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.
148 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 str