CNN on Gore’s Conclusions
All those thoughtful HE readers in denial about global warming (this site is teeming with right-wing libertarian types who love their profligate lifestyles) are asked to look at this. It’s obviously crap propaganda put forward by a bunch of liberal distortion dweebs — people who refuse to accept that each and every American is entitled to do whatever he/she wants, and the atmosphere can go fuck itself — but if you’re not doing anything and you want a laugh…here you go.
During the Medieval Warm Period, they made red wine in England.
After 150 years of industrialization, temperatures still haven’t risen as much as they did naturally from 800 to 1200 AD.
Whoops, guess I’m a right wing nut.
since I will most likely be dead with 60 yrs, and since i will never have children, icould care less about global warming. we have to deal with enough shit in our lives, let them deal with it.
YourBlueRoom,
I would say you’re a moron, but that might be insulting to the other morons of the world.
Glad to see you don’t intend to have children. They’d probably turn out the banjo strummer in DELIVERANCE.
So, for the record, Jeff, did you swim to Cannes this year? Or bike to Park City? I mean, I agree with the conclusions of Gore’s movie, but a film critic is a fine one to be criticizing “profligate lifestyles.”
Wells to Just Curious: By special arrangement with an Inuit tribe in Alaska, I sailed over to Cannes from Baltimore harbor on a craft made of seal skins. On the trip over we caught whatever fish we could; one time we caught a seagull and ripped its head off and drank the blood.
Christ Jeff, get off it already. You’re like a child who just has to get his last licks in…even Bush says it’s time to stop arguing the cause and just start acting. It’s not productive! I’ve been saying that all along, but you fucking lefties are so obsessed with PROVING the unprovable that the cause is more important to you than the effect. If your drowning do you ask how you got there are do you try to save yourself??? End this bickering.
The point is…who gives a fuck???? Let’s just reduce emissions and see what happens…you get the solution you want and maybe in the end you’ll be proven right. Of course that means embracing nuclear energy…can you handle that? Can you negotiate or compromise your utterly baseless stance against it? Or do we have to save the world strictly according to the left’s terms?? Because we all know the left is infallible…cough, Nagasaki, cough, Vietnam, cough, cough, Bosnia…sorry, had to clear my throat. I was saying? Oh yeah…
This is getting boring, really. No more environmental anecdotal BS, no more Poland, please…
jeff,
you know the inuits with the seal skin craft? those bastards owe me money.
And I thought I was manly. Jeez, I could never drink a seagull’s blood without a good baquette to sop it up.
something about this site makes me instantly illiterate…’you’re,’ thank you very much.
“It’s gotta be the shoes.”
part of the reason why there is never any solution to the problem of the environment is that it instantly becomes a right vs. left war. just look at the posts on here. everyone is bitching about the right and the left and what has wells done to help the environment, blah blah blah. people bitch at the guy for pointing something out, and demand solutions from him, yet they give no solutions of their own and only add to the problems.
what it comes down to is that the solution to the problem is bigger than the right or the left or whether or not people don’t drive their cars once a week. it’s the simple fact that there is no money in saving the environment at this time. we all know this. we just choose to look at it from a different angle (right vs. left). until there’s money in it, there won’t be any real incentive for the government (and when i say government i mean EVERYONE, not just republicans or democrats) to truly give a shit about the environment. a good example of this would be a recent incident in Oregon where an Oregon State grad student wrote a paper regarding clear cutting. the government has stated that clear cutting is good for the forests, yet this students finding clearly went against that belief. and in an issue of collegiate censorship (oh, i’m sure some of you will love this), oregon state bowed down to pressure from some source on high and didn’t allow this grad student to publish his thesis. it took a huge effort from the faculty to finally allow the thesis to be published and accepted by the school. the point: if there’s no money, there’s no reason for the government to care.
finally, delbomber, the comment about the left and nagasaki and vietnam is kind of a misnomer. the democrats were in charge at the time, but, they weren’t exactly the representatives of the left as they are now (and i really don’t think they are today either). just look at vietnam. it wasn’t exactly conservatives protesting the war and burning their draft cards.
end ridiculously long rant.
del: How about converting to solar power and/or ethanol? How about increasing the mph limit on cars? (And by cars, I also mean SUVs.) Also, Vietnam started with Eisenhower, Nagasaki was only bombed after the Emperor refused to surrender, and Bosnia wouldn’t have happened if Reagan wasn’t so intent on dismantling the “Evil Empire”.
travis: There is a financial incentive to be environmentally conscious. It makes the product more efficient for the business and less expensive, because there’s less waste to clean up.
It’s just that corporations only think in the short term, and they’d rather make some quick bucks now, rather than make their companies
sustainable decades from now. That’s why the Big Three car companies are laying off so many workers. Because they didn’t build better cars, they just built cars with outsourced labor.
truly strange. millions of cubic feet of icebergs and glaciers melt. if you agree that this is caused by global warming you’re left-wing. if you disagree, you’re right-wing.
or, is it more fundamental? are you on the left by simply suggesting this ice has melted? and, if you’re on the right, do you claim the ice never existed in the first place?
forgive me if i got left and right confused. if so, simply reverse them.
Isn’t it funny that as soon as ’100 scientists’ are mentioned, it automatically is assumed to be a left wing issue? Damn those lefties with their… research… and science… yeah, damn them all.
No, no, no…the issue affects us all…but it is the left who insists on laying blame, or I am wrong and Jeff doesn’t imply by his comments that he is somehow exempt from responsibility? He thinks he’s doing the world a favor by driving a ten year old car that leaks oil, has a busted AC that releases an outdated, environmentally hazardous, controlled substance every time he recharges it, and averages 17 mpg before the drag of opening the windows? The problem is pressing enough for him to preach and point his middle finger, but not to lay out 600 bucks a month for a new, more efficient car? Please…
I, for one, have never said we should do nothing. George Bush apparently concurs (not with me, well, uh, you know what I mean). Better to be safe than sorry…if that sorry really does invert the safe. If not, then the earth’s being fluffed and we’re about to be fucked.
There are thousands of acts that will reduce emissions. All we can do is employ the reasonable and practial ones and keep our fingers crossed that the planet will breath a sigh of relief and return us to our precious status quo.
Travis…LBJ wasn’t a far-left democrat? How would you position Medicare?
Franklin Roosevelt’s ideology didn’t border on socialism? But I digress…
Zelter…Truman is most directly responsible for Vietnam, btw, AND Nagasaki, although I wasn’t picking on him in particular. But you’re getting better…. That was a lucid, intelligent response, save for the speed limit stuff.
Jeff K…the problem with nameless scientists is their credentials. Most of the time a generic reference to “scientists” involves a majority who are not in the theoretical realm. Why should I care what a botanist thinks? He sees the effects of warming, but does he know more about why it is occuring then, say, Dylan Wells?
This is why I have said in Jeff’s other dead-horse threads that layman discussion is fruitless. Most people are too concerned with enunciating their opinion and proving their intelligence than actually taking the time to comprehend the argument for calm and measured action.
Of course this last statement will inevitably by distorted and I will be accused of condoning calm INSTEAD of action.
So, as people start dying in greater numbers due to the environmental impact of global warming, can we throw the deniers in with that bunch?
If CNN says so, then it MUST be true! (by the way, I’ll grant that Fox News leans right as long as the rest of you admit that CNN leans left….along with CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC, and about 70% of MSNBC)
Also, it’s not so much the acknowledgement that there is a slight warming in the climate over the past several years that have those on the right nervous. It’s the solution that so many on the left have to solving the “global warming crisis” – more Socialism! That’ll fix it!
Delbomber! YourBlueRoom! Way to dutifully come to the defense of the corporations that do nothing for you and fuck over the entire globe while you engage in your little “argument” about…blah, blah, blah. I didn’t know gullibilty was a disease, but you’re both suffering form cases that may well be fatal.
Actually I think NBC swings more for the middle. And John Sloss of ABC keeps that network from completely teetering over to the left. CNN and CBS are the worst. As far as global warming, well I think we better start dealing with China and India. Sure we can stick more cotton in our exhaust pipes, smoke the Green Party’s peace pipe, and worship the Kyoto treaty, but as long as China and India keep pumping coal into the stratosphere, we are F*cked. Last year they were picking up Chinese coal particles in air filters in the Califronia Sierras. Yikes.
Wow – surprised to see anti-lefty fussbudgets here -hope it doesn’t get to the point where these discussions are dominated by the type of Rovian trolls who patrol the Aint It Cool discussion boards for L’il King George under the pretext of ridiculing those who would dare sully the purity of ‘holy’ entertainment with nasty lefty politics.
delbomber: Truman was responsible for N. Korea;Vietnam was Eisenhower’s mess.
Hey, all I want is to know, “Which 100 scientists?”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
The most refreshing viewpoint on this all year came from Thom Yorke, the lead singer of Radiohead, who admitted that he was an “environmental hypocrite:”
http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2006/06/radiohead_reali_1.html
Sad that many others can’t be as honest. Los Angeles/Hollywood is one of the most environmentally wasteful cities on the planet. No matter how many green steps it takes, it cannot get around the fact that the industry it supports provides very little benefit for its enormous environmental cost. As usual, the solution is, “let’s make a movie (or have a concert or do a telethon) and let everyone else figure it out.” Then, as Jon Stewart so shrewdly observed, “none of those issues was ever a problem again.”
I wish more of the entertainment industry were like Bono. He learned that concerts and confrontation are fine, but eventually you have to engage the people in power and show them what’s in it for them. Everything else is ineffectual.
BL…what’s wrong with debating something that, by the precepts of science, is still a ‘theory’, hence not fact???? And what do expect when Jeff continually positions this as a righty issue? That bit of pussyfooting should go ignored? Dodgy bastard. Come on.
‘Corporations’…did you even read anything I wrote? Thanks for substantiating my last sentence…typical knee-jerk lemming.
Zelter…Truman’s allegiance to the French and refusal to acknowledge a free Vietnam drove Ho Chi Minh right into the hands of the Commies, the impetus for our involvement…look it up, it’s a fact.
This wasn’t CNN story, Walter; it was an AP piece — meaning you could find the same thing in USA Today, or even (gasp!) Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201208,00.html
While I agree that some of the Hollywood activism can get annoying I think it is important to point out that if you make the case that only someone who lives their life in a completely ethically, pure way is allowed to criticize and fight for change in our society, then all that leads to is cynicism and paralysis. No one can be completely pure but that is no reason for inaction. You acknowledge that fact and then get to work being part of the solution.
Jeffrey (if you’re even reading this far down a thread, which you shouldn’t be, because you have better things to be doing),
Most people agree that humans have had, and continue to have, a significant effect on climate change over the past century. I certainly have never “denied” global warming, and most people who do “deny” it are only questioning details of how alarming and incredible the problem is. Not all people, must those who aren’t idiots.
Here’s the problem. You said “accept that each and every American is entitled to do whatever he/she wants”. And that’s the ultimate problem. This issue seems curiously and suspiciously focussed on “American” corporations, “American” business, “American” people. China and India, two of the greatest contributers to fossil-fuel led emissions problems, are NOT bound to follow the Kyoto Protocol, because they are “emerging nations”. The steady, far-left focus on “American” evil in this problem is exactly why many rational, “right-wing” libertarians (scoffs) like myself are, finally, at this point, tired of the partisan, political rancor associated with the issue. After all, what do YOU want to DO about it?
If a solution were offered, such as seeding the atmosphere (a viable but currently debatable scientific theory) that did NOT require major economic changes in American industry, would you favor that? Is this really pro-environment passion, or is it just anti-corporation fervor? I, for one, believe Al Gore’s heart is in the right place, generally, but that the vast majority of far-left wing people don’t really care about the environment. They just kneejerkedly (terrible word, that) react to anything that can further their other political aspirations.
People are more responsive to ideas when they aren’t shrieked at them in hateful tones. I do think Bono and Al Gore know that. I wonder if Wells does, or has it in him not to let his hate for people who don’t think exactly as he does blind him.
Oh, and by the way:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:
“Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
“The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
√¢‚Ǩ≈ìA general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.√¢‚Ǩ¬ù – Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
I don’t know if these scientists (just a few among many dissenters) are any better or worse as scientific minds than the ones on the other side. I just don’t understand why people who are usually pro-debate, pro-questioning authority, and very (rightfully) against punishing dissent, are acting like Karl Rove on this issue. It’s not unpatriotic to question a war, and it’s not anti-human to question scientific findings and to question environmental-issue documentaries helmed by a very partisan figure.
addison,
I don’t think I’m making the argument from the first half of your statement that only “ethically pure” people may criticize. I’m making the argument that the second part of your statement is faulty. These people aren’t “fighting for change.” For example, if a celebrity wants to fight for change, he/she could use his/her clout to shut down Sundance and Cannes and all those other incredibly wasteful film festivals that have celebrities and the press burning up tons of fuel in service of what are basically glorified commercials. Instead, promote your films on DVD screeners. Or better still, post them on the Internet. Al Gore invented it. I’m sure he’d approve. (Okay, I know, cheap shot. But, hey, Al’s “carbon neutral,” right? He can fly himself wherever he wants.)
So 19 scientists that Gore knew would agree with him and, thus, made sure they watched the movie, they agree with him and that’s news?
I like how they agree with him, except for all the little points where he’s wrong, like Katrina, or getting not just a continent, but an entire hemisphere wrong. Whoops! Glad to hear the fact checkers are doing their jobs…
when global warming becomes a ‘fact’ we’ll be fleeing the coasts as ocean levels rise. E=mC2 is a theory also. did we harangue Einstein for it not being a fact? theory in science is different than in common conversation.
unfortunately, our current gov’t's focus is the same as major corporations: short-term profit.
we don’t have the leaders that would demand for higher efficiency standards for cars, lawnmowers, ACs, etc. there need to be tons of incentives for improving insulation in homes and developing alternative safe, clean sources of energy. that’s what we should be talking about, not who was president for nagasaki or vietnam, or how much you hate hollywood people and their lifestyles. that stuff doesn’t matter!
Our “current” government’s focus? When Clinton and Gore were in office, where were all these incentives and changes?
The Democratic Party won’t act strongly on this either, because at this point in time, the economic cost to their major contributor – Big Labor – would make it political suicide for them.
Okay. Let’s calm down for a second. I agree with the above poster that this shouldn’t be a left-vs.-right issue, and anyone who begins the argument by saying things like “what you Republican corporate tools don’t understand…” or “what you elitist hypocrite liberals fail to see…” is pretty much announcing that they’re preaching to the choir. Just because someone expresses doubts about the most extreme global warming claims, doesn’t make their arguments completely invalid; nor does the fact that someone took a plane trip in the past year make their arguments immediately suspect. So let’s discuss this on the ground somewhere between the two extremes: Despite what the Senate press release claims, the overwhelming majority of scientists do argue that climate change is occurring, that it’s the result of human activity in the form of CO2 and greenhouse-gas emissions, and that it can be reversed. As for Benny Peiser’s analysis of the Science study cited in the movie, showing a scientific consensus on the matter, two things are notable: First, Peiser himself acknowledged in a letter to a scientific website that “I do not wish to question that the majority of papers support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Even so, it is simply untrue to claim that no sceptical papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature” — in other words, his effort to refute the Science study are far less sweeping than the Senate’s press release would have you believe. And second, those who’ve examined Peiser’s list of studies that cast doubt on the consensus view of global warming have valid concerns than many of them do no such thing. (If you’re interested, check out the discussions at http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ , which is where the above quote from Peiser comes from.) I’m not surprised that there are scientists who doubt Gore’s views on global warming; I’d actually be surprised if there weren’t. There are arguments that go on in every field of science. But the fact remains that the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of scientific researchers have reached conclusions that support Gore’s arguments. And if your threshold for action is waiting until every single climate scientist on earth believes global warming is occurring — ie. if your threshold is 100% consensus, as opposed to merely 99% — then we’ll wind up waiting to act until it’s far, far too late.
And as for the argument that there’s no point in reducing emissions if China and India don’t do the same, the logic in that seems patently flawed. If we’re on the verge of irreversible damage, it seems silly to throw up our hands and say, “Ah, what’re you gonna do? China and India aren’t gonna do anything, so we might as well just all go down the shithole together.” It’s like saying, “there’s no point in outlawing child labor here, since China and India use it, and the’re rising economies.” We shouldn’t let our policies be dictated by the behavior of the world’s worst offenders. And it seems to me the only way to have any credence, in persauding China and India to reduce emissions, is to first do so ourselves. (Also, as Gore notes in the film, some of their standards are actually far *higher* than ours.) And when it comes to environmental measures like devising cleaner-burning fuels, and investing in alternative sources of energy — wouldn’t doing that make us *more* competitive, not less? Couldn’t that actually be a boon to US business, particularly given that so much of our incomes go out of the country, to oil-producing nations?
To tell the truth, I’m not sure what panics the more extreme doubters on global warming. I’m not suggesting that we scrap the interstates and all bike to work. I’m not suggesting that federal marshals come to your house and steal your air conditioner. I’m suggesting that we examine other sources of energy (including, yes, considering nuclear power). I’m suggesting that we recycle more, become more conscious of wasted resources, and — for those who can afford it — try to come as close to being carbon-neutral as possible.
Wonderful post, tkc, and responses such as that are what make people who may disagree, take notice, think, and possibly change their minds. Blowhards (Jeffrey) should take note, although I doubt they ever will.
Rich,
Just to clarify, the “faulty” second part of my statement about people fighting for change was referring to EVERYBODY, not just the hollywood liberals or whatever. We all bear some guilt for what is wrong in this world (it’s an extraordinarily complex place after all) therefore we all should take some responsibility (i.e. take action) and try and leave this world in a better state than when we came into it. That’s what I think anyway. Cheers.
And the Bush Administration just announced a major push to develop solar energy to make it more economically competitive:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060628/sc_nm/energy_bush_solar_dc_1
Where does that fit into all this?
addison,
And I can appreciate where you’re coming from. That’s kind of where I started with my first post. At least Thom Yorke understands where he really fits in the big picture. To ask Hollywood to shut down film festivals, or ask the music industry to shut down concerts, etc., would be to ask them to shut down promotional opportunities which would severely damage their business (and the millions of employees that depend on it). That, more than anything else, is what I think this debate is all about. If environmental catastrophe is truly looming, then few sacrifices are too severe. Why be “carbon neutral” when you can actually add to the solution?
I think some of the posters today are on the right track. What sacrifices can the average person make that not only will have a real effect on the problem, but can actually be put into practice? That’s what I meant by my Bono statement. Global warming is an issue for everyone, not just Western corporations. Bush’s statement today about solar energy will likely be dismissed as “political posturing” by the same people who see Al Gore’s movie as “a wakeup call for humanity.” And then we’re right back where we started.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has eviscerated the article behind Jeff’s original link…Check it out. I know it’s lazy to simply link to an article, excerpts won’t do it justice.
How ANYONE can blissfully ignore these objective assertions is beyond me. As I am saying again for likely the 50th time on these boards, no one of sound mind is denying change has taken place or advocating inaction, we are simply questioning the veracity of the wild conclusions being drawn about the underlying causes.
tkc:
“And as for the argument that there’s no point in reducing emissions if China and India don’t do the same, the logic in that seems patently flawed.”
That’s because you don’t understand why he brought it up (to be fair, he didn’t explain it well, but I believe he assumed anybody in the conversation would know this); the point of that is that, because China and India were not bound by the Kyoto Treaty, the treaty itself would factually not reduce carbon output; it would reduce our output, but up-and-coming countries like China would not be bound to it and, thus, would (mathematically likely, based on population and growth) more than off-set any impact we would have.
His was an argument against the Kyoto accord specifically.
“I’m suggesting that we recycle more,”
Recycling costs energy, it does not save it. If it saves anything, which is debatable, it saves resources, but it costs energy to do so.
None of you know each other, and no one truly gives a shit what you think. If you’re that concerned, get off of your computer and do something, otherwise shut the fuck up.
… says the person on his computer doing nothing, assuming that the participants on this thread truly give a shit what he thinks.
Sean–
I believe that you may be confusing two concepts: greenhouse-gas emissions may increase whether or not we sign Kyoto, but to claim that our doing so “would not factually reduce carbon growth” is erroneous. It might not yield *negative* carbon growth, but it would certainly considerably slow the growth rate, which would have a substantial impact. And, again: The fact that China and India haven’t signed onto the treaty doesn’t, in itself, argue for our not signing on. Rather, if one believes that the treaty is a good idea and its underlying goals are sound, mightn’t it argue for our signing on, and devising ways to extend the treaty to China and India?
Del — With all due respect, I fail to see how you could characterize a document released by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as “objective”. I’m not saying the facts in it are *necessarily* wrong, but it remains a political document, and shouldn’t be taken on face value. And, as it turns out, one with certain blind spots and flaws of its own. Here’s a document on it from another political organization — I wouldn’t characterize it as objective, but following the links it provides and reading the material there is fairly persuasive, to me, that the Senate document is highly misleading:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/28/senate-misinformation-gore/
to the person with no name…
man, being on the computer talking on this board means we’re not outside spreading fumes from our vehicles. or littering. or drinking coffee from a styrofoam cup. or drinking a soda from one of those six pack thingys that the birds can choke on. if that’s not doing our part i don’t know what is
del: Alright. I’ll concede your point about Truman.
Anyway, I’ll comment on the rest of the stuff some other time.
Can’t Superman just blow on the earth to cool it off?
Rich,
How wonderful is it that we can have our own little civil discourse about these issues in the midst of all this bile?! Even if we don’t agree 100% it gives me a little hope. Have a good day.
I was thinking the same thing. You have a good day, too.
I think we’ve made a Love Connection here, folks.
Back in two-and-two.
None of you know each other, and no one truly gives a shit what you think. If you’re that concerned, get off of your computer and do something, otherwise shut the fuck up.
BTW, small followup: The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is headed by Sen. James Inhofe, one of the staunchest opponents of environmentalists in general and global-warming scientists in particular. He’s the senator who gave the “global warming is a hoax” speech. He’s also, in what may or may not be a coincidence, the Senate’s second-largest beneficiary of oil and energy company campaign donations. And — on an admittedly unrelated but somehow relevant-seeming note — he’s the guy who, during the Senate’s debate on gay marriage a few weeks back, showed the large photo of his family and announced proudly that none of them had ever been divorced or gay. What that assertion proved, I’m not sure, except that he’s not someone whose grasp of science and capacity for inductive reasoning I’d necessarily trust.
Jeff,
You got on someone’s list somewhere dude. And while I mostly lurk and hardly comment, I must agree with you on the political persuasion of your commentators. Curious, non? As much gaseous air-time that wingers use to vomit out their tired meme of ‘evil Hollywood’ then to have to be subjected to the stank hypocrisy of their Dear GOP Leaders’ grandstanding and need to be on camera, I have to assume that all they really want is their Oprah-moment in the sun. They just want to be stars. But the reality is that they’re too ugly, boring, stupid, corrupt, dickless, humanless and talentless to make the grade. Did I forget corrupt?
Its funny that rightwingnuts are always pissing in their pants about everything under the sun, seeing terrorists behind every tree, but when it comes to global warming…meh. Most likely this is because the issue of global warming was never a plotline in a Chuck Norris movie,from which most rightwingnuts seem to get world view.