Fox's Baier misrepresented Gore's comments about Myanmar cyclone
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Fox News' Bret Baier claimed that in an interview on NPR, "Former Vice President Al Gore says global warming is to blame for the cyclone in Myanmar." In fact, while Gore did discuss the cyclone in the context of global warming, he also stated -- just moments earlier -- that "any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming."
During the May 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, guest host Bret Baier claimed that in an interview on National Public Radio, "Former Vice President Al Gore says global warming is to blame for the cyclone in Myanmar." Baier subsequently stated: "But many experts say it is impossible to credibly make such a link. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics tells Fox, quote, 'It is an alarmist statement, and Vice President Gore wants to confuse the crowd,' adding, 'There is no way to blame any single event on CO2 and global warming.' " In fact, while Gore did discuss the cyclone in the context of global warming, he also stated -- just moments earlier -- that "any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming." Gore said that "the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming -- we've always had hurricanes -- nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming."
From the May 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: And guess what Al Gore blames for that cyclone in Burma? We'll see if you're right after the break.
[...]
BAIER: And now, for the most tantalizing two minutes in television, some fresh pickings from the "Political Grapevine."
Former Vice President Al Gore says global warming is to blame for the cyclone in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. In an interview with National Public Radio, Gore called the storm one of the, quote, "consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with global warming."
But many experts say it is impossible to credibly make such a link. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics tells Fox, quote, "It is an alarmist statement, and Vice President Gore wants to confuse the crowd," adding, "There is no way to blame any single event on CO2 and global warming."
That's a sentiment supported by Dr. Adam Lea at the University College of London, who says, quote, "It's impossible to say."
And Jeff Poor of the Business and Media Institute writes that "[u]sing tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists."
In fact, when asked about Hurricane Katrina on the May 6 edition of NPR's Fresh Air, Gore stated: "It's also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming -- we've always had hurricanes -- nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming." Moments later, Gore said: "And as we're talking today, Terry [Gross, host], the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China. And we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming. And the entire north polar ice cap, normally the size of the lower 48 states, give or take an Arizona, is melting before our eyes 40 percent melted in the last 20 years. And in the summer months it could be completely gone, according to one scientific estimate, in as little as five years."
From the May 6 edition of NPR's Fresh Air:
GROSS: You know, in your book you mention that you think Katrina, Hurricane Katrina, convinced Americans to look differently at climate crisis --
GORE: Some, mm-hmm.
GROSS: -- even though no one can say for sure whether Katrina was directly a result of the climate crisis or not. But, you know, one reaction to Katrina, one now-famous reaction was from Pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain sought.
GORE: Mm-hmm.
GROSS: And on our show about Hurricane Katrina, he said, "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that. I believe that Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." And he went on to explain that this was punishment for a gay pride parade that was about to happen that promised to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in all of the gay pride parades. So what do you think about when you hear a reaction like that to Katrina?
GORE: Well, my friends in New Orleans said, "Well, if that's the case, how come God spared the French Quarter?" Of course that's silly. It's also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming -- we've always had hurricanes -- nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.
And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China. And we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming. And the entire north polar ice cap, normally the size of the lower 48 states, give or take an Arizona, is melting before our eyes 40 percent melted in the last 20 years. And in the summer months it could be completely gone, according to one scientific estimate, in as little as five years.
Baier also quoted Jeff Poor of the Business & Media Institute, who wrote that "[u]sing tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists." According to its website, the Business & Media Institute "is a division of the Media Research Center," a conservative media watchdog group.
Here's your "news" Americans, delivered straight from the right-wing corporate trough:
Pure Lies. Pure Smears.
Fascism.
Oh for crying out loud, the word parsing elves are working overtime around here to salvage this one from Gore > "the larger ones........appear to be linked to global warming", spoken in the context of the Myanmar tragedy.
Of course Gore was blaming global warming, in typical roundabout fashion.
Baier misrepresented nothing.
Here's the full quote without your strategic ellipses:
"It's also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming -- we've always had hurricanes -- nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming "
What about "TREND TOWARD" did you find superfluous?
Yes, Baier absolutely misrepresented what Gore said, and so did you.
Screen should read: Tommy: Hot Air
Of course Gore was blaming global warming, in typical roundabout fashion.
Exactly. Just as Al Gore invented the internet in a typical roundabout fashion lol.
But I should show praise for him...in the IT business, and if it wasn't for Al inventing the internet, I'd be out of a job.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701160013
Tommy, there's no parsing by MMFA. There's purposeful omission by Fox Noise.
I read what Gore said above and he answered that as intelligently, scientifically, and responsiblly as one should answer such a question.
You, Tommy, have at times made some good insights in the past that had me think of things like I haven't before.
But what you are doing now is trolling when you know damn well that Fox News is twisting Gore's words in an attempt to smear him and associate him with a "lunatic fringe". I don't what your personal grudge with Gore is, but you need to get over it.
And if you say that this is nothing new for Fox News; fine. But I still like to be informed on the lies of FNC just like I want to be informed on the new way Bush is planning on screwing us all.
Tommy,
You ellypses is misleading. It appears the the trend is what is being linked to global warming - not individual events themselves - which is what it looks like Fox was saying.
I think you are the one parsing here by using the ellypsis strategically.
I would be more inclined to believe that this storm could have had an effect because of Global Warming much more than Reid & Boxer's claims that the California fires were a result of Global Warming.
But then again, its all a political & money making hoax anyway.
Beginning in 2004, the amount of wildland scorched in the U.S. has exceeded 8 million acres each year. Prior to this, going all the way back to 1960, there were a total of 4 seasons that exceeded 7 million acres during the 33 year period, and none that exceeded 8 million.
Is this a hoax?
"limitations of controlled brush fire"
You must be talking about a local policy that has more to do with the wildland/urban interface, which is not a national function of the USFS. I'm hoping you can link me to that, because I can't find it. I do, however, know that in 1995 the policy of the USFS was formally changed to recognize wildland fire as an essential ecological process.
Fuel is but one necessary ingredient for large wildfires. Climate plays an enormous role. Without wind, arid conditions and high temperatures, the amount of fuel becomes becomes insignificant.
In the case of California wildfires of 2007, humans have chosen to inhabit areas that are prone to natural fires. They have replaced the natural fuel of vegitation with fuel in the form of houses, often making controlled burning of fuel in these areas impractical from a safety and livability standpoint.
" I do, however, know that in 1995 the policy of the USFS was formally changed to recognize wildland fire as an essential ecological process. "
So, just what is it you are trying to say? That global warming is causing excess acreage to burn or that government policy is causing excess acreage to burn?
Sure he did. Its not like Al's looking at all the world's weather and then deciding on a case by case basis. This little storm is caused by global warming and this little storm is not.
Climatology does not predict discrete weather paterns. todays weather,or this weeks.
Baier also quoted Jeff Poor of the Business & Media Institute, who wrote that "[u]sing tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists."
Absolutely true. Every tragedy, every day its colder, every day its warmer, each time it rains, each time it doesn't rain, and each time someone commits arson.
Every tragedy, every day its colder, every day its warmer, each time it rains, each time it doesn't rain.
That would be the method that Rush Limbaugh uses. I cannot count the times I have heard him diss global climate change by talking about a specific weather event, as though local weather extremes have anything to do with the climate globally!
It's not those who stand behind the peer-reviewed science that supports man-made global warming who use individual weather events to bolster their arguments. It the deniers who do that. Gore specifically denied that any individual storm can be linked to global warming, but it's almost certain that we are seeing stronger storms more often because of global warming - that global warming causes significant climate change, so we will be seeing wetter rainy seasons and drier dry seasons and worse winters and hotter summers.
The Earth itself will survive this change, but humans and other living creatures are going to have a much tougher time overall because of the relatively rapid changes that will happen to climate and to the world. Billions are going to suffer.
Your way of thinking is becoming increasingly insignificant. People aren't so stupid as you think.
It must be frustrating for you to look around and see that even the staunchest standard bearers of the conservative worldview, the evangelicals, are taking up the call to help find solutions to the climate crisis. You need to lead, follow or get out of the way because all you nay-sayers who bleet that you can't do anything about it have no right to impede the progress of those who can do something about it.
Look. The sky belongs to you and me. It belongs to us collectively and when polluters crap up our property they have an obligation to clean up their mess. And being the market fundamentalist that you are, I'm betting that's what's at the heart of your denials. I'll bet you believe we have no right to stand together and demand acccoutability from corporate polluters because that would violate the right of corporations to make as much profit as possible.
Well I'm sorry but that us vs them view of markets and climate are the corrosive thinking of conservative dinosaurs.
Columbus has drunk the ingrate kool-aid as evidenced by his lack of adept comments.
Columbus sailed into the land of Blue
He annointed himself as pundits do
The arbiter of the false and the true.
(But reading comprehension his waterloo.)
Newt G and Pat (Rev) R have also drunk that flavor.
Nobody has been able to find a per reviewed article which sucessfully disproves global warming. If its in your back pocket, people, rich people, rich people who hate global warming warnings are waiting to open their wallets for you.
Nobody has been able to find a per reviewed article which sucessfully disproves global warming.
Its a bit difficult to disprove something that has no proof to begin with. When your proof is drowning polar bears who swam out too far, it becomes an SNL skit rather than a scientific theory.
Are you kidding? They have Al Gore, cyclones destroying Burma and hurricanes destroying New Orleans. What more do they need to stand the test of proof that global warming is the cause of all disasters?? What purpose would a liberal have for lieing about global warming? It's not like he is financially invested in global warming "fix it programs", right? After all, what could contradictory data from the specialists of data possibly mean towards the provability of global warming as 'solely' caused by man's destructive nature, or even that it exsists?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
"contradictory data from the specialists of data"
What the heck does that mean? There is some difference between global temperature datasets, but that is because different groups use different analyses or measure different things--e.g. satellite data measures a huge amount of the atmosphere, including parts of the stratosphere, which is cooling. (BTW, that's a fingerprint of CO2 warming--a cooling stratosphere.)
Your link is full of nonsense. I suggest you try actual scientific sources. See what the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society has to say on the matter.
"What the heck does that mean? There is some difference between global temperature datasets, but that is because different groups use different analyses or measure different things--"
Excuses? That's what you give after agreeing that scientific data doesn't agree with itself? Are you telling me that only data that supports global warming can be accurate? All other data must be inaccurate? Is that why NASA's data on global warming is saying global cooling? But then, I guess you'll find link after link to support YOUR theory.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm
land temperatures were the highest ever recorded for the month of march.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm
And you ignore the past 150 years. Climate is not defined by what happens in February. Especially if that is undone by March.
There is internal variability. Global warming does not say that each month, year or even each five year period will be warmer than the last.
The global signal predicted for global warming is 0.02 degC/year. But weather and internal events like El Nino/La Nina can cause changes from year to year of 0.5 degC or more. These internal changes even out over time--but it takes many years before that small, but consistently warm signal can come through.
And yours showed this March was average. But, you define it as the warmest.
" ...for the past 113 years. It was the 63rd warmest March since record-keeping began in the United States in 1895." From YOUR link. Wow! Talk about fearmongering at it's best! I like your selective data procurement. That IS the way you're taught to do it on planet fearmonger, isn't it? Drink your kool-aid, it's refreshing and will help cool you down.
"Is only the rest of the globe getting warmer, while the US is not?"--philib
Ummm... It's called Global Warming - not USA warming. The theory is based on worldwide average temperatures and not just a part of the world. This is pretty basic, I would think.
This is what happens when people who have no clue try to talk about climate. You canot claim there is or in't global warming based on one year of data. Or two years. You need to look at long term trends, because long terms trends are what defines climate. Real scientific sources, rather than some right winger's blog, would be the places to go to learn about this--if you even want to learn.
As for your link on volcanoes, this is well known. Perhaps you should read the literature on how global climate models predicted the temperature response and the drying of the stratosphere associated with the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. The global response to volcanoes is one of the best confirmations of the global warming theory.
" You canot claim there is or in't global warming based on one year of data. Or two years. You need to look at long term trends, because long terms trends are what defines climate"
How about over 100 years? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
1 degree C is quite a rise. I do notice the data is starting to taper off. Does that mean warming is done? Or, that more data needs to be interpreted? Could the planet possibly warm and cool naturally? And, besides, I'm not claiming global warming isn't happening. I don't think fearmongering because of natural cycles is the best way to approach the situation.
There are no natural cycles that can explain the warming. The sun has been constant since 1950, for instance.
Moreover, it is known that CO2 will cause warming. This is solid physics and has been known since the 1950s. There is some uncertainty in how much warming that CO2 will cause because of feedbacks.
So, the answer is that no known natural cycle can explain the recent warming, but the physics of CO2 can explain warming. In addtion, the fingerprint warming of an enhanced greenhouse effect--especially a cooling stratosphere--has been observed. This is why every scientific body that studies the climate has issued a position that global warming is real and caused by humans.
"There are no natural cycles that can explain the warming. The sun has been constant since 1950, for instance." + "So, the answer is that no known natural cycle can explain the recent warming, but the physics of CO2 can explain warming." + "This is why every scientific body that studies the climate has issued a position that global warming is real and caused by humans."
How old is our planet (according to "every scientific body") ? How much would the sun change in that period of time? You want some simple help? Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sun_Life.png Maybe simple answers are too difficult for fearmongers to comprehend.
The sun has been constant for the past fifty years, when most of the warming has occured. And you link to a graph with an X-axis measured in BILLIONS of years.
Here the chart you want, the one that shows no increase in solar activity since 1950:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png
And, besides, I'm not claiming global warming isn't happening. I don't think fearmongering because of natural cycles is the best way to approach the situation.
As I said elsewhere, the Earth has warmed and cooled many times in its history. That doesn't change the fact that this warming is unprecedented in its speed. This warming is caused by man, and man could slow that increase.
It is the speed with which the Earth is warming that is the problem and the way the 6 billion humans on Earth currently survive and thrive that's the issue. The Earth will survive this warming, and there will be some species of animals and plants that will thrive, but many will suffer because of the rapid changes that will occur, and humans will be the most cognizant of those changes.
I care about what will happen to people 50-100 years from now, whether those people are halfway 'round the world or not. I care. You don't, Phil, and that shame is all yours.
Phil says that NASA is claiming that we're seeing global cooling.
NASA doesn't say that. NASA says that volcanic eruptions often lead to global cooling. That doesn't change man-made global warming at all.
Let's say the earth is warming due to man-made global warming by 1 full degree every 10 years. If a volcano erupts during that 10 year period, it might slow down that warming trend so that it takes 12 years for the Earth to heat up 1 full degree. Phil doesn't understand that there are many variables that affect the weather in any given season or any given year, and also doesn't understand that those short term fluctuations don't negate the other variables that are affecting the global climate in the long term.
phil, you're doing the same thing here. no denies that there have been big intense storms in the past. the contention is that they are becoming more frequent now. this rueters link calls the 2007 cyclone season on the indian ocean island of madagascar "the worst on record", with six cyclones. and it notes a very intense storm that hit this season.
http://www.alertnet.org/db/crisisprofiles/MG_CYC.htm
1000+ pier reviewed scientific papers on the subject don't exsist in your reality um? If we can tune the basement wormhole project to your reality we ship you a couple. You can be the life of the next gathering of primitive Hotentot Bohunks you get invited to.
Frequency registered. We are attempting to trace your shadow...Now.
Many scientists are coming around to thinking it is more likely solar radiation that controls our total global temperature. It comes and goes in periods of decades. When you zoom in on Al Gore's famous CO2 / temp graph it shows that there is about an 800 year delay in higher CO2 "causing" higher temps. Or is it the higher temps that may be causing higher CO2 (even Gore said this in not an absolute certainty if CO2 is acause or an effect. ) Gore owns 50% of the company that markets the energy credits - so YES he wants this crap to be mandated. He will become even more wealthy. Bottom line, the earth warms, the earth cools, it is always changing....it always has and it always will. We can't control it. Read the LIBERAL scientific report from Jan '08 that says the the melting in Greenland is due to magma being closer to the earth's surface in Greenland (what a shock to Al Gore that must have been - Greenland was one of his poster children.)
What Baier said
"Former Vice President Al Gore says global warming is to blame for the cyclone in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma."
What Gore said
Global Warming cannot be said to be to blame for the cyclone in Myanmar.
What Gore said is the total opposite of what Baier claimed he said.
There's a good article on Gore's prediction of huge storms caused by his global warming theory, here: http://www.citizensugar.com/1609388
There was a statement made about last years storm in Bangladesh and the "the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China" 2 years ago. If China was hit by such a huge storm for it to take 50 years to exceed, WHAT CAUSED THE PREVIOUS LARGEST STORM? Was it global warming then, too? And, don't cyclones hit southeast asia on a normal basis? Wasn't there a huge earthquake in that area recently (year or two ago), are earthquakes somehow related to global warming?
I guess it doesn't take much to make Al Gore look like a genious to those who think like he does. Did someone mention flavored kool-aid?
"Gore is a genius compared to the little tykes who cling to the false notion that we should do nothing to reduce carbon emissions."
I've never said we should do nothing. I'm just leery of Gore's plan to "fix" global warming by creating "carbon credits" that just transfer polluting 'authorization' from one company to another. With Gore/co making money off of this transfer, but pollution is not changed one way or another. Pollution is still being made at the same rate, but buying credits allows a company to continue making it by buying the credits from a company that doesn't. How does that reduce pollution? Do you think carbon credits actually reduce pollution? If so, how?
Gore may be a genius, but is a money making genius the kind of genius we need for this problem?
"It would be nice if you offered your own solutions instead of just taking potshots."
I haven't seen ANY "solutions" offered by anyone else, here, either. Similarily, all I've seen are "potshots" at those who offer an opinion.
My first solution would be to raise gas prices to $15 gallon. Then use governmental authority to steal private business's profits (oil companies) and use it to further technology advancements in magnetic power sources. First result of MY solution is that people will drive less (who could afford it?), resulting in immediate carbon dioxide reduction. Then creating magnetically powered vehicles would not create the land-born pollutants like the hybrid technology does.
There you go, 2 simple ideas. What do you have to offer other than "potshots"?
first of all, you would wreck the economy with 15 dollar gas, you can't introduce that severe a shock to the system at one time. second, it's untrue that gore only talks about carbon offsets. sept. 18, 2006, "gore proposes a 'carbon nuetral mortgage association' devoted to helping homeowners retrofit and build energy effecient homes". that's saving energy, not offsetting it.
here's the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801125.html
"first of all, you would wreck the economy with 15 dollar gas, you can't introduce that severe a shock to the system at one time."
So, I offer an idea that would work, and you discount it because it is too severe? Maybe I should come up with a plan that will take hundreds of years to correct the problem. Would that satisfy you? According to the global warming fearmongers, just how long do we have before devastating effects of it would start to destroy our planet?
And my idea is too severe?!? Al's idea that company A (who pollutes a lot) would be able to buy carbon credits from company B (who does not pollute) certainly stops the pollution from happening, huh? Does this plan even slow it a little? Maybe, maybe not. But Al certainly gets very rich off his fearmongering. Some get rich with oil by-products, some get rich excusing oil by-products.
"Whether Gore is a genius or not, and whether carbon offsets are the ultimate, he has raised the awareness that we need to act."
You forgot to finish that statement. It should read "he has raised awareness that we need to act....so he can make more money off of poor saps that believe everything they are told to believe." Have some more kool-aid.
"Whether Gore is a genius or not, and whether carbon offsets are the ultimate, "
I raise a valid point about carbon credits being nothing but a money-making venture with NO global warming benefits at all, and you pass it off as if nothing should be worried about. If that's the liberal plan to save the planet, then I'll take a pass on making fearmongers richer. Carbon credits are the base to Gore's global warming plan. He doesn't offer ideas to correct the problem, only ideas on how to profit from the problem. If a republican was devising a plan to profit off of fearmongering (GW-WMDs/war for oil) you liberals would be posting every day as to how evil GW is. When a democrat wants to profit from fearmongering, you consider him the second coming of Christ and no one is allowed to question him.
drink more kool-aid, your hypocrisy is starting to show through.
"if gore were to sign up with exxon mobil...."
You're assuming he isn't already 'signed up' with them. He doesn't have to do commercials to benefit from their profits.
Facts? What FACT do you have to support your statement that he isn't signed up with exxon/mobil? You're the one who said "if" he were to join them. Prove that he hasn't already.
simple analogy: you say the bath water may be hot. I say the bath water may be cold. YOU demand I provide proof of my assertion that the bath water is cold.
If you're going to theorize, then provide proof of your theory at the onset of the theory.
"if you have any proof, offer it. otherwise....there's no proof."
Right, so you have no proof Al isn't already signed up with exxon/mobil and I have no proof he is. Would this be a stalemate? Do you have Al's phone #? We'll give him a call and ask him.
"you could sit here all day and say al gore is being paid by this person or organization, and it's meaningless babble."
Where did I say he was signed up with exxon/mobil?? I did no more than you did....assume he is/isn't already signed up with them. Your meaningless babble is no better/worse than mine, thank you. But, it is fun watching you try to distinguish a difference.
"if gore were to sign up with exxon mobil to do commercials about how environmentally and energy aware the company is"
YOU'RE the one who brought it up. YOU'RE the one who claimed Gore isn't already signed up. YOU should provide proof if proof is needed for an arguement YOU instigated. Do you need a refill on your kool-aid?
"You are making the positive assertion, the burden is on you."
Where did I make a "positive assertion"? I said he was "assuming" Gore isn't what he claimed he wasn't. So..."logically" his is the ONLY claim of fact being made, while I pointed out that he is assuming the FACT he is proclaiming. Read the transcript over again. ALL burden of proof is on him. His is the claim of fact, mine was stating his assumption of fact, I didn't question it, but I did offer another option... that gore could profit in more than just one way.
So? You want me to prove that Gore can make a profit from exxon/mobil in a different way, other than being in a commercial for them? Ok, he "can" make a profit by owning stock. There...my burden of proof is over.
So you are making a worthless point of speculation? I suppose you could argue anything that way.
I guess you simply can't prove anything factual to support your speculation.
How about a cap and dividend solution? It would make us, the owners of the polluted air, the beneficiaries of carbon credits.
Found this on the world wide interwebs:
"Cap and Dividend
The point of Cap and Dividend is to change the public's understanding of the air so that the new understanding will (1) reflect environmental reality, (2) make climate change not just real but popular, and (3) change the public understanding of wealth so that it both reflects reality and promotes democracy.
The center of the Cap and Dividend cognitive policy is a simple idea: We all own the air! Equally. In short, the air becomes visible, tangible, and valuable—more valuable when clean than when polluted. Polluters are understood as dumping poisons into our air—without even paying us, the owners, for dumping permits. We deserve to be paid by polluters for the privilege of dumping poisons into our air. This makes the air a source of wealth.
The material policy goes like this: Carbon pollution is capped where it enters the economy. Any company that wants to sell fossil fuels will have to buy dumping permits. Each year the number of permits made available will go down. After 40 years, by 2050, there will be at least an 80 percent reduction in C02 emissions. Companies that reduce emissions below the level allowed by their permits can then trade them to other companies, creating a trading market for permits.
A new market will be created for permits, which become quite valuable. The money will go into a trust, and will be distributed every month via bank transfer to all Americans equally. Their shares will be non-transferable. The value of the permits is so great that each American will eventually get over $1,000 a year in dividends from the air they own. As the number of permits goes down, the value of permits will rise and each American will get more money each year. The value of the air will be directly reflected in their bank accounts. The proposal should be popular—akin to the oil dividend in Alaska.
An alternative has, say, 80% as dividends and 20% invested in alternative energy (not nuclear or coal), improved energy efficiency, and land use planning.[4]
Because of the descending cap, the price of carbon-based fuels will go up, and the price increases will be offset by dividends. The dividend policy is progressive: the wealthy use more fuel than the poor and middle class, but everyone gets the same dividend. That means that the less well off get a higher proportion of fuel costs covered as a dividend than the rich. In addition, those who use less carbon-based fuel, can spend more of their dividends on whatever they like. An additional benefit is that a huge amount of money will go to help the economy and create jobs all over the country.
Incidentally, the proposal is entirely capitalistic: it makes everyone a capitalist, equally. Finally, the idea that we all own the air can spread to, say, the airwaves, or the rivers. The idea is that a commons — common property — can be a source of wealth, cleaned up, and sustained."
Gore does not sell carbon credits. This is a right wing myth. He does invest in green corporations, owever.
As for another solution, Gore has proposed replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax to give people more of an incentive to conserve energy without increasing the total tax burden.
"Gore has proposed replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax"
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's very comendable of Al.
Your comment reveals your ignorance. Workers would get their payroll tax and then decide if it's worth it to spend that extra money on energy, or save it by saving energy. How evil.
Or they could work more hours without being punished with a tax on them. Working more and using less energy would put a lot of extra money into their pockets. That's fascism I guess.
"Working more and using less energy would put a lot of extra money into their pockets. That's fascism I guess."
I think communism would be a better word. How much "more" would they need to work? What would the extra pocket change do for them when they've ignored their families because of working so much OT?
"either we do it your way or nothing else is feasible, that's what you seem to be saying."
No, that's what you seem to be reading. I offered an idea. You rejected it, now claiming that my idea is the ONLY idea I think is feasible and anything else is wasteful. So, not only do you say my idea is unrealistic and a failure waiting to happen, you claim I accept no other ideas. All the while offering nothing to combat global warming, other than to agree that Gore is right to allow polluters continued pollution rights as long as they pay someone for them OR to let the rich find more tax loopholes, while the poor aren't able to unless they work extra time for the rich. Oh, yeah... you've got a real grip on the global warming situation.
Here's some real ideas:
Pass a Strong Energy Bill which includes improved fuel efficiency standards (this is very important) and funds for training people to work in the clean energy economy and investment tax credits.
Cities should work to develop green collar jobs in wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc. Every area of the country has assets to develop along these lines.
"there is no reason, none, we can't have cars getting 50 miles a gallon on average. that is the quick fix, and then we work on long range solutions at the same time."
No reason? How about people don't want to buy them? If you're going to have that as your "quick fix" idea, then the government will have to FORCE people to buy cars that are already being produced that have that kind of milage. How will the "poor" handle being forced to buy only one kind of vehicle, one that is out of their price range? You are not very concerned for the poor, either, HUH?
And, what's your long range idea? You stated none, so you have none? At least I offered one....unrealistic in YOUR mind, but I offered one.
Well, you did offer a solution. It's a false choice that prohibits any alternatives but you did offer something at least.
Government already heavily subsidizes giant corporations to ensure profits for them. Why not subsidize the little guy? Why not subsidize green alternatives to bring costs within reach of the poor?
They don't have to work more. They can choose to work more and not have to pay taxes to do it. Are you really this dense?
Yes Gore states it. It takes him a lot of sentences, and maybe so many you forget how the argument has flipped in his statement, which starts out one way and ends up another.
Most important is the first sentence when it get's to:
"the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming -- we've always had hurricanes -- nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming..." ...at that point he has stated first that there is a consesus they can't be linked, but he goes to the "--nevertheless--", which means that the consesus be damned, and on to, "the trend toward more Category 5 storms....appears to BE LINKED TO GLOBAL WARMING".
He then goes on to directly link the Mayanmar events, with a serious of "And..."s:
"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China. And we're seeing consequences.."that are argumentive additions to his counter theory to the "consensus" he first mentions and then blows away.
How else should a journalist title this? "Al Gore admits there is a consensus on hurricanes not being linked to GW, but says it's wrong and it's connected to hurricane's like the one in Mayanmar"
Or am I missing something?
How come there has been no mention over Gore's talk of higher taxes, higher prices "required for a transition period", etc.? There were many more things in this interview than Mayanmar that sounded nuts. Is the whole text anywhere? It would be a good full read, I don't know if I could take hearing it again.
Yes, you are missing something. It was right there in the part you quoted.
He said that individual storms are not evidence, but the trend of more frequent and more intense storms are evidence. There is a consensus that this trend is linked to GW. So, everything Gore said was true, and the "journalist" misrepresented it.
Yes, the word "trend" is right there, that's what I'm talking about. Follow the resoning in his long statement, and it leads right to describing the Mayanmar event--it was one part of a trend of larger storms, and the trend is caused by global warming. Here it is:
What else is one to take from that? There's not much left to create a news title for, without repeating Gore's entire piece. Should the report title have been "Gore says global warning is causing a trend toward large destructive cyclones, and the Mayanmar Cyclone is part of that trend, and so Gore says, in too many words to use as a report title, that global warming caused the Mayanmar cyclone from which we are seeing the destruction of today"?
Gore blames the Mayanmar Cyclone on Global Warming. Sounds like an accurate story title to me.
Gingrich and Robertson like it. They have signed on with Al even though his crummy credentials only include best sellers, a useless nobel prize. effectivily helping the internet idea along, a political career that didn't quite take the big prize, a serious interest in the world and its societies that continues to bring important things into the public domain. What could they and we be thinking of?
80P
Correction, Al and Newt have signed on to the position of every scientific body that studies the climate.
You forgot that curtailing global warming includes paradigms which will ultimately hurt the profits of ExxonMobil and the other big oil companies all of whom pay unethical right-leaning scientists to muddy the debate about global warming with unscientific papers none of which survives the muster of peer review yet, amazingly, receive as much attention in the US media as the thousands of peer reviewed papers. There aren't two sides to every story. Sometimes there is just one side called reality. The two-sides canard seems only to rear its vile head when a special interest group needs to infuse uncertainty into legitimate scientific finding antithetical to their finances. Big tobacco's disinformation campaign against the addictiveness and harmfulness of cigarettes is legendary. Big Oil is following their blue print to a tee. Difference is Big Oil's deception affects us all, not just a select group.
Randy
Gore does tie global warming to the cyclone in Myanmar. He essentially does a political double speak. One word makes the difference.
Gore mentions a "scientific consensus" that such storms are not related or cannot be singled out as related to global warming, but then states "nevertheless"...Which is his release from agreeing to the consensus!... and goes right into connecting storms together with global warming, then Mayanmar, using "And..." over and over to add even more.
"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China. And we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."
Am I missing something? Is he not saying that there is a scientific consensus, then goes right into explaining the opposite by handy use of the word "nevertheless"?. I think the reporter titled the story correctly.
Why is it that the NOAA and various other high up climatologists predict that next year we will have 14 major hurricanes, but when the next year comes we don't even have one major hurricane to report, or when they report only 2 major hurricanes but we end up with 3 major and one catastrophic hurricane?
If the science people in their infinite wisdom cannot accurately predict and trend what is going to happen one or two years out, why are we so quick to accept their prognosis that involves change in weather over several years, decades, centuries etc.?
There are countless variables that could throw the computer trend models ridiculously out of the realm of accuracy. The whole science is based upon a assumption that the Earth's features and atmospheric attributes are changing in a predictable fashion.
There are two games in town when it comes to climatological science:
1) You look at the observed and recorded patterns within the Earth crust and/or the atmosphere and you try to draw correlations in between certain aspects of those findings,
2) You establish and build computer trend lines and various prognostic models based on that research and set the perimeters for your predictions.
Now, the interpretation is multidimensional solely because of those pesky little variables such as: the accuracy of the date on hand, the accuracy of our understanding of the atmosphere and the minerals and the unpredictability of the weather patterns (yes, we can forecast that it will rain or snow, but why is it that sometimes the forecasts are utterly wrong?)
Multidimensional interpretation of the climate change (or the lack of) must be multidimensional because, if we looked at the climate through only one side we would be placing our trust that the human cannot make any errors and thus it would also require that the simple rain/sleet/snow, hurricane etc. forecast would be 100% accurate, not 99.9430%, but 100.0000%. We do not live in a one dimensional world, thus we should not allow ourselves to think and apply our findings in a one dimensional fashion. Al Gore represents the one sided dimension that allows for no flexibility towards the other.
Currently we are unable to demonstrate this accuracy and thus I am reluctant to accept any speculations about the climate change. The Earth could be in for the Global Warming or it could also be in for the Global Cooling http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html and either one of the two could cause the symptoms of the other, so who has the biggest credentials to decide?
There are just as many scientists (if not more) that claim that we are headed towards the Global Cooling cycle, that the crop line will move approximately 180 miles south in North America within next 25 years due to the prolonged winters (as the records indicate) in the Canada and the Northern tier of USA.
My point is: Why aren't all sides of this research brought to the spotlight by the media who after all are supposed to be objective? The answer is that the current fad is tilted towards the Global Warming side and it is more politically and financially favorable to report about the "Warming."
How come it is rationally reasonable to dispute the research and the evidence of one group of accredited and recognized scientists just to favor the propositions and the research of the other?
This to me isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans, this simply is about thinking before pulling the trigger. Be careful drinking the water from the fountain that is built by the people who make big profits from your sips.
Personally, I lean towards the middle option: The Earth is known to have cyclical climate changes throughout the recorded history. The winters come, then we have spring, summer, fall and then we star all over. It is sunny, then the thunderstorms roll through dropping copious amounts of precipitation, afterward the clouds clear, the sun comes out again and the earth dries up and so on. It is almost as if it is guaranteed that after each event mentioned the opposite will occur.
However, what is not guaranteed is that the intensity or the strength of the preceding events will accurately predict the future occurrences. Notably cold winter does not predict a very warm spring or summer, particularly dry season does not guarantee a particularly wet soaking season to follow, month filled with tornado outbreaks does not promise that the next month will be without etc.
Maybe, just maybe, the Earth's climate is going through the cycles itself (which is also on record). We had a period in Earths history when the cold prevailed, then it was wet, then hot and dry, then it was the mixture of the two. Maybe we are simply in a transition stage and this is just something that we the humans cannot control.
I am not disputing that we contribute to the pollution, but, you must understand that there are factors that surround us that we have no control over and that those factors greatly outweigh our input.
This means that for every million people that go "green" there are, at the same time, countless volcanoes going of, there are trillions of tons of dead decaying material releasing chemicals which also have harmful effects on the environment, millions of acres of the forest that we now "protect" from humans grow thicker then normal and a lightning strike comes along- sparks a fire that now thanks to our "protection" spreads more- burns hotter and releases more CO2 into the atmosphere etc.
I know that this mindset undermines the "greatness" of our human intellect and technology, but we should also recognize that there are some thing that we simply will not and cannot control.
For what it's worth...
Eweston:
What do you call "unsubstantiated industry sponsored blather?" Let's imagine that your points and your science are right, then there is also a good chance that the opposite of your scientific hypothesis exists and when presented with option A (Warming) and option B (Cooling), there is also a good chance that in between those two another option we can call X (Transitional) exist and it should be considered as well.
I have no interest or stocks in any of the Industries mentioned (Cooling crowd, Warming crowd etc.), I am trying to encourage you and the others to realize that there are valid arguments and proofs going in both directions and again, if you are told that point A exist and that the point B exist, then there must be something in between these two points that serves as a bridge that ties these two possibilities together.
Again, you should at least acknowledge the fact that there are many non-for profit, well respected scientist presenting evidence that the Earth is headed towards the cooling cycle. The point that you might be missing here is that we the humans cannot predict with 100% accuracy what is going to happen next year as far as our climate is concerned, how can we then be so quick to jump aboard a ship of scientific hypothesis that speculates about the climate change that the Earth would face decades, centuries or even millenniums ahead. About the only claim that you or I can make with 100.0000% accuracy is that the climate will change, it is just not for sure in which direction the climate will move to next.
I hoped that few on here would at least consider all of the science and not just the one side that rests under the political party pillow, after all, this is supposed to be a Liberal website and the Liberals are the ones who state that they are open minded, progressive thinking individuals.
I am nothing more then an realist. I do not throw myself in the political party corner and act as a cheerleader of my party (whatever party that might be) based upon certain level of political, social or economic expediency that is presented to me. I will not shy to oppose and question any individual who presents a somewhat questionable argument, regardless of whether that individual is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or whatever. I chose to stand up and look pass the "R's" and the "D's" and base my conclusions and beliefs solely upon rational and logical thinking. If I happen to find myself on the wrong side of the issue, I am still man enough to admit my temporary moment of intellectual fogginess, I take a lesson from that and move on.
I never implied that we should all just give our enthusiasms and our hopes, I merely stated the truth as it sits today, I take no fault that the truth is what it is, I have not created it, thus I cannot/will not change it.
Furthermore, I encourage those with few extra spare moments to acquire just how much Gore and his ilk are making from this Global Warming science, you the blue collar union workers that work in the auto industries, the coal mines, steel plants etc., find out who is driving your jobs oversees and who is tightening the economic belt around your waists.
Realize that the perpetrators of socioeconomic outsourcing come in a variety of packages, there are Whites, Blacks, Republicans, Hispanics, Democrats, Overweight, Underweight, Man, Woman, Old and Young.
You see, as long as the politicians have us "peasants" fighting and arguing in between each other, they can do whatever they can to acquire more power over you and me and drive an even bigger wedge in the social hole that they have so smoothly created for us.
Wake up and don't be so quick to jump on anyone's bus, for whatever reason. Democrat, you have more in common with your Republican neighbor then with Obama or Hillary, Republican, your Democrat neighbor can understand you better then McCain or any other politician.
Never allow yourselves to give a free pass to someone just because they happen to be Gore, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Bush, or just because of their political party affiliation.
Take care
In addition, I hate to do other people's homework, but if you follow these links below you will see that there are valid arguments and concerns on the other side that should not be discredited because of some political agenda. It is never good to put all of your eggs in one basket and leave yourself exposed and vulnerable.
Here is just a fraction of articles and research written by few prominent scientist that include the founder of the Weather Channel, the director of Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, physical chemist and research scientist Dr. Vincent Grey, NOAA, Dr. Timothy Ball ( Canada's first Ph.D. in Climatology) just to name the few, certainly these are not people who lack the credentials or the expertise to comment on climate:
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/06/scientist_predi.html
http://www.nrsp.com/people-vincent-gray.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1170732.htm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LGAJLM0OORX1BQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171188_ethanol08.html
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009739004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570421/Christopher-Booker-Planet-saving-madness.html
http://newsbusters.org//blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
You do realize that there is a ton of scientific evidence that strongly suggest that we are in for Global Cooling? I am just trying to point out once again that the climate is multidimensional and that you cannot throw out someones arguments out of the window simply out of the political motivation. Think about it...