Al Gore has obviously done a great deal to increase concern and interest in reducing the change in climate. While the polls show a large majority are now basically on his side, much of the pro and con derives from other political positions rather than any real scientific analysis before opinions of the average person are formed.
Recently an article was written that made sense to me saying that Republicans disbelieve Gore because he is the “un-Bush,” turning out to accurate in almost every case where Bush was not, from global warming to the outcome of invading Iraq.
Fewer and fewer scientists questions that climate change is largely human caused, but “the skeptics,” who have much more than just a cottage industry in sowing confusion on the issue, seize on just about anything to advance their defense of business as usual. Most recently, it has been a court case in the United Kingdom.
Real Climate looks at the court case, but more about the accuracy of the points in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Convenient Untruths. By Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann.
Tim Lambert in his Deltoid blog is one of the few who seems to have actually read the court case. An ‘error’ is not the same thing as an error.
October 16, 2007 at 6:48 PM
You might be interested in the article about a “skeptic” at http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
One of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize “ridiculous” and the product of “people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works”.
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
October 16, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I am still a skeptic when someone as Al Gore claims to have invented the internet. Yes, he has raised interest with issues regarding the climate change but I wonder about the legitimacy of all his claims. For example, see the following link: Interesting though.
October 16, 2007 at 8:30 PM
HA HA HA…! Who is the IDIOT that refers to Rush Limbaugh for his scientific research…! What is this person’s name? Someone please tell me…! I am laughing my bee-bopper off…!
October 16, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Mack, You just never learn to shut the hell up with your beligerent comments. Didi you even think to know that Rush uses authentic documentation before he post stuff on his site.
Now go cry wolf you little bastard!
October 16, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Now, now, Dante chill out just a little. I’m new to this blog and before I even get started I find you accusing another of beligerent comments and finish up your tirade with name calling. How am I ever going to get the facts if you shade your comments with child like accusations underscored with swearing?
Re Rush using “authentic documentation before he post(s) stuff” I can only ask what is your definition of authentic documentation? Isn’t that definition contained in the eyes and mind of the reader? You do not make a cogent point to me (at least) with that kind of rhetoric. Its nonsensical.
October 16, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Dante—Click on the link above Highlighted in blue with the words;—–Convenient Untruths.
October 16, 2007 at 9:03 PM
There are some whose intention on these sites is to ridicule, belittle and post uncalled for comments to others comments. They only do this because they are selfish little brats who cannot act like adults. Yes, I have done this and I am somewhat ashamed but there are others as shown in the post above by Mack who ALWAYS have to use stupid little names such as idiot to every post that comes along for which he disagrees. He will not and isn’t man enough to fess up to any of this.
Please remove and prevent him from posting if HE cannot live by whatever posting rules you have. At one time you had them and I thought they were very good. Please post them again for all, including myself. You may have to remove me for violating your rules for posting but if you do mine then you certainly have to remove Mack Bray for his. Several people refuse to comment to his posts.
October 16, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Ah! I thought I had clicked on all those blue links but obviously I did not. Guess I did not need to put the Limbaugh link in there after all!
October 16, 2007 at 9:49 PM
To Dante who asked me to comment and all the rest,
There has been a lot of name calling lately by a number of people.
Please don’t call each other idiots, bastards, or dumb fucks (well, no one has done that one yet).
I was surprised when a put a link to a serious blog, Real Climate, and someone immediately posts about William Gray or Rush Limbaugh, but then someone needs to explain why William Gray’s “contrarian” position is not news.
Take a Limbaugh comment on global warming and dissect it, and if someone goes to the trouble to do that, don’t toss it off. Read it, please! Then comment.
October 16, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Ralph, I’m not going to dissect anything that comes out of Flush’s mouth (that would be unsanitary).
I offer the following, which I believe speaks loudly for itself. And I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to say that, in my opinion, Rush Limbaugh is an I D I O T and that anyone on this blog that would offer a link to Flush’s site has a wheel that is turning but a hamster that is dead (I’m trying to be nice here).
Rush Limbaugh quotes, from his transcript (Oct. 3, ’07) below:
“On this program, over the course of the recent past, one of the ways I’ve attempted to alert people to the real truth behind manmade global warming is that it is a hoax being presented as a religion.”
“If you get rid of “organized” religion, it sets the stage for unorganized religion, which is what global warming is.”
“Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute — apparently unrecognized and not even organized — religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god.”
“The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming.”
From one of Flush’s detractors:
“When people like Rush make odd claims about global warming or other complex scientific phenomena they know nothing about, I have a stock reply: ‘And which ivy league university did you acquire your Ph.D. in climatology from?’
Because I can guarantee there’s at least one person who will disagree, and be able to answer ‘Princeton’ to that question.”
October 16, 2007 at 11:40 PM
FYI— Out of the 10 posts on this thread only 4 have related to the story.
October 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Well now that’s fine, Mack. The quote from Rush is full of language tricks, logical errors, and easily checked facts. For example, the 50 -70% who believe in human caused global warming are obviously not atheists simply because there are not nearly that many atheists.
Just posting the bit from Rush will convince most he has no real argument of substance.
However, it isn’t obvious to everyone why Rush’s arguments are so fallacious. Talk, as opposed to writing, is really slippery and goes right past many folks’ intellectual defenses. That’s his specialty — talk. That’s all the specialty of most politicians.
You have have to go step by step. If you call someone an “idiot,” it will never change their mind.
Now, Dante, don’t call folks “little bastards” Using Rush as a source is inflammatory because his specialty is just raising a ruckus for the right-wing.
I would be good if you read the article in Real Climate.
I am started to worry about the future of posting on this blog. I might close it except by invitation.
Several months ago I kicked some people off, and things went much better, I might have to do that as an alternative.
Ron Gilette is a lot like Rush. I have refuted his arguments many times here because he actually convinces people despite his style and his less than winning personality.
October 17, 2007 at 6:20 AM
Wow, those Rush quotes are unreal, he’s great at getting people riled up. For anyone that wants to help combat climate change, there is an energy bill in congress right now and lobbyists are trying to remove provisions for renewable electricity and a fuel economy standard of 35 mpg for new cars by 2020. There is a petition here to include these important provisions http://www.energybill2007.us
October 17, 2007 at 6:26 AM
If the Earth is a God, and a tangible God at that, how can it be a “false” God? The Earth provides the food, water, oxygen and shelter that people need to live. If all these people who worship “true” Gods, like the Gods of all organized religions, the debate over the veracity of global warming wouldn’t be taking place because the Earth wouldn’t have been trashed.
October 17, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Interesting, isn’t it …the same people that doubt global warming, worship everything Rush says, are in denial about Larry Craig, and still support George Bush, are the ones that hate wolves, cougar, grizzlies, coyotes and any anything else on 4 legs that they deem a threat to them either directly or indirectly.
Yes, they hang out at gun shows and small town pawn shops, but you’ll also find them just as often in church.
Anyone that doubts this, next time your fishing, hiking or hunting, stop at some of the local bars and cafes and observe and listen to the patrons….spend time in some of the smaller towns in Montana, Idaho or Wyoming.
These people can’t accept change in their lives…their minds and sense of values have been frozen in time….like 100 years ago. Any change is frightening to them. Life “outside the box” is unimaginable. They’re drawn to the likes of Rush or Hannity for comfort….it’s better than changing or having to think.
I hear it all the time here in Montana…..”I’m a 5th generation Montanan…I have a right to throw my beer cans, old stoves, refrigerators, and anything else in the river…my grandfather did”.
What is really sad, is that they have kids who won’t be allowed to think for themselves when it comes to things like global warming.
October 17, 2007 at 9:13 AM
It seems that way to me sometimes, Jerry; but a lot of people I don’t like have moved into Idaho because there are just a few people of color and because of the reputation of politicians like Larry Craig (before his “wide stance” problem).
Now, in Montana, where you live, it might be different.
They often bill themselves as “conservatives,” but don’t seem to notice the root of “conservative” is “conserve.”
October 17, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Rush’s statement “You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming” is contradicted in the Bible itself. In reference to a time of judgement Revelation 11:18 states that the God of creation will…” bring to ruin those that are ruining the earth”. Maybe Rush should read the bible before misinterpreting it.
October 17, 2007 at 10:15 AM
The absolutely worst thing that we can be doing right now is politicizing climate change. Now obviously we ARE. All you need to do is look at someone like Rush’s comments or some of the stuff being said on FoxNews about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize. Anything the conservatives see as “good” happening to someone with a different political view is immediately & vehemently attacked. This of course is also true of the other side of the political spectrum. In a nutshell I’ve just explained our political system, anything that is viewed to be a positive for the alternate political viewpoint is spun and explained why it’s a negative or wrong, or why God doesn’t want you to agree, etc.
Regardless of what your stance on climate change is, the bottom line is that there is plenty of solid scientific data out there that indicates that the climate is changing. There is also solid scientific evidence that humans are probably a, if not THE major cause.
If you are not convinced about this then that’s fine. Let’s look at it another way though. Could we all agree though that IF there is any shred of truth behind what might be called “circumstancial” evidence of climate change, shouldn’t we take it seriously? I mean we only have one place to live, right? Just ask yourself what the possible ramifications if we don’t take it seriously. And ultimately do we want to have to look in the mirror in 50 years and say, “Well it became a political issue and we didn’t do everything that we could have…”
It just irks me that this has become a republican vs democrat thing or a “liberal” vs “conservative” thing. It should be a human thing. If we just all react to climate change and it turns out that we overreacted then at least we can all laugh about it in 50 years & say well at least we were prepared!
October 17, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Jerry, be patient…! We’re witnessing the process of human evolution in the mountainous west – it may take numerous generations, but it’s happening…!
Ralph, regarding conservatives – consider *Republican* Teddy Roosevelt, the consummate Republican conservative/conservationist.
From Wikipedia: “He (Roosevelt) distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 40 monopolistic corporations as a ‘trust buster'”.
George W. Bush should take a lesson from Teddy. George W. Shrub, in my opinion, is the worst environmental President in history.
October 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM
There is somethig called the “Ring of Truth” Scientific evidence supporting the fact that global warming is indeed a fact clearly has this “ring”. Information contradicting this claim clearly does not. Anyone who cannot determine for themselves that this planet is being destroyed by human greed is not going to be worth trying to reeducate. They will be the opposition in this battle to save the planet. The rest of us need to formulate as many plans of attack as possible. Do what we can, where we can to contribute. To that end. BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, the environmentally and wildlife unfriendly beef industry.
October 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Thanks for the link. I’ll be following up on that. It’s a good place to start. “Baby steps…Baby steps…Baby steps! (Bill Murry, What about Bob)
October 17, 2007 at 11:52 AM
“Interesting, isn’t it …the same people that doubt global warming, worship everything Rush says, are in denial about Larry Craig, and still support George Bush, are the ones that hate wolves, cougar, grizzlies, coyotes and any anything else on 4 legs that they deem a threat to them either directly or indirectly.
Yes, they hang out at gun shows and small town pawn shops, but you’ll also find them just as often in church.”
Not to pick on you Jerry, I just want to be clear that I don’t do or believe any of those things you mention including doubt global warming. I take Rush as seriouly as I take Gore, that is not at all. Where I have a problem is the human caused part of it and the global warming enthusiasts
eagerness to dismiss the opinions of the Dr. Gray’s and many like him who say it’s a natural, cyclic phenomenon. To me it’s akin to dismissing the work of the Mech, Petersen and others while discussing wolf ethology.