This guy is bat$^%& crazy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/al-gore-explains-why-hes-optimistic-about-stopping-global-warming/

I'll agree I do not like most of his policy prescriptions, and he does sound like a hypocrite sometimes.
However, one cannot simply disregard climate change.
The climate is changing, whether by its own, or with the help of man, it is changing. Ice is melting, seas are rising, we are seeing more extremes on both ends.
That much I think we can agree on, and the efforts should be on limiting any damage in the future to the rising seas, or loss of fresh water, or more damaging storms.

I understand Ptown, but forget about climate change. The guy can't even put together a consistent thought. He is all over the place, and is throwing out stats out of no where (Australia is not the largest coal production nation). Ezra Klein had to be laughing. Gore is nuts. There is a reason why Tipper left him.

I remember the good ol' days when the knock on Gore was how he was this really wooden guy with negative charisma. Ahhh...memories.

Yeah the guy is aloof and is an easy target. And yeah, he has spent too much time with the crazy Hollywood crowd.

Manhattan Buckeye;1489807 wrote:I understand Ptown, but forget about climate change. The guy can't even put together a consistent thought. He is all over the place, and is throwing out stats out of no where (Australia is not the largest coal production nation). Ezra Klein had to be laughing. Gore is nuts. There is a reason why Tipper left him.

What exactly was soooo incoherent? He was wrong on saying Australia was the number one producer but perhaps he meant exporter...an easy mistake to make in an unscripted interview...which is true.

in terms of proportion of production exported, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, as it exports roughly 70% of coal production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia

Other than that....what exactly came off as so "bat shit crazy" that wouldn't be agreed upon by many sober-minded climate researchers??


It is crazy to think how different the world might've ended up if Gore had won. He probably would've continued the Clinton-Era Surpluses and we would've had an even larger expansion of private debt and probably a much earlier Financial Crises/Bust. Depends on how he might've responded to the Dot-Com Bubble. I think we might not have ever recovered as he was even more small government oriented than Bill Clinton. Would've been a much different world

[LEFT]"[/LEFT]What exactly was soooo incoherent?"
[LEFT]
The entire article. Gore is just throwing together useless statistics (that he made up) and putting together big words that don't make sense. This isn't a Hollywood film.

[/LEFT]

Manhattan Buckeye;1489902 wrote:[LEFT]"[/LEFT]
What exactly was soooo incoherent?"
[LEFT]
The entire article. Gore is just throwing together useless statistics (that he made up) and putting together big words that don't make sense. This isn't a Hollywood film.

[/LEFT]

You're embellishing. Probably because he is a democrat that you don't like. Par for the course.

BoatShoes;1489906 wrote:You're embellishing. Probably because he is a democrat that you don't like. Par for the course.

No, he's not. The guy is an egotist fool, except to the extent he has made tens of millions hoodwinking complete fools into buying in to his man-made global warming myths. There are thousands of scientists who understand the false statistics and presumptions being peddled about this hoax, but you don't hear too much from them because they are shielded from MSM because they don't fit the liberal media template.

Anyone who thinks earth has not experienced significant climate changes over its existence (and for millions of years prior to man's arrival) is literally dumber than a box of rocks. Man has nothing to do with it, and man sure as hell cannot do a damn thing about it.

QuakerOats;1489915 wrote:No, he's not. The guy is an egotist fool, except to the extent he has made tens of millions hoodwinking complete fools into buying in to his man-made global warming myths. There are thousands of scientists who understand the false statistics and presumptions being peddled about this hoax, but you don't hear too much from them because they are shielded from MSM because they don't fit the liberal media template.

Anyone who thinks earth has not experienced significant climate changes over its existence (and for millions of years prior to man's arrival) is literally dumber than a box of rocks. Man has nothing to do with it, and man sure as hell cannot do a damn thing about it.

Gore seems pretty weird these days but the interview was fine as far as coherence goes based on his belief in AGW. That is the point. Even if we accept that he is an egotist fool...he was a coherent egotist fool in that interview and MB's ranting about him is silly.

The fact that you reject agw in the face of the available evidence (while also, interestingly, buy into the narrative that the media are brazenly liberal-co-conspirators when there is much less evidence for this) is irrelevant to this proposition.

BoatShoes;1489896 wrote:Other than that....what exactly came off as so "bat shit crazy" that wouldn't be agreed upon by many sober-minded climate researchers??

Maybe the fact that he compared people who think man made climate change is a joke to racists?

iclfan2;1489953 wrote:Maybe the fact that he compared people who think man made climate change is a joke to racists?

He didn't do that. He compared the changing attitudes about race...the changing attitudes about homosexuality...the changing attitudes about tobacco, etc. to the changing attitudes about agw. He mentioned how it used to be ok to say a racist joke and now it's not. It's still cool to be like QuakerOats and not believe in AGW but soon it's not going to be was the point.

"He mentioned how it used to be ok to say a racist joke and now it's not."

It wasn't just mentioning it, it was the way he did it. He made it up, do you actually think he heard about a person at a pizza parlor that was homophobic and this just sort of came out. Al Gore is clinically insane. Ezra Klein had to be laughing during the interview.

BoatShoes;1489934 wrote:
The fact that you reject agw in the face of the available evidence.

I don't think people are necessarily rejecting the idea as much rejecting the reasons and the fact that some studies were doctored.

The available evidence you talk about? Yeah, not necessarily legitimate when you have situations like this:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/new-study-shows-that-50-of-warming-claimed-by-ipcc-is-fake/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

But don't let the facts, not the made up ones, get in your way

Boatshoes, does this sound even remotely rational to you?

"[LEFT]Well, I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation. I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation."

No part of that made sense.[/LEFT]

And of course, there was 'scientific consensus' that the earth was flat too ............


Gore is just another snake oil salesman getting away with robbery because the masses are so incredibly dumbed down.

Manhattan Buckeye;1489997 wrote:No part of that made sense.

Like some day in the future some young boys growing up in the north are walking down the street on a frigid winter day, and one says "damn it's cold" and another makes a joke about global warming, and another says hey man we don't go for that anymore, and yet another tells him to shut up.

Al Gore is a certified loon.

Manhattan Buckeye;1489994 wrote:"He mentioned how it used to be ok to say a racist joke and now it's not."

It wasn't just mentioning it, it was the way he did it. He made it up, do you actually think he heard about a person at a pizza parlor that was homophobic and this just sort of came out. Al Gore is clinically insane. Ezra Klein had to be laughing during the interview.

So you agree that the interview was pretty much coherent and you just have it out for Al Gore, yes?

lhslep134;1489996 wrote:I don't think people are necessarily rejecting the idea as much rejecting the reasons and the fact that some studies were doctored.

The available evidence you talk about? Yeah, not necessarily legitimate when you have situations like this:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/new-study-shows-that-50-of-warming-claimed-by-ipcc-is-fake/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

But don't let the facts, not the made up ones, get in your way

No scientific body of international repute opposes the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming a few incidents of fraud notwithstanding. There are also cases of fraud with regards to research related to evolution and natural selection....this however does not undermine the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community related to common descent, natural selection and evolution, etc.

You're studying for the bar exam or something, yes? So, you're obviously familiar with the concept of evidence and standards of proof, yes? The overwhelming evidence, well beyond a preponderance, supports AGW and that is why scientists largely concur with the idea of AGW despite a few incidences of fraud, etc.



But don't let that get in your way.

QuakerOats;1490009 wrote:And of course, there was 'scientific consensus' that the earth was flat too ............


Gore is just another snake oil salesman getting away with robbery because the masses are so incredibly dumbed down.

Uhh, no. Read history and science.

Manhattan Buckeye;1489997 wrote:Boatshoes, does this sound even remotely rational to you?

"[LEFT]Well, I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation. I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation."

No part of that made sense.[/LEFT]

It makes perfect sense. The concept he is trying to convey is clear. One day he thinks people like QuakerOats will be shunned when they say Global Warming isn't happening. You may not like his particular manner of speech or you may disagree but it makes perfect sense. No need to exaggerate because you don't like Al Gore and think he's a loon.

QuakerOats;1490009 wrote:And of course, there was 'scientific consensus' that the earth was flat too ............


Gore is just another snake oil salesman getting away with robbery because the masses are so incredibly dumbed down.

It's interesting that you should bring that up. The people using empiricism to challenge the conventional wisdom were initially widely lampooned and challenged and then eventually it becomes common knowledge. Gore's argument is that eventually this is going to take place with regard to AGW and that the QuakerOats of the world still arguing the things that empirical investigation doesn't support will be the ones being lampooned.

BoatShoes;1490039 wrote: But don't let that get in your way.

Apparently you didn't realize that the only "fact" you posted was a graph showing the number of people's opinions one way or another and didn't contribute anything worthwhile.

lhslep134;1490054 wrote:Apparently you didn't realize that the only "fact" you posted was a graph showing the number of people's opinions one way or another and didn't contribute anything worthwhile.

You suggested that we ought to be deterred by a small amount of fraud. I posted the number of scientific organizations who concur with assessments of AGW. One might wonder why they aren't deterred by the small amount of fraud you cite. Could it be because the evidence in support of AGW outweighs any apprehensions we might have because of fraud?

Fact is not the right word to use in this context considering folks like yourself who disagree with the conclusion that is supported by the majority of the evidence. There has been countless studies done on the subject. Most have shown support for AGW and have persuaded the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. In fact, a recent study on this issue showed that 97% of the studies that take a position on the subject agree with the proposition that AGW is a real phenomenon. A miniscule amount comparatively have contained fraud.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Surely, you won't permit me calling AGW a "fact" based on this...but what is the conclusion based upon the evidence??? We should believe it's not happening because of a small amount of fraud? Should we also reject evolution, common descent and natural selection because of a small amount of fraud???

BoatShoes;1490069 wrote:
Surely, you won't permit me calling AGW a "fact" based on this...but what is the conclusion based upon the evidence??? We should believe it's not happening because of a small amount of fraud? Should we also reject evolution, common descent and natural selection because of a small amount of fraud???

I'm not afraid to admit the climate has changed, legitimate scientific evidence shows that (as you have correctly pointed out)

However, it is merely opinion that it is human caused, and that's the flaw I'm pointing out that you don't care to admit. It's not proven that it's human created. It is proven that there could be human contribution.