5 ms·

I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched b

I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming. Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm scared by the level of religious language and fanaticism: "Repent of your carbon emissions!" "The world will be destroyed in ten years!" It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists. As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore IS a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.

gaius 18y ago
Question: If Al Gore believed it himself, would he live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool? Would he jump on a plane at the drop of a hat? Would he sell carbon credits to himself? Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all. I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#010820 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#01... Klein observes that Chait’s riff here is the equivalent of those people who attack Al Gore for being a global-warming crusader even though he rides in cars and uses light bulbs. Of course it is; the point of such attacks is, first, to deride anyone who says anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, and second, to establish that we need listen to radical truths only if they’re spoken by people who live lives of saintly renunciation. Since such people are very rare, this guarantees we won’t be frequently disturbed.
  - gaius 18y ago
    That is a ridiculous counterargument. No-one is asking Al Gore to wear a hair shirt for our sins. All he has to do is walk the walk, just as he advocates that we do. How often do you think the other 11 bedrooms of his mansion are slept in? How often is his pool swum in? These things are pure ostentation. It's not even like his pool is solar heated!
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Why does he need to walk the walk? What does his walk have to do with his argument? Who's going to wake up in the morning and say, "you know, I was on the fence on this whole climate change thing, but if Al Gore is going to drive a Honda civic, I'd better sell my Hummer?"
      - laut 18y ago
        If Al Gore thinks it is so dangerous to live the way he does, why does he continue to do so? Why does he not himself do, what he wants to coerce everyone else to do? For crying out loud. It screams hypocrisy!
        tptacek 18y ago
        If I eat a Big Mac today, am I wrong if I say McDonalds is unhealthy?
        kajecounterhack 18y ago
        No, but if you say McDonalds is unhealthy and you eat big macs all the time then you're just being stupid... So why would you do something you think is stupid...? unless you're stupid?
        jamiequint 18y ago
        Possibly because McDonalds affects you directly and global warming is more of a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
- lutorm 18y ago
  It's pretty clear that if Al Gore believes himself he should do whatever is in his power to change the global system. Since the alternative is to hole up and get nothing done, that means flying around, giving talks, and contributing to a (vanishingly) small increase in emissions with the hope of effecting large change. By your argument you could discount everyone who is arguing that global warming is real by saying that they are driving and flying and emitting carbon. Face it -- in the US today you have to drive and fly to do anything, including trying to change that fact itself. I don't know anything about his residence, but that is anyway a complete ad hominem attack. The characteristics of his home have nothing to do with the merits of his case.
  - gaius 18y ago
    It's clear that he believe that he himself should remain in the public arena despite being rejected by the democratic process. There's no evidence that he believes anything else, given the disconnect between his lifestyle and what he advocates for others. There is absolutely no reason (it's not like he can't afford it) that he couldn't be powering that mansion of his with wind or solar, and that's just one example. There's no reason that the profits from his carbon credit company couldn't be spent on alternative energy research. The evidence is that it's all self-promotion.
garbowza 18y ago
There's a danger in personifying overall concern about global into a single spokesman, Al Gore. It's a fallacy to try to discredit everyone who believes in climate change by simply tearing down Al Gore himself. It's a convenient way of not confronting the facts on either side of the argument.
- rbanffy 18y ago
  It's also kind of ad hominem. Al Gore doesn't live a life of saint renunciation, therefore, global warming is a hoax. I really see no connection.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for his fear-mongering, so I'd say he does represent the mainstream establishment philosophy on the issue.
  - nradov 18y ago
    Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, not one of the scientific prizes. The Peace Prize is entirely political. Yasser Arafat (a famously corrupt and dishonest politician) also got one, so their standards are obviously not very high. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Al Gore's involvement has made a lot of reflex conservatives who previously had no opinion on the matter into global warming skeptics. They figure since a prominent Democrat is saying it, they should be saying the opposite.
rbanffy 18y ago
If you are swimming and one person says "nice tan" and the other screams "shark!", I would strongly advise you to pay attention to the second one.
- Brushfire 18y ago
  That depends on your level of trust/expectation from either parties as well as your own assessment of the situation.
- sfg 18y ago
  What if you look at the data and find there is no chance of a shark as your in a swimming pool?
- webwright 18y ago
  If you could die at any moment and one person says, "have fun" and another person says, "be a christian or you could spend eternity in hell!", what would you advise?
  - netcan 18y ago
    Actually that's an interesting point. There is a significant amount of the latter in the world. For that reason alone I believe it merits consideration. But attention is not necessarily your agreement. Consider it & come to conclusions as objectively as you can. Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Scientific processes do not lead "to an overwhelming support" Scientific processes lead to reproducible experiments. Falsifiable theories. Human nature leads to politics, which leads to consensus. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to separate science from consensus. Tommy Kuhn, we miss you.
lutorm 18y ago
"many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming": Can we name concrete names of those rich scientists, please? I'm pretty sure Jim Hansen's gains have been limited to the risk of losing his job and of not being allowed to publish his results. And saying that "it used to be 75 years but people didn't care so now they say the world will be destroyed in 10 years" is spectacularly dishonest. First, scientific facts change. If you follow the research you'll know that evidence is accumulating that effects like deglaciation are happening faster than models used to predict. When better data become available, scientific predictions will change. Arguing that this proves that science is flawed or scientists are dishonest is like calling people changing their mind about something with more information "flip-floppers" -- but it's the only rational thing to do. Second, who is saying that "the world will be destroyed in ten years"? As far as I know, reputable scientists are saying things like "unless changes are made within ten years, we will reach a point where it will be too late to stop climate change from reaching a point with likely bad effects". That's a very different thing. Those bad effects won't happen for a long time, like 50-100 years, because of the thermal inertia of the planet, but that also means we must start slowing down now. It's like driving a car, you'd better start slowing down before you get to the curve, trying to do it when you realize you're heading off the road is too little, too late. Oh, and Al Gore is not a politician. He holds no office, and does not work for a political party. I guess it would be fair to call him a lobbyist, but his financial gain is much less than that of other "lobbyists" like the wall street people. In my eyes, he has way more credibility in his current position than any of those who have large financial stakes in influencing people.
- viggity 18y ago
  I don't have time to research all of the people that call themselves "scientists" that have invested in carbon credit companies. But, according to this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=545... Al Gore "buys" his credits from a company he owns a financial stake in. You're right, these predictions are going to change. They are going to change forever because there are infinitely many variables that go into the climate. For someone to take guesses at what the values are for 70 of them and call that model "science" is bull crap.
- 18y ago

gaius 18y ago

Question: If Al Gore believed it himself, would he live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool? Would he jump on a plane at the drop of a hat? Would he sell carbon credits to himself? Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all. I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...

mechanical_fish 18y ago
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#010820 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#01... Klein observes that Chait’s riff here is the equivalent of those people who attack Al Gore for being a global-warming crusader even though he rides in cars and uses light bulbs. Of course it is; the point of such attacks is, first, to deride anyone who says anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, and second, to establish that we need listen to radical truths only if they’re spoken by people who live lives of saintly renunciation. Since such people are very rare, this guarantees we won’t be frequently disturbed.
- gaius 18y ago
  That is a ridiculous counterargument. No-one is asking Al Gore to wear a hair shirt for our sins. All he has to do is walk the walk, just as he advocates that we do. How often do you think the other 11 bedrooms of his mansion are slept in? How often is his pool swum in? These things are pure ostentation. It's not even like his pool is solar heated!
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Why does he need to walk the walk? What does his walk have to do with his argument? Who's going to wake up in the morning and say, "you know, I was on the fence on this whole climate change thing, but if Al Gore is going to drive a Honda civic, I'd better sell my Hummer?"
    - laut 18y ago
      If Al Gore thinks it is so dangerous to live the way he does, why does he continue to do so? Why does he not himself do, what he wants to coerce everyone else to do? For crying out loud. It screams hypocrisy!
      - tptacek 18y ago
        If I eat a Big Mac today, am I wrong if I say McDonalds is unhealthy?
        kajecounterhack 18y ago
        No, but if you say McDonalds is unhealthy and you eat big macs all the time then you're just being stupid... So why would you do something you think is stupid...? unless you're stupid?
        jamiequint 18y ago
        Possibly because McDonalds affects you directly and global warming is more of a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
lutorm 18y ago
It's pretty clear that if Al Gore believes himself he should do whatever is in his power to change the global system. Since the alternative is to hole up and get nothing done, that means flying around, giving talks, and contributing to a (vanishingly) small increase in emissions with the hope of effecting large change. By your argument you could discount everyone who is arguing that global warming is real by saying that they are driving and flying and emitting carbon. Face it -- in the US today you have to drive and fly to do anything, including trying to change that fact itself. I don't know anything about his residence, but that is anyway a complete ad hominem attack. The characteristics of his home have nothing to do with the merits of his case.
- gaius 18y ago
  It's clear that he believe that he himself should remain in the public arena despite being rejected by the democratic process. There's no evidence that he believes anything else, given the disconnect between his lifestyle and what he advocates for others. There is absolutely no reason (it's not like he can't afford it) that he couldn't be powering that mansion of his with wind or solar, and that's just one example. There's no reason that the profits from his carbon credit company couldn't be spent on alternative energy research. The evidence is that it's all self-promotion.

garbowza 18y ago

There's a danger in personifying overall concern about global into a single spokesman, Al Gore. It's a fallacy to try to discredit everyone who believes in climate change by simply tearing down Al Gore himself. It's a convenient way of not confronting the facts on either side of the argument.

rbanffy 18y ago
It's also kind of ad hominem. Al Gore doesn't live a life of saint renunciation, therefore, global warming is a hoax. I really see no connection.
Prrometheus 18y ago
He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for his fear-mongering, so I'd say he does represent the mainstream establishment philosophy on the issue.
- nradov 18y ago
  Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, not one of the scientific prizes. The Peace Prize is entirely political. Yasser Arafat (a famously corrupt and dishonest politician) also got one, so their standards are obviously not very high. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
mattmaroon 18y ago
Al Gore's involvement has made a lot of reflex conservatives who previously had no opinion on the matter into global warming skeptics. They figure since a prominent Democrat is saying it, they should be saying the opposite.

rbanffy 18y ago

If you are swimming and one person says "nice tan" and the other screams "shark!", I would strongly advise you to pay attention to the second one.

Brushfire 18y ago
That depends on your level of trust/expectation from either parties as well as your own assessment of the situation.
sfg 18y ago
What if you look at the data and find there is no chance of a shark as your in a swimming pool?
webwright 18y ago
If you could die at any moment and one person says, "have fun" and another person says, "be a christian or you could spend eternity in hell!", what would you advise?
- netcan 18y ago
  Actually that's an interesting point. There is a significant amount of the latter in the world. For that reason alone I believe it merits consideration. But attention is not necessarily your agreement. Consider it & come to conclusions as objectively as you can. Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Scientific processes do not lead "to an overwhelming support" Scientific processes lead to reproducible experiments. Falsifiable theories. Human nature leads to politics, which leads to consensus. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to separate science from consensus. Tommy Kuhn, we miss you.

lutorm 18y ago

"many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming": Can we name concrete names of those rich scientists, please? I'm pretty sure Jim Hansen's gains have been limited to the risk of losing his job and of not being allowed to publish his results. And saying that "it used to be 75 years but people didn't care so now they say the world will be destroyed in 10 years" is spectacularly dishonest. First, scientific facts change. If you follow the research you'll know that evidence is accumulating that effects like deglaciation are happening faster than models used to predict. When better data become available, scientific predictions will change. Arguing that this proves that science is flawed or scientists are dishonest is like calling people changing their mind about something with more information "flip-floppers" -- but it's the only rational thing to do. Second, who is saying that "the world will be destroyed in ten years"? As far as I know, reputable scientists are saying things like "unless changes are made within ten years, we will reach a point where it will be too late to stop climate change from reaching a point with likely bad effects". That's a very different thing. Those bad effects won't happen for a long time, like 50-100 years, because of the thermal inertia of the planet, but that also means we must start slowing down now. It's like driving a car, you'd better start slowing down before you get to the curve, trying to do it when you realize you're heading off the road is too little, too late. Oh, and Al Gore is not a politician. He holds no office, and does not work for a political party. I guess it would be fair to call him a lobbyist, but his financial gain is much less than that of other "lobbyists" like the wall street people. In my eyes, he has way more credibility in his current position than any of those who have large financial stakes in influencing people.

viggity 18y ago
I don't have time to research all of the people that call themselves "scientists" that have invested in carbon credit companies. But, according to this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=545... Al Gore "buys" his credits from a company he owns a financial stake in. You're right, these predictions are going to change. They are going to change forever because there are infinitely many variables that go into the climate. For someone to take guesses at what the values are for 70 of them and call that model "science" is bull crap.
18y ago