Much too many Democratic politicians make a habit of responding to a right-wing view of the world. From the get-go, they trap themselves in a rhetorical box simply by validating a version of events that has no relation to reality. I’ve seen the least prepared and best prepared Dems make the mistake, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore. Thankfully it appears that Al Gore is learning. Witness this exchange from the CBS Early Show in which Gore deftly rejects the faulty premise.
SMITH: But if I look at more elements, the more conservative elements of the press, I would say there is a debate going on because, you know, they say that you re just trying to create this kind of bogeyman to help slow down the economy and everything else. How do you respond to that?
GORE: Well, I guess in some quarters there s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona or whether the earth is flat instead of round. And there may be some media reports that are constructed in a way that says, On the one hand, on the other hand. But really and truly, global warming is in that category there is no more scientific debate among serious people who ve looked at the evidence.
FOX is the worst offender (”Questions swirl” or “sources say”) but all the media falls for it. 10 million people come to a consensus on one thing, a couple right wing hacks disagree despite the evidence and “balance” is created. It just ain’t so.
Actually, the response from the far Right for years has been to dismiss VALID arguments as being without merit, so it only makes sense to respond in kind, particularly when you actually do have reality on your side.
Of course, a big part of the problem is the dem desire for media access. Often those dems that call “bullsh*t” aren’t invited to speak while the Lieberman’s are warmly embraced. All the quiet rolling over for expanded media consolidation over the past 25 years (particularly in the 90’s) has really come back to bite the Dems in the ass (well, that and failing to retain control of either house or to guarantee honest elections, but I digress).
I find his reaction really refreshing. What makes me mad is not how the pundits spin things but how their guests refuse to call them on it. Good on him.
It wasn’t a movie lot in Arizona, it was a ranch. And as a matter of fact it straddled the Arizona-New Mexico state line, so some of the lunar rover scenes may actually have been in New Mexico.
Howard Dean does this also. Of course, that is when he has access to the press.
iwtnews.com
I have high hopes.
uh, right.
“There is no controversy folks….nothing to see here, move along…”
LOL
What controversy are you referring to pedro? Whether or not global wamring is occurring or whether or not man is contributing to global warming?
“The only real question is how much of a danger and what can be done.”
Exactly. From pedro’s source:
“… the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere must produce warming, a fact derived from our basic knowledge of physics. It is not some obscure hypothesis, but a physical principle that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, this will increase the “greenhouse effect” and generate global warming in the lower atmosphere. The real debate then is about the amount of uncertainty on the magnitude that will result from this human-made warming (that is, the size of the “error bars” on the data), not the fact of global warming itself. In other words, we know that our addition of CO2 will cause global temperatures to go up; the question is how bad this warming will be and what its consequences will be.”
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/08_2.shtml
Did you approach your medical courses with the same degree of thoroughness?
By the way, the author of “Dr”P’s cite believes global warming is real and potentially catastrophic to the oceans and marine life.
The problem with your “plausible” hypothesis, “Dr”P, is that it is used by both global warming opponents and proponents. Regardless, the effects of the LIA are minor as to be insignificant.
There really is no question among climatologists and scientists that global warming is real and poses significant dangers. The only real question is how much of a danger and what can be done.
Well, except for other plausible hypothesis of course…
(wait, don’t look! It might spoil your faith in the great global warming bugaboo. Hey, some people have the FSM, some have global warming…)
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/04_3.shtml
Hilarious. From pedro’s source:
“Climate Change and Extinction
The effect of global warming, it may be safely assumed, will be to accelerate the process of extinction. The reason is that plants (and therefore the animals that depend on the plants) are adapted to a certain range of conditions for their growth and reproduction. For example, a plant in temperate latitudes is genetically programmed so that it ýÿknowsýÿ frost will come when the days become shorter. Thus, sometime in fall, a deciduous tree will shut down and shed its leaves, preventing the frost from freezing the sap in the tree and damaging it. However, more opportunistic plants with a higher tolerance for risk, like brush, will not shut down in fall but wait until it gets cold. These plants, in a situation of warming, will win the battle for sunlight which plants commonly wage. The deciduous trees will make room for brush since trees walk but slowly. Although such a local extinction can be reversed in principle, a sufficient number of local extinctions will add up to global extinction.
Climate Change Optimists
Not everyone agrees that there is a problem. On the contrary, celebrating the arrival of the 6 billionth human, the Wall Street Journal (Oct 1999) opines, in an editorial entitled ýÿThe More the Merrier:ýÿ ýÿBy almost any measure ýÿ life expectancy, calorie consumption, education, housing, etc. ýÿ the world is better off than it has ever been.ýÿ The Wall Street Journal, even more upbeat than usual (perhaps buoyed at the time by a seemingly endless bull market) reminds us that each new baby comes with not only a mouth but a mind. A mind, that is, to be engaged in creating new wealth. An accompanying essay (”Six Billion Reasons to Cheer”) assures us that “the gap between the rich and the poor has never been so small” in terms of life expectancy, and that “the fuel of modern economic development is human ýÿ rather than natural ýÿ resources.” Like that of the stone age shamans assuring their people that everything is under control, the world of the writers of those editorials is an imaginary one, based on wishful thinking. Mantras and magic will do nothing to solve the problems that will come with overpopulation and the overuse of resources.”
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/12_1.shtml
you make my point beautifully Jade. That you only make good points accidently, well, that is your problem.
I believe global warming is occuring. I don’t see any hard evidence that it is driven primarily by the introduction of CO2 by man.
More research on the subject is required. Dancing around like a Luddite trying to panic the world into economic collapse is not of use. Trying to silence opponents, also not good.
Ultimately climate change happens, it has since the planet was formed. The idea that it is driven by mankind is simply hubris on the order of “the earth is the center of the universe” thinking in Copernican times.
The lefties use is as a vote getting tool and a religion substitute, and are no better than the far-right christians when it comes to questioning its doctrines.
All the contrarians work under the assumption that they (or Rush) are privy to info that the hundreds of climate scientists who’ve studied this were completely unaware of. Did you know that some guy in the seventies predicted global cooling, which at the time was not embraced by the majority of scientists, and which has not come true? Since that guy was wrong all non-oil funded scientists now must be wrong. It’s just logic, look it up.
Why the moderation?
To be fair, we should give some attention to all the scientists that are against the general global warming consensus. All 8 of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Gore is a politician - not a scientist. He is doing nothing more than parroting what somebody else has told him to say. If it were fashionable (and it is oh so fashionable to be a radical environmentalist) to be a sheepdog, big tepid AL would be baying at the moon and big media would be lapping it up.
Unfortunately for progressives (and us all), the environmental movement has been caotured by extremists and professional money grubbers. Why did they try to silence Lomborg - otherwise?
More research on the subject is required. Dancing around like a Luddite trying to panic the world into economic collapse is not of use.
You have it backwards. To push in the direction of using new sources of energy, increased efficiency and reduced emissions is the opposite of being a Luddite. You’re the one on the side of maintaining the status quo and resisting change.
Actually, pedro is on the side of screw you all and I get mine.
This is not a bloodydamn partisan issue. We’re all living here. Unless you have a nice vacation house on Mars, it’s worth your time to give this some importance.
More research on the subject is required. Dancing around like a Luddite trying to panic the world into economic collapse is not of use.
And here we have the crux of pedro’s argument…don’t warn about potential disaster, because it might mean less money to go around. Your priorities are for crap.
warn all you want, don’t try to change the economic structure of entire societies based on a vague “warning”. As one of your leftist collegues points out, in the 70’s we were told it was going to be global cooling….20 years from now? Who knows.
The leftists new religion of global warming is a cute little feel good issue. “I’m saving the environment by driving a prius!”
It is unproven scientifically (that mankind is driving it) and in fact, we have ample historical evidence that it has happened before, well before the internal combustion engine.
Yea BD, I know, “the sky is falling”, “don’t you care about the children?”
Yea, I do. And when you try to shut down modern societies (and societies like China and India that WANT to be modern) you put people out of work.
And deus, I am not opposed to new technology that is clean and efficient. I am opposed to doing by fiat, whether or not the technology exists. We transitioned from a coal based economy to an oil based one, and will transition from oil to whatever is next too. The market will drive it.
“I don t see any hard evidence that it is driven primarily by the introduction of CO2 by man. More research on the subject is required.”
Pedro also believes that when he closes his eyes he becomes invisible.
“A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded yesterday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system …
The report’s authors all agreed that their review of the data showed that the atmosphere was, in fact, warming in ways that generally meshed with computer simulations. The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth’s average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/science/03climate.html?ex=1304308800&en=c4eeb36efd0a312e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Paul, get back to a movie will ya?
A scientific study will prove that your wasted, bloated, C02 emitting carcass here on planet earth, has an effect on the orbit of the Moon. That effect is in fact, infintesimal, but there is your headline.
Paul’s Fat Ass effects orbit of Moon!
Totally, factually accurate. We must get the weight off of Paul’s fat, critic ass before the moon is pulled out of it’s orbit…..sometime in the next 10 Millenia
What a buffoon….
Let’s look at in another way. Let’s say that global warming IS a myth created for no reason whatsoever. So what you’re left saying is that you feel justified filling the air with carbon monoxide and a crap-load of pollutants and poisoning everyone and contributing to O-zone depletion* because you have an irrational fear of research for and implementation of alternative/renewable fuels. Even without the pollution, oil’s not limitless. We’re going to have to find an alternative, and I’d rather not wait until the last minute (or later than that) to do so.
*And don’t you dare say that O-zone depletion’s a myth either. I could explain the whole process, but here’s the chemical equation for it. (CO + O3 -> CO2 + O2)
“Paul s Fat Ass effects orbit of Moon!”
What a come back pedro. Just keep believing in that gut of yours. Leave the facts for the adults.
I really feel for “Dr” Pee’s patients with that anti-science attitude, if he is a doctor, which I doubt.
“Yea, I mean 800 scientists out of 800 say this drug is dangerous for someone in your condition, but I really haven’t seen the evidence.”
That is the beauty fact, I am totally pro science. There is in fact no evidence that proves mankinds co2 emissions are causing global warming.
There are masses of correlations…but as any good scientist knows, correlation does not prove CAUSATION.
Just as it can be scientifically proven that Paul’s useless gluteus has an effect on the moon’s orbit, it is likewise, insignificant.
You still completely ignored my point. Global warming aside, there are still numerous other major benefits for finding and implementing an alternative and possibly renewable source of fuel.
There is in fact no evidence that proves mankinds co2 emissions are causing global warming.
Not that long ago, diehards were still saying the same thing regarding smoking and lung cancer. Mothers milk also causes cancer,etc. I guess to some ignorance really is bliss.