Gore's Energy Use
(updated below) (updated again)
The right-wing noise machine really is a remarkable thing to behold. Al Gore wins an Oscar, gets some well-deserved recognition for his efforts, and within hours the Republican noise machine is already in full smear mode, trying to undercut Gore's message by attacking him personally.
It began this morning when a group that no one has ever heard of--the Tennessee Center for Policy Research--issued a press release claiming that Al Gore's utility bills reveal that his house in Nashville uses 20 times more energy than the average American household. This, according to the group, makes Al Gore an enormous hypocrite.
The press release, which apparently went to every right-wing flack on the planet, was featured prominently on the Drudge Report and was the topic de jour on conservative talk radio and cable news. The right-wing blogosphere didn't miss a beat either. Before long Glenn Reynolds, Townhall, Free Republic, Hot Air, and all the other usual suspects were linking to the story and ridiculing Gore (here's a memeorandum snapshot).
This is a textbook example of the mindless swarming behavior that is so typical among right-wing partisan flacks. First, everyone on the right--from top to bottom--simply assumed that the content of this press release, which was put out by an organization none of them had ever heard of before, was factually accurate. Actually, that probably gives them too much credit. It's not that they assumed it was accurate, it's that they didn't care. The press release was chock-full of truthiness, and that was good enough.
The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.
Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house.
That's awfully weak. Gore's a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change?
And more importantly, as Think Progress reports, even this watered-down hypocrisy charge entirely misses the point. What Al Gore wants people to do is reduce the carbon footprint of their residence as much as possible and then purchase carbon offsets to reduce the remaining footprint to zero. Gore has installed solar panels in his home, he uses fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving technology, and he purchases his energy from Green Power Switch, a provider which utilizes solar and wind power. He then purchases carbon offsets to reduce his remaining carbon footprint to zero.
Could Gore use less overall energy if he and Tipper moved into a one-bedroom apartment? Of course. But he's not asking people to move into smaller homes. He's asking them to reduce their carbon footprints, which is exactly what he has done. He practices what he preaches.
And last but not least, I'm always amazed by the triumphalism displayed by right-wingers when they think they've managed to humiliate a messenger, as if doing so somehow undermines the message itself. It's bizarre. I mean, suppose Al Gore was caught tomorrow driving around the country in a fleet of Hummers that run on solid coal. Would that somehow invalidate decades of scientific research? Could the inhabitants of low-lying Pacific Islands suddenly breath a sigh of relief? It's sad what passes for logic these days on the Right.
For more on this topic and the shady group behind this smear, see this excellent post by Dave Johnson.
UPDATE: Bob Krumm, who is apparently some sort of aspiring politician in Tennessee, takes issue with my claim that Gore's energy usage per square foot is normal for the region in which he lives:
UPDATE II: Perhaps this hypothetical will help those people (many of whom have graced the comment section) who continue to insist that Al Gore's supposed hypocrisy is just SO very important. Suppose that tomorrow Al Gore decided to stop talking about global and start talking about bird flu. Suppose he came up with a new slide show that, among other things, advised people that they could help stop the spread of communicable diseases by always remembering to wash their hands. And suppose further that it was reported that Al Gore had been seen not washing his hands after going to the bathroom. Would that revelation, if true, have any bearing on the dangers of bird flu or the wisdom of washing your hands? If not, please explain to me how my hypothetical is any way logically distinguishable from the issue at hand.
The right-wing noise machine really is a remarkable thing to behold. Al Gore wins an Oscar, gets some well-deserved recognition for his efforts, and within hours the Republican noise machine is already in full smear mode, trying to undercut Gore's message by attacking him personally.
It began this morning when a group that no one has ever heard of--the Tennessee Center for Policy Research--issued a press release claiming that Al Gore's utility bills reveal that his house in Nashville uses 20 times more energy than the average American household. This, according to the group, makes Al Gore an enormous hypocrite.
The press release, which apparently went to every right-wing flack on the planet, was featured prominently on the Drudge Report and was the topic de jour on conservative talk radio and cable news. The right-wing blogosphere didn't miss a beat either. Before long Glenn Reynolds, Townhall, Free Republic, Hot Air, and all the other usual suspects were linking to the story and ridiculing Gore (here's a memeorandum snapshot).
This is a textbook example of the mindless swarming behavior that is so typical among right-wing partisan flacks. First, everyone on the right--from top to bottom--simply assumed that the content of this press release, which was put out by an organization none of them had ever heard of before, was factually accurate. Actually, that probably gives them too much credit. It's not that they assumed it was accurate, it's that they didn't care. The press release was chock-full of truthiness, and that was good enough.
The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.
Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house.
That's awfully weak. Gore's a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change?
And more importantly, as Think Progress reports, even this watered-down hypocrisy charge entirely misses the point. What Al Gore wants people to do is reduce the carbon footprint of their residence as much as possible and then purchase carbon offsets to reduce the remaining footprint to zero. Gore has installed solar panels in his home, he uses fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving technology, and he purchases his energy from Green Power Switch, a provider which utilizes solar and wind power. He then purchases carbon offsets to reduce his remaining carbon footprint to zero.
Could Gore use less overall energy if he and Tipper moved into a one-bedroom apartment? Of course. But he's not asking people to move into smaller homes. He's asking them to reduce their carbon footprints, which is exactly what he has done. He practices what he preaches.
And last but not least, I'm always amazed by the triumphalism displayed by right-wingers when they think they've managed to humiliate a messenger, as if doing so somehow undermines the message itself. It's bizarre. I mean, suppose Al Gore was caught tomorrow driving around the country in a fleet of Hummers that run on solid coal. Would that somehow invalidate decades of scientific research? Could the inhabitants of low-lying Pacific Islands suddenly breath a sigh of relief? It's sad what passes for logic these days on the Right.
For more on this topic and the shady group behind this smear, see this excellent post by Dave Johnson.
UPDATE: Bob Krumm, who is apparently some sort of aspiring politician in Tennessee, takes issue with my claim that Gore's energy usage per square foot is normal for the region in which he lives:
The Krumms are fortunate enough to live in a relatively nice section of West Nashville, just like Al Gore. We moved in to our house in late 2002, just like Al Gore. We then began a major renovation of our home, just like Al Gore. We also have a large home, although it’s only about half the size of Al Gore’s. So let’s do some math.He concludes:
Rather than taking the TCPR at its word about the Gores’ energy consumption, lets rely instead upon documentation provided by Nashville Electric Service just today. It shows that in the last twelve months he consumed 194,250 KWH of energy, ranging from a high of 22,619 KWH in August to a low of 12,098 in December. That compares with our annual energy consumption of 35,215 KWH. Accounting for home size, the five members of the Krumm household consumed 7.34 KWH per square foot over the last twelve months. During the same period, Mr. and Mrs. Gore used 19.43 KWH per square foot–nearly three times our family’s energy consumption.
I think that you have to go back to the forged 60 Minutes documents to find another example of a story that broke so quickly and so thoroughly, but was so viciously denied–against all evidence–by partisans who refused to believe the facts.I just left the following comment at his site:
Shame on me for not basing my analysis on the Krumm family heating bill. How sloppy of me. I took my numbers for the Department of Energy (which is what the TCPR press release cited).At the heart of all this nonsense is the bizarre notion that somehow the wisdom and importance of Gore's message about global climate change would be called into question if it could be shown that Gore doesn't always practice what he preaches. Putting aside the fact that the case against Gore is incredibly weak, why does any of this matter? If Gore were to leave his backdoor open all winter, thereby wasting thousands of kilowatts of energy, would that somehow make his slide show less convincing? If it were demonstrated that Gore's house is not as energy efficient as it could be, would that somehow render his tireless efforts to bring attention to this important issue less meaningful? Of course not. This entire line of attack is just a meaningless sideshow, an effort to distract the American people from the substance of the issue itself.
The Department of Energy lists the average nationwide energy consumption per household as 10,656 kwh and the average consumption per square foot as 13.7 kwh. But for the East South Central region (Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi), the average is 15,447 kwh per household and 19.83 kwh per square foot. As you state in your post, Gore’s consumption is 19.43 kwh per square foot, which is less than the average.
It’s great that your family has such low energy consumption, but you clearly did not “debunk” anything. Nice try, though.
You also seem to have missed the entire point of my post, which had little to do with energy numbers.
UPDATE II: Perhaps this hypothetical will help those people (many of whom have graced the comment section) who continue to insist that Al Gore's supposed hypocrisy is just SO very important. Suppose that tomorrow Al Gore decided to stop talking about global and start talking about bird flu. Suppose he came up with a new slide show that, among other things, advised people that they could help stop the spread of communicable diseases by always remembering to wash their hands. And suppose further that it was reported that Al Gore had been seen not washing his hands after going to the bathroom. Would that revelation, if true, have any bearing on the dangers of bird flu or the wisdom of washing your hands? If not, please explain to me how my hypothetical is any way logically distinguishable from the issue at hand.
posted by A.L. at 11:50 PM
150 Comments:
It is part of the American Ethic that you cannot advocate any principles unless you live by them completely.
There is an expression that captures this: "That's the pot calling the kettle black."
Personally I don't get this point of view. It seems to be the justification for not having any principles at all. As for pots and kettles, the expression doesn't make sense. The color of the pot has nothing to do with the color of the kettle.
Nonetheless, as for Gore and the rest of us well-off Americans talking about reducing energy use, I basically agree with the right-wing criticism. If everyone in the US did just as Gore does in terms of energy use we'd be in a sorry state as far as air pollution goes. I can't believe that "Carbon offsets" really do the job. If we all paid Carbon offsets would the national carbon footprint really go to zero? The job that Gore wants done can't be done with a world of people consuming like Gore. Or you (most likely) or me.
So, although I can't stand the right-wing motivation of the attack you
write about, I basically agree with it.
Us well-off Americans, Pious-owning liberals almost as much as SUV-owning conservatives, use too many resources.
But a (legitimate, I think) criticism of Gore's personal life is not a legitimate criticism of his message any more than a criticism of Bill Clintons's sex life was a legitimate criticism of any of his policies.
-Andy
Get the Impeach W postage stamp at http://cat.dmocrats.org
a widdle cat will lead them. just take a black ink pen and black out the letters you don't want to see on the stamp :)
What these attacks amount to is that if Gore lived by his principles he'd be a hermit in the wilderness without so much as a cooking fire. No one would be able to hear anything he had to say and we could all get back to burning unlimited fossil fuels without him bugging us. How convenient.
This is hardly the first time the right's ad hominem theme has been that if someone with a message they don't like was genuine they would just shut up. It is amusing, in a sordid kind of way, when the wing-nut hate-mongers actually have the nerve to complain that it's unfair to them when the targets they feel obligated to smear and demonize (because they never acknowledge, much less debate, anyone's message) have some quality which lends them credibility or engenders sympathy (e.g. Coulter with the 9/11 widows or Limbaugh with Michael J. Fox).
This is just another typical smear of Al Gore by the same old suspects. The main problem is it is just picked up and reported on the news. I heard it on NBC this morning.
If Gore uses more energy than the average household, so what? The noise makers never attack him for what he advocates, but rather it's always personal. Same with John Kerry, Bill Clinton or any of their other targets.
Jealousy is just dripping from guys like Matt Drudge, Michael Medved and other Hollywood wannabes. They're pathetic.
Someone linked to this on Kos. Best commentary I saw on it all day. (There is a reason A.L. is on my Kos blogroll...)
So, you can pollute your ass off and still be a conservationist if you are wealthy enough to purchase carbon emission offsets to reduce your carbon footprint to zero. Works kind of like the Catholic church's indulgences for sin, or Civil War draft replacement fees. And I thought Gore was "for the people, not the powerful."
I guess I didn't understand the magnitude of limousine liberal hypocrisy.
It began this morning...
I know what you're saying, but it did NOT begin this morning. It began the moment he said something about global warming. From that moment on it was attack mode.
Hannity has been saying for weeks now that he knows Gore flies private jets. Sure Hannity admits that he has no evidence, but he knows it true anyway, because he has anecdotal evidence (i.e. people who think like him made the same assertion.)
That's what they do. Movement conservatism gives them Truth - anying that gets in the way of that Truth is wrong. That's why they don't need for their attacks to be true in reality, they are true in principle ... they are true in the sense that it provides the reason to believe what the movement wants to believe.
When someone pointed out to Henry Ford that the Protocols of Zion was fake he said it didn't matter, said it was true anyway.
Think about that for a second.
It's bizarre
Read The Authoritarians. That's the only way one will be able to get a handle on this behavior.
You forgot to mention that Gore owns LARGE amounts of stock in an oil company called Occidental.
You forgot to mention that Gore owns LARGE amounts of stock in an oil company called Occidental.
I failed to mention it because it is completely false. Thanks for playing, though.
A.L.,
Here check this out
Along the lines of my above comment
So, you can pollute your ass off and still be a conservationist if you are wealthy enough to purchase carbon emission offsets to reduce your carbon footprint to zero. Works kind of like the Catholic church's indulgences for sin, or Civil War draft replacement fees. And I thought Gore was "for the people, not the powerful."
I guess I didn't understand the magnitude of limousine liberal hypocrisy.
Look, Gore doesn't "pollute his ass off." He lives in large house that he's made as environmentally friendly as he can. If you believe that living in a big house somehow makes Gore a hypocrite, fine. But you and I both know how petty this is. If Gore sold his house and moved into a tent, people like you would still find reasons to mock him and would still willfully ignore the substance of what he's saying. Apparently global warming ceases to exist if those talking about it can be sufficiently marginalized.
"But you and I both know how petty this is."
He doesn't know that. He's probably being sincere. Compartmentalization, double think, hypocrisy, difficult with cogent reasnoning ... these are standard character traits of authoritarianism.
Some people might be spreading the gossipy scandal-mongering in a calculated manner, but what's more troubling is the people who geniunely do not see the flaws in their reasoning, that honestly think that Gore flying a private jet means global warming isn't real.
The buzz you hear in your right ear is the excitement of all the tiny brains over there all worked up at the idea that Gore might run for President, and flapping their mouths over it.
A Gore talking about global warming is frightening, but a Gore successfully talking about global warming and turning it into a vehicle for a race for the presidency -- that's terrifying, because he would be exhibiting symptoms of leadership, and they believe only the GOP can have any leader-types.
Not to mention that intellectually, Gore makes the entire set of GOP candidates look like the mental midgets they are.
Fear is what rules these people. When they're up in arms, it's helpful to identify what they're afraid of.
what's more troubling is the people who geniunely do not see the flaws in their reasoning, that honestly think that Gore flying a private jet means global warming isn't real
Indeed.
A certain level of anxiety is necessary for maintaining mental equilibrium when dealing with the moribund little weasel in the White House that runs his Mobius strip foreign policy, reflecting his obvious rodent-like existence, and to keep up the pace on his hamster wheel of familial guilt and self loathing. And everybody else is starting to get more rowdy and disrespectful, turning our heads occasionally to check out the big clock in the back of the room, as George and DICK are the substitute teachers from hell. And just look at what they wear! It could be a burka or a burnoose, or even a loose chartreuse caboose. But then who's counting? Murray down in accounting is counting. He once counted on a red wagon for Xmas, but a life of unfettered sibling slashes and mis-directed parental animosity gave his toiny brain a migraine. Now all he counts on is the Beans (For all you Java programmers out there). The Beans, that is. And another Bush “speech”? A windy oratory of the most element alimentary froofra. Is it safe? Is it safe? Are we toast yet?
Yep, that's it. We are soon (geologically, cosmologically, Estee' Lauder speaking) to be squished lil' pecker heads, burnt to the proverbial crisp. Or is it chips. I can never remember, is it English Chips and American crisps? Or the other way around? I have lost my bearings. I stare up at the sun and burn tiny little holes my cornea. Or is the corealis effect? Which way do the Cheneys go down the toilet, clock-wise or counter clockwise? Course we could be in Argentina where everything goes backward. After that it's batten down the hatches and have a firm grip on the George Dickel bottle. Okay, okay, how about some genteel (not gentile, ya shmuck) sipping of martini's with our pinkies (you call yours what you want, but mine's Pinkie) extended.
This is a similar argument to when people complain about overpopulation, the "other side" says that if they are so worried about it they should commit suicide.
You silly liberals. How is criticism of Gore's energy consumption or his climate change arguments equal to "the character traits of authoritarianism." Somebody please explain that to me. Just because one notes Gore's hypocricy, doubts the soft science of climate change, or doubts that Gore's proposed solutions would do more harm than good are authoritarian. And of course Gore's flying on a private jet doesn't make climate change not real, but it does expose Gore's hypocricy. Gore asks his audience and citizens of the world generally to reduce their carbon emissions/energy consumption. Gore, however many carbon credits he purchases, does not similarly limit his consumption. He is a big time consumer. That makes him a hypocrite in the limousine liberal traditions. He calls for sacrifice but he himself doesn't feel the pinch. Its easy to purchase carbon credits, install solar panels and other hi-tech shit like to try to mask your awesome levels of energy consumption. Joe Six Pack, who Gore asks to make real life-altering sacrifices, doesn't have the throw money at it option. So who is the authoritarian now?
Anonymous at 636 PM:
Learn to spell: hypocrisy.
Learn to think: the science of climate change is not soft except when between your ears. It's not, as yet, conclusive, but the evidence just keeps piling up.
Learn to argue: it isn't "doubts that ... would do more harm than good" -- you mean to say "suspects"
Learn to analyze: you have no idea what Gore does to limit his consumption or whether he feels a pinch. You just assume because you want to that he does not limit his consumption or doesn't feel the pinch. That is classic authoritarian thinking, the willingness to believe that for which you have no evidence simply because you wish it to be true.
Yes, you show one of the classic symptoms of authoritarian thought.
Charles -- "the science of climate change is not soft except when between your ears" -- very sophisticated argument there. How about you try learning how to respond to the actual argument rather than nit-picking spelling mistakes and hiding behind a smug attitude? Or are nit-picks and surliness all that you have to offer our political discourse?
Gore, however many carbon credits he purchases, does not similarly limit his consumption. He is a big time consumer. That makes him a hypocrite in the limousine liberal traditions. He calls for sacrifice but he himself doesn't feel the pinch.
This is such b.s. Sure, there is always more that Gore could do. He could sell his home and live in a tent, for instance. But he certainly does make an effort to practice what he preaches. He devotes significant amounts of time and money to a cause he believes in. He does all the things he asks others to do (which are not onerous): he uses green energy, drives a hybrid, uses energy efficient technology at his home, etc. He's not asking people to radically change their lives.
And the notion that Gore's globe-trotting somehow makes him a hypocrite is laughably stupid. Gore has flown all over the world, using what influence he has to try to change minds and effect significant changes in governmental policies. In doing so he has greatly advanced the cause he's fighting for. He would not have been able to accomplish anything had he stayed at home in a tent trying not to use any energy. Is that really so hard to understand? Good lord.
Not so hard to understand, AL, but couldn't Gore have flown all over the world, commercially? Liberal elites don't have to fly everywhere in private jets. Is that really so hard to understand?
Plus there is a big difference between living in a 20 room, 8 bathroom, mansion and living in a tent. A far less hypocritical liberal, Ralph Nader, lives modestly in a studio apartment.
Just because one notes Gore's hypocricy, doubts the soft science of climate change, or doubts that Gore's proposed solutions would do more harm than good are authoritarian.
But that's not what's happening. By in large, right-wingers don't bother addressing the science or the policy merits of Gore's proposals. They focus solely on him, as if ridiculing Gore is some kind of stand in for a real argument. It's pathetic.
In fact, you get the sense that much of the right-wing chooses not to believe in global warming science for no other reason than that they hate people like Al Gore.
And, by the way, global warming science is not "soft science." Climatologists are not sociologists. They use hard, rigorous science to validate their theories. Does that mean they have established with empirical certainty that human behavior is causing warming? Of course not. But to dismiss their research as "soft science" is silly.
Anonymous:
Another example of authoritarian thinking is "what's OK for me is bad if others do it." So you start a comment with "you silly liberals" -- and then you object to another person being a little "surly."
Yup, two symptoms so far.
Anonymous at 7:18: ex-vice presidents do not fly commercial in this country.
Painting all those who question aspects of Gore's climate change argument as crazy right wingers, or even as conservatives is an easy and convenient way to avoid addressing the shortcomings of the climate change argument and the soft science supporting the argument. To call the science soft, is not the same to dismiss it out of hand, but to distinguish it from phenomena that can or has been proven empirically.
Climate change does not need to be a partisan debate, but liberals just as much as conservatives are responsible for infusing the debate with partisan acrimony.
Still not addressing the argument, Charles. Oh, and tell me which federal statute or regulation prohibits former vice presidents from traveling commercially? I am genuinely curious about this.
but couldn't Gore have flown all over the world, commercially? Liberal elites don't have to fly everywhere in private jets. Is that really so hard to understand?
But he DOES fly commercially, almost exclusively. The "private jet" flights that Sean Hannity and other are referring to are 16 flights that Gore took during the 2000 election season, as he was hopscotching the country trying to get elected president. He took those flights because there were no other practical alternatives under the circumstances. And he even went to the trouble of purchasing carbon offsets to make for it.
Is it really your position that Gore needs to live in an apartment before you're willing to listen to his message? And that if he does anything less he's a Big Hypocrite whom we should all ignore? Good God.
It's probably also worth noting that Al Gore is not Ralph Nader or John Q. Citizen. He's a big celebrity and the former Vice President of the United States. And he's hated by a lot of really crazy people. In other words, he probably has some security needs that the average joe does not, which makes living in a typical residence not very practical.
Climate change does not need to be a partisan debate, but liberals just as much as conservatives are responsible for infusing the debate with partisan acrimony.
That so ridiculous. If you mean that liberals get put off by reflexive reality-denial, then I suppose you're right. But it's not as if liberals haven't been trying to get conservatives to pay attention to the science. Indeed, Gore himself has personally given lectures at every single right-wing group willing to hear him.
The response from the right has largely been to attack the messenger, not the science, not the substance.
Is there room to have a civil conversation about the state of the science? Sure. But that's not a conversation that anyone on the right has been pushing to have.
News Break to the Right: "Liberal" is a welcome descriptor, thank you. Please keep making sure you throw it into your posts 4, 5, 6 times per every 25 words.
It's not a dirty word any longer. Liberal = Reality-based community.
(today's) Conservative = Arrogance, breeding ignorance/incompetence culmanating in a perpetual failure in leadership ability.
Please revisit the past 6 years' worth of evidence for validation. Oh, wait... the Right needs no evidence -- they make gut decisions or well, just because Rush and Sean said so.
This entire line of attack is just a meaningless sideshow, an effort to distract the American people from the substance of the issue itself.
Well, you did disprove one thing I said only eight hours before on another website. I didn't think that Al Gore's supporters would back off from defending Al Gore and turn instead to the "diversion" angle.
Note to whomever came up with the campaign to answer this news with the word, “smear”:
It’s not working. Oh, and that green power thing–that only makes people laugh.
Americans don’t regard truth–no matter how inconvenient–as a smear. May I suggest instead “diversion,” as in, “This is an unnecessary diversion from the fundamental issue at hand.” At least then you can steer the conversation to where you want it to go instead of legitimizing an organization you are attempting to deligitimize.
I offer this advice because I know that you will reject it.
Good shift in tactic.
See this post from Instapundit: http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/2007/02/the_oscar_win_for_al.cfm
Particularly relevant is the point regarding the futility of purchasing carbon offsets -- and how by creating add'l sources of energy, carbon offsets reduce the price of energy, encouraging add'l consumption.
Climate change theory, supported by soft science, remedied through soft economics.
Looking only at his utility bills, which was the point of the current attack, why does it matter how much energy Al Gore consumes, if he's buying that energy from a source that produces it through solar and wind? He can leave every light in his house on 24 hours a day, if he wants, and it won't impact the environment if the electricity was created through green means.
Honestly, it seems to me that buying carbon offsets is just a way to make yourself feel good after flying commercially, or driving an SUV to the store. But that has nothing to do with his house, which, as far as I can tell, has a zero carbon footprint, and which generated all this hysteria.
If anyone's a hypocrite, it seems to me that a guy like Hannity is one for complaining about "limousine liberals" when he obviously does whatever he can to avoid contact with everyday people. Same with Limbaugh and others. They claim to be representing average, hard-working Americans, but they don't live like those people.
Anonymous at 8:53AM:
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept Instapundit as an authority on anything, let alone the economics of carbon offsets. Your appeal to authority (a logical fallacy, btw) fails to convince.
Your inability or unwillingness to accept that humanity may be causing great harm to the climate of this world does not convince me. That you consider it "soft science" is your opinion, nothing more.
You want facts? Fact: the average temperature, as measured, is increasing. Fact: if it continues for much longer, there is going to be a world of hurt, and a lot of people and a lot of species will probably die as a result. At a very minimum, there is going to be a lot of economic hardship if even the lower estimates of global warming prove true.
You can sing your little skeptical tune as you dance about, cherry-picking your data to show that it's not that bad, or it's due to the Sun, or whatever. I, for one, decline to accept you as an authority, and don't bother bringing in Singer and Avery, or the ICSP report. I'm familiar with them, and they do not effectively disprove the human-caused global warming theory.
Charles,
Temperatures may be rising -- I don't dispute that. I do question the almost religious certainty that this rise in temperature is caused primarily by man. Still, I do not dismiss the possibility. If it is caused by man, I question the almost religious certainty that this raise in temperatures will cause meaningful climate change. Still, I do not dismiss the possibility. If climate change does occur, again, I dismiss the almost religious certainty that this climate change will have the type of negative impact causing lots of people and birds and stuff to die as a result. Still, I do not dismiss that possibility. If climate change does cause these effects, I dismiss the almost religious certainty that the solutions to combat climate change proposed by Gore and other climate change advocates is the best way of dealing with it.
You all on the other hand, take one phenomena -- the temperature increase -- and jump from step A to step Z, ignoring all of the nuance in between and dismissing of the scientific study needed to be done to connect A to Z. That is not good science, and it is no way to make public policy.
Minor nitpick: It's not de jure (Latin: from law), it's du jour (French: of the day).
I do think it's about the messenger too. Just like we do not accept that Ted Haggart preaches against gays while paying a male prostitute for 'services', or why (by now) the chickenhawk argument is applicable to those still advocating an escalation of war.
Finally, whether or not climate change is mostly man-caused or not, it is undeniably a good idea to be less dependent on (rapidly depleting and highly polluting) fossil fuels.
Anonymous,
Suggestion: pick a name, use it.
I was trying to simplify it to a level that would be appropriate to the level of this "discussion."
You can "dismiss" whatever unpleasant probabilities you like. You can create strawman arguments (another logical fallacy, btw) and then claim they're religious.
Cut to the chase: Suppose we, as a nation, choose to spend the money to increase fuel efficiency, to develop the capability for carbon sequestration, and to develop alternate energy sources which are sustainable. We can then try to get China and India to follow suit. Suppose, further, that human-caused global warming is just a statistical blip, a hiccup down in the depths of the Sun, and, in ten years, we start to cool off.
In that case, we'll all breathe a sigh of relief, get in our fuel-efficient cars and visit our outdoors, which will still have beautiful pines and clear lakes.
On the other hand, we, as a nation, can do like you, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and buy a bigger SUV. China and India will gladly follow suit. If, in that case, after ten years of dumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it turns out that things are getting worse, that the pines in northern Minnesota, the aspen groves in Colorado, the coastal groves in California, are all dying. Bangladesh, southern Louisiana, Texas, lower Manhatten, are all flooding, but the time-constant of the Carbon cycle is 40 years, so it will be too late to do anything about it. Famine, disease, and floods will be rampant and increasing.
Which of those scenarios do you think is the more intelligent?
Anonymous, I have said what I am going to say here. If you want to reply, it's your privilege. I'm going to resist the urge to say any more. I have work to do.
Somehow I am reminded of the famous line attributed to Galileo during a similar excerise in arrogance and foolishness: "yet it turns". The central argument presented by one 'conservative' after another on this subject and many others is that if they choose not to believe a reality, then it does not exist. If they refuse to concede and argument, then they have won. This is a reality that does not care whether we believe it or not. We cannot wish it away, shout it down or buy it off and we choose to deny it at our peril. Nature is indifferent to ideology and has no sympathy for stupidity.
You all on the other hand, take one phenomena -- the temperature increase -- and jump from step A to step Z, ignoring all of the nuance in between and dismissing of the scientific study needed to be done to connect A to Z. That is not good science, and it is no way to make public policy.
Look, this just isn't accurate. There has been extensive scientific research on the issue what's causing warming and what the likely results of that warming will be. And the overwhelming scientific consensus at this point is that 1) the primary cause of the warming is human activity, and 2) the results will be very bad.
Now this science isn't ironclad. But it exists and it's pretty convincing. So the question is: do we wait until the evidence is ironclad (at which point it might be too late to do anything about it)? Or do we act now?
Given that there are other strong reasons (economic and security-related) to try to reduce our dependence on carbon fuels, we should probably act now, don't you think? What have we got to lose by acting?
And finally, I think most people on the left are open to a good, technocratic policy debate about what measures would work best to help solve the problem. But that's not a debate that the Right, by in large, seems interested in having. They'd rather devote their time to monitoring Al Gore's personal energy consumption and travel habits.
So spare me the whole 'global warming is a religious obsession' schtick. The reason people on the left get so worked up about this issue is because Republicans seem intent on ignoring the issue until its too late to do anything about it.
Minor nitpick: It's not de jure (Latin: from law), it's du jour (French: of the day).
Right you are. I'll change it momentarily.
What's all this talk of Gore moving into a tent as if that would somehow resolve the issue? He would still be exhaling CO2 and therefore a hypocrite. (/snark)
Another minor correction along the lines of "du jour". The idiom is "chock full" (or "chock-full") not "chalked full" (you may have been subconsciously melding it with "chalked up").
Another minor correction along the lines of "du jour". The idiom is "chock full" (or "chock-full") not "chalked full" (you may have been subconsciously melding it with "chalked up").
Good to know. All the more evidence that I need an editor.
A.L - I liked your work, even if I disagree on minor points.
Charles: the Instapundit link that commenter provided was to The Economist. The Economist blog, still, a decent publication I'd say. Dismissing a viewpoint out of hand seems ridiculous; I read links to Think Progress, Media Matters, LGF, Malkin, Kos, wherever...I read it and think about what they're saying and the merits of the message, not the messenger. A rare breed in the blogosphere, I guess.
Also, "Green-Power" is limited to a small percentage of the power grid (investing in carbon-offsets tries to increase that amount. A good thing, no doubt). The more power ANYONE uses puts a strain on fossil fuel, Gore isn't using only green-energy -- that number is a fixed amount for the entire grid, not depended on Gore using it, and the more KWH he chalks up, the more coal he uses. In simple terms, you can't make more wind, you can burn more coal.
Yes people are dismissing the message because of the messenger, and people are giving the messenger a pass because of the message. Both are silly.
A-Lib, I understand what you are saying, but I think the real problem is that we all (those who can and want to) need major lifestyle changes to fix this. You say Gore is efficiently living large, which may be true, but I take offense at the living large part. Not just Gore, but anyone. On a personal level, my friends blame and blame and blame other people for the warming but would never make real personal sacrifices (drying clothes on a clothes line, public transport, lower heat/higher AC, etc). Blaming is easier.
Gore is obviously willing to make some changes to help, but not sacrifices in limiting his lifestyle (which FOR ME is the most important change we need to make) and given his advocacy, that's offensive to me.
I'm not trying to usurp debate with a strawman but I think it's similar, in many ways, to lavish CEO salaries when the company is floundering. Many have felt Gore's solution to this DIRE problem includes living smaller, but not obviously not for him.
The main thrust of your argument is bunk. I have heard no one argue that Gore is a hypocrite, ergo global warming is a fraud. There is plenty of scientific fact to back up the argument that anthropogenic global warming is hooey. No, the criticism of Gore is based squarely on the fact that no one likes being lectured by a finger-wagging, moralizing hypocrite.
So what if Gore has installed solar panels? Even with them, his energy use is sky high. And let's not forget the guy has at least three houses. Yes, he has security demands, but for just him and Tipper, a 1300-sf house on a few acres would do just fine.
Speaking of hypocrisy, you hector people about getting their facts straight, but then produce this whopper: "He lives in large house that he's made as environmentally friendly as he can." Oh, really? How, pray tell, do you know this? Because his flunky said so? Call me silly, but I don't see a heated swimming pool with a pool house that uses more electricity than my entire four-bedroom residence as being "environmentally friendly."
Oh, but the Goracle buys "carbon credits." How nice. Problem is, Gaia ain't playing ball:
Everyone knows trees are "A Good Thing". They take in the carbon dioxide that threatens our planet with global warming and turn it into fresh, clean oxygen for us all to breathe. But now it seems we need to think again. In a discovery that has left climate scientists gasping, researchers have found that the earth's vegetation is churning out vast quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent even than CO2. This is not a product of trees and plants rotting, which everyone already knew was a source of methane; it is an entirely natural side-effect of plant growth that scientists had somehow missed. Yet it is by no means trivial: preliminary estimates suggest that living trees and plants account for about 10 to 30 per cent of the methane entering the atmosphere.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/08423a00-83da-11da-9017-0000779e2340.html
Seems this is an "inconvenient truth" the global warming pantywaists would rather just ignore.
All the more evidence that I need an editor.
No doubt everyone could benefit from an editor. That said, I find your blog posts remarkably polished (and well-reasoned).
Refreshing to see that Charles has wisely decided to concede the debate. Thanks for playing Charles!
AL,
Would love to see responses to Ben and Eric. Also, I'm not saying that belief in climate change is a religious obsession, what I'm saying is that by glossing over all of the steps between an increase in temperatures and taking steps to correct that rise for the benefit of all mankind, many lefties are taking ON FAITH that the science will just work out, or that their solutions won't do more harm than good. Its kind of scary actually, but on the climate change topic, liberals (see, e.g. Charles) act no different than fundamentalist right wingers -- so passionately convinced of the Truth. They just don't want to hear any critcism of his holiness Al Gore, or Gore's climate change theory. They don't want to debate the science of the issue or appropriate remedies. They just want to debate straw-men right wingers.
Its not very liberal. And its certainly not in the spirit of B. Russell.
There is plenty of scientific fact to back up the argument that anthropogenic global warming is hooey.
Nice try, Ben, but just saying the Sun goes around the Earth doesn't make it true either.
As for your "inconvenient truth" re methane and trees, sorry mate, but the reality is this study was over-hyped by the press (yup, your so-called liberal media). The authors of the study responded with a press release to clear up some of the confusions, stating in part:
[O]ur discovery led to intense speculation that methane emissions by plants could diminish or even outweigh the carbon storage effect of reforestation programs with important implications for the Kyoto protocol, where such programs are to be used in national carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction strategies. We first stress that our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength. Emissions most certainly depend on plant type and environmental conditions and more experiments are certainly necessary to quantify the process under natural conditions. As a first rough estimate of the order of magnitude we have taken the global average methane emissions as representative to provide a rough estimate of its potential effect on climate. These estimates (for details, see below) show that methane emissions by plants may slightly diminish the effect of reforestation programs. However, the climatic benefits gained through carbon sequestration by reforestation far exceed the relatively small negative effect, which may reduce the carbon uptake effect by up to 4 per cent. Thus, the potential for reduction of global warming by planting trees is most definitely positive. The fundamental problem still remaining is the global large-scale anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.
All this is not to say that the study is not important and novel and may have important ramifications for understanding of atmospheric methane, but it is not remotely a nail in the coffin of the anthropogenic global warming consensus as you seem to think.
Gore is obviously willing to make some changes to help, but not sacrifices in limiting his lifestyle (which FOR ME is the most important change we need to make) and given his advocacy, that's offensive to me.
I'm not trying to usurp debate with a strawman but I think it's similar, in many ways, to lavish CEO salaries when the company is floundering. Many have felt Gore's solution to this DIRE problem includes living smaller, but not obviously not for him.
Eric, I see where you're coming from, but the fact is that Gore isn't calling for DIRE measures from individuals. The bulk of his message is addressed at governments, who have far more power than individuals to make the changes necessary to address global warming. The part of his slide show addressing the behavior of individual citizens merely asks them to do things Gore is already doing. Now, you can argue that Gore should be asking people to do more, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not asking people to do anything that he isn't already doing himself. So he's not a hypocrite.
And beyond that, the focus on Gore's personal life is beyond silly. Gore has chosen to use his status and fame to bring attention to an issue he (and many others) think is incredibly important. But he's just a spokesman. Focusing on his personal energy consumption sheds no light whatsoever on any issue that is remotely relevant to anything.
Crust,
Thanks for the update - I had not seen the scientists' clarification. That's good info to have. I wonder, though, if the "carbon credits" companies are taking into account the methane angle in their calcs.
That last bit you posted, however, was only too typical of what I have seen over and over from climate change crusaders. Whether it's lack of reading comprehension or willful obtuseness, I don't know, but nothing I said about the effects of trees was intended to put a "nail in the coffin of the anthropogenic global warming" any more than my or anyone else's criticisms of Gore were intended for this purpose. My only point was that it shot a hole in the idea that planting a tree allows the rich to pollute with abandon.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "nice try." I made it pretty clear that I was not debating the specifics regarding anthropogenic global warming. Whether you like to admit it or not, there are a heck of a lot of very knowledgeable experts who don't buy that theory and have facts to back up their arguments. No point in debating that here, though, as I generally avoid arguments over someone's religion.
A.L.,
That last post is just silly.
The bulk of his message is addressed at governments, who have far more power than individuals to make the changes necessary to address global warming.
Do you really intend to argue that the actions of governments in this regard will have no impact on the governed? Whatever steps governments take, either directly (bans on incandescent light bulbs, carbon taxes) or indirectly (corporate carbon taxes, higher fuel efficiency requirements) will ultimately be paid for by you and me. Whom do you think you are fooling?
Focusing on his personal energy consumption sheds no light whatsoever on any issue that is remotely relevant to anything.
Call me nuts, but if Gore is telling us that the planet is being destroyed by greenhouses gases, yet then goes home to one of his massive mansions and relaxes by his heated pool while the outdoor gas lamps burn away, that tends to make me think the "crisis" isn't nearly as dire as he claims.
OMG! The Right-Wing noise machine is at it again!!! Yeah its rediculous, but then again, so is the Left-Wing noise machine. You guys on the left are just as bad about smearing names and slinging mud. So don't get your panties in a wad. Both sides throw stones and most of us are smart enough to know what the real issues are. This isnt one of them.
[T]here are a heck of a lot of very knowledgeable experts who don't buy [anthropogenic global warming] and have facts to back up their arguments.
There you go again, Ben. What is your argument here exactly, proof by repeated and emphatic assertion? Whether you like to admit it or not, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is real. See e.g. the latest IPCC report. Even the hero of the skeptics on the denying there is a consensus meme, Benny Peizer, now concedes this:
I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact.
Yes there are some scientists who disagree, but then again there are also some scientists who disagree with evolution. Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. The reality is that the various skeptical arguments are quite weak; before you start trotting them out, please check out e.g. Real Climate or Deltoid for rebuttals.
Do you really intend to argue that the actions of governments in this regard will have no impact on the governed? Whatever steps governments take, either directly (bans on incandescent light bulbs, carbon taxes) or indirectly (corporate carbon taxes, higher fuel efficiency requirements) will ultimately be paid for by you and me. Whom do you think you are fooling?
Talk about putting words in my mouth. I never said governmental policies don't affect individual behavior. Of course they do. My point was that Gore's message doesn't focus very much on individual conservation. He asks people to try to be more carbon neutral, but that's just a small part of his overall policy prescription, which focuses more on funding alternative energies and developing environmentally friendly technology.
Call me nuts, but if Gore is telling us that the planet is being destroyed by greenhouses gases, yet then goes home to one of his massive mansions and relaxes by his heated pool while the outdoor gas lamps burn away, that tends to make me think the "crisis" isn't nearly as dire as he claims.
This is your mental hang up. You see, it's not "Gore" telling you these things. It's a whole bunch of climate scientists. Gore is merely relaying their message. So you absolutely are crazy if you think that the size of Gore's house has any relevance whatsoever to the issue of climate change. That's like judging the content of a letter by whether or not you like the mailman.
Is anyone saying that Mr. Gore uses LESS energy than the average person? Would the problem go away if everyone lived the same lifestyle as Mr. Gore?
I'd be willing to accept that all of his travel is defensible on the grounds that it's a necessary price for spreading the message. But completely ignoring that travel, his personal lifestyle isn't consistent with his proported beliefs. The question isn't whether or not he's a hypocrite. The question is whether he actually believes what he's saying. By his actions, the case could easily be made that he doesn't.
They just don't want to hear any critcism of his holiness Al Gore, or Gore's climate change theory. They don't want to debate the science of the issue or appropriate remedies. They just want to debate straw-men right wingers.
This is nonsense on stilts. First of all, this is not "Gore's climate change theory." It's the consensus view of the world's climatologists. Second, most people on the left are perfectly willing to engage in substantive discussions regarding the state of the science or specific policies for dealing with global warming. Most people who care about these issues have put a lot of thought into them and enjoy the opportunity to discuss their merits.
What they don't like is childish ad-hominem attacks on Gore as a substitute for actual argument. Instead of a debate over science and policy, much of the right-wing would rather have a debate over Al Gore's personal energy consumption habits. If that isn't obvious to you, then you have been a coma for the last few years.
This is your mental hang up. You see, it's not "Gore" telling you these things. It's a whole bunch of climate scientists. Gore is merely relaying their message. So you absolutely are crazy if you think that the size of Gore's house has any relevance whatsoever to the issue of climate change. That's like judging the content of a letter by whether or not you like the mailman.
Oh, so what you're saying is that Gore doesn't actually believe any of this climate change stuff -- he's just the mailman delivering my mail with no opinion whatsoever of its contents.
Funny -- Gore has repeatedly termed the global warming crusade as a "moral" issue. When, exactly, did scientists begin defining morals? I know that can't be Gore's formulation because, as you have said over and over, Gore's just the dumb messenger.
Nice vanity blog. As a lawyer, pls tell us whether Gore has standing to bring a lawsuit for excessive CO2 emissions--and whether we have standing to sue him for the same. As for Gore's message, his slick PowerPoint presentation is stale and incomplete: it is expect the soon to be released IPCC 2007 report says the effects of GW on mean sea level rise in the next century will be a mere 2 inches (5 cm) at the lower bound, and 6 inches (15 cm) at the mean--half of the previous estimate. We can live with 2 cm sea level rise, though perhaps the polar bears and people already under sea level (Holand, Lousianna, Florida, Venice, Bangladesh) will be stressed some. We need more facts on GW before we act. --Raylopez99atyahoo.com (visit alt.global-warming for more of my provocative posts)
Nice try, Crust, but I'm not biting. The issue here is Gore's words vs. his behavior. We could waste all day trading links and quotes on the arguments for and against anthropogenic g-w, but you are obviously invested in that particular myth and probably will continue to be until the next environmental hysteria comes along. As an aside, I was once a global warming convert myself until mugged by the facts, so there is hope for you.
Oh, so what you're saying is that Gore doesn't actually believe any of this climate change stuff
Uh. No. Clearly he does believe in this or he would not have devoted much of the last two decades of his life to fighting for it. But his beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the scientific data itself. Gore isn't a climatoligist. He's an advocate.
Funny -- Gore has repeatedly termed the global warming crusade as a "moral" issue. When, exactly, did scientists begin defining morals? I know that can't be Gore's formulation because, as you have said over and over, Gore's just the dumb messenger.
Oh please. Gore has merely stated that if the science is right (and there's certainly plently of reason to believe it is), we have a moral obligation to do something about it. Isn't that self-evident? I mean I know that many people question the science, but does anyone really take issue with the claim that if the science is true, we have a moral obligation to try to fix the situation?
Anonymous @ 2:51 re sea level: Note that the new numbers for sea level rise are strictly for the sea level rise due to water expanding as it gets warmer. It does not include the effect of possible collapse of parts of the polar ice sheets (because those dynamics are not well understood). So those numbers are likely on the low side. It's highly unlikely that there would be a total collapse of the ice sheets, but to give you a sense there is enough ice on Antarctica to raise sea level by 200ft. A more realistic number is 20 ft, even that scientists think probably won't happen, though it is possible. The bottom line is it's just poorly understood and our current models of ice dynamics have little predictive power.
I have only one observation about the Right/Republican vs. Left/Democrat struggle for power and influence in the U.S. (which is actually what we are discussing here, right?) Republicans have been successful in recent American politics not because of the strength of their arguments, but rather due to their concerted efforts to build CONTEMPT for their political opponents. Now, this might sound like an insult, but if you believe like I do that nothing succeeds like success, it is actually a compliment. It is always harder to convince voters that your reasoning is superior, than it is to convince them that your opponent is someone who should be feared or hated. Fear and hate require no facts to work their magic. Fear and hate have always been, and will always be stronger motivators than... well, than anything! You may argue that fear and hate are destructive to the Republic, or that they don't promote America's best long term interests, or that I am just a cynic, and you would be right on all counts. The validity of my observation however, would not be weakened by these arguments. I wish it were not so, but in the U.S. (as it is in every other country, I suspect), Fear and Hate continue to rule the day. Sorry guys, I know it sucks...
Uh. No. Clearly he does believe in this or he would not have devoted much of the last two decades of his life to fighting for it... He's an advocate.
Ah, well that makes him a bit more than a "mailman," no? And since he's a passionate advocate, his personal choices should carry some weight and be legitimately open to scrutiny, at least insofar as his position as High Priest of Global Warming is concerned. Discovering that Billy Graham is a serial adulterer does not make his message moot, but it sure as heck calls into question his moral and religious authority.
But his beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the scientific data itself.
Okaaaay. How many times do I have to repeat to you that this is not a discussion about the science? I say Gore's behavior makes him a hypocrite -- you say it doesn't. That's the topic of discussion.
Okaaaay. How many times do I have to repeat to you that this is not a discussion about the science? I say Gore's behavior makes him a hypocrite -- you say it doesn't. That's the topic of discussion.
I know, and that's the point. This is the dicussion the right-wing wants us to have. They figure that attacking Gore personally is easier than taking on a bunch of scientists, so instead of debating what we should do about global warming, we're debating whether Al Gore personally uses too much energy.
Hey, whatever happened to that hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't that supposed to do us in, not the whole carbon emissions thing?
What about the predicted population bomb? The whole mass starvation and overpopulation problem? Best science available has predicted that one a couple times -- last in the 1970s, but don't forget Malthus in the early 1800s.
A-L,
Oh, I think conservatives (and a few liberals) have been very active arguing against the "science" propping up the theory of anthropogenic g-w. Where, exactly, have you been? But when the most visible leader of the movement is living this large, apparently unbothered by his own "carbon footprint" (other than throwing some money at his own company), that's a legitimate story.
Your problem here is that -- despite what you claim about your "classical liberal" outlook -- you have a political agenda and this story is inconvenient to it. So basically, you just want it to go away. First you argue that Gore isn't a hypocrite, then you say it doesn't matter if he is.
Other g-w alarmists are at least more honest. I have read comments from some who have admitted that yes, Gore has disappointed them and should change his ways. End of story at that point. What keeps it alive is people like you who insist on defending the indefensible.
Hey, whatever happened to that hole in the ozone layer?
Glad you asked. It was solved by the 1989 Montreal Protocol, a global agreement to reduce production of CFC's which were causing the ozone hole. By the way, it cost way less than expected (around 20% of estimated cost if memory serves).
Oh, and it was the model for the Kyoto Protocol. At the time, Al Gore was mocked by righties as "Ozone Al" for pushing this. Maybe there are some lessons to draw from this?
Oh and one more point on the ozone hole precedent: Many of the prominent skeptics today were earlier skeptics about the ozone hole.
Yeah, except Al Gore was photographed in his back yard spraying cans of CFCs in the air and laughing maniacally.
Oh, and that hole in the ozone... it ain't fixed:
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/1024/2/
Perhaps you haven't been following the news. Last year's ozone depletion was the most severe ever measured. They just don't talk about it much anymore.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMQBOKKKSE_index_0.html
This post has been removed by the author.
The folks at Science -- the most respected scientific journal in the world (which I suppose, crust, would mean it doesn't hold much water with you -- not being soft-science and all) -- don't agree that Montreal Protocol has helped us one bit. Check out this link:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/213/1
Oh and one more point on the ozone hole precedent: Many of the prominent skeptics today were earlier skeptics about the ozone hole.
Such as? Scientists please, not politicians and commentators.
Remember when Det. Frank Drebin called it the endzone layer? Best line in Naked Gun 2 1/2.
Interesting side note: the movie's villain and its depiction of our country's energy lobby pretty much represents how most liberals view those who disagree with their climate change conclusions. Climate change theory opponents are evildoers for sure: (from imdb) Lt. Frank Drebbin returns to save the day once again. This time he's out to foil the "big boys" in the energy business. A top scientist (Dr Mainheimer) is about to publish his report on energy supply for the future. Things don't look good for the traditional suppliers; oil, coal and nuclear. To save their industries, the suppliers kidnap Mainheimer and replace him with a decoy with a more favourable report.
Re "fixed": Yup, that's a inexact choice of words. I meant something like likely set us on the right path to the ozone hole being fixed. Better?
Here's Wikipedia:
Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068 (Newman et al., 2006).
And then there are some further caveats which you can read at the original if you're so inclined.
Such as? Scientists please
Sallie Baliunas, Fred Singer, Hugh Ellsaesser, Patrick Michaels, Frederick Seitz
A.L., what is the point of trying to counter Ben's character assassination? You need to understand that the only effective means of countering the Bens of the world is by posting the vacation photos of them with their 11 year old Haitian boyfriend (or some other such vile background material on the Genitalia Obsessed Pedophile party's enablers and apologists). Short of that, the United States of Anna Nicole Smith just isn't going to be moved. Your logic can't win the day because it's not about reason. Look, if you can't find any good dirt on the Bens of the world, than just make some up! No one cares because no one checks facts, because facts are not the coin of the realm. Hate and Fear, baby - this is my message. Once you get over your initial nausea, you'll realize that the sickening stench in your nostrils is the sweet smell of victory!
Tommyrot -- another classy liberal.
Of course, the famous, "Immagine how bad it WOULD HAVE BEEN," argument. That's a pretty far cry from, "It was solved by the 1989 Montreal Protocol."
The fact is that, while CFC levels have fallen, the depletion has not. And don't forget the fact that we've NEVER observed it to NOT be there. It was there the first time we ever looked, so we have no idea how old it is. Our measurements of it go back less that 30 years. In that time, there have been yearly variations, but there's been no significant, overall trend in it's magnitude.
Your problem here is that -- despite what you claim about your "classical liberal" outlook -- you have a political agenda and this story is inconvenient to it.
Oh, you've got me all figured out, Ben. Let me guess, this is the first time you've ever read my blog. For the record, I don't think I've ever written about global warming before, and I'm not one of those people clammering for Al Gore to run to for president.
I just hate it when people use ad hominem attacks (particularly factually-weak adhominem attacks) as a substitute for argument. If that's an "agenda", then I supposed I'm guilty as chargef. You might want to read my blog for more than a day before making sweeping generalizations about me, though.
First you argue that Gore isn't a hypocrite, then you say it doesn't matter if he is.
Yes, this is a standard form of argumentation. You point out that your opponent is wrong on the facts. Then you point out that even if your opponent is right on the facts, his argument still fails. Is this really the first time you've encountered such an argument? Do you have some point?
Other g-w alarmists are at least more honest. I have read comments from some who have admitted that yes, Gore has disappointed them and should change his ways. End of story at that point. What keeps it alive is people like you who insist on defending the indefensible.
It's now "alarmist" to believe what the majority of scientists believe?
As for Gore, I'm defending him because I think these attacks are petty and weak. The man does everything he asks others to do. Could he do more by moving into a smaller home? Sure. But is that really such an egregious act of hypocrisy that all of Gore's work should be ignored? Hardly.
Sallie Baliunas, Fred Singer, Hugh Ellsaesser, Patrick Michaels, Frederick Seitz
Baliunas and Singer are two pretty good, award-winning scientists. And seeing as how the ozone hole still hasn't closed, I'm not sure we can say to this day that they were wrong. I will note, however, that Singer was absolutely right when he pooh-poohed the chicken littles who claimed the Iraqi oil fires would cause ecological ruin.
The other scientists you listed are either obscure or cranks. But I'm sure that's on purpose.
Anonymous said...
Tommyrot -- another classy liberal.
Class doesn't win knife fights, or elections, or arguments with GOP hate mongers like you. Only one thing defeats GOP scum tactics, and that's liberal scum tactics. You all can argue over Kyoto protocols or the size of Al Gore's gas bills, but for every one conservative that is won over by the strength of you argument, ten can be convinced by some good, old fashioned HATE SPEECH. Hey "anonymous", you don't really expect me to believe that you care one bit about CFC levels over the past 30 years. Oh please, you are a hater and a Republican stooge, and I don't care how you dress your arguments up, it always adds up to HATE. Well guess what, a lot us are seeing your tactics succeed, and were jumping into your stinking cesspool with both feet! Make some room Mother F-----
I just hate it when people use ad hominem attacks...
Wow, saying you have a political agenda is an ad hominem attack? Mighty sensitive, aren't we? And this from the guy who started off the morning complaining about the "right-wing noise machine" and its "mindless swarming." No wonder you like Gore so much...
Yes, this is a standard form of argumentation.
Yes, but you essentially argue that his words are so profound that his actions mean zilch. I find it hard to believe you would be so forgiving of someone whose agenda you did not support.
Well, gentlemen, it's been fun, but I have places to be and no more time to spend. Good luck to you.
I'm still confused by why Gore is such a hypocrite as this whole ridiculous argument about Gore's electricity use is based on kilowatts. We know that he gets most of his energy from solar and wind power and the stuff he doesn't he buys carbon offsets. The question is no one has said how much energy he gets from carbon neutral sources. If he gets the vast majority of his electricity from these green measures, he doing exactly what he preaches
Yes, but you essentially argue that his words are so profound that his actions mean zilch. I find it hard to believe you would be so forgiving of someone whose agenda you did not support.
Actions life CFL's, solar panels, and paying more for electicity that comes from green sources. Having his office at work (a former VP and senator as well) so he can save commuting costs there as well?
Wow, saying you have a political agenda is an ad hominem attack? Mighty sensitive, aren't we?
I wasn't talking about ad hominem attacks on me. You've actually been pretty civil, and I don't take offense easily. I was referring to the endless ad hominem attacks on Gore.
Yes, but you essentially argue that his words are so profound that his actions mean zilch. I find it hard to believe you would be so forgiving of someone whose agenda you did not support.
No, I'm saying Gore's just relaying information from the scientific community, so he himself is irrelevant to the larger debate.
As for Gore's personal activity, I don't think the guy is a saint or beyond reproach. I just think this hypocrisy charge is way overblown. Gore's message isn't about energy consumption per se. It's about carbon neutrality. He advocates living carbon neutral, which he does. You can make fun of that. You can argue that his purchased offsets shouldn't count, or something. But's that a different argument, one that has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
And it seems odd to me that conservatives are so dismissive of the idea of trading credits and system of offsets--which are, after all, free-market, conservative ideas.
A.L.,
I want to first express my appreciation for your analysis and post. You'll never convince some people -- who appear to be paying Al Gore's electric bill, they are so upset -- but your post was quite convincing that this was a tempest in a teapot.
On the ozone layer: China and India may have something to do with the lack of success:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990303163332.htm
Bottom line: they aren't required to reduce HCFC's under Montreal until 2010, and (you can find it if you search) they've hugely ramped up production in recent years.
On Instapundit: he's like a stopped watch -- accurate on occasion, but not worth consulting even then.
On Economics: Does anyone else enjoy the hypocrisy of complaining about the lack of predictive success for climate science, but then appealing to just about the only "science" that has a lower record of accuracy in prediction?
Oh and one more point on the ozone hole precedent: Many of the prominent skeptics today were earlier skeptics about the ozone hole.
And many of the prominent pushers of the current hysteria warned of the pending ice age back in '75. And many of them stuck with the ridiculous "hockey stick" model until that boat had been sunk.
No, I'm saying Gore's just relaying information from the scientific community, so he himself is irrelevant to the larger debate.
It's hard to see how the most loud and visible leader on an issue can be irrelevant when it's suddenly, ahem, inconvenient.
Gore's message isn't about energy consumption per se. It's about carbon neutrality. He advocates living carbon neutral, which he does.
He says he does -- why do you take his word for it? Besides, no one seems to be able to figure out exactly what "carbon neutral" means. For Gore and his ilk, it means, "Throw some money in a pot and then do what you want."
And it seems odd to me that conservatives are so dismissive of the idea of trading credits and system of offsets--which are, after all, free-market, conservative ideas.
Except when they are forced on the population, which is what the greenies are pushing for. Recall also that when Bush tried to alter the Clean Air Act so that it used offsets, the tree-huggers went nuts. Gore's hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, and one more thing: Pointing out that Gore uses a hell of lot of electricity is not an "ad hominem attack," no matter how you slice it.
Comparing climate change skeptics to Holocaust deniers, on the other hand (as Ellen Goodman recently did), or attacking the professionalism of scientists who dispute the "consensus" (as happens all the time), is most certainly ad hominem.
That last was another of the right wing talking points.
Unfortunately, it's false. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_Awareness
for an accessible discussion.
The claim by anonymous that "many of them" did this or that is simply gratuitous baloney, for which anonymous has no evidence other than the his fevered imagination.
Anonymous, you come here and simply engage in public stenography of right-wing talking points. Do you really think that buys you any credibility?
He says he does -- why do you take his word for it?
Why not? Do you have evidence to the contrary? And who cares anyway?
It's hard to see how the most loud and visible leader on an issue can be irrelevant when it's suddenly, ahem, inconvenient.
Simply asserting it's relevance doesn't make it so. How is Gore's personal activity relevant to the question whether global warming is occuring and what policy measures should or should not be taken to combat it? You always avoid this obvious point. Discussing Gore's personal behavior is a meaningless sideshow, and you know it.
Oh, and one more thing: Pointing out that Gore uses a hell of lot of electricity is not an "ad hominem attack," no matter how you slice it.
What? Calling someone a hypocrite isn't an ad hominem attack? Really? Isn't that pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack?
Comparing climate change skeptics to Holocaust deniers, on the other hand (as Ellen Goodman recently did)
Actually that's just a dumb analogy. But it's also an analogy made by one single person. This whole "Gore has a big house" attack has now been repeated by literally right-leaning pundit in the country.
Charles, I thought you took your ball and went home. Back for more? I'm not sure if climate change theory can withstand any more of your defenses.
Anonymous:
I got my work done. Go read up on some more talking points, come back, repeat them with logic, spelling and grammar mistakes. Keep us entertained.
A.L. has already totally demolished anything like an argument you could possibly have with regard to Al Gore's electric bill, so all we have left is to discuss your mis-comprehension of science, logic, and the English language.
Charles, I attribute all spelling, grammar, and logic mistakes to another anonymii (except for this one) posing as the REAL anonymous.
I don't supposed that you can say the same for your failure to ever address my actual arguments?
Go read up on some more talking points, come back, repeat them with logic, spelling and grammar mistakes.
Given that the host has made more grammar and spelling mistakes than I can count, maybe you should watch where you're throwing those stones pal. You're engaging in friendly fire.
That last was another of the right wing talking points.
Ah yes, Wikipedia, that great unbiased source of information. You can't erase history, Charles, any more than your "scientists" could erase the Little Ice Age.
Why not? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
You're the one making an issue of it. Why should I have to prove a negative?
And who cares anyway?
You do -- a lot apparently, since you've mentioned it about fifty times now.
What? Calling someone a hypocrite isn't an ad hominem attack?
If they are one, no it's not. But c'mon, if the word "hypocrite" is enough to get your panties in a wad over, then you have thinner skin than your admitting to.
But it's also an analogy made by one single person.
Yet it's similar to things others are saying... and you didn't address the second half of the sentence at all.
This whole "Gore has a big house" attack has now been repeated by literally right-leaning pundit in the country.
Charles will attack you for your writing now... any minute... oh, never mind.
But no, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the moralist has no morals.
And yes, Charles, that "your" in my last post was just for you.
100 posts. Woohoo!
You're the one making an issue of it. Why should I have to prove a negative?
That's about the craziest damn thing I've ever heard. You make an accusation you can't back up and when I asked you for evidence, you complain that you're being asked "prove a negative." How absurd.
What? Calling someone a hypocrite isn't an ad hominem attack?
If they are one, no it's not.
Are you serious? First of all, he's not a hypocrite (for reasons you refuse to address). But even if he was the biggest hypocrite of all time, this would still be an ad hominem attack. I feel like I'm crazy pills here.
But no, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the moralist has no morals.
Good grief. Again, where's your evidence that Al Gore "has no morals" in this context? You made a lot of assertions in that regard that just aren't true. This is argument by assertion. But more importantly, this isn't a debate about subjective morals. It's a debate about whether the earth is warming due to human activity and what should be done about it. Attacking Gore personally has ZERO relevance to either of those questions.
Anonymous said:
" If everyone in the US did just as Gore does in terms of energy use we'd be in a sorry state as far as air pollution goes. "
How stupid is that?
If everyone in the country used as much energy as Microsoft's HQ we'd be in a sorry state.
If everyone in the country used as much energy as Ford's factories we'd be in a sorry state.
Yeah.
Guess how much taxpayers pay for the electricity that is used by the vice presidential mansion? $180,000 per year!
But if everyone lived like the vice president we'd be in a sorry state. Of course. Fortunately there is only one vice president in the country.
Why don't you compare the Empire State Building to a farm house? Would make as much sense.
Aside from the fact that you don't know how many people uses Gore's house, thus you don't know the per capita energy useage the fact is that everyone will not need as much energy as Gore because everyone is not a former vice president who has two offices in his house and guest house for other people and security measures which you don't need but he does, with as many enemies as he has.
For a house that is 10,000 sq feet and is not only a home but a workplace as well in that area Gore's consumption is pretty good.
And if everyone payed for green energy as much Gore does we wouldn't have a problem with global warming.
So why don't you do what Gore does with his money? Because you are a hypocrite.
You want Gore to have an average house but at the same time you are not willing to pay as much as he does. I get it.
Gore's carbon footprint is zero.
What is yours?
I am Anonymous Andy, the first poster on this LONG set of comments.
Just above this post another Anonymous quoted me "If everyone in
the US did just as Gore does in terms of energy use we'd be in a
sorry state as far as air pollution goes." and retorted
"How stupid is that?" and
"...you are a hypocrite." and
"What is your [carbon footprint]?"
Let me first address the last two points:
1) I AM a hypocrite, that was part of
my point. Most of us liberals in the US live lives that the globe
could not support if we were imitated by the poor of the world whom
we would like to elevate.
2) My carbon footprint, while maybe relatively small for my income
(because of triple glazed windows, extra insulation, the smallest car
US money can buy, walking to work) is still way too big.
On the other hand, because of various
versions of the tragedy of the commons, I think its government's job
to change my circumstances, possibilities and motivations so that I
should consume less. So while I, like Gore, consume
much more than my one-6-billionth share I, like Gore, advocate
government policies that would motivate me and my kind to consume
much less.
As to the first point directed towards me: this Gore global warming discussion is so hot that people who agree with each other are calling each other idiots.
Most of Gore's energy use wasn't electric, it was natural gas. You forgot to include that.
Server problems last night kept me from responding further, but it's getting nuts in here anyway, so probably just as well.
You make an accusation you can't back up and when I asked you for evidence, you complain that you're being asked "prove a negative."
No, you said he was carbon neutral. I challenged you on how you know this. How is that an "accusation"?
First of all, he's not a hypocrite (for reasons you refuse to address).
Um, yes, he is, for all the reasons I and everyone else have addressed (and that you refuse to acknowledge). Go to his website and you can read all about the ways we little people can save energy by adjusting our thermostats, driving smaller cars, etc. Gore just isn't willing to make those sacrifices.
It's similar to John Edwards' complaining about "Two Americas," and then building a home big enough to house one of them. Please understand, I don’t care if Gore and Edwards each want to build a freakin' Taj Mahal -- it's their money. But don't preach populist "We Are the World" crap to me and then take your Learjet home to your mansion and heated pool.
But even if he was the biggest hypocrite of all time, this would still be an ad hominem attack.
It's only ad hominem in your book because you maintain this insane idea that you have the power to decree that, yea verily, the only allowable topic of debate is on the science of global warming, and any discussion whatsoever of whether or not Gore's rhetoric matches his actions is out of bounds. Good luck to you if you can get away with it.
I feel like I'm crazy pills here.
I'm beginning to agree with you.
But more importantly, this isn't a debate about subjective morals. It's a debate about whether the earth is warming due to human activity and what should be done about it.
Again, you want to change the subject to your preferred turf, because you can't really defend Gore. If you could defend him, you would argue that case on the merits. It's a fine tactic in court, I suppose, if you can get the opposing lawyer to bite. But I'm not biting, and neither is anyone else who isn't supremely gullible. Given his rhetoric, Gore's personal choices deserve to be analyzed and discussed. If the chief alarmist on this subject is unwilling to curb his own lifestyle for "the cause," that is worthy of discussion. Further, there are class issues here (something near and dear to Gore's heart): Are sacrifices only for the "little people" who can not afford to buy indulgences to stave off the wrath of Gaia?
Anyway, you seem to be coming a bit unhinged and obviously need to cut down on the caffeine, so I'm going to do something more productive with the rest of my day.
Cheers!
Um, yes, he is, for all the reasons I and everyone else have addressed (and that you refuse to acknowledge). Go to his website and you can read all about the ways we little people can save energy by adjusting our thermostats, driving smaller cars, etc. Gore just isn't willing to make those sacrifices.
Look, for the last time, this is nothing but argument by assertion. Every claim you and others have made about Gore's supposed hypocritical practices has been addressed here. He does all the things on his website (drives a hybrid, uses flourescent bulbs, buys green energy, buys carbon offsets, etc.). Find me the part on his website where he tells people to live in small houses, because that's the only claim you have.
Moreover, his house apparently serves as a year round office for staff and security personnel. He is, after all, the former Vice President.
The bottomline is that you can't be a hypocrite unless you are doing something that you tell others not to do. Gore is doing everything he asks others to do, and just asserting the opposite doesn't make it so. You have to establish the premise of the your argument before you even get to step 2 (where you also fail).
Anyway, you seem to be coming a bit unhinged and obviously need to cut down on the caffeine, so I'm going to do something more productive with the rest of my day.
Nice. One "productive" way to spend your time might be familiarizing yourself with the facts, such as: 1) what precisely Gore is asking that his fellow citizens do, and 2) whether there is any evidence at all that Gore is not doing these things himself. If you come up with anything specific on this front, I'm all ears.
Al Gore’s response to his own “inconvenient truth” is outrageous. Simply because the man has bought into green energy as an “offset” does nothing for his case. It’s as if he is telling us that he can continue to run up his credit card bill because he is continually making deposits into his savings account. I say WAKE UP! Just because you’ve “offset” your energy consumption does not replace the fact that you are still using the energy from fossil fuels. And in the case of fossil fuels that are not replaceable it’s a credit card bill can NEVER be repaid. But don’t worry…just look at my savings account balance. Please. If Mr. Gore does not want to be considered a hypocrite he needs to live by his own advice. Sure he uses (one of) his homes as an office as well. I don’t know about anyone else, but I bet if you took the energy most of us use at the office during a year and added that to our home electric bills it still wouldn’t come close to the 20x average that Al and Tipper are running up!
No let's get real? Why not compare his bill no an average for the whole country? Isn't he asking everyone, everywhere to take a look at their "carbon footprint" and do what they can to conserve energy. Let's just say that if Mr. Gore is within the average for his area of the nation then why is he only average. Shouldn't someone that is so preachy about the environment be well below the average. Hypocrite? Yes.
Al Gore’s response to his own “inconvenient truth” is outrageous. Simply because the man has bought into green energy as an “offset” does nothing for his case. It’s as if he is telling us that he can continue to run up his credit card bill because he is continually making deposits into his savings account. I say WAKE UP! Just because you’ve “offset” your energy consumption does not replace the fact that you are still using the energy from fossil fuels. And in the case of fossil fuels that are not replaceable it’s a credit card bill can NEVER be repaid. But don’t worry…just look at my savings account balance. Please. If Mr. Gore does not want to be considered a hypocrite he needs to live by his own advice. Sure he uses (one of) his homes as an office as well. I don’t know about anyone else, but I bet if you took the energy most of us use at the office during a year and added that to our home electric bills it still wouldn’t come close to the 20x average that Al and Tipper are running up!
No let's get real? Why not compare his bill no an average for the whole country? Isn't he asking everyone, everywhere to take a look at their "carbon footprint" and do what they can to conserve energy. Let's just say that if Mr. Gore is within the average for his area of the nation then why is he only average. Shouldn't someone that is so preachy about the environment be well below the average. Hypocrite? Yes.
He does all the things on his website (drives a hybrid, uses flourescent bulbs, buys green energy, buys carbon offsets, etc.).
You are also arguing by assertion because you have no clue what he's doing, other than taking his word for it. Does he adjust his thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter? If he's using a gillion KW of electricity to heat his pool, does it even matter what his thermostat is set on?
Finally! A sane voice on global warming...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto_070228180440
No doubt, Gore has him on speed dial.
You are also arguing by assertion because you have no clue what he's doing, other than taking his word for it. Does he adjust his thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter? If he's using a gillion KW of electricity to heat his pool, does it even matter what his thermostat is set on?
Good grief this is stupid. It's not an "argument by assertion" to assume that Gore is telling the truth, particularly in the complete absense of any evidence whatsoever to suggest he's lying. Are you really so jaded that you think it's proper inductive reasoning to ASSUME that Gore is lying? Moreover, it's not like this line of attack is new. Gore's been getting this kind of crap from people for years. So why would he risk getting caught in an elaborate lie rather than just taking the steps that he says he's taking? Do you really dispute Gore drives a hybrid SUV? Do you really dispute that he gets his power from Green Switch and purchases carbon offsets? Really?
Good grief this is stupid! You're driving me crazy! (Yes, you are right -- this is an excellent debating technique.)
More seriously, your claim is that Gore is doing "everything" that he wants others to do. You cite examples of things that he has specifically claimed he is doing (e.g., driving a hybrid), but there is a whole raft of other things he urges on the rest of us that he has made no claims about. Do you really think Gore hangs his boxers on a clothes line to dry? Do you have personal knowledge that he runs around the house unplugging all his electronic gizmos when they are not in use? If not, then you are employing assertion.
Besides that, there is the known fact that Gore's home contains numerous energy-guzzling luxuries that most people simply wouldn't have. When it comes to a person's carbon footprint, the sources are irrelevant. If the planet is in such dire straights that we need to turn down the thermostat and wear layers indoors during the winter, shouldn't rich guys also figure out how to make do without the heated pool or the massive television set? Even if you accept offsets as a cure-all (and I don't), Gore specifically urges consumers to conserve first, then offset the rest.
your claim is that Gore is doing "everything" that he wants others to do. You cite examples of things that he has specifically claimed he is doing (e.g., driving a hybrid), but there is a whole raft of other things he urges on the rest of us that he has made no claims about.
Anonymous, here's your challenge. Please go find the following:
1) a statement by Gore asking people to do something
2) evidence that Gore doesn't do that thing himself
I want specifics. Not just lazy accusations. I want Gore saying "do X" and then actual evidence that Gore does not in fact do X.
If you get that far (which I don't think you will), then explain why this matters and isn't just a 3rd grade level game of gotcha designed to distract everyone from actual important issues.
Cheers.
Go to Gore's website, and you will find a detailed list of the conservation measures Gore is urging. You, sir, are the one asserting that he is doing everything he is asking of others, so don't get snippy with me about making assertions. If proof is so important to you, prove your own claim first.
Meanwhile, you refuse to address my other point. My guess is that this is because you have no answer for it. If reducing carbon footprints is so important, why can Gore not seem to conjure up the will to actually sacrifice some luxuries for the cause? Again, it's fine to adjust your thermostat, what good have you really done if you've just installed a heated pool?
Gore's message is that we should conserve first and then offset the rest. For him, this means making no real sacrifices in his lifestyle, and then using his pocket change to buy offsets to supposedly cover his largess. For me and for millions of other Americans, things are not so easy. Even if I take the Gore approach and exert limited effort to conserve, buying offsets is a very real financial sacrifice. Maybe my family can't go on vacation, or maybe I can't replace my 20-year-old car. Given that Gore's carbon footprint is 20x mine (at just one house!), why should I make very real, painful sacrifices to mitigate my small carbon footprint when he won't even make minimal sacrifices to reduce his own consumption? I could live like Ed Begley and not reduce carbon output as much as Gore could just by shuttering his pool house. It's a legitimate question, but you just don't want to deal with it.
You, sir, are the one asserting that he is doing everything he is asking of others, so don't get snippy with me about making assertions. If proof is so important to you, prove your own claim first.
Snippy? Look, all I'm asking is that those who would accuse someone of hypocrisy actually make their case. Your argument is essentially that Al Gore must be a hypocrite. You're not really sure how, but golly, the man must be lying about something.
You're the prosecution, and I'm simply pointing out that you haven't made your case.
If reducing carbon footprints is so important, why can Gore not seem to conjure up the will to actually sacrifice some luxuries for the cause?
Again what's your basis for this? Al Gore flies almost exclusively on commercial airlines (despite the fact that he has the connections and means to fly on private jets). He drives a hybrid. He spends his money on green technology and carbon offsets. He devotes 90% of his time to flying around giving slide show presentations on an issue he finds really important. In short, he does a hell of a lot more than anyone else of his wealth or stature. It's more than a little lazy to just assert that Gore is "living large" at the expense of the environment when your only evidence is that his Nashville home (which doubles as an office him and his staff) is big.
What would the man have to do before you'd be willing to listen to him?
Even if I take the Gore approach and exert limited effort to conserve, buying offsets is a very real financial sacrifice. Maybe my family can't go on vacation, or maybe I can't replace my 20-year-old car. Given that Gore's carbon footprint is 20x mine (at just one house!), why should I make very real, painful sacrifices to mitigate my small carbon footprint when he won't even make minimal sacrifices to reduce his own consumption?
There's a lot of b.s. buried in this paragraph. First, Gore isn't asking people to make huge sacrifices or do things they can't afford. He just wants people to take minor steps to reduce their carbon footprints. Second, you don't seem to understand the concept of a carbon footprint. Your carbon footprint isn't directly tied to your energy usage. It depends where your energy comes from, for instance. Hydro-electric-power, wind-power, and even-nuclear power doesn't create a carbon footprint. Given where Gore gets his energy, the fact that his house doubles as an office (and probably residence) for more than just himself, and the fact that he's purchasing carbon credits, there's just no way his carbon footprint is 20 times yours.
And finally, you seem to be harboring a lot more anger toward Gore than seems justified by your accusation of hypocrisy (which is, at worst, relatively minor). What's up with that? Why do you hate the guy so much? Is there anyone who you would listen to about environmental issues? Is there anyone who would by sufficiently pure of heart and deed?
A.L.,
A more general question I've never heard answered by a global warming skeptic: What evidence would you consider sufficient to conclude that global warming is caused by human actions?
The answer appears to be "None. Ever."
In other words, their opposition to the theory of global warming and to anyone who advocates it is dogmatic.
Faith-based opposition claiming that everybody else has religious belief in the theory is simply projection.
Projection, dogma, and mindless repetition is all I'm getting from these folks.
Your argument is essentially that Al Gore must be a hypocrite.
No, my argument is that he is a hypocrite. It takes a lot of nerve to tell a middle class person they should be using a clothes line when Gore could save more energy in one year by turning off his pool heater than the clothes line user could save in a lifetime. I'm beginning to think your obtuseness on this obvious point is willful.
Al Gore flies almost exclusively on commercial airlines.
You keep saying that, but do you really know it to be a fact? I distinctly remember reading about how Paramount was picking up the tab for the carbon credits that were being bought to offset Gore's private jet travel to promote AIT.
It's more than a little lazy to just assert that Gore is "living large" at the expense of the environment when your only evidence is that his Nashville home (which doubles as an office him and his staff) is big.
You keep asserting that his home doubles as an office, and recently you've added the detail that it houses a staff. Evidence please -- I've seen this verified nowhere. But even if true, he still has at least two other houses. No doubt you'll find some reason for their indispensability, as well.
He drives a hybrid.
Yes, Gore conserves when it's easy for him to do so without really having to sacrifice anything (e.g., buying a Lexus hybrid SUV -- oh, how does he bear it?), but chooses not to give up obvious energy wasting luxuries where there is no easy alternative. Again, it's hard to take his talk of a crisis seriously when he won't sacrifice luxuries that would save more energy than I could if I sold my house and moved into a cave.
And yes, it's true that he spends a lot of time and effort on advocacy. But everyone needs a hobby, especially when you're rich and have nothing better to do. Besides, Gore is profiting handsomely from all of this given that he sells carbon credits and his stock management company specializes in "green" companies.
First, Gore isn't asking people to make huge sacrifices or do things they can't afford. He just wants people to take minor steps to reduce their carbon footprints.
Ah, yes. Well in that case, I won't do anything because I can't afford it. Happy? Tell you what: I'll turn my thermostat up just as soon as he sacrifices his D.C. home.
Your carbon footprint isn't directly tied to your energy usage.
Which begs the question, why conserve at all?
Given where Gore gets his energy...
By the way, writer Peter Schweizer discovered in December of last year that Gore was only then "looking into" buying "green power." Before then, he couldn't be bothered.
Charles,
A more general question I've never heard answered by a global warming hysterics: What evidence would you consider sufficient to conclude that global warming is not caused by human actions?
The answer appears to be "None. Ever."
In other words, their opposition to the idea that global warming is a natural phenomenon and anyone who advocates it is dogmatic.
Faith-based advocacy claiming that everybody else has religious disbelief in the theory is simply projection.
Projection, dogma, and mindless repetition is all I'm getting from these folks.
Anonymous,
Your originality is impressive.
I'll believe global warming isn't caused by human action when either it stops as mysteriously as it started, or when the skeptics provide a believable alternative mechanism and evidence to support it, such as convincing evidence that the sun's insolation has increased (I'll accept a refereed paper in a journal with a second report that replicates the results of the first.)
Until one of those things happen, I'm siding with the computer models, which, please note, is more than the pathetic skeptics have.
Put up or shut up. Let's hear yours. Please note, I asked first and, although you should have answered first, I also answered first.
As a concerned citizen, I have some important questions. Does anybody know if Tipper fills the dishwasher to the max each time she runs a cycle? And did anyone check the trash at the Gore household? Maybe there's a glass jar they didn't recycle and we can finally expose this man for who he really is.
Joking aside, as long as any of us live, breathe and consume ANYTHING, we're all hypocrites at some level. I am shocked that anyone would be so naive as to think this so-called scandal is as anything but a smear campaign. Yes, we expect those more privileged than ourselves to do a lot when it comes to the cause(s) they support. As well they should. And Mr. Gore does a lot more than the average person when it comes to his cause. He may be privileged socially and financially, yet he made the choice, long ago (way before global warming became a hot topic!), to focus on environmental issues. And no, he doesn't live in a home that stands as a showcase for cutting edge, environmentally conscious design & function, a home for which he would be called an elitist. Instead, he lives in a regular house, larger than average, for which he makes responsible consumer choices in terms of the energy consumption. What he proposes is that we can all take reasonable steps towards alleviating a global crisis, and he presents solutions in ways that are accessible to the average consumer.
Meanwhile, the hateful right wing propaganda machine responds to Mr. Gore being in the limelight by revealing to the world that he lives in a large house and actually uses his AC. A valuable message indeed. Instead of focusing our attention on global warming and what we can do to slow it down, we should focus on ways to discredit those who seek to raise awareness on the issue. Instead of rallying around Mr. Gore and looking for ways we can all do our part to ensure our kids have a planet to live on, we should be inspecting the designer faucets in the Gore household for drips.
Because after all, it is Mr. Gore we should condemn and fear, not those who irresponsibly (and consistently) sell out our health and future to corporate interests.
Charles,
You show your ignorance in the first sentence. Warming and cooling periods have been "mysteriously" occurring since the beginning of the world. No doubt you still cling to the discredited "hockey stick" model that pretends the Little Ice Age never happened. And clearly, the cooling that happened from the 1940s until the 1980s was due to our rapid de-industrialization and adoption of hybrid vehicles during that era.
For every bit of evidence the climate change advocates come up with, there is always data conveniently omitted. Part of Antarctica is experiencing warming, but part of it is gaining snow mass. Greenland was losing ice in some places (although that seems to have stopped now), but was gaining ice in others. Strangely, we never heard about the gaining, only the losing.
As for the models, they disagree with one another from one week to the next. It seems rather rash to take actions that will have major ramifications on our economy (and our ability to afford the luxury of environmental protections, I might add) based on data that is all over the map and that even the "experts" are at pains to explain with anything close to a consistent narrative.
Meanwhile, advocates denounce any scientists who dare disagree with the "consensus," trying to shut them out and ruin their academic reputations. Its hard to argue with a straight face that all "reputable" scientists support the advocates' view when anyone who doesn't agree is automatically subjected to a smear campaign and suddenly finds it difficult to get anything published.
As for my assertion that the advocates aren’t interested in truth, consider this: Despite the inconsistencies in the data and the ongoing research into solar effects on the environment, why are the hysterics so insistent on claiming that the science is “settled,” shutting off debate, and smearing the skeptics?
Curiously, those who advocate the most loudly for the climate change theory are those whose politics line up most cleanly with the preferred "solutions": Big government, high regulation, and curbs on consumption (except for rich liberals, of course). I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though.
But what are the “solutions,” anyway? We hear a lot of bellyaching about Kyoto, but even if America and Australia had signed on -- and Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to -- by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C (based on your beloved models), a figure that would be statistically undetectable within annual climate variation. And, in return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion -- and those are the U.S. Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models. And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is… er, too many zeroes for my calculator. Ever read the story about killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
At any rate, this isn't what this particular conversation on this particular thread is about, and I have tried to avoid changing the subject. Congrats on sucking me in, but that's all the time I'm going to spend on it.
He lives in a regular house, larger than average, for which he makes responsible consumer choices in terms of the energy consumption.
Responsible consumer choices? Yes, I'm sure that his pool heater is powered by organically-fed hamsters on treadmills. Like I said, I'll adjust my thermostat and put on a sweater when he gives up one of his three houses.
Your carbon footprint isn't directly tied to your energy usage.
Which begs the question, why conserve at all?
Um. No. It doesn't. But I'm too tired to explain the concept to you again.
I'll adjust my thermostat and put on a sweater when he gives up one of his three houses.
This is exactly kind of nonsense I'm talking about. You're so myopically focused on Gore that you are actually willing to let your descriptive AND normative view of the world depend on how big a home Al Gore has.
That's some awesome logic. What if Al Gore started lecturing about the need for proper hygeine to stop the spread of disease, but was caught on camera failing to wash his hands after going to the bathroom? Would you stop washing your hands too because Gore is such a Big Hypocrite? Good grief.
Anonymous at 6:21,
You have, in almost that many words, admitted that your beliefs cannot be shaken by any set of facts.
If your beliefs cannot be shaken by any facts, then they are dogmatic.
To quote Bob Altemeyer: "Dogmatism: The Authoritarians Last Ditch Defense".
I don't want to argue with an authoritarian. It's not that I'm dissing you, it's just that it's pointless.
For anybody still open to convincing, ask yourself the question I posed to Anonymous: what would convince you either way of the hypothesis of the likelihood of human-caused global warming?
Thanks again, A.L.
See you around.
I can't wait until 30 years from now when my children will be struggling with the question of how to stop global cooling (like we were doing 30 years ago.) Somehow I think the solutions are going to be the same - we must blindly follow the left-wing orthodoxy to redemption at the church of Gore.
The mere fact that there can be no room for debate and dissent should be a HUGE red flag, even to you true believers. That it's not is scary.
I would ask that you keep the open mind that you purport to have open to the possibility that people tend to see what they want to see, and that goes for Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, lefties, righties, and yes, even scientists.
Aren't all the mathematical comparisons based on square footage somewhat pointless, since you're heating and/or cooling the entire volume of a home, rather than just the floorboards?
(Not that I make much of the whole issue. I don't begrudge Al Gore a nice home, and I expect he's doing all he can to reduce his footprint. Besides, Al isn't campaigning that we all need to make drastic changes to our lives and live in mud huts; he's telling us to reduce our footprint.)
Putting the whole climate change thing aside, applying the same technologies would also help us greatly on the economic and national security fronts, as we'd lessen our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels and would develop new, *modern* industries.
Add back in the risk of doing nothing *should* the climate crisis be real (nudge), and the choice *should* be simple for those not holding stock in fossil fuel industries. (Just ask our American car companies how well their strategy to back SUVs to exclusion of hybrids and EVs has worked out.)
You have, in almost that many words, admitted that your beliefs cannot be shaken by any set of facts.
No, I just screwed up, got in a hurry, and forgot to answer that part of the question.
So to answer your question: Yes, of course I could be persuaded by scientific evidence. But it would have to show that the warming we are currently experiencing is truly unprecedented and explain things such as how the mid-20th century cooling period occurred during a time of rapid industrialization and how the sun is not responsible for the changes we are seeing even though solar radiation is being blamed for melting Mars' polar caps.
After that, scientists will then have to further convince me that there are realistic solutions that will actually fix the problem. If the “solutions” are economically risky, Kyoto-style feel-good initiatives that solve nothing, count me out. Better to put our efforts into developing improved technology and learning to live with the changes.
Believe it or not, I'm actually a strong believer in environmental protections. I'm a member of the local land trust (permanently saving scenic land from development), and I pestered my congressman constantly a few years ago about preventing logging of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. But I do not just go along with something because its a fad, and I am acutely aware that environmental protections are a luxury of the rich. The dirtiest countries on the planet are the industrialized poor ones (e.g., China and India). If our economy goes in the hopper, that's what we'll be, and the whole world will be the worse for it.
P.S. - I'm not the "Anonymous" who posted the three items last night.
This is exactly kind of nonsense I'm talking about. You're so myopically focused on Gore that you are actually willing to let your descriptive AND normative view of the world depend on how big a home Al Gore has.
That's some awesome logic. What if Al Gore started lecturing about the need for proper hygeine to stop the spread of disease, but was caught on camera failing to wash his hands after going to the bathroom? Would you stop washing your hands too because Gore is such a Big Hypocrite? Good grief.
No, I think I made it pretty clear in my post to Charles that I actually have a factual basis for my lack of belief in anthropogenic global warming. The fact that Al Gore is a big, fat hypocrite is just further evidence of what I already believe.
Let’s take your analogy and make it more apropos, shall we? Let’s say Al Gore is running around warning that pork contains the deadly ManBearPig virus, and that no one should eat pork products. I look at the scientific evidence and find it less than convincing, so am not inclined to believe him. About that time, I walk into a back room and see Gore polishing off a big ol’ barbeque pork sandwich with a side of pork rinds (hey, he is from Tennessee, sort of). At that point, I don’t really care that he purchased porcine offsets – his credibility with me is completely shot. This revelation doesn’t form my scientific views, but it does confirm my belief that the anti-pork movement is less than genuine in its convictions.
Um. No. It doesn't. But I'm too tired to explain the concept to you again.
Oh, come on. I was being facetious and baiting you at the same time.
Look, let’s just end the silliness and talk about reality here. You believe in man-made global warming and are in favor of taking steps to stop it. Everyone acknowledges that we are nearing a political tipping point where things are either going to start happening or not on this agenda. Al Gore is the g-w crusade’s most visible spokesman and the movement simply can not afford for him to be discredited as an energy-sucking hypocrite. Therefore, as a matter of political expediency, there is simply no way in hell that you or most other g-w believers are going to admit in a million years that Gore’s actions are not in line with his words. Not even if someone produces photos of him pumping tons of methane directly into the atmosphere from his secret android lair.
Hey, I can understand that. That’s politics for you. I just hope that if I were in your shoes, I would be more willing to stick with principle over political expediency and saving face for my chosen political movement.
If you scroll through the last few days of posts concerning this article (which if you recall, is about the Right Wing noise machine attacking Al Gore immediately after his Oscar appearance) you will notice that the discussion/argument/debate above, all revolves around the SUBSTANCE of Gore's global warming message and his CHARACTER as it relates to this message. Please ask yourselves which is an easier and more effective method of attack; a detailed accounting of scientific facts and theories (which will ALWAYS be disputed by the two opposing camps on GW), or a personal attack on an individual. Come on, you all should be able to realize that the politics of personal (and Party) destruction are ALWAYS easier and more effective than ANY rational argument made by either side. Do any of you honestly believe that you will convince anyone else from the opposing side through reasoned debate? Do you think that your set of links or your elegant set of rebuttals will ever win over even one soldier of the opposing army? The most important lesson that the Bush/Cheney/Rove permanent campaign has taught us is that all short-term goals are always more effectively achieved by beating the messenger to a bloody pulp with an agile, highly paid and well positioned gang of character assassins, rather than intelligently addressing their message. The point of this original article is that the Right Wing noise machines WORKS! So you can either fiddle around the margins with your intellectual skirmishes, or you can decide to really wage war against the Republican hate machine. Wise up, fellow lefties, and realize that we have to jam a friggin' sharp stick into the proverbial Republican Cyclops' eyeball. We must plunge a broken bottle into their collective throats and stomp our combat boots onto the backs of their lying, scheming traitorous necks. It's ugly sure, but its the war that they have chosen. Stop bringing your pocket-protector to this machete knife fight. Are you angry at what Republicans have done to America?... Then get mean, get dirty and get even! Now that is a "new plan for victory".
If you scroll through the last few days of posts concerning this article (which if you recall, is about the Right Wing noise machine attacking Al Gore immediately after his Oscar appearance) you will notice that the discussion/argument/debate above, all revolves around the SUBSTANCE of Gore's global warming message and his CHARACTER as it relates to this message. Please ask yourselves which is an easier and more effective method of attack; a detailed accounting of scientific facts and theories (which will ALWAYS be disputed by the two opposing camps on GW), or a personal attack on an individual. Come on, you all should be able to realize that the politics of personal (and Party) destruction are ALWAYS easier and more effective than ANY rational argument made by either side. Do any of you honestly believe that you will convince anyone else from the opposing side through reasoned debate? Do you think that your set of links or your elegant set of rebuttals will ever win over even one soldier of the opposing army? The most important lesson that the Bush/Cheney/Rove permanent campaign has taught us is that all short-term goals are always more effectively achieved by beating the messenger to a bloody pulp with an agile, highly paid and well positioned gang of character assassins, rather than intelligently addressing their message. The point of this original article is that the Right Wing noise machines WORKS! So you can either fiddle around the margins with your intellectual skirmishes, or you can decide to really wage war against the Republican hate machine. Wise up, fellow lefties, and realize that we have to jam a friggin' sharp stick into the proverbial Republican Cyclops' eyeball. We must plunge a broken bottle into their collective throats and stomp our combat boots onto the backs of their lying, scheming traitorous necks. It's ugly sure, but its the war that they have chosen. Stop bringing your pocket-protector to this machete knife fight. Are you angry at what Republicans have done to America?... Then get mean, get dirty and get even! Now that is a "new plan for victory".
Anonymous,
I just happened to check up and found your belated response. A few final thoughts:
You say Yes, of course I could be persuaded by scientific evidence. But it would have to show that the warming we are currently experiencing is truly unprecedented and explain things such as how the mid-20th century cooling period occurred during a time of rapid industrialization and how the sun is not responsible for the changes we are seeing even though solar radiation is being blamed for melting Mars' polar caps.
1. There have only been widespread measurements of the temperature for the last 50 years, and the urbanization of the planet has introduced noise into almost all of those.
2. The "cooling" that occurred in the 70's was well within the normal variation for climate in the last century, as was pointed out by the climate scientists at the time. The "global cooling" scare that you trumpet was almost completely an artifact of the media. Expecting an explanation beyond those two facts is fatuous.
3. If our understanding of the climate of our own planet is insufficient to fully explain year-by-year variations, how can you expect an explanation of the climate of another planet?
4. To pile on top of all that the requirement that proposed solutions will be proven to fix the problem before even believing that the problem is fully understood is insane.
5. The conclusion shared by the vast majority of climate scientists is not a "fad" and your saying so is merely argument by assertion. Granted, there is an inertia in all human endeavor, but even discounting for this leaves the conclusion that humans are likely causing global warming.
I suggest you read more widely. David Ignatious, not exactly a left-wing zealot, had an editorial in the Washington Post today on the topic of the risks associated with global warming. Ron Bailey, the science editor for Reason magazine, a skeptic until a year ago, has written extensively on what convinced him (and he, like many, is not convinced that global warming is the looming catastrophe that others claim.)
You then state: No, I think I made it pretty clear in my post to Charles that I actually have a factual basis for my lack of belief in anthropogenic global warming. The fact that Al Gore is a big, fat hypocrite is just further evidence of what I already believe.
No, your response indicates no understanding of science and a dogmatic insistence on an unrealizable and unreasonable level of proof before you will accept it.
Your statement about Al Gore is circular reasoning. You assume the conclusion and then present it as evidence of your hypothesis.
The "cooling" that occurred in the 70's was well within the normal variation for climate in the last century.
The cooling period started in the 1940s and continued until the early 1980s. It's cause is just as "mysterious" as the warming that has occurred since then. And why, pray tell, do the alarmists want to pretend as if the Little Ice Age never occurred? Is this science?
To pile on top of all that the requirement that proposed solutions will be proven to fix the problem before even believing that the problem is fully understood is insane.
Your reading comprehension skills need work. It is perfectly reasonable to say: First, prove to me that there is a man-made problem. If there is, then prove to me that there is a realistic man-made solution that won't make things even worse. Taking action for action's sake is what would be insane, particularly given the likely negative repercussions (something the alarmists never want to talk about).
The conclusion shared by the vast majority of climate scientists is not a "fad" and your saying so is merely argument by assertion.
If I had a nickel for every one of your assertions...
As I have said, there are plenty of learned, award-winning scientists who dispute the "consensus." But then, consensus is always easy to create when you only include those who agree with you and smear those who do not.
I suggest you read more widely.
I could much more easily say the same of you. Hearing the arguments of the alarmists is inescapable, so I have read plenty about it. You, on the other hand, seem happy residing in your side’s echo chamber.
Your response indicates no understanding of science and a dogmatic insistence on an unrealizable and unreasonable level of proof before you will accept it.
It's unreasonable to expect scientists to actually prove their case? It's unreasonable to expect that they should be able to explain obvious discrepancies? It’s unreasonable for credible alternate theories to be explored before declaring the science “settled”? Wow, and here I thought science was about inquiry, not shutting up and shutting down dissent.
Your problem is that any level of proof is too much to ask. Your message is basically: Shut-up already and get with the program. That's a lot of chutzpah coming from someone who babbles on about dogmatism.
Your statement about Al Gore is circular reasoning. You assume the conclusion and then present it as evidence of your hypothesis.
I have stated the case for why Gore is a hypocrite. Just because you don't agree with it does not make my reasoning circular. Your vocabulary outstrips your knowledge by a long shot.
Charles, give it up man. Don't you realize that the Republican Right-Wing noise machine (of which "anonymous" is obviously a charter member) not only hates and fears all science, they hate and fear all knowledge. Facts and reason mean nothing to Republicans, all they need is belief. You can't break belief with anything, not theories, not facts, nothing. All you can do is personally discredit them. Attack them personally. The politics of personal destruction is our only hope against the evil Republican Guard. Good luck, brother
Tommyrot,
Oh, I know the syndrome. The reason I've drawn out one of the anonomi is to illustrate, for those readers who might be still wondering, what the full flowering of the RWA personality looks like.
Observe: he sets up impossible standards of proof for the things he doesn't want to believe. I'm willing to bet that, in another few years and the evidence becomes even more damning, he'll still be unwilling to believe.
Yet, when it comes to Al Gore, he's willing to believe on the basis of a single datum, of questionable source, and which doesn't mean (as A.L. has so ably presented) anything except to the person paying Al Gore's electric bill.
He keeps claiming he's got all this "evidence" to back up his viewpoint, but is there anything he's presented here that isn't just a talking point from a GW denial source? And he doesn't even present those well.
When pushed, he backs up to dogmatic belief or disbelief.
There is truly no way to convince such a person of anything his faith is invested in, and I gave up trying almost immediately. My goal has been to see whether I could illustrate all the above traits, and I think that has been achieved.
Textbook RWA thinking; I haven't seen a more clear-cut case.
Anonymous (and if you aren't the anonymous I've referred to, please excuse me -- I can't tell one of you from another easily) -- thanks for participating.
Charles,
I hate to tell you, but you are the one who has been drawn out. Your knowledge is weak, your facts are specious, and you ignore any argument you can not conveniently or snidely rebut (which is most of them). When presented with a cogent arguments, you resort to name-calling and posturing.
You “believe” in anthropogenic global warming, but aren’t interested in any hearing any evidence that doesn’t support it. You respond to reasonable calls for scientific evidence by calling them “impossible.” When presented with perfectly logical points, your response is... silence, other than dismissive, fact-free pot-shots.
Yet on Gore, you hilariously refer to two years of his power bills (verified by the Associated Press and not denied by Gore) as “a single datum” from “a questionable source.” Funny, I would think that two years of a person’s personal behavior is pretty strong stuff.
You have no interest in science, in truth, or in reality. This is all a political fight for you, and the goal is just to win, baby -- and the facts be damned.
To anonymous:
You and your movement (the Republican hate/fear machine movement) will kill us all with your ignorance and incompetence. You all promised us that even though Bush was a moron, he had the best team of handlers to launch America into the 21st century. Those of us who are not on your machine's payroll tried to convince America that you were lying or just stupid, but you shouted us down with your hate/fear speech. Now you have totally f----- America, and you are trying to sell us on your ability to develop the best ecological policy for the entire planet. Well, we don't need any science to recognize your lies for what they are. The evidence for your deception is your evil Republican machine's record over the last quarter century (with Bush/Cheney as your crowning achievement). We are not only NOT going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, we are going to fight you with the same tactics that you have used for a generation in America. We will spread every lie about you, pass along every hateful demonization of you and fan every flame of fear about you that we can think up to frighten, anger and confuse the voters of this country into HATING you more than you have taught them to hate us. So don't come at my boy Charles with "You have no interest in science, in truth, or in reality" because it's not about any of those things. It's about who can create more Fear and Hate among the voters. You guys are good, but you have taught us well, and we are motivated now, and we will use your evil methods to promote our own agenda: to destroy you and your evil machine. I don't just want to beat you in a "political fight", I want to see your burning corpse being cleaned by the buzzards in the blazing sun. I want to see Republicanism strangled to death as I stare into its ugly, contorted face. Am I crazy - Oh hell yes. I'm friggin' insane! I'm insane with rage for what you have done to the American project, and I and my merry band of Leftist Neo-Hate mongers have you in our sights. Watch your back, 'cause we're coming for you.
Well, I’m ready to call it a week. I won’t be anywhere near a computer this weekend, so this is it for my participation on this thread. Not that anyone is reading it anyway.
I’ll just say that this has been interesting, although not that eye-opening. Charles, especially, lived down to everything I have come to expect from climate change alarmists: Overwrought, uninformed, utterly uninterested in science, and easily manipulated by emotive calls to action.
Good thing for the lefties they can balance out all this rhetorical hot air with the credits from their recycled sanctimony. Otherwise, Gaia might really be angry.
Hi AnonLib, please see discussion regarding your 19.83 KWh/ft² figure. I will contact you by email for exploring this further. Best regards. -NL
NL, I looked at the discussion. You did the calculation the exact same way I did. I just multiplied the per square foot national number by the ratio of the per household national number to per household number in Gore's region.
I just came up on this blog posting and read the whole thing. I'm all for doing something to stop the climate change disaster, but man, this kind of argumentation is just plain embarrassing. It is so short-sighted to treat this as a subject that can be spun. In the long run, it won't work.
Why can't we just be honest and admit some truths? Hell yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite. Are you kidding me? But what do you expect from a politician? (It embarrasses me to no end, by the way, that George Bush's ranch is a model of ecological efficiency, whereas Gore is an energy hog.) All this breaking down and analyzing of Gore's utility bills reminds me of the Soviet apologists who used to argue that, hey, looked at in a certain way, Stalin didn't really kill THAT many people.
And another truth: No, the science on global warming is NOT settled. By insisting otherwise, we are setting ourselves up for a major loss of credibility if some of these solar studies that are being done demonstrate a link between the sun's activity and climate change. This reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians who insist on a completely literal interpretation of the Bible. When evidence shoots down the idea of a worldwide flood, their whole faith system takes a credibility hit.
As for Charlie: Dude, go read a book or something. Whatever you do, please stop trying to defend our side. You're hurting us more than you are helping. Your ignorance is palpable which is why these other commenters ate you for lunch. Unless you like looking like a fool or are secretly a mole for the other side, JUST STOP IT.
I am not a regular reader of your blog, nor do I think I will ever read it again, but I thought I'd leave my two cents. First, I don't know whether global warming is occuring because of carbon emmissions, but until we do know, I don't think we should take our chances. To that end, I may not be idealogically allied with the Gore camp, but I still agree with the notion we should lower emissions.
That being said, you do a real disservice to your argument when you put a man above the cause you support. 200,000kwh IS obsene, I don't care how large your house is or where you live. But, as you have argued, what if that is just how much a house the size of Gore's uses, no matter what? Well, maybe it's about time the TWO people living in the 10,000 square footage literally put their money where his mouth is and move into a smaller house. No, Gore doesn't need to live in a 1000 square foot apartment, but seriously, you see no problem with a 10k square foot mansion? Honestly, I would think if you really cared about the issue you would say something more like "hey, don't let the bad actions of this man cloud the real issue, no matter how bad this might look."
You also claim that even if Gore did move into a drastically more ecofriendly house, the neo-cons still wouldn't be happy. So what? Are you saying it's not worth "doing your part" unless people are there to fawn over you and tell you how great and self sacrificing you are? Grow up. By the way, the next time you want to blather on about the windbags on the right (who disgust me equally,) I suggest you take a look at your own message. It's so dripping with mindless partisanship it's hard to tell where the spin ends and the watered down half truth begins.
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand Russell
I'm going to start this off by saying that I'm both pro-choice and I love my gun collection, so nobody is allowed to claim me for their own.
Now, while I'm reluctant to continue the comparatively pointless blather about Gore in light of the more controversial ecological issue that this "discussion" surrounds, it does bear at least some notice--if for no other reason than it is A.L.'s original topic.
What most everyone here seems to be missing is that arguing with each other about whether or not Gore's position as representative of the global warming issue is "morally correct" will yield no results. Everyone who visits this section of the blog already has their own opinion on the subject. To chime in with what I believe will have no result.
There is, however, another subject that bears breaching--is it, regardless of the allegations, a good idea for Gore to remain as the figurehead here? Bringing this to national attention as opposed to leaving it as an issue under a broader umbrella of ecological awareness opens it wider to the political arena than it already was. Politicos from BOTH sides of the fence have come out of the woodwork claiming to have the best interests of the environment in mind. However, as any moderately intelligent American knows, politicians almost always have ulterior motives which skew their favor.
As soon as Gore became the poster child for global warming awareness, a whole new opening appeared for ambitious opponents to attack him and his cause. It was never a good idea for Gore to champion this cause in the stead of a well-regarded and respected climatologist. To remain now, when his proximity to the matter at hand has brought it into question for political causes rather than the subject itself, would be sheer folly.
As for the matter of global warming itself, I prefer to remain skeptical. After all, not proving that something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it does. I could say that I have no internet connection, merely well-trained slaves shouting into a phone line making static-like noises as I direct them to. You can doubt all you want, but that doesn't make it untrue...nor does my assertions make my side of the issue any more true, especially if they're false to begin with (as each side will claim the other's is).
Fellows, let's all be honest here. Not a single one of us is a climatologist. I'm certainly not; I'm not even a politician. I'm a college student studying military history. This puts me in no position to understand either side of the argument, and therefore in absolutely no position to take sides on it. What I do see is each side on this blog taking sources and yelling at each other to read them, when neither can honestly say that they wholly comprehend the magnitude of the information they hold as their grail.
That is the core of the hypocrisy at work here, ladies and gentlemen. Politics is a game of argument based on belief, but science is most definitely not. So leave it alone. Instead, try something that at least we as normal, work-a-day people can comprehend. Try coming up with ways to limit the amount of expendable resources one consumes on a daily basis, or a host of more clear-cut ecological issues. Don't tie yourself to one side of a pet issue before the matter is totally resolved. It's like arguing over which person's favorite color is better.
In short, the issue that A.L. referred to is unfortunate, but understandable from a purely tactical point of view. The more substantial point is...also substantially more wasteful to argue over, especially when the arguments engaged in won't change the result of conclusive scientific research.
Interesting!
Interesting article, thanks!
Great to see this! Thanks!
Thanks for interesting article.
The fourth wow power leveling latest game in wow power leveling Warcraft series is ‘wow power leveling’. Also known as wow power leveling, it represents a wow power leveling multiplayer online wow power leveling game, the best of wow power leveling kind. Initially, it was wow gold it be released in 2001, but wow powerleveling was delayed wow powerleveling 2004, thus wow powerleveling the 10 years ofwow powerleveling franchise of thiswow gold series. The world of warcraft power leveling was not world of warcraft power levelingfulfilling, because wow power levelproblems with wow power level server’s stability power leveling wow performance occurred, but power leveling wow game still power leveling wow a financial success powerleveling wow the most powerleveling wow game of its kind. The number cheap wow power leveling users that play Maple Story mesos, exceeds 8.5 MapleStory mesos, worldwide.As a form ms mesos,recognition for mesos,outstanding popularity, the game SilkRoad Gold, received aSRO Gold, of awards. Now the question eq2 plat, why is eq2 gold, game eq2 Platinum, popular? For anyoneEverQuest 2 Platinum, played the previous EverQuest 2 gold, and EverQuest 2 plat, already initiated lotro gold, the mysterious world lotr gold, the breathtaking Lord of the Rings online Gold, this Rolex Replica nothing but an Replica Rolex adventure that continues the story of ‘Warcraft III: Frozen Throne’, four years after conclusion, in the world of Azeroth. The game is online role-playing, the previous versions being online and offline strategy games. The major thrills and unique features are present as in every Blizzard game.
Assuming that Gore really is a frugal old Tennessee boy, how many people do you know who waste as much fuel as that worthless fat ass?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home