Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics

[Jeffersons Ghost]

Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat.
March 27, 2008

(CBS) Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.

The former vice president and former presidential candidate talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml

Unlikely allies for the Gore position on Global Warming include, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Pat Robertson, Toby Keith, the Dixie Chicks, Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich.

[bananas]

1. Toby Keith?

He's flip-flopped since F.U.T.K. ???

[leftofcool]

4. He is a shitty piece of work

for more than FUTK. Too long of a story to go into, but what an asshole!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

27. more and more people will "flip-flop" in upcoming months

[Jennicut]

2. Newt Gingrich and Pat Robetson believe in climate change? What is the world coming too?

Thats good news actually. Al and others have changed alot of minds.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. Pretty much *everyone* believes in climate change

weather or not its anthropomorphic is another issue..

[Smith_3]

3. Draw me a picture.

I refuse to debate Global Warming without figures and meterelogical data being presented first.

[frogcycle]

6. since this is not a debate

nobody cares that you refuse

[Zywiec]

9. I think the debate is to what extent man is contributing to climate change

After all, the earth has gone through heating and cooling periods thousands of times in the past and we would have entered another period regardless of man being on earth.

I think what some debate is how much faster are we entering the next heating/cooling period because of our influence on the environment.

[frogcycle]

10. the post was about Gore's comments

the knee-jerk response to say "gotta have proof" and try to start a "debate" is identical to the creationists tactics and proves Gore's point

[Smith_3]

13. No its not. Its the normal response of a scientist.

I'm not going to take anyone's authority on this matter for granted, especially not that of a politician who has no background in science. Personally, my take on matters of enviromentalism has always been "better be safe than sorry", and I therefore am all for reducing emissions, but still, I see a severe lack of "hard science" being employed in public discussions of such matters. Where are the climate charts, the data? It is not the same as creationism or a flat earth, IMO, because the reasoning is much more indirect and model based.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Do You Accept The Mechanism?

If you're a scientist, you would have to acknowledge the photochemical mechanism as fact. So????

The fact that the precision of measurement over an extended period of time is difficult to obtain and properly analyze does not preclude the mechanistic facts.
The Professor

[Smith_3]

17. I'm not familiar with the photochemical effect.

Only the photoelectric effect, but I assume that is something different.

But still, I claim it is hard to quantitatively extrapolate from microscopic arguments to a global scenario. Lots of things have to be taken into account that go beyond one individual effect on atomic scales. I think astronomical and metereological data are much more useful in this regard.

As I said, I would accept the proposition that blowing stuff into the air is generally bad until proven otherwise. But with regards to the exact effect that it might have on the climate, I am not aware that conclusive models exist.

[Smith_3]

18. Update:

Okay, I checked the wiki on global warming. I guess lots of experts agree that global warming exists. Still, until I understand all the mechanisms myself I will be sceptic :)

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Fair Enough

But, simply stated All molecules absorb frequencies of light which excite the electon rotation. When this happens, orbital shapes and scopes change which causes the entire molecule to stretch, vibrate, compress, and twist. This molecular motion is generally called "heat".

Since CO2 has much higher molar absorbtivity than nitrogen, oxygen, and other light gasses, at any frequency, and has VERY much high MA than other gasses in the ultraviolet and infrared sections of the spectrum, they absorb much more heat.

Then, because this gas possesses a higher specific heat than most other atmospheric gasses, it retains this heat rather than losing it readily toward space. As a result, it creates a high temperature "zone" within the mixture and its mole fraction passes that heat on to the entire mixture, which we call an atmosphere.

As long as CO2 concentrations rise, the added heat has to be absorbed. If it doesn't the entire discipline of photochemistry has been wrong for the last 100 years.
The Professor

[Smith_3]

21. But what is the effect of this on convection mechanisms?

If "long range" enery transport would be supressed by the same effect, the result could be a net cooling, no?

[ProfessorGAC]

22. I'm Not Sure What You're Asking

And, i'm not sure why you would think that adding extra heat to any system would result in cooling. The delta T between space and the atmosphere would not change by enough to have a significant effect on heat loss. If space is 4 Kelvins, and earth's mean temperature is 25C (just to use an example), then we've got about a 250 Kelvin delta T. If the earth goes up in mean T by 0.1 degrees, the delta T is still 249.9. That won't have any significant heat transfer effect on a system that, at the top of the atmosphere, is laminar, and therefore has a very low U value. Hence, heat builds up, and doesn't transfer out at the same rate. There would be a net heat gain.

The Professor

[Smith_3]

23. What I am asking is what happens if the CO2 causes winds to die down.

Of course I'm not completely sure due to which mechanism this could happen.

[frogcycle]

25. take a long hard look at Venus

[ProfessorGAC]

29. More Heat Creates More Wind Not Less

Because there is more molecular motion, and because the interchange of heat between air and land, air and water, and water and air, the more heat there is, the more rapid the movement. That means MORE wind, not less.

As another poster mentioned: Venus has windstorms, on a daily basis, in excess of anything every seen on earth.
The Professor

[newfie11]

54. If that's what it takes

we could use LOTs of CO2 here in Nebraska. I am tired of thes 50-80 MPH winds.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

37. Other things to accept as fact

The little ice age corresponded with reduce solar activity..

[ismnotwasm]

35. Really?

That's interesting. I thought there was lively data on the "debate" of climate change. In fact, my understanding is the "debate" is not whether global warming is happening, but rather what the role human beings behavior plays.

As far as public discussions, the public lack hard data on a variety of topics. They know enough to form an opinion, not to write a thesis.

[LanternWaste]

39. Then wouldn't it be in your own best interest

Then wouldn't it be in your own best interest to simply read some peer-reviewed academic treatise on the matter rather than asking for a debate here?

For example...

J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

and

Changing the atmosphere: expert knowledge and environmental governance, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001

Here's a few starter links...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html (the NOAA Satellite and Information Service)

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ipcc-highlights3.html

[Smith_3]

14. Correct. Astronomy has to be taken into account.

The precession and nutation of the earths axis, the solar wind cycles etc. Its not as simple as looking at pictures of the north pole and saying "oh, the caps have gotten smaller" or "damn this summer is so hot."

Some models AFAIK for instance predict a decline of the gulf stream due to emissions, and as a result a net global "cooling".

It would help to stop using the term "global warming" and start calling it "global climate change" for a start. And from there, I don't think a non-scientist like Al Gore can be viewed as the ultimate authority on these matters.

[frogcycle]

24. Al Gore has never presented himself as "the authority"

he is if anything a publicist for scientists who have been studying, modeling, researching for years.

if you are such a hotshot scientist, then go engage some of them; see if you can peer-review their work; maybe publish your own analyses. Mouthing of on an internet blog and trying to present yourself as the disciplined scientist, criticizing Gore for being a messenger, when you admit you had to check Wikipedia just to catch up on the body of knowledge is hubris. Crawl back under your rock, hotshot.

[Smith_3]

19. The picture:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

38. given the 1930's were an exceptionally warm period

Some of the warmest years on record that graph is already wrong..

[Viking12]

44. Umm. no.

[Mountainman]

26. Then don't, the world will work to try and solve the problem while your head is in the sand.

But you will benefit from what they do. So bully for you, "no one cares what you think." GWB

[superkia]

41. I too dont just listen to politicians and the media and feel there...

should be facts spoke instead of just pointing at your opposition and saying they mean nothing because their group is a minority. If he is THE MAN when it comes to the subject, every time he speaks about doubters, he should provide the information so everyone can understand, I don't care for anyone that just dismisses people as conspiracy theorists or other names to justify their own beliefs.

[frogcycle]

45. he wrote a whole fucking book on the subject

with tons of references. His website provides more references, updated continuously

every time he speaks about doubters, he should provide the information so everyone can understand

maybe "everyone" who doesn't understand should pull their heads out of the sand, or whatever dark place they have it, and do some reading instead of demanding to be spoonfed that to which they would refuse to listen anyway

[superkia]

47. So, you are saying that when a person that has great knowledge...

on an important issue appears on television or in the media, he should insult those who disagree with him instead of helping others understand?

Maybe in your world you can go out and buy books or even have the time to read them but not everyone lives in your world. Some people actually work 2 and 3 jobs, have children to try and take care of and barely can provide housing and food for their family. I believe that he should use these opportunities in a positive light and continue to spread his words.

Obviously we disagree and you feel his tactic is the way to go, I don't, I would rather see more people enlightened. Would I be right in thinking that you are of the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" crowd? Your attitude and response points in that direction.

[frogcycle]

50. oh come on

he explains and expounds constantly

you want him to give a freaking lecture every time he opens his mouth and expect it to be quoted so you can be educated while channel surfing or something?

They asked him about cheney et al and he used the same sound bite he has used at least 20 times that I have heard or read, and that he has no doubt used hundreds of times more that I have not.

That is not a "tactic." It was a response to a question in an interview, and was publicized by the media. That is not the way to get yourself "enlightened." If you think that actually thinking, reading, listening to more than sound bites is some strange activity of a " 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' crowd" that is unfortunate. If you had time to read a book you should read his second one, "The Assault on Reason" which explains patiently how people with your attitude are the freaking problem.

[superkia]

51. Its hard to see what you are saying, your finger in my face is...

throwing me off. I am SO sorry that I am not the same level of human being that you are, I back away from MY own opinion and submit to you master. Please don't beat me, I didn't realize that you were the almighty and that I am a problem to you and your society, please again I beg you to allow me to live even though my ignorance to your wisdom has been shown. Hopefully I will get an opportunity to read his second book so I can learn from him who HE believes are the problem in the world.

Great way to get your points across!

I will leave you alone and try not annoy you any further.

[frogcycle]

52. good

I don't mind stupidity, but I hate it when people are arrogant about it

[earth mom]

53. Stop your bullshit. Watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and educate yourself.

Don't expect others to do it for you. :eyes:


BTW, isn't that the rethuglican mantra?

[cynatnite]

5. They should be marginalized and made fun of...

for being the ignorant freaks they are.

Thank you, Mr. Gore!

[pingzing58]

7. Idiot Ben Stein was on Hannity saying he doesn't believe in Global Warming.

[Aristus]

8. That's okay with me; I don't believe in Ben Stein.

I think he's a hologram...

B-)

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Not Me! I Believe In Him

I believe he's a dolt who thinks he's smart.
The Professor

[Jeffersons Ghost]

31. While I won't debate on climate change with you professor, I WILL refute your findings now...

Ben Stein is indeed a holographic projection. :hide:

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Well, I'm A Scientist!!!! Show Me The Data!

Hey it worked for Smith, above. He got the science he demanded. Somehow i think you'll resist showing me your proof. Probably a national security thing!
The Professor

[pingzing58]

55. You are saying that you don't believe that the climate change is due to global warming so melting

ice caps?

[VOX]

56. Right on, Prof. -- Stein is an assholic provocateur. He donated to Ralph Nader's campaign in 2004

*and* to the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth."

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Ben_Stein.php

I used to think that Stein was an sharp guy, and he should know better. But looking at his political donations list and some of the worst-of-the-worst names he's given to on that, it's more than unsettling.

[Johonny]

28. The thing about scientific facts

they don't require your beliefs. They happen if you believe in them or not.

Stein doesn't believe in evolution either, think the Nazi's where atheists... or more to the point. Stein believes whatever he thinks he can sell to his public readership to make him money.

[orangerevolution]

11. Other than in passing,

Do you think that she will detail to Al the people or groups and what their research is that they are pushing that discredits global warming (or is it climate change? Not sure what term to be using.)

That way, Al can dazzle all of them and show that he has the facts.

[Beausoleil]

12. The sceptics need to be challenged

If global warming is not real (or not made-made) what will it hurt to make a few changes in how we live? It might save us some money and create jobs in the long run. It won't be like sailing over the edge of the world.

If global warming is real (and anthropogenic) and you decide to do nothing because you don't "believe" in it, how would you justify the resulting environmental destruction to your children and granchildren?

[stubtoe]

30. I've long wondered why it is so important to the deniers that climate change is NOT anthropogenic.

They might go so far as to admit it's happening, but they insist it's not caused by human activity. They just won't go there.

What is up with that?

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Because It Requires Behavior Change If It's Our Fault

I think that is human nature, in general. But, when sufficient facts are extant, we accept that behavior must change. If they can challenge the integrity of the facts, they can maintain their current behavior.
The Professor

[chromotone]

34. Maybe it has to do with corporatism

I get the feeling that global-change deniers are following the lead of certain industries who rely on fossil fuels for their existence. These would include oil companies, auto manufacturers, coal mines, railroads, and the like.

Take a look at this DU thread:
Top 100 World Economies – 51 are Corporations

Many of the corporations listed are dependent on the creation of C02.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

40. Because there is no evidance that it *is*...

[Viking12]

43. I feel sorry for your 2 little angels

They have an idiot for a daddy.

[tkmorris]

49. Read this

http://www.ipcc.ch/

This is the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from last December. I recommend reading the full report (it's a pdf, sorry), a link can be found to it on the front page.

[Firespirit]

42. I love Al, but I think he's wrong about the Dick

I think the wealthy corporate neocons know full well that global warming is real, and think it's a good thing. Global warming -- or, rather, its horrible effects -- is a way for them to commit genocide against the poorest and keep the rest in perpetual fear, totalitarianism, and wage slavery.

[frogcycle]

46. you are absolutely right on that

their view is they (their heirs) will have the "high ground" when the flooding comes and who gives a shit about the peons?

[Beausoleil]

48. True - Paraguay is landlocked! n/t