Taking the Al Gore Rorschach test
One of my closest friends in the entire world is convinced Al Gore is full of it.
Like a lot of News.com readers who have reacted to the Nobel Prize announcement, he doesn't believe Gore deserves the award. I should add that my super-skeptical buddy--no names here or he'll come after me with a rolling pin--also dismisses the arguments seeking to prove the existence of global warming as warmed-over pseudo-science. He just doesn't believe the available evidence makes for a strong case.
Perhaps it's only circumstance that he hails from the computer industry. Then again, maybe not.
News.com attracts a fair number of folks who I like to call the "civilians,"--the non-geek crowd. But technology types still make up the heart of our audience. So it was that I've been inundated with private e-mails (in addition to the public TalkBack postings) responding to my column earlier today on "Al Gore's tech cred." Although hardly a scientific sample, most of the folks who've bothered to write in think Gore's all wet and I'm a clueless dolt for lending any credence to his argument. Maybe that doesn't represent the silent majority out there--or at least I hope not because the level of vitriol is off the charts.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
shepherd a lot of tech-friendly legislation (can't wait for the
totally wrong "invented the Internet canard from our right wing
friends).
In addition he's been at the forefront of popularizing and
making accessible the science behind global warming. His clear,
cogent presentation helps those with open minds understand
the impact and consequences of continued unfettered CO2
release.
I don't know many people who aren't already inured to the
political right who don't acknowledge that warming is
happening - and Gore is an intelligent, well-spoken person who
happens to be a lightning rod for the Heathers in the political
press and the right wing nuts who want this country to continue
backwards toward a regressive political and social climate.
Finally, it's clear that Gore is far more reasoned and intelligent
than the current President. It's too bad he won't run in 2008,
because I and most other people I know would vote for him in a
heartbeat.
A) It happens on a regular cycle.
B) Man has nothing to do with it.
C) That its been warmer that this before.
D) CO2 is a by product of it not the cause.
and
E) Al Gore uses more energy than any of us.
And he still did not win in 2000 no matter what you may want.
honor.
They like to say that Al didn't carry his home state because: "Those
who know him best, like him least."
conceptions, but that doesn't make them correct. Global climate change has
been with us since the planet coalesced from the gases in the system?there is
some evidence global warming is being influenced by mankind, and there is
some evidence that it's a natural process as we go in our cycle from one ice age
to another. The bottom line is more independent studies need to be done, free
of the biases of the politically correct boneheads, who exist on both sides of the
political spectrum and everywhere in between.
warming is recognized as a threat to international security hence
why the IPCC and Al Gore were recognized in this award. Some
of "groucho6's" comment is correct but the rest is clearly
uninformed. Yes, climate change is natural and has been
occurring indefinitely for 4.6 billion years and will continue to
do so. The scientific consensus (not political consensus) is that
we are contributing to climate change on top of natural change.
It is unequivocal at this point as demonstrated by hundreds of
"independent" studies. The argument now is "how bad" and
"what should we do about it?". Sitting around waiting for more
studies and doing nothing is not an educated solution.
He has achieved zero in scientific terms (unless you credit him with inventing the Internet); his value, if any, is an enabler.
And, like him or not - like his politics or not - he has reached millions who had refused to be reached before. Arguably, he has done more than any other individual to Wake Up America.
And while you can argue with the detail, few would (still) argue with the overall message.
I reckon that deserves something in the way of awards.
There's a very grateful world out here.
buying these credits are part of the problem, not part of the
solution. If Al Gore truly cared about the environment he would
reduce his energy consumption instead of just transferring
carbon production from one entity to another. Talk about
hypocrisy.
In the end we must remember he is, after all, a politician. And
politicians are rarely what they profess to be. A question for Al
Gore. Why don't you show the courage of your convictions and
lead by example? I had enough of "do as I say and not as I do"
when I was growing up.
himself that isn't "WorldNutDaily".
He owns an interest in the company that sells carbon credits?
Whoa! Stop the presses! I'll bet George HW Bush doesn't own any
stock in Halliburton or Exxon Mobil, or Boeing or Lockheed...all
companies that have benefitted greatly from the President's
power to spend taxpayer money by declaring war.
Give me a break - you think it's an accident that KBR and
Halliburton get so much work from the government that was
formerly done by the more capable and cheaper Army we have?
Starting to get the picture?
Back to the point: there's no question the earth goes through
cooling and warming cycles. There is also no question and no
serious debate in the scientiic community that humans are
contributing to and accelerating that change by freeing carbon
dioxide through the unchecked burning of fossil fuels.
Like I said...wingnuts can't stand Gore - he's smarter than them.
And he did win in 2000. George Bush was appointed President
by the Supreme Court - time after time, count after count, Gore
is shown to have won Florida.
I'd also suggest you invest in a spelling and grammar
checker..."put's".
A) It happens on a regular cycle."
Incorrect. While there are historical trends regarding temperature, the evidence shows that what is happening is not part of a regular cycle.
"B) Man has nothing to do with it."
Incorrect. The overwhelming consensus of the science is that the warming trend is primarily driven by human activity.
"C) That its been warmer that this before."
Technically true, but misleading. The hottest climate temperatures on record are from the past 20 years. Don't pull a Glen Beck and confuse US temperatures with global temperatures.
"D) CO2 is a by product of it not the cause."
Incorrect. The opposite is the case.
"E) Al Gore uses more energy than any of us."
Incorrect. A big deal was made of the raw amount of electricity used in his home, but this is as foolish as saying that the State of California uses more water than an individual person. Gore's home is not simply for him and his wife but rather houses a large staff and functions as his office. And he specifically pays more for electricity from renewable sources (see...Bill O'Reilly and the rest of them assumed he was paying standard electricity rates and he isn't). It turns out that for the actual scenario he is in, he's much more efficient than the rest of us.
"And he still did not win in 2000 no matter what you may want."
You need to read the NORC report. In a complete recount of all votes, Gore won using every method of recounting specified.
Wow...wrong on every single point.
Fox. They don't listen to reason and don't care for facts, which are
known to have a "liberal" bias.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And those who would intentionally blind themselves to reality are those who have already lost to that enemy. Coincidentally, they seem to also be the ones so terrified of a few fanatical cave-dwellers that they're willing to give up our rights.... but perhaps that's a different story?
Perhaps the ICCC report is also 'selective evidence'?
Have you actually given both sides adequate due process? We are talking about the "fate of the world" here and an immense amount of resource commitment.
Have you come to really understand the science behind the various theories? Do you really expect others to believe that you have both a deep scientific understanding of the issue and a broad insight as to the back room political deals that happen between numerous countries at high and low levels of government, within the scientific and educational communities - and on both political sides?
Believe what you will. But first recognize that those beliefs ARE completely based on your sources. What gets me is people watch a movie and then believe every word. Twenty feet of flooding - come on now...The earth is flat AND the center of the universe, the universe is contracting - no wait - expanding, the earth is X billion years old - no wait - X billion, etc.
Just how long have we actually been MEASURING climate change in real time? Do you think that there is any accurate way to ESTIMATE climate change over hundreds of thousands of years? Do you really think that is possible? Or perhaps, are we getting the scientist's "best bet" with a whole lot of science in an attempt to back it up?
Does ANYONE here understand the inherent flaws in the "peer review" models used by "scholarly" journals? Groupthink? I guess it doesn't matter. Your sources will rule your thinking regardless of the truth, until you wake up.
No, what definitely sets you apart is your attack on "the inherent flaws in the 'peer review' models used by 'scholarly' journals".... Seeing as how the peer review process is what 20th century science is based on, and the best method we have come up with thus far to determine what is scientifically plausible, calling upon us readers to 'wake up', as you do at the end of your rant, seems a tad like the leader of a cult calling upon his mindless followers to 'wake up'--right before he passes the Kool-Aid. You also seem to question the earth being 'X billion years old' (it's just over 4.5, actually), suggesting to me that you're one of those quasi-religious freaks who still believe that evolution is a lie, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if I'm not, you have no business on a technology website, and certainly no business commenting on the SCIENTIFIC PLAUSIBILITY of human-caused processes that could very well make this planet a miserable hell-hole within my lifetime. If the vast majority of the scientific work done tell us that THIS IS HAPPENING, and that we are the cause, then you better jump on board the boat, or at least get out of the way, because I'm not going to be the one standing there when hurricanes hit New York (yes, this IS an exaggeration, congratulations for working it out), telling myself "well, I didn't do anything because Al Gore flies in a polluting plane"--and I'm not going to let you stop the world from doing anything about it either.
What's 'an immense amount of resource commitment' next to the habitability of the coastal regions of the world, or those areas fed by the Himalayan glaciers?
Do I believe climate change is real? Yes I do, based on my understanding of the basic science and the fact that thousands of scientist around the world worked on the IPCC report reviewing scientific research including the scientific research that says we have nothing to do with climate change. After all that they believe 90% probability that we are the main cause. Not the only, but the main.
Can I say that I think all scientists have no political bias? No I can't but I have found that every climate change skeptic group or research project I've looked at seems to be funded by a fossil fuel provider. I think there is enough bias in the world to go around.
Regarding Al Gore, I'm not a US citizen so don't care at all about his political background. I have to approve of anyone raising the issue to a mainstream level. He may not have ever minute detail exactly right but he?s getting across the theme which is all I care about.
One of my favorite observations over the last 20yrs climate change has been talked about is that initially if you believed in it you were a tree hugging hippie. Now if you believe in it you are part of the church of climate change. I think it's just a way of being able to ignore the problem for the skeptics. If you don't believe in it you don't have to do anything about it.
Just to add fuel to your fire politically I can say I believe in climate change, I am going rifle shopping tomorrow, I?ve never taken drugs, I don?t think reducing taxes is a good thing. Careful all of you with extreme political views. I wouldn't want your heads exploding as you can?t quite grasp that incompatibility. I think again that makes me part of the majority in that I don?t let my vote make my beliefs. I am tired of black or white politics. Real life is shades of grey, but that is another issue.
their potion. Its people like you, Charles Cooper, being in a
journalistic position, that can perpetuate such incredible
nonsense. Your position as an uninformed accolyte calls into
question your partisanship. In this case the secular religion that
you unconciously embraced.
There is a mountain of evidence disputing Gore's assertions.
Don't you think its an odd coincidence that just as the price
fossil fuels rises to a point that make alternative energy
feasable, that a politician - in this case one that attended
seminary - would come along to ride the inevitable wave of
change, that will occur based simply on economics.
And you, and the likes of you, buy into his Messiah Complex.
Myth reigns supreme.
would support and pass legislation, on the national and world
level, related to this myth. ...and what their true motives are.
Cooling arguments from a couple od decades ago?
Do you think for one moment that any of the numbers that will
come out of China and India would be accurate? Of course they
"agree." They'll won't have to adhere to the treaty while claiming
they are. And within a few years they'll be the biggest carbon
emitters.
My question is 1. Would you and Al Gore be willing to go to war
to prevent their emisions of carbon, and 2. Should we have
international legislation to eliminate populations 50 to 100 miles
from the coastlines around the world? Assuming of course the
world hasn't buckled 100% to carbon religion's requirements?
Its the only way to save the world and we only have about 7
mores years "before its too late." (Your gods words, not mine.)
Yes, climate changes. No, that change won't flood every coastal city under 300 feet of water in the next 30 years.
Yes, humans really should reduce their dependence on petrochemicals and coal as energy sources, and increase the efficiency of their machinery overall. No, it's not the sole (or even the leading) cause of climate change. What is, we simply do not know at this time.
Yes, industrialized nations should lead the way in accomplishing efficiency and renewable energy sources. No, we don't need to induce catastrophic penalizations and outright economic theft in the name of "social justice" (see also the Kyoto treaty), which has zero to do with climate.
Yes, we really should study these things. No, we should not politicize them.
Gore? He's using the whole debate as a means to get face-time in front of a camera. The Nobel Committee has openly admitted (numerous times) that they use their prize as a tool to announce and push their specific ideologies, which has cheapened it considerably from what it once was.
As for Gore? He's pretty much no better than Paris Hilton or Britney Spears in his zeal to get face-time. That said, I do find that he's simply not worth paying attention to.
/P
I do think the debate about climate change among non-scientist has become almost useless as it almost always ends in flame wars.
There are a few things I do disagree with though: Recorded Temperatures.
You always hear someone spouting about this is the hottest it has been in recorded temperatures, but what does that mean. most people are suprised to find out that equates to about 180 years. Yes there are some sparse recordings from European monks in the 1600s, but over all recroding temperatures is a fairly modern act. The data used in most of the models is from Ice core and tree ring samples from various parts of the world and while certainly give a fairly accurate idea of temperature, can hardly be considered flawless.
CO2 is the only gas that is a problem.
CO2 is most likely involved in the temp increase. It has increased fairly close to the temp over the last few decades. However co2 ( and consequently man-made co2 even smaller) make up such a small part of the composition of the atmosphere that I find it hard to believe it is the only culprit.
I have no problem researching Climate Change and the possible man-made causes, just don't ignore facts that are contrary to what you believe.
My biggest problem with the whole argument is that everyone, on both sides, are completely inflexible. Deniers...well their deniers. The believers are just as bad. Anyone who says climate science is exact, need only look at the variations in the daily weather patterns. Atmospheric science is amazingly complex and the reason our planet is such a jewel in the universe, and should be protected.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=dddc4451-802a-2
3ad-4000-a9b55ed9489a&Issue_id
The planet is warming, I am just not conviced we know exactly why yet. Considering we are the dominate species, I think there is a decent chance were involved. I just haven't been convinced that we are anymore certain this time then we were with the "Coming Ice Age" as Carl Sagan used to put it.
Any decent scientist would tell you there are holes in the Models, they are pretty good considering he complexity needed, but there are holes nonetheless. Consider our mediocre understanding of Solar cycles. There are all sorts of factors at play in atmospheric rise in temperature, yet we are convinced it is CO2 that makes up what...1% of the total atmosphere.
Despite that I am completely for "Green" projects and renewable fuels becuase what do you have to lose by researching those items? Zilch. Even if we fall into the same trap as the 70's, the planet will be much better forthe extra caring.
Why do you think they call it Greenland?
Try reading how CO2 is released into the atmosphere and you might understand what he is getting at.
Seriously, before you post, try to understand what you are talking about.
Oh nevermind, stick with obtuse replys, they're comical.
- Ostriches
- by Kimsh November 15, 2007 11:58 AM PST
- Its scary that educated people cam be so foolish. Anyone who thinks that the amount of polution we create by driving millions of cars around and generally being blindly inefficient in all ways is not having a disasterous effect on our health is an utter osterich.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(47 Comments)Here is a question for you, do you think that the increase in burnt crap coming out of our cars is unrelated to the increase in the incidence of cancer?