Al Gore, UN panel share Nobel for Peace.
Can the Swiftboating of Al Gore be Far Behind?
Previous post: An Evening with Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire and Michael Ignatieff
Next post: “A Mock Columnist, Amok”
any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced
Recent Food Photos
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Already happened at least once.
http://sethf.com/gore/
Swiftboating? Is that what my parents used to call talking back? Ah, that could be an interesting discussion.
If one was going to talk back to Gore, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm) this would be great place to start — a British High Court decision that “nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus”. And not just any nine statements either. In particular, and I draw attention to it Rob since you’re interested in climate science, the data he uses shows the historic record says CO2 levels follow the temperature, not the other way around.
If the kid’s a sociopath, yes, I suppose.
The case isn’t news, David, nor is the overstatement of his conclusions, and the understatement of his record as an ideologue. Keep spinning, David.
Why isn’t this court case news Rob? This isn’t religion, or opinion, or politics: he’s making claims about science. What needs to be “spinned”? If he doesn’t have verifiable facts, he might as well be talking about creationism.
Sigh …
What really happened in Gore UK case
I know it’s not going to do any good :-(
Well, it’s good entertainment for a Saturday morning: I almost spit out my coffee when I read the Tuvalu and Kilimanjaro sections! “Well, he’s not right but you never know!”
Here’s the home game: when is it going to get warmer, and in particular, when is it going to be warmer than 1998? As you realize, there’s no meaningful breaks being put on CO2 emissions worldwide so the CO2/AGW theory says, well, a number of things but amongst them the temperature is going to up (that’s why the icebergs are going to melt, Manhattan drown, etc.). The UK Met said this year was the year, but later asked for a mulligan. Now they’re saying it’s 2009. If it’s not warmer that 1998 would you give up on AGW then? by 2012? 2017?
It’s not news because it’s not new. As Seth notes, it’s already been exposed and debated endlessly.
As for your last, “Well, he’s not right but you never know!” ?? If that’s all you’ve got to say – a sarcastic retort – about that, I’m not really interested in hearing any more. And as for your continuing efforts to suggest that it is not getting warmer, spare me again. Everywhere I ever lived as a child is now warmer – considerably, in some cases, than it was when I was a child. Friends and family report the same. So I have abundant personal and anecdotal evidence that this is a fact. And smart people – really rather remarkably smart people who study this for a living – tell me that this happening in many places around the world. So I’m inclined to believe it’s true.
As for why it’s happening, rinse and repeat; I don’t need to understand the science behind gravity, relativity, electricity, the link between smoking and cancer or just about anything else that smart scientists study to understand that when they’re alarmed, I ought to pay attention. I don’t need to know the details – smart people told me. That’s why we have people who are smart about these things – so we can pay attention to them when they tell us smart things. And if I waited for certainty about anything, I would never do anything – happily, my well evolved human intelligence allows me to make sophisticated judgements about risk and cost, so I don’t need to waste a moment worrying about whether I ought to second guess the judgement of people who know a f&^* a lot more about this than I do. Why in God’s name would I waste a second of my life debating with a non-expert the utility of individual data points? What possibly value could come out of that use of my life? I don’t need to be certain. I don’t need this to be absolutely verifiable. I know enought to know that this could be catastrophically bad for us, and that I need to stop listening to voices that cast doubt and get on with doing something about it.
Finally, sarcastic posts by you about this have no chance of influencing my opinion in any way that matters. You know that. I know that. Vice versa, I assume and hope. So why bother?