Plus, a couple days ago, Gore was on the "Today" show (right after his son was arrested), and we got this:
"I've kind of fallen out of love with politics."... which I blogged about. But there was also this, which I didn't mention:
Gore laughed when asked if he was ready to endorse a candidate for president. He said his evaluation would be based on what each decides to do about climate change.Come on! It's obvious. He's not a seer. He's talking about something within his own personal knowledge."Some of them have made good, positive statements, but it's still treated as a side issue. I will predict for you that within the next 500 days that this issue will be the Number One issue on the agenda," he said.
Posts
96 comments:
Of course he's running. He'll get the nomination too, and probably win the presidency as well.
It is too obvious. He gives the unions an affirmative alternative to the Hillary!, for whom the polls consistently show a majority of Americans will not vote; he's got that hot, sexy new issue for which global celebrities will jump into their private jets at a moments notice (and donate, donate, donate), and the establishment media believes, despite their own recounts, he should have been president.
I wish to go on record as being opposed to a Gore candidacy.
"I've kind of fallen out of love with politics."
Of course, this suggests that he will run for president. It's fundamentally the same thing as when Gore kept joking that he "may not be the most exciting candidate" in 2000. Or Gingrich's current position that he is just too dedicated to sharing his brilliant ideas with the world to be paying much attention to something as mundane as running for president! Downplaying your own political skills or aspirations is a way to present yourself as a more attractive politician.
Oh please please please please please please please please
Fred Thmpson V Al Gore?
please please please please please please
I just don't see it. Maybe he can get some young people and fanatical liberals to support him, but he is toast when people find out that his plans for solving "climate change" include far more sacrifices from them than Al Gore would ever make for himself.
The global warming fanaticism is probably the biggest scam in the last 1000 years.
Every day there are scientists producing contrary evidence to Gore's gospel, but the fanatics ignore it.
Moreover, the corporatists in China and India will never go green, so what difference will Al Gore's movement make other than to make Americans poorer and poor countries even poorer.
I hope Gore goes back in his hole.
Mr. Gore said:
"I will predict for you that within the next 500 days that this issue will be the Number One issue on the agenda," he said."
So I forget ....has he ever been right about anything and if not, doesn't that mean he is overdue to be right about some fluffing thing?
And please tell me if I am being too hard on Mr. Gore.
Of course he's running. He'll get the nomination too, and probably win the presidency as well.
Not sure about getting all the way to the presidency -- he's gone kind of kooky in the past 8 years, and America still remembers the last VP that felt he was cheated out of the presidency, and then came back (Nixon) -- but he's a credible candidate in a way that none of the top three candidates on the Democratic side (Obama, Edwards, Clinton) is. Clinton is closest to him, simply because of her experience in Clinton I's presidency and her senate career (though brief, she seems to have been a major presence in the Senate in a way that neither Obama nor Edwards is/was). But he clearly outclasses her.
I wouldn't vote for him, since I disagree with his take on all kinds of issues (the class war rhetoric he broke out in 2000, the apocalyptic global warming fear-mongering today, etc.) but he's a respectable candidate. We could do worse.
Given how early the races and, most importantly, the fundraising started, does any Democrat believe they can actually beat the Clinton/Obama 2008 ticket???
Ann asked is he running?
He is dying for some group to draft him and would get the Dem nomination.
But he is unelectable.
The American people will not vote for someone who claims global warming is a more imminent threat to their kids than Islam nutcases. Afterall, where is the proof professor?
Plus he is a condescending little schmuck and people can't stomach him.
Plus he is a condescending little schmuck and people can't stomach him.
Well, maybe. But look, he's not Kerry. He's gotten a little more schoolmarmish in the past 7 years, but he did just fine in 2000. People can stomach him well enough, and nostalgia for those halcyon days before we discovered, to our horror, that intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic had been drawing their plans against us for the past decade might well put him over the top.
Just to follow up, take a look at Q1 campaign fundraising. Watch those at the top, that money is a big deficit to overcome. Even a candidate who is "down", such as Mccain, has a lot of resources to 'come back' when they have $10 million sitting around.
Just to follow up, take a look at Q1 campaign fundraising. Watch those at the top, that money is a big deficit to overcome. Even a candidate who is "down", such as Mccain, has a lot of resources to 'come back' when they have $10 million sitting around.
Sure. But his thinly-veiled campaign video is being shown in high schools across the nation, to captive students who may well be able to vote in 2008. And did pretty well in theaters (for what it was -- a lecture from Al Gore). And he's holding giant rallies with pop stars and everything. That kind of exposure would normally cost millions. In fact, it did. And he got it.
To the extent those campaign funds are for pitches to Democratic primary voters, I think Gore is actually already well positioned -- he just needs to start going around in person and sucking up to the actual primary voters. That will take money, sure, for private jets and hotel rooms and so on, but given his massive media exposure over the past two years, I think he can probably obtain those funds easily enough if he jumps in. And if he does well in an early primary, he'll probably be able to collect even more.
"I've kind of fallen out of love with politics."
Mebbe so, in that in-and-out of love sort of way. But Gore was born and bred to politics, and I think "literally" is not misplaced in this case. With the possible exception of Clinton (in her case for different reasons), I think it might be hardest for him, among current and potential candidates, to walk away into the sunset without regrets for what might have been.
Sorry for the double cliche, Althouse, but sometimes they work perfectly well.
"To the extent those campaign funds are for pitches to Democratic primary voters, I think Gore is actually already well positioned -- he just needs to start going around in person and sucking up to the actual primary voters."
I agree that Gore is already well position, but for a different reason. The only people who really matter in the Democratic primary are the union bosses, especially the public employee (teachers, AFSCME, SEUI, etc.) union bosses. They are more vital now than ever before, with the new primary calendar. Growing government is their business, and they are desperate to regain control over all three branches. They know, better than anyone, the Hillary!'s fatal vulnerabilities - but because they fear her vindictiveness should she win, they won't ditch her unless there is a strong, affirmative alternative. There is only person who provides that option, and it is Gore. With McCain/Feingold's "campaign finance" law in place, Gore will have all the 527 money he needs. Fundraising reports to date don't mean much for the undeclared candidates.
Finally, yes, of course the sighing, lecturing, looming Al Gore faces a more difficult race in the general than in the primary, but given the deep and abiding affection the nation holds Republicans in these days, plus the fact half the voters think its September 10th forever, Dems should be favored to win the presidency, and Gore's chances of winning the presidency are better than any other Democrat.
I'd guess Gore is running for Prez again as he was raised to believe he deserved to be Prez from birth.
But I refuse to believe he can win. Unless I'm completely out of touch (possible), while I don't know who the American people will go for next election, I believe they will go for NEW BLOOD. Everyone's sick to death of Clintons, Bushes, Gores. Sick of hearing their names, sick of their faces, sick of everything about them.
My guess is Obama or (dark horse) Richardson vs either Giuliani or Thompson.
Wow - a "Gore is fat" joke! Talk about cutting edge!! ZING!!!
I hear Dennis Miller's looking for material...
Ding Dong!
Annie advertises CONSERVATIVELY.
Back to your completely revenant gossip about flowers and such.
Back to your completely revenant gossip
Revenant might be quite upset if he comes around and finds people completely gossiping about him.
The global warming fanaticism is probably the biggest scam in the last 1000 years.
Every day there are scientists producing contrary evidence to Gore's gospel, but the fanatics ignore it.
Yes Sloan, exactly right! The reason people believe in global warming is because they absolutely refuse to listen to the scientific community!
Do you agree then that we should follow the advice of scientists as given in reports by the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science?
Maybe he walked into a Borders and noticed near the checkout were two voodoo dolls, one of Pres. Bush, another of Sen. Clinton. Seems like one of the odder "better together" product linking on Amazon. I doubt folks who would buy one, are the same folks who would buy the other.
Maybe Vice President Gore felt a pang of jealousy.
Having enough people against you before you're the official candidate that a voodoo doll of you can sell at a chain bookstore, can't be a good sign for the Clinton campaign.
As far as Gore running, why doubt his sincerity (about his not seeking the candidacy)?
Generalized doubt based on all politicians?
Specific doubt based on his Goracleness?
Fear?
Hope?
I might vote for him if he would put global warming in a lock box so I don't have to listen to that nonsense any more.
Just joking, of course, my vote goes to Fred, or Rudy, or damn near anyone but Gore.
"I've kind of fallen out of love with politics."
Isn't that a populist mantra? How many of us are exactly 'in love' with politics?
I know I'm not. I'm not a big fan of government, but it is a necessary evil. It is the political posturing and cronyism that makes good government a rare thing.
IF (and that is a real big IF) I felt Gore were serious about no longer loving politics I might be persuaded to cast my first vote for a Dem for President.
But I believe its a sham- he is running for President, as our first apolitical (Democrat) president since Taylor (who was basically drafted by the Whigs).
Will it work? How many people are sick of politics? How many don't follow even a presidential election until October of the election year?
How univerally popular would a 'not in love with politics' candidate be?
And do we really need to rehash Global Warming (or as I am starting to see more frequently: Climate Change- I guess the new Ice Age maybe a reality after all)?
We all know who's right and who's wrong and why those who are wrong are espousing this crap. We have reached a consensus- Al Gore is a nut case.
The American people will not vote for someone who claims global warming is a more imminent threat to their kids than Islam nutcases.
But when did he say that? Not in his movie, for instance.
I'd love to see Algore run. Imagine the contest of words/accusations that would happen between him and the Clintons.
John Althouse asked:
"But when did he say that(Global warming is bigger threat than Islamic nutcases)? Not in his movie, for instance."
John, I did not claim he actually said it. But it is fair and accurate to say Gore ardently believes that when he ranks global warming as his (and everyone else's) highest agenda item within 500 days.
There is no other way to interpret his fervent decrees IMHO.
I take Al at his word, that he will not run.
Trey
first of all, i've never heard gore ever say global warming was a bigger or more urgent problem than terrorism, etc.
second, if he's drafted at the democratic convention, he'll run...and he'll win.
otherwise...hillary in a landslide.
why?
g.w. bush and company...worst ever.
redneck,
when you say "We have reached a consensus- Al Gore is a nut case"...are you referring to ALL rednecks...or just your immediate family?
duh.
Cyrus Pinkerton,
sloan is so far right i'm surprised he can stand upright. (if he can)
he's also a complete moron.
Considering we currently have this...why is anybody afraid of Gore???
"There are things going on that we never could have foreseen," said one official, who noted that the original benchmarks set by Bush six months ago -- and endorsed by the Maliki government -- are not only unachievable in the short term but also irrelevant to changing the conditions in Iraq.
"That is a problem," the official said. "These are congressionally mandated benchmarks now." They require Bush to certify movement in areas ranging from the passage of specific legislation by the Iraqi parliament to the numbers of Iraqi military units able to operate independently. If he cannot make a convincing case, the legislation requires the president to explain how he will change his strategy.
"The heart of darkness is the president," the person said. "Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him."
i've never heard gore ever say global warming was a bigger or more urgent problem than terrorism, etc.
"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing." - Al Gore
Do you agree then that we should follow the advice of scientists as given in reports by the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science?
What exactly are they advising? If they think we are all doomed, none of them can actually agree as to what doom we will meet...
sloan is so far right i'm surprised he can stand upright. (if he can)
he's also a complete moron.
Coming from you lucky, I feel honored.
Anyway, what makes me right wing in your eyes. Is it because I think the global warming fanatics are wrong?
Is it because I support us being on offense in the war on terror (i.e. the war in Iraq and elsewhere)
Is it because I support smaller government, less gov regulation, less government spending and less taxes.
Is it because I think a government health care system would make heath care in America worse?
Is it because I think we should weary about having the federal government sponsor embryonic stem cell research.
is it because I think we should make sure we stop illegal immigration before granting amnesty to illegals?
Is it because I support free trade.
Is it because I think affirmative action in most cases is no longer necessary.
If these make me right wing, then I am proud of it!
sloan wrote:
What exactly are they advising? If they think we are all doomed, none of them can actually agree as to what doom we will meet...
The following excerpt from the 2001 report of the National Academy of Sciences is consistent with the position of each of the scientific organizations I listed in my previous post:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.
[National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001)]
Is there any part of this assessment with which you disagree? If so, what and why?
otherwise...hillary in a landslide.
why?
g.w. bush and company...worst ever.
Lucky,
They repealed the 22nd Amendment? Missed that, thanks for the update.
loaf-of-bread-for-brains:
"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing." - Al Gore
uh..."don't want to diminish"..."at all"..."long-term global basis."
can you fucking read??
if the planet ceases to function...ceases to produce what ALL humans...EVERYWHERE...need to exist...will you still be concerned with "terrorism?"
DUH.
Cyrus Pinkerton,
you can't discuss anything with sloan. he doesn't buy into that silly "science" crap.
a moron...in every respect.
kevin,
you do realize hillary is not bill...right?
Uh oh, someone forgot to feed the troll, and he's angry.
tj,
how about eating me?
"how about eating me?"
Now that's a new twist on the old insult "eat shit and die."
EnigmatiCore,
you, too.
Lucky, who would have loved to have been in Lewinsky's position in the Oval Office, said: can you fucking read??
if the planet ceases to function...ceases to produce what ALL humans...EVERYWHERE...need to exist...will you still be concerned with "terrorism?"
If you can fucking read, then your previous statement that Gore has never said he thinks global warming is a bigger problem than Islamic terrorism has been refuted by the quote from Gore I posted. You should've just said, "I was wrong, sorry."
I didn't actually comment on the Gore quote, so any attacks you make on me for simply posting Gore's words that refute your claim can't possibly be a basis for you to attack me.
If Gore felt both terrorism and global warming were huge problems maybe he should've done something about them when he was Vice President for 8 fucking years.
loafing-oaf,
oh, please.
you're actually trying to say that al gore thinks global warming is more important to america and the world...TODAY...than terrorism???
you and the rest of the right wing yahoos on this blog know exactly what he was saying and what he meant, too
but if you don't agree, or don't believe in global warming...that's your option...but enough with the inane insinuation that gore doesn't understand what's going on.
i guarantee you this: he's smarter than anybody on this blog and he knows one hell of a lot more about terrorism than anybody here. (and more than the moron in the white house, too.)
you people are like little children, throwing out whatever you think will stick...regardless of how downright stupid it is.
i suggest you idiots get a fucking life...maybe in the military.
loafing-oaf,
oh, and as to what gore did while he was v.p.
how many people died under clinton and gore's watch...compared to the time we've had bush?
go ahead, dipstick...run the numbers.
hey loafing-oaf...doing that body with your fingers and toes?
GFL
[Gore is] smarter than anybody on this blog and he knows one hell of a lot more about terrorism than anybody here
Doubtful. Gore still refers to Russia as the Soviet Union....
Doesn't matter. Gore's 5 page memo is floating around the studios - the one where he directs his attorneys to steal absentee votes from troops fighting overseas via hyper-technicalities. The commercials spawned from that memo will make the SwiftBoatVets look tame.
Gore's not going anywhere. He's merely a SoreLoserman leveraging the Climate Change hoax.
how many people died under clinton and gore's watch...compared to the time we've had bush
The people who died in 9-11 and Afganistan/Iraq died because Clinton was too busy sodomizing interns to respond to attacks on USS Cole and Kobar Towers. Like Caligula, his depravity and weakness only emboldened our enemies.
And Gore stood by and stared at his shoelaces. Great leadership...
Run another fallacy by me. This is fun.
fen,
you're still as dumb as ever. you just keep spewing out the same old right wing bullshit we hear from sean hannity and michael savage. pure, unadulterated bile.
and still trying to pin 9/11 on clinton isn't going to fly at this stage. (you do know he's been out of office for 7 years...right?)
after watching this administration fuck up literally everything they've touched, thinking americans know who was competent and who is nothing more than a lackey for cheney and the rest of the neocon gang that can't shoot straight.
bill clinton and al gore are two of the most popular and respected men on the planet and it's people like you, with little minds and no sense of integrity that bring this country down.
the next time you're with someone with a fucking brain, ask them if they'd rather have someone in the white house getting blowjobs and doing their job...or an inept moron who can't string five words together unless he can read them off a piece of paper like we have now.
*never mind...i can't imagine anybody with a brain spending any time around you.
Luckyoldson: [....]
Yup, same old content-free junk, as usual. I blame public education.
Can you make a valid argument? Just once...
Lucky: bill clinton and al gore are two of the most popular and respected men on the planet
OTOH, your sense of humor has improved dramatically.
In parts of the Southwest, the water has naturally high Lithium content.
Wonder why LOS moved away?
Trey
fen,
you really need to read more.
take a break from rush and the gang for a week or so...educate yourself.
*and by the clinton administration found and prosecuted the people who bombed the towers.
what has bush done to bin laden...other than make the man into a fucking living hero to terrorists around the world?
and still trying to pin 9/11 on clinton isn't going to fly at this stage. (you do know he's been out of office for 7 years...right?)
9-11 is Clinton's fault. Not that Republicans were ringing the bell either, but Clinton was in charge during the time Al Qaeda went from nobody to what it was in 2001.
But, its really the fault of the American public for loving Clinton for being content. Americans hate thinking ahead, which is why sticking it out in Iraq is so unpopular.
Clinton never tried to lead, as such he was a total failure. Bush, has tried, but also failed to carry the public with him. Hopefully the net president will succeed.
he's smarter than anybody on this blog...
I don't know how you can empirically know that, assuming that you don't, as I don't, really know much about the real-life people here. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't.
What measurements and benchmarks should be used to make the comparison?
you can't discuss anything with sloan. he doesn't buy into that silly "science" crap.
Ba ha ah ah aha ha. I just don't buy into science that is not science.
Global warming theories are just that... theories. They cannot be tested in a lab, nor do they even make logical sense (like evolution). Essentially we have "scientists" who have concluded that the global rise in temp in the last 60 years of .6 degrees is almost totally from CO2 emissions, even though in the last 1000 years, there have been other sudden changes in global temps.
what has bush done to bin laden...other than make the man into a fucking living hero to terrorists around the world?
True, Bin Ladin is still at large. However, Bush did take out Saddam Hussein. You remember... the guy who murdered a million of his own people, attacked almost all his own neighbors, had a personal cash flow of $30 billion per year, and tried twice before to build nukes.
kevin,
you do realize hillary is not bill...right?I was commenting on your
why?
g.w. bush and company...worst ever.
I just hope as a conservative that the DNC strategy for the 2008 Presidential election is "We're not Bush" again. Worked so well for Al "ManBearPig" Gore and John F'n Kerry.
That's been the Democrats problem for the last couple of presidential elections. They're not running for anything, they're running against the other candidate. Articulate a position and stand up for it and it might get y'all enough votes to win the White House.
That's been the Democrats problem for the last couple of presidential elections. They're not running for anything, they're running against the other candidate.
You know, I don't think that actually was the case with regard to the presidential election of 2000 , at least on the Democratic side.
sloan wrote:
I just don't buy into science that is not science.
Sloan, perhaps you missed my question, or perhaps you are ignoring it. Let me rephrase it in light of your most recent statements:
What is it that you know that the scientists at the National Academy of Sciences don't? Please be specific.
fen wrote:
Gore's not going anywhere. He's merely a SoreLoserman leveraging the Climate Change hoax.
Do you really believe the science of climate change is a hoax? In your opinion, who is responsible for this plot to deceive and what do they stand to gain from it?
Also, if you will, explain to me how your opinion about a climate change "hoax" is less loony than the any of the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Do you really believe the science of climate change is a hoax? In your opinion, who is responsible for this plot to deceive and what do they stand to gain from it?
For the record, I don't think it's a hoax (climates will change, obviously, as they have historically, and of course human activity contributes to it), but the cui bono is easy to answer: Politicians benefit because it provides them with cover for massive expansions of state regulatory power (i.e. their power) for the "public good." Scientists benefit because an atmosphere of crisis helps them drum up additional funding for their projects.
The reason skepticism about global warming isn't nutty like the 9-11 conspiracies (e.g. that the 9-11 was the first time fire melted steel) is that global warming/climate change is the theoretical output of a complex mathematical model of a system that we still do not seem to understand very well. Studies of weather were part of what led to early chaos theory in mathematics, with the Lorenz attractor and the like. The butterfly effect.
The analogy most often proposed by skeptics is to the complex economic models people used to think could be used to project future economic performance. They couldn't of course -- they did fine for data series that had been used to generate them, but failed utterly at predicting the future. The models underlying climate change will gain a lot more credibility, for their specific predictions, once they produce testable predictions that are actually born out in an intermediate timeframe -- ten years, twenty years hence (in the short term, developments can be extrapolated, the way they could with the Lorenz attractor, or with economic models). Until that happens, though, and there is a strong record of accurate testable hypothesis, most skeptics are simply not going to be convinced.
Balfegor,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I've found several key difficulties with your analysis. Let me address them in separate posts so that others can comment on whatever aspect of this discussion interests them.
The first point of interest is your comment that begins with this:
The reason skepticism about global warming isn't nutty like the 9-11 conspiracies...
I think you wrote this in response to my question to Fen. However I didn't ask about global warming skepticism, but instead about the notion that global warming is a "hoax." Since you indicate that you don't believe the science of climate change is a hoax, how would you compare those who believe it is a hoax with those who believe in one of the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories?
w/ respect to Al Gore running for President, my guess would be he is angling for a Clinton/Obama deadlock in the convention and a subsequent draft Gore movement. While Gore is not the best campaigner in the world, I think he would make a credible President. That said, my personal preference is still Guiliani.
w/respect to climate change: I much prefer the term "climate change" to global warming, as that is a reasonable description of what has happened to the planet's climate for billions of years. It has always been changing and quite often dramatically. There is clearly a component of current climate change that results from human activity; I am unaware if there is agreement among climate scientists of what amount of variance results fromhat percent of the variance is explained by human activity. The models in use are not regression models and dont, as far as I know, produce things like R and r^2 statistics.
My fundamental concern with climate change is this: can we achieve enough impact on climate by modifying human activity to justfiy the cost of those changes. Thats the question I would like to see both scientists and policy makers examine in detail.
Horribly confusing sentence in the previous post: "I am unaware if there is concensus among climate scientists about the percent of a variance attributable to human activity." In other words: if the percent of variance is say 50% then it would be important to deal with human activity. If it is more like 5%, then probably less so.
Balfegor wrote:
Scientists benefit because an atmosphere of crisis helps them drum up additional funding for their projects.
Again, this doesn't really address the question I posed. I asked who benefits from perpetuating the "hoax" of climate change. Will one of the commenters who believes climate change is a "hoax" (Fen) or "scam" (Sloan) answer this question please?
As to Balfegor's claim that a global climate change "crisis" helps scientists get additional funding, I note that the 2008 Federal budget for research and development shows that federal investment in basic and applied scientific research is set to fall (in real terms) for the fourth straight year. In fact, in the past 30 years, federal investment in scientific research and development has fallen, as a percentage of GDP, from roughly 1.25% to just under 1.0%.
In the real world, climate "crisis" has not driven additional funding for scientific research, contrary to Balfegor's claim.
Incidentally, late last year the Royal Society challenged ExxonMobil to "stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change." According to the Guardian:
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change...
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.
The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
Also worth noting: Dr. Richard Lindzen, a leading climate change skeptic, frequently serves as a well-paid consultant ($2500/day) to oil and coal interests such as Western Fuel. Dr Fred Singer, another of the well-known climate change skeptics, has been paid consulting fees by Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, Sun Oil and other energy interests.
These few examples show that, for scientists interested in financial gain, the big money is in denial of global climate change, not in support of it.
I think both sides of modern science are heavily reliant on other people's money to "do science." Modern science is an extraordinarily expensive proposition. When looking at contributors, looking at the government's contribution alone fails to consider the impact of funding from private foundations and academic institutions.
As to the Royal Society's position, apparently the principles of free speech to not necessarily encompass "scientific" speech. That seems an awfully dangerous position to take.
I think both sides of modern science are heavily reliant on other people's money to "do science." Modern science is an extraordinarily expensive proposition. When looking at contributors, looking at the government's contribution alone fails to consider the impact of funding from private foundations and academic institutions.
As to the Royal Society's position, apparently the principles of free speech may not necessarily encompass "scientific" speech. That seems an awfully dangerous position to take.
Also worth noting: Dr. Richard Lindzen, a leading climate change skeptic, frequently serves as a well-paid consultant ($2500/day) to oil and coal interests such as Western Fuel. Dr Fred Singer, another of the well-known climate change skeptics, has been paid consulting fees by Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, Sun Oil and other energy interests.
Well, for starters, one reason Climate Change Religion is a hoax is becasue people like you don't scientificly address the points skeptics like Lindzen and Singer make. Instead, you try to smear their professional reputation by linking them to Big Oil. Really, if your "science" is so sound, you shouldn't need to do that to counter their points.
And another, the infamous "hockey stick" by Mann that has been discredited. Again, if the "science" was sound, you wouldn't need to delete evidence that didn't agree with your model.
You might also include THE SUN in your "scientific" models...
Yes, the earth is going through a warming cycle. No evidence that it is caused by humans, no evidence that it can be reversed. Actually, I'm expecting a nuclear winter via Iran to correct the trend.
And please don't bother me with your Glenn Greenwald prose. Not interested.
Re: Cyrus:
I think you wrote this in response to my question to Fen. However I didn't ask about global warming skepticism, but instead about the notion that global warming is a "hoax." Since you indicate that you don't believe the science of climate change is a hoax, how would you compare those who believe it is a hoax with those who believe in one of the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Fair enough. You are right that "hoax" implies scientists and politicians and activists are getting together and cooking up blatant falsehoods, and that's a bit nutty. I think it's still less nutty than the 9-11 conspiracies (since it doesn't involve World Jewry or violate the laws of physics), but is still a bit nutty.
Not as nutty as one might think, though, since it just treats the government as an interested party the way you yourself treat the oil companies. If Exxon funding climate scientists taints their research somehow, then why not the government? As I noted above, politicians have a clear interest in promoting climate change as an apocalyptic crisis, since it justifies expanded state power with no clear metrics for success (especially once it's climate change, rather than just global warming -- there's always going to be change somewhere, since it's a dynamic system).
2008 Federal budget for research and development shows that federal investment in basic and applied scientific research is set to fall (in real terms) for the fourth straight year. In fact, in the past 30 years, federal investment in scientific research and development has fallen, as a percentage of GDP, from roughly 1.25% to just under 1.0%.
This doesn't say anything about funding for climate science. Frankly, climate science is so far down the science totem pole (meteorology is frankly, pretty low prestige, as sciences go -- not one of the "hard sciences" at all, and with limited practical application) that I'd guess climate scientists would normally get almost none of that amount. What they would get, if anything, is the crumbs. Unless they can persuade the public to fund them more. And my guess would be that climate scientists have seen their funding climb from practically non-existent up to . . . well, something, now that it's sexy.
Re: Roger:
My fundamental concern with climate change is this: can we achieve enough impact on climate by modifying human activity to justfiy the cost of those changes. Thats the question I would like to see both scientists and policy makers examine in detail.
I don't think there's any doubt that if we wanted to, we could have a substantial effect on climate change. If we really wanted to. After all, we know that volcanic explosions (as in the "year without a summer," 1816) can lower mean global temperatures a few degrees. We could probably duplicate such an effect if we were desperate. There are a number of (somewhat loony) proposals for combating climate change simply by seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective dust to increase the albedo of the Earth. The returns on regulation of ordinary human activity are rather more modest, given the far greater expense, but also less uncertain (e.g. than blotting out the sun with a cloud of volcanic ash).
Fen,
In monitoring the climate change "hoax," I hope you noted Lindzen's recent admission:
There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.
Do you now consider Lindzen part of the great "hoax?"
Also, if you get a chance, Fen, will you try to address my question about how your position on the "climate change hoax" is fundamentally different from the position of the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theorists?
here's a question for those who do not buy into what a vast majority of scientists have to say about global warming, specifically: ADVANCED PLANNING
if they're right...and you're wrong...and the "tipping point" comes and goes without addressing the problem...where are you (or better yet, your children and grandchildren) planning on living...and what will they be eating...and drinking?
*this reminds me of the period "before" we invaded iraq and many, especialy the left) were concerned with our soldiers being gassed, etc. the right wing said it was worth the risk, then raved about how wrong the left was and how easy it was to topple saddam.
then...we got an eyeful of what a severe lack of "advance planning" could produce...and look how well that's worked out for everybody.
Also, if you get a chance, Fen, will you try to address my question about how your position on the "climate change hoax" is fundamentally different from the position of the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theorists?
Nope. You're confusing hoax with conspiracy. Flail that strawman by yourself please.
the right wing said it was worth the risk, then raved about how wrong the left was and how easy it was to topple saddam.
It WAS easy to topple Saddam. Its the rebuilding thats been a bitch. Do you think we should have left Iraq helpless prey for Iran/Syria?
You are right that "hoax" implies scientists and politicians and activists are getting together and cooking up blatant falsehoods, and that's a bit nutty
Not really. Mann DID delete data from his hockey stick that threw off his desired conclusions. Scientists ARE complaining that honest criticism of Climate Change Theory is a career killer.
Fen,
From my point of view, you seem to be using the word "hoax" without reference to a standard definition (e.g., from the OED:
Hoax:
1. a plot to trick or deceive)
Rather than dodge the issue, will you please explain what you mean when you say "climate change religion is a hoax?"
Second, your understanding of Mann's "hockey stick" (from the work of Mann, Bradley and Hughes) is at odds with formal scientific review of this work. For example, a National Academy of Sciences review (Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, 2006) reached the following conclusion:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.
The "hockey stick" was also formally reviewed by the National Research Council at the request of Congress. The NRC committee (Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years) released its report last year, and concluded:
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
The journal Nature described the NRC finding as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."
Based on these formal scientific reviews of the "hockey stick", your complaint with the work of Mann et al seems to form a very poor basis for attacking climate change science.
Finally, I note that you didn't comment on the recent admission by global warming skeptic Lindzen. Do you disagree with his current position?
fen,
still dumb as a stump...his take on global warming studies and warnings via the scientific community at large: "Nope. You're confusing hoax with conspiracy."
global warming is a..."conspiracy."
i guess, if you're a good fearing christian...you'd have to believe it's god who's behind the whole thing.
who woulda thunk it?
fen,
you quote me as follows: "...the right wing said it was worth the risk, then raved about how wrong the left was and how easy it was to topple saddam."
rather disingenuous, considering the comment was in reference to the global warming argument...and since this is the entire quote:
"this reminds me of the period "before" we invaded iraq and many, especialy the left) were concerned with our soldiers being gassed, etc. the right wing said it was worth the risk, then raved about how wrong the left was and how easy it was to topple saddam.
then...we got an eyeful of what a severe lack of "advance planning" could produce...and look how well that's worked out for everybody."
if you're going to quote...use the entire comment, not just what you feel helps you push your side of the argument.
*and, as for whether "we should have left Iraq helpless prey for Iran/Syria?"...well, if we hadn't invaded in the first place...they wouldn't have been exposed to any such threat. saddam kept everybody at bay with his talk about having WMD. (remember those?)
Here's a fun story about the new Republican savior, Fred Thompson, and his designation by the Nixon cadre to handle some of the questioning during the Watergate Hearings:
Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.” The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee’s Democratic counsel.
Oh s—, that kid,” Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson’s appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.
“Well, we’re stuck with him,” Haldeman said.
Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not “very smart.”
“Not extremely so,” Buzhardt agreed.
“But he’s friendly,” Nixon said.
*That's exactly what we need...a "friendly" President...who also served as an insider for Dick Nixon.
Lucky: as for whether "we should have left Iraq helpless prey for Iran/Syria?"...well, if we hadn't invaded in the first place...they wouldn't have been exposed to any such threat. saddam kept everybody at bay with his talk about having WMD. (remember those?)
Ah I see. You would have left Saddam in power - WMD programs in violation of UN resolutions, along with support of terrorist organizations for proxy attacks against the West. Like Iran is today.
I'm guessing you would also have supported Hitler or Stalin for bringing regional stability? The trains did run on time, didn't they Lucky?
fen-fen,
what is it with your constant comparison of saddam...to hitler?
have you ever actually taken a history course or ever read a fucking book relating to world war II???
even YOU can't really believe saddam was on the same level as adolph hitler.
*as for the rest of the same ol' same ol' WMD bullshit...give it up...the world knows it's a crock.
saddam was so bottled up for ten years he couldn't even leave the country, much less develop WMD programs...that's why they weren't there.
he served as a perfect buffer between syria, turkey, pakistan and iran...and now he's gone...and our own soldiers are there in his place.
READ, fen-fen...quite listening to rush, sean and the gang.
Cyrus: Based on these formal scientific reviews of the "hockey stick", your complaint with the work of Mann et al seems to form a very poor basis for attacking climate change science.
Not at all. You are obviously familiar with the internet - did your eyes just glaze over when you came across the reviews that discredit Mann's hockey stick? Post them for discussion.
See? This is what I mean. Do you want genuine scientific discussion or political debate? Your side favors the latter, at the expense of science and truth.
While you're at it, ask yourself why any respectable scientific community would blacklist scientists who question the "religious dogma" of Climate Change Theory. They are treated as Heretics. So skepticism is warranted.
And again, I'm not interested in playing word games with you.
"I'll start acting as if it's a crisis when the people who are telling me it's a crisis start acting as if it's a crisis." - Glenn Reynolds
Lucky: what is it with your constant comparison of saddam...to hitler? have you ever actually taken a history course or ever read a fucking book relating to world war II???
Yes Lucky, I've read enough history to understand the connection between the Baath and Nazi party during WW2.
Damn, you really stepped into that one. Stop before you seriously hurt yourself.
fen-fen says: "Do you want genuine scientific discussion or political debate?"
what fen-fen really means is this: me only believe what me want to believe.
things like this, from the latest examination of global warming by leading scientists from around the world mean nada:
"The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising."
Fen,
It seems to me that you're trying very hard to avoid defending your claim that climate change science is a "hoax" (your word, not mine). I think the fact that you continue to avoid this topic speaks for itself.
I'm familiar with all three formal scientific reviews of Mann's "hockey stick." The only one I didn't mention is the Wegman Report, which is the only one of the three reports that wasn't subject to peer review. The Wegman report looked only at the statistical methods used in reconstructions, and in conclusion found the some of the methodological criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick to be valid.
Recently, von Storch has revisited this issue and concludes:
We do not think that McIntyre has substantially contributed in the published peer-reviewed literature to the debate about the statistical merits of the MBH and related method. They have published one peer-reviewed article on a statistical aspect, and we have published a response – acknowledging that they would have a valid point in principle, but the critique would not matter in the case of the hockey-stick... we see in principle two scientific inputs of McIntyre into the general debate – one valid point, which is however probably not relevant in this context, and another which has not been properly documented.
Fen, this covers all the formal reviews of the "hockey stick." Again, based on these formal scientific reviews of the "hockey stick", your complaint with the work of Mann et al seems to form a very poor basis for attacking climate change science. Do you have anything else to add?
Cyrus: It seems to me that you're trying very hard to avoid defending your claim that climate change science is a "hoax"
Believe whatever you like. I'm not interested in defending the claim to you. We've been over this ground before.
your complaint with the work of Mann et al seems to form a very poor basis for attacking climate change science.
Chew on this for awhile. Ask yourself if its fair to be skeptical, based on this review of Mann's [and others] work.
Do you have anything else to add?
Yes. But not here today. Maybe another thread.
/edit, forgot the link
Chew on this for awhile. Ask yourself if its fair to be skeptical, based on this review of Mann's [and others] work:
http://www.climate2003.com/mann.responses.htm
/and here's another:
"The message of the study by von Storch et al. is that existing reconstructions of the NH temperature of recent centuries may systematically underestimate the true centennial variability of climate” and, “If the true natural variability of NH [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as “unusual” would need to be reassessed.”
In an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel, von Storch commented, “We were able to show in a publication in ‘Science’ that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish.” Von Storch also pointed out the IPCC’s role in cutting off questioning on the subject: “It remains important for science to point out the erroneous nature of the Mann curve. In recent years it has been elevated to the status of truth by the U. N. appointed science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This handicapped all that research which strives to make a realistic distinction between human influences and climate and natural variability.”
http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,04260.cfm
Fen wrote:
Chew on this for awhile.
Yes, I read most of the give and take between MBH and MM several years ago when the argument about centeterd and non-centered PCA (and other statistical considerations) was at its peak. However, as more independent reconstructions began to appear, the validity of the basic "hockey stick" shape of the original Mann graph was reaffirmed.
You've produced an old quote from von Storch (2005, in Der Spiegel). von Storch has since modified his opinion, as is evident in the citation I provided earlier, from Nature, which reads in part:
the critique [of MM] would not matter in the case of the hockey-stick...
Fen, somehow you've come to the conclusion that the whole of climate change science rests on the "hockey stick," or worse, the original quantitative output from Mann et al. If this is really the basis for you belief that climate change science is a "hoax," then it is clear that you have been captured by the propaganda of groups like CEI that are heavily funded by the oil industry.
However, note in that regard that the CEI (like Lindzen, mentioned in previous posts) now concedes that the earth is warming and that the activities of mankind are contributing to this warming.
Also, you've referenced global warming skeptic von Storch but you are apparently unaware of his position on global warming. Here's a recent (2007, Der Spiegel) comment by him:
It is in fact necessary to reduce CO2 emissions...The greenhouse gases that have already been pumped into the atmosphere will undoubtedly lead to a certain increase in temperature in the coming decades. We can no longer completely avoid anthropogenic climate change. At best, limiting the temperature rise to two degrees is just about possible, according to optimistic estimates.
So...Lindzen, von Storch, the CEI and other global warming skeptics all concede the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Why do you still insist that it's a "hoax?"
Fen, please don't feel an obligation to respond. I'm sure this topic will come up again and we can discuss it then.
Thanks (as usual) for your civil responses.
Fen, somehow you've come to the conclusion that the whole of climate change science rests on the "hockey stick," or worse, the original quantitative output from Mann et al.
No. I use Mann as one example. Can we at least agree that his methodology is suspect? His conclusions based on damaged data? The fact that Mann's worked passed peer review makes me suspicious of the entire movement [yes, I know "peer reviewed" does not mean "fact", but it was often touted as such by Warming alarmists. So my faith in the science & experts has been damamged. I don't trust them to present unbaised legitimate studies.
If this is really the basis for you belief that climate change science is a "hoax," then it is clear that you have been captured by the propaganda of groups like CEI that are heavily funded by the oil industry.
Again, if the skeptics are wrong, it should be easy enough to prove so by contesting their facts, and not simply associating them with Big Oil. Thats another fallacy that makes me more skeptical.
for seven:
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.
Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
For those of you voting MITT:
From FactCheck.org:
We find additional exaggerations and misstatements by Romney on the campaign trail.
Summary
Out on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney has been boasting of some impressive accomplishments as governor of Massachusetts, while also outlining bold foreign policy proposals.
But we found that Romney sometimes alters the past, exaggerates his record and traffics in ambiguous language. We reported earlier on his boasts of issuing hundreds of vetoes, the majority of which were overridden. Here we examine a few more of Romney's dubious statements:
1. He claims that President Clinton "began to dismantle the military" when it was President George H.W. Bush who started making deep cuts in defense budgets years before Clinton took office.
2. He claims to have balanced the Massachusetts budget through the elimination of duplicate state agencies when he actually relied mainly upon increases in fees and cuts to education and local aid to do so.
3. Romney takes credit for submitting state income tax cuts, although income tax rates did not change during his term as governor.
i wonder how many MPG it was getting at 100? its probably recorded in the computer
“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”
boy, is she strict.
Post a Comment