty reasonable. I think he has become an overall asset to the site.
Agreed. He occasionally brings his "A" game, and it's much more interesting to debate than just post "me too!" all the time...
Be very clear, savage. What we are experiencing right now is a rapid global climate disruption.
Rapid in that temperatures now are more quickly spiking than evidenced in the geologic record of former global climate cycles. Cooling and warming trends from earlier eras were linked to the tectonic joining and separation of continents, tectonic volcanism, in other words slowly drove climate change.
The medieval ICE age, not warming period, was likely not a global phenomenon. In the geologic record, let alone human records, there has not been found continuity of evidence in both hemispheres to support a global medieval ice age.
To summarize; the planet is more quickly heating up on a global scale now than it has in any expanse of time in the deep time frame of the geologic record.
Is man to blame?
We certainly haven't been part of the solution.
Hey now, stop with all of your silly "facts", those get in the way of obfuscation and attacking Al Gore. Jeesh, what are you thinking anyway?
Just call me a research fundamentalist.
From 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled. Was man around then?
What was the rate of that cooling, or other global warming periods up until now? Is this running at the same rate, or is it faster?
The existence of a natural cooling/warming cycle doesn't prove that man can't influence and accelerate those cycles. That would be like exploding a wall of the grand canyon and then trying to deny the existence of dynamite by citing erosion.
Sounds like a whole lot of "hatin" going on there with regards to Al.
Just 2 questions though:
1. Why all the vitriol towards Gore when all he is doing is trying to make us aware that there are consequences to the actions that we take with regards to the planet?
I mean, why can't we take accountability for what we do to the environment?
2. Is the vitriol directed towards Gore meant to drown out him trying to alert us on the fact that we do need to take accountability for what we do to the environment?
I dunno about anyone else here but the thought of living in a dirty world with climate conditions that put us all at peril does not sound too pleasant.
The attitudes and irresponsibility of the corporatocracy are going to kill us all.
I guess when they no longer have anyone to sell anything to that's when they'll get the message about being more socially responsible. (Yeah, I know I just committed the worst of sins - mentioning corporations and social responsibility in the same sentence)
Well, real environmentalists consider Gore a phony and a grandstander who talks the talk, but won't walk the walk. There's been a number of articles on Counterpunch.org about the realities behind Gore's "green-ness" and his actions in and out of office has not been as green as he says he is.
Also, some of us real liberals know of his relationship with leading Israeli war criminals and his support of those crimes through-out his tenures in office. We don't consider him to be a liberal. He's just another phony.
I know many Democrats think he's the re-incarnation of Jesus, but truth be told, he's another pro-corporate killer of arab children and deserves scorn, not praise.
Maybe we need to harken back to the days of a nice big 'fat' President...?
Grover Cleveland?
William Howard Taft?
Oh yeah... Taft liked a roast beef now and again.
How about Bill Clinton? Before the operation, I mean...
Sure. Or perhaps, Chester A. Arthur?
Yeah, Chet-Dog Double-A was livin' large. I'd vote for him.
The one I find most puzzling is the "Al is fat" angle. Is this some lame attempt to contrast him to our current President, who is relatively fit? Well, personally, I'd rather have a fat smart President than a thin stupid one.
If this is coming from the right, it's even more hypocritical. How many of their icons are a little "puffy?" Names like Limbaugh, Rove, Gingrich, Hastert and Bennett come to mind...
Oh, and how could I forget the Dark Lord himself...
It shouldn't even be a point of contention, but alas, it is. Instead of countering what he is saying with maybe some facts, and or "experts" they counter with the fact that indeed, he has gained some weight. I'm with you, give me a fat smart guy leading the country, over someone who thinks it is more important to exercise than to run the country. You know, Bush is famous for taking the mid afternoon off so he can go to the gym. Now, don't get me wrong, because exercise is important, but Bush has got to keep to that "hectic" work schedule of his. Arrive in the Oval by 9AM sharp! And out by 5, and in bed and sleeping (from what Laura says) by 9PM.
Just think how much better off this country would be if Bush spent ALL his time in the gym or on his bike.
Send Cheney in there, too.
They're still trying to counteract Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot. Unfortunately for them, Al Gore is a big, fat genius, with the facts to back him up.
How about that Jabba the hut slimeball Denny Hastert. He's a big fat ass and a liar and crook. Let's look at Fox fatasses Neal Cavuto, Dick Morris, John Gibson. Pots and kettles, kettles and pots.
Good lord, these people just hate Al Gore. Is Glen Beck capable of an emotion other than hate?
Sorry but hyperbole loses the day.
What's wrong with algore convincing others to conserve and reducing his own consumption? This is not about an either or proposition...and it's not about him buying his way out with green stamps.
I can and will call algore a hypocrite until he walks the talk.
You are a master of the mangled, mixed metaphor. I bow to you.
Prag, I think you nailed the tip of the iceberg right on the head.
And I can and will call you a puppet until you stop bleating the lies of right-wing attack groups.
Exactly. Gore calls for less energy use but has three mansions to heat and light. His ecological footprint is far larger than that of most people. He is a hypocrite.
And I'll call you a hypocrite until you don flak jacket and helmet and get your ass over to Iraq!
Umm... Isn't he acting on this now? I mean, there is this whole movie thing, and then his tour and talking to people about global warming. In the past, he has fought for environmental issues when in the Senate, and during his time as VP of the US and all. So what other actions should he be taking? He lives a carbon neutral lifestyle, offseting the carbon he and his family and his business emits by buying green energy sources (which most people could afford if they looked into it, my fiance and I purchase green energy to offset some of what we emit as far as carbon, and we are far from "well off"). Gore is actually walking the walk in this case. I'm not sure where you get that he isn't...
It's called reducing his consumption...that would be walking the talk.
- by buying green energy sources (which most people could afford if they looked into it, my fiance and I purchase green energy to offset some of what we emit as far as carbon, - magnolia
If it's so affordable...why aren't you buying green stamps for all of what you emit...while you're at...why not buy more than you emit.
I dno't fault algore's efforts in preaching conservation...I do fault his lack of personal action in actually conserving energy.
I can and will call him a hypocrite until he walks the talk.
I guess we disagree then. I see him as being one who conserves energy. What do you want him to do? Live in a tent out in the woods and wash in a stream? It's kind analogous to the people who claim that John Edwards can't work on poverty issues because he's not poor.
Again, Gore appears to eliminate his carbon footprint, and does things in his person life like drive a hybrid car instead of some monster SUV or something like that. I don't know entirely what he does, but it appears to me that he does a lot more than most.
My fiance and I are looking into buying more green energy credits, but it is something that we just started doing very recently and it is new to us. We are looking at outfitting our home with solar panels as well to take it off of the electric grid, and we may just do that. That's what we're doing.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree about Gore, because to me, he is conserving and walking the walk.
I'll give algore more credit when he actually leads by example. And no, I don't expect him to live in a tent and ride a bike.
This is not about extremes on either side of the argument...it's not about an either or proposition. He could lead by example and make his home the model for energy conservation.
Good for you and your fiance in trying to conserve...but right now you're lined up with algore...talking about it.
Agree to disagree...I'm fine with that.
Well, we're not actually "trying" we are doing it.
For example, even though I live 35 miles from my workplace, I ride my bike back and forth to work 3 times per week now. Which isn't as bad as it sounds since I also race bikes, and it is good training for me, but it has indeed cut down our gas bill greatly. The fiance, instead of driving to her workplace takes public transportation every day, after riding her bike to the bus stop (all of the buses in our town have bike racks). We don't use incandescent bulbs in our house. We keep our heat set at 65 or lower in the winter, and prescribe to the wearing a sweater item if we get cold at night, and throw an extra blanket on the bed, and in the summer, we set it at 75 so that we don't use too much energy in cooling the house, and we just shut it off completely if it's not too miserable out there. What else? We grow most of our own vegetables in our garden organically. So indeed, I would actually say that we are walking the walk when it comes to trying to conserve as much energy as possible.
Outstanding!! I stand corrected...you are walking the walk.
Now if you could convince the patron saint of conservation....algore...to lead by following your example.
You're getting your topics mixed up. He is exclusively calling for less emissions, not less energy use. By using carbon offsets and buying "green" power, Gore is responsible for LESS emissions. There is no hypocrisy here except in the minds of people who already dislike Gore.
Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's ok to consume more energy...just cut down on the emissions...that explains the bloated look.
Just wjhat are you doing Wesley besides criticizing? Probably nothing because you refuse to believe there is a problem. So to that end I would say you are the true hypocrite.
I'm for clean water, clean air, and not throwing your trash out the window.
I am not for alarmists screeching that mankind is destroying the planet.
You're sharp as a marble.
You're against air and water pollution? How about cannibalism? E. coli? AIDS? You're obviously a visionary maverick, taking such a stand. You rebel, you.
And answering a question about what are you doing about the environment by saying what you're for is equally amusing. Do you reduce pollution through your opinion alone? That's very impressive. I bet the potholes on your street get fixed immediately solely through your mental powers.
Sharp as a marble indeed. I may have misread something once, but that took the cake.
Please, let's not be fooled. By reframing this issue as one of personal virtue rather than as a decision to do what is right as a society, the other side gets to use "hypocrisy" as a club.
I am all for walking what one talks, but do you seriously expect a former Vice President of the United States to take a city bus? After everyone on the bus gets strip searched by the Secret Service, and the camera crews following the bus block traffic for miles, there will be all these stories about Al "showing off" by riding the bus.
Personal choices are fine, but they will not make the difference all by themselves. And there is a chicken-and-egg problem here: until there are major investments in alternative energy and a major re-design of the transport system (better mass transit, ICE replacements for automobiles) only the very well-to-do will be able to afford to "walk the talk" as Wesley says.
I get @0% of my grid power from a nuclear plant because nuclear is subsidised to the hilt. Different choices could be made subsidising renewable energy. These are the areas where debate should be happening, not Al Gore's house.
He writes like the unabomber. Maybe he should live in a shack like the unabomber.
http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
One man's hypocrite is another man's hero.
Look at all of the hero worship given to your fearless leaders in the White house and the media, who are talking the talk now, but in their youth, they chose to walk the walk. But in the opposite direction.
"I can and will call him a hypocrite until he walks the talk. "
-----
You've said that a couple of times now. I can and will call you an ignoramus until you learn what "walking the walk" means
*Psssst... Wesley*
One time can be passed off as a typo, but that's three.
One can "talk the talk". it's better if one "walks the walk".
You can't "talk the walk" or "walk the talk".
Oh, Easy's on it, and Wesley has corrected himself(or finally had a typo that worked out)
Never mind.
The best thing about the Corporate Media echo chamber, is that the egregious claims remain relatively constant - i.e., "every bad thing they can think of to say" about liberal/Dem candidates and policies - so that refutation is fairly simple at each successive iteration of the lies.
The bad thing about the Corporate Media echo chamber, is that somewhere between 25% and 50% of the voting population, accept whatever the latest iteration, at face value, and without intervention of intellect or memory of past debunkings.
1. Wrong: glaciation trends and co2 levels
2. Wrong: sunspots vs temperature
3. Huh? What does the Intergovernmental Follow-up and Coordination Committee have to do with climatology?
4. Quote (from NOVA): Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.
Consider yourself enlightened. It might also further enlighten you to understand that ice ages, and the periods between them, last for millions (that's a lot of zeros) of years.
I have a feeling that you and your herd of gw deniers would argue with science if it tried to convince you that we're closer to the sun in winter than in summer.
What... no Ann Coulter? She must be slipping...
I'm sure Ann is somewhere preparing some lovely filth to hurl at Mr. & Mrs. Edwards.
That would fit her MO.
Yeah ... her Slimeship is in the shop.
That being her only means of transportation between Planet Wingnut and the real world, she's had to cool her jets for a bit.
MMFA - why are comments being scrubbed? I can understand if there is a Terms of Use violation but I read some of the deleted comments and they seemed fine.
I'd appreciate it if a moderator could come in and let us know what's going on. It's disconcerting...
I take the blame. I flagged some global warming comments for "off-topic" because I was hoping to stop this from becoming the umpteenth 200-post thread of dueling GW links, since GW wasn't really the topic of the MMFA item. I apologize and will stop now.
I am a major topic drifter when this subject comes up. I will take any excuse to debate deniers. If I had a gun, I would probably like to shoot fish in barrels, too.
It's a bad habit, and I should probably limit myself...
That's cool thanks for letting us know.
I'm beginning to get the feeling that the "flag" feature is almost automatic, with little or no moderator judgment involved. I had a post deleted just minutes after I'd written it, so I simply posted it again later in the thread and it stayed. It clearly wasn't a moderator who objected, so I assume the first post was flagged and the second was not. Then again, we've also seen threads where multiple people have claimed to have flagged Col. Roy Campbell's racist rants, and they were never deleted.
I am, apparently, on probation. Nobody tell my P.O.
Now can you do something about those Michael Savage 200 post "he's a putz" "no, he's a genius"... threads.
The one that I like the most that conservatives have been kicking around a lot lately has been that they are comparing the shrinking ice caps on Mars with the shrinking ice caps on Earth. Hey, the caps are shrinking on Mars the same as Earth, it has to be "natural" processes right? Never mind that most of the ice on Mars is CO2 ice (ie dry ice), and that the caps on Mars do this thinning out thing every single year as the "ice" sublimates from solid to gas, but hey, whatever...
The logic seems to be that, if there was ever natural climate change then it is impossible for there to be man-made climate change.
By this logic, the skating rink at Rockefeller Center is just the act of a playful Deity.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=Global+Warming+and+swindle&hl=en
Watch this very well done video. None of the scientists are paid by oil companies. They all explain very detailed data.
A video done by a hack. He has been accused more than once by the very scientists in his documentaries of distorting their views with his editing. Opposing that we have what hundreds of peer reviewed studies done by ACTUAL scientists. HMMMM. This is science, the overwhelming consensus of scientists say one thing, a video done by a hack says something different, well, who needs science and studies when you have an ideology.
There's another Nambla pony ride for Ldo.Good boy.
Ldoren,
Are these people the best you got in your side? Martin Durkin and Aurthur B. Robinson? Where is science publications? Where is peer-reviewed journals?
Read this article about this documentary:
The Real Global Warming Swindle from The Independent
A few excerpts:
"Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong."
"Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme..."
"Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate."
"However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics." (Sounds familiar? Infamous Oregon Petition Project from OISM, printed in the typeface and format of National Academy of Science proceeding - to make it look like official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal).
"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said."
Who is this Martin Durkin?
Read this from Wiki: Martin Durkin
A few excerpts:
"He is understood to have once been closely involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party and its later offshoots Living Marxism and Spiked, a magazine and associated political network which promotes libertarian views, and is highly critical of environmentalism.
"However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV."
"Subsequent television documentaries by Durkin aired as Equinox programs which include a 1998 documentary which argued that silicone breast implants were in fact beneficial to a woman's health"
"Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.""
Please stop w/ the attacks on the director.
There are credible scientists in the video w/ loads of peer reviewed data.
Lastly, the only data that I care about from the video, which IS acurate...is the data about sunspot activity and the lag of CO2 and temp.
Moreover, it's not like the Guy for Greenpeace was anti environment.
Just watch the damn thing.
So it doesnt matter that the director has a history of biased documentaries and misrepresenting, through editing his interviewees positions? Yeah it does.
There are credible scientists in the video w/ loads of peer reviewed data.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they are credible, let them publish papers. Let them have peer-reviewed. That's the only thing that would make them "credible". Why only making comments on TV documentary?
------------
Lastly, the only data that I care about from the video, which IS acurate...is the data about sunspot activity and the lag of CO2 and temp.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is what The Independent article says:
"Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years."
So why Durkin didn't use recent and corrected version of data? Because that would NOT support this argument, right? Basically this guy is a crook, dishonest. Why should I believe anything in his documentary?
----------------------
Moreover, it's not like the Guy for Greenpeace was anti environment.
++++++++++++++++++++++
So what? Someone does not need to be "anti-environment" to oppose AWG. He is skeptic of AWG, so he made his comment - just like you. So what? Having "greenpeace" label does not make someone more credible, unless he presents it a scientific way (not just making comment in documentary).
No, the graphs for the sunspots were correct. They got them from the scientist in the show who used them to predict the weather, which he was published for his finding b/c he was so accurate.
Next, the CO2 does lag behind the temp. This is due to ocean activity. As the earth heats, the oceans emit more CO2, but it takes several years for the oceans to heat up. That is a very compelling point.
"No, the graphs for the sunspots were correct."
So are you saying that the corrected graphs are then incorrect and that the original discredited 1991 graph was in fact correct?
No, the graphs for the sunspots were correct. They got them from the scientist in the show who used them to predict the weather, which he was published for his finding b/c he was so accurate.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
No, it's not correct. No matter how many times you say that it's right, that's not going to make it right. In 2004, Paul Damon and Peter Laut proved that 1991 graph was incorrect handling of underlying data (published in Eos).
Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data
Here it says:
"In 1991,Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen published an article in Science claiming a “strikingly good agreement”between solar cyclelengths (that is, the fluctuating lengths of the cycles undergone by the number of sunspots) and northern hemisphere land temperatures over the period 1860–1990.
......
.....However,close analysis of the central graphs in all of these articles reveals questionable handling of the underlying physical data. In the 1991 article, the impressive agreement of the solar curve with terrestrial temperatures during the global warming of the recent decennia had been a major factor in the article’s strong impact. But this agreement was actually an artifact: it had simply been obtained by adding, recent update is presented in Figure 2.
The third is the cycle that Friis-Christensen and Lassen correlatedwith 20th century warming.However, they normalized a single Gleissberg cycle to 20th century temperatures without using paleoclimate as a boundary condition. As pointed out by Damon and Peristykh, this provided them an unwarranted degree of freedom in choosing the solar cycle length (SCL) scale such as to raise the third cycle by approximately 0.2°C. Furthermore, their famous Figure 2 (Figure 1a of this Forum article), which helped them provide the illusion of 95% correlation with the instrumental data,was—as also mentioned above—provided by the use of unfiltered data.Our present Figure 2,which includes filtered data to 1990, does not exhibit any precipitous rise in smoothed SCL after the minimum of the instrumental data at circa. 1970.The results of Damon and Peristykh suggest that the SCL (Gleissberg) contribution to northern hemisphere warming could at most be 25% to 1980 and 15% to 1997.
Other examples of unacceptable handling of observational data are presented by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] and Svensmark [1998]."
"Please stop w/ the attacks on the director...Just watch the damn thing."
We'll remember that the next time a Michael Moore movie is discussed.
Can someone please explain to me why I hear endless snarks concerning Al Gore's weight, but I have yet to hear ANYONE comment on Newt Gingrich's? Its it because Gingrich has ALWAYS looked like a bowling ball?
It cant be because one is a candidate for President and is therefore open to criticism, because Gingrich is much more likely to be a candidate than Gore is.
I can only imagine that it has to do with the fact that Gore is the one candidate that the Corporatists and their clients, the media, is most afraid of. He threatens their comfy bottom line. They cant refute his arguements without being exposed at ignorant flat-earthers, so they invent crap like "he's a hypocrite" (ignoring the fact that he does WALK THE WALK in eliminating his carbon footprint) and "he claims to have invented the internet" (which isnt any more true now than it was when it first became part of the media canon in 2000) or sixth-grade taunting like "he's fat. Look how fat he is. Puffy. Fat. Eww, sure he's the smartest, most progressive, most experienced guy out there at a time when America desperately needs a smart, experienced progressive, but he's FAT! Coming up next, a clip of Newt Gingrich, in which no mention of his weight will be made..."
In a hundred years, teachers will explain to astonished students that there were actually people living early in the 21st century who denied the existance of global warming and man's part in advancing it in the same way that I try to explain in my classrooms that people in the 15th century once denied that the Earth travels around the sun. Religious fanatics and flat-earthers of the time are lucky that video didnt exist back then, so I cant actually show them spewing their ignorant nonsense to the amusement of my students. Global-warming deniers of the current era are not so fortunate.
I imagine that a hundred years from now, video of James Inhofe calling global warming "the greatest hoax of our time" will be endlessly played for the amusement of high school students- that is, the ones who have survived the climate disaster.
The screeching, knee-jerk reaction and subsequent vitriol directed at Gore in such a concerted manner, would suggest that these folks are worried becuase Gore speaks the truth. Remember how the church vilified those who suggested the earth was round and in fact revolved around the sun. The reactions we are seeing now to Gore give a small glimpse into what it must have been like back in the dark ages...seems we have not progressed at all.
The reason IMO these folks are attacking Gore with such vigor is because they are really worried about him joining the presidential race. The are doing some pre-electtion smearing to discredit him and keep him out of the presidential race.
As usual, the right's alarmist, myopic view and character assassination attempts on Gore will backfire. Maybe we will see another Gore/ Clinton whitehouse??? NOw that would really piss off the right.
Oh and I forgot to add....What if Gore is right? Isn't it kind of the smae thing with most religous fanatics. What if there is a God? We better do what's right then.
William Broad, the author of the latest NYT article on Al Gore has just received a high literary award, the rediscovery Institute Assault on Science Award.
Read about it here.
http://www.re-discovery.org/active_1.html#wb
Thanks for the url! Sincerely, worth a chuckle!
I think AlBore's heart is in the right place, but you kind of have to ask if he set out to make a mockery of his subject matter.
There's a Big Problem with the whole energy thing, and I'll sleep better at night knowing that BIG Al went around in his house and replaced all his regular light bulbs with flourescent ones...
Hehe, I hope Beck is right (bad pun) and Gore runs. On the other hand, he can run next election, since climate change will only become a bigger issue as time goes on...