I warned you about it earlier. Crank science sites across the internet feature news of another cheap hit on Rachel Carson and science in movie form.
“Not Evil, Just Wrong” is slated for release on October 18. This is the film that tried to intrude on the Rachel Carson film earlier this year, but managed to to get booked only at an elementary school in Seattle, Washington — Rachel Carson Elementary, a green school where the kids showed more sense than the film makers by voting to name the school after the famous scientist-author.
The film is both evil and wrong.
Errors just in the trailer:
- Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
- ” . . . [I]t wouldn’t be a bad thing for this Earth to warm up. In fact, ice is the enemy of life.” “Bad” in this case is a value judgment — global warming isn’t bad if you’re a weed, a zebra mussel, one of the malaria parasites, a pine bark beetle, any other tropical disease, or a sadist. But significant warming as climatologists, physicists and others project, would be disastrous to agriculture, major cities in many parts of the world, sea coasts, and most people who don’t live in the Taklamakan or Sahara, and much of the life in the ocean. Annual weather cycles within long-established ranges, is required for life much as we know it. “No ice” is also an enemy of life.
- “They want to raise our taxes.” No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
- “They want to close our factories.” That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.
- The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet. Were that true, we’d have a need to halt industry now, lest we become like the yeast in the beer vat, or the champagne bottle, manufacturing alcohol until the alcohol kills the yeast. Our experience with Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Act is that cleaning the environment produces economic growth, not the other way around. A city choked in pollution dies. Los Angeles didn’t suffer when the air got cleaner. Pittsburgh’s clean air became a way to attract new industries to the city, before the steel industry there collapsed. Cleaning Lake Erie didn’t hurt industry. The claim made by the film is fatuous, alarmist, and morally corrupt.
When the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects which could be expressed in dollar terms were added up for the entire 20-year period, the total benefits of Clean Air Act programs were estimated to range from about $6 trillion to about $50 trillion, with a mean estimate of about $22 trillion. These estimated benefits represent the estimated value Americans place on avoiding the dire air quality conditions and dramatic increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and its associated state and local programs. By comparison, the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits.
- “Some of the environmental activists have not come to accept that the human is also part of the environment.” Fatuous claim. Environmentalists note that humans uniquely possess the ability to change climate on a global scale, intentionally, for the good or bad; environmentalists choose to advocate for actions that reduce diseases like malaria, cholera and asthma. We don’t have to sacrifice a million people a year to malaria, in order to be industrial and productive. We don’t have to kill 700,000 kids with malaria every year just to keep cars.
- “They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” No, that would be the film makers. Environmentalists advocate reducing filth and ignorance both. Ignorance and lack of ability to read, coupled with religious fanaticism, caused the strife known as “the Dark Ages.” It’s not environmentalists who advocate an end to cheap public schools.
- The trailer shows a kid playing in the surf on a beach. Of course, without the Clean Water Act and other attempts to keep the oceans clean, such play would be impossible. That we can play again on American beaches is a tribute to the environmental movement, and reason enough to grant credence to claims of smart people like Al Gore and the scientists whose work he promotes.
- “I cannot believe that Al Gore has great regard for people, real people.” So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all? Shame on them. And, why should anyone want to see such a film? If I want to see senseless acts of stupidity, I can rent a film by Quentin Tarantino and get some art with the stupidity. [Update, November 23, 2009: This may be one of the most egregiously false charges of the film. Gore, you recall, is the guy who put his political career and presidential ambitions on hold indefinitely when his son was seriously injured in an auto-pedestrian accident; Gore was willing to sacrifice all his political capital in order to get his son healed. My first dealings directly with Gore came on the Organ Transplant bill. Gore didn’t need a transplant, didn’t have need for one in his family, and had absolutely nothing to gain from advocacy for the life-saving procedure. It was opposed by the chairman of his committee, by a majority of members of his own party in both Houses of Congress, by many in the medical establishment, by many in the pharmaceutical industry, and by President Reagan, who didn’t drop his threat to veto the bill until he signed it, as I recall. Gore is a man of deep, human-centered principles. Saying “I can’t believe Al Gore has great regard for real people” only demonstrates the vast ignorance and perhaps crippling animus of the speaker.]
That’s a whopper about every 15 seconds in the trailer — the film itself may make heads spin if it comes close to that pace of error.
Where have we seen this before? Producers of the film claim as “contributors” some of the people they try to lampoon — people like Ed Begley, Jr., and NASA’s James E. Hansen, people who don’t agree in any way with the hysterical claims of the film, and people who, I wager, would be surprised to be listed as “contributors.”
It’s easy to suppose these producers used the same ambush-the-scientist technique used earlier by the producers of the anti-science, anti-Darwin film “Expelled!“
Here, see the hysteria, error and alarmism for yourself:
Ann McElhinney is one of the film’s producers. Her past work includes other films against protecting environment and films for mining companies. She appears to be affiliated with junk science purveyors at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an astro-turf organization in Washington, D.C., for whom she flacked earlier this year (video from Desmogblog):
Remember, too, that this film is already known to have gross inaccuracies about Rachel Carson and DDT, stuff that high school kids could get right easily.
Anyone have details on McElhinney and her colleague, Phelim McAlee?
More:
- A few sane, scientific-minded people have noted the film, too.
- Ecorazzi had some sharp words
- Update, October 12, 2009: One of movie’s producers acting badly, as Al Gore provides evidence of the movie’s errors
Related posts, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- The killer CO2 cloud climate change “skeptics” don’t want you to know about
- Monckton will lie about anything
- Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science
- Post-film premiere update, here
Please spread the word:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Ed said: “And as best I can tell, you’ve given us a list of advancing glaciers, but not growing glaciers. Hubbard might be an exception, but the glaciologists say Hubbard doesn’t contradict warming.”
Well Ed more data that doesn’t fit with your paradigm.
“Another part of global warming theory ‘topples’
Thomas Lifson
The fragile and tentative nature of climate science is once again on display, this time via “new data of novel high precision”, obtained by glacier researchers in New Zealand, utilizing radioactive isotopes in studying behavior of a glacier in that country. The New Zealand Herald reports
The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the Northern Hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.
The research argues that at times the climate in both hemispheres evolved in sync and at other times it evolved differently in different parts of the world. …
The paper published in Science magazine yesterday showed the Mt Cook glaciers advanced to their maximum length 6500 years ago, and have been smaller ever since.
But glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced to their maximum only in the past 700 years – during the Northern Hemisphere’s “Little Ice Age”, which ended about 1860.
During some warm periods in Europe, glaciers were advancing in New Zealand. At other times, glaciers were well advanced in both areas.
In a commentary which accompanied the research, Greg Balco, from the Berkeley Geochronology Centre in California, said the conclusion that glacier advances in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were not synchronised was “unexpected”.
When data are unexpected, they reveal flaws in the models being used by scientists. The models touted by Al Gore, the investor betting big bucks on carbon regulation and trading, don’t begin to capture the complexity of global climate.”
LikeLike
So, you mean that when people saying that, they are talking through their hats and not looking where they are going.
Gore makes no money from his speeches. All the fees go to charity. On his investments, also, Gore makes no money except his science is accurate — otherwise it’s fraud, and the SEC gets him the U.S. and the British equivalent gets him in the UK, and he goes to jail.
I realize now that these people are not only not so bright as they think, and woefully ill-informed, but they also lack common sense and the kind of charity a human being gives to someone who genuinely holds a contrary view. They must know at some level their charge against Gore is pure folderol, but they make it anyway, hoping everybody else has less sense than they.
Gore on the other hand demonstrates a great deal of charity (and backs it with money), and displays the courage of his convictions by investing where other investors claimed no money could be made.
What’s left after the Nobel — canonization? As you describe him, he’s on that plane.
LikeLike
Ed said: “One post you claim Gore’s a savvy investor, the next post you claim he’s not. Will you make up your mind?”
Ed it has everything to do with manipulating the system versus being a businessman or a shrewd investor. As long as Gore can control the situation greed will work for him.
LikeLike
Ed said: “One post you claim Gore’s a savvy investor, the next post you claim he’s not. Will you make up your mind?”
Ed he is a savvy investor when he can CONTROL the situation but you forgot to notice what happens if he can’t control it and the governments don’t go along with his scam. He is going to pissed when that happens and it might wipe him out.
LikeLike
Ed said: “And, even if a few glaciers are growing, that doesn’t negate warming.”
Well Ed of course not you are in denial. You forgot to include your data too.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I also expect some analysis of why CO2 fails to act like the greenhouse gas it is when you deny that there is warming, and not some junk pulled out of where the sun don’t shine.”
Ed it is becoming quit apparent that you have a serious case of rectal cranial inversion. You should get to your doctor right away and it examined before you get an infection.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I also expect some analysis of why CO2 fails to act like the greenhouse gas it is when you deny that there is warming, and not some junk pulled out of where the sun don’t shine.”
Ed you are denying what the experts are saying? But you can’t counter with your own data. Well isn’t that a double standard you have?
LikeLike
And, even if a few glaciers are growing, that doesn’t negate warming:
Some glaciers in Pakistan’s Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause.
LikeLike
And as best I can tell, you’ve given us a list of advancing glaciers, but not growing glaciers. Hubbard might be an exception, but the glaciologists say Hubbard doesn’t contradict warming.
See this post from the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska for details.
They argue that no fewer than 90% of the world’s glaciers are in global-warming-caused retreat and decline.
While that would allow more than the one I know of in Europe, 90% warming-caused decline isn’t exactly a figure you denialists should gloat over. It’s like being “just a little pregnant.”
LikeLike
One post you claim Gore’s a savvy investor, the next post you claim he’s not. Will you make up your mind?
LikeLike
I suppose that’s true. For carbon dioxide, for example, I expect a real measurement, in parts per million. You’ve offered no figure at all.
I also expect some analysis of why CO2 fails to act like the greenhouse gas it is when you deny that there is warming, and not some junk pulled out of where the sun don’t shine.
You’re right, what you’ve offered doesn’t fit my mental model of what data should be.
Nor does it fit anyone else’s model, either.
LikeLike
Ed – you are getting your butt kicked here on this website maybe you should find a new hobby, something productive would be advantagous. Pick up your little buddy Nick and see if you can find something that will keep both of you occupied.
LikeLike
So Ed you want to talk about veterans again? You seem to chose to use term when you feel it is convenient or suites your diatribe. The real truth is you don’t have clue what that means or what it is all about. Freedom isn’t free Ed so you should be wary about throwing that term around to suit your needs.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I’m not God. You have no data.”
Ed I know you’re not that is why I said you need data which you cannot produce. I’m putting mine out there but you won’t accept it. Like I said it doesn’t fit your mental model.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Gore doesn’t benefit from talking about warming… and Gore makes money if he tells the truth…”
Well not exactly Ed. Ed, either you are so naive that you believe everything Al Gore says or you just got caught with your pants down again… don’t look now Ed but your pants are down around your ankles. Don’t bend over to get the soap either.
What isn’t debatable is that Gore will gain more than most. Gore has cast his net in green technology. Potentially the most lucrative source of cash flow for Gore is his partnership in the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which this year formed two funds that will invest $1.2 billion in environmentally friendly companies. Gore is also co-founder and chairman of London-based Generation Investment Management that collaborates with Kleiner Perkins on seeking out investments in “sustainability.” He’s also invested $35 million in a hedge fund, Capricorn Investment Group, LLC, of Palo Alto, California. Founded by former eBay president Jeff Skoll (who helped bankroll An Inconvenient Truth), Capricorn invests its clients’ funds in makers of eco-friendly products.
But financial analysts say investors are not making a rational assessment of their companies’ profit-making potential. They are making a political bet as well, calculating that government regulation will help green-tech companies even though it hurts other firms.
You might remember that Al Gore said he bought carbon offsets to make up for his energy-hogging mansion in Tennessee: In 2006 – the year his movie was released – Gore’s house used about 221,000 kilowatt hours of power, more than 20 times the national average, and his electric bill was $12,000 per month.
The prospect of carbon regulation is why major corporations have latched onto Gore. He is the environmental movement’s bullhorn to the world, proclaiming the crisis of planetary warming. But the truth is that Gore also has become a bullhorn for corporations that are ready to cash in on the hysteria.
Gore, with his long history of alarmist environmental advocacy appears to be a true believer, but no one can deny that his climate cause hasn’t contributed to his growing fortune. He has a financial stake in what Congress decides about regulating greenhouse gases and is every bit as self-interested as an ExxonMobil lobbyist.
Gore and the global warming crowd are usually quick to challenge the credibility and sincerity of any scientist, climatologist or policy organization skeptical of man-made global warming. They call skeptics “shills” for Big Oil or, worse, “deniers,” invoking the term used against anti-Semites who deny the Holocaust. But they refuse to acknowledge their own growing financial interest in the carbon control industry.
These are facts Ed! Where are your facts Ed? You don’t have any?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Note the parts of her speech where she documents that opposition is not based in science, but rather is based in politics-driven propaganda theory. Had you bothered to listen, you’d note that she documents the dates and publications where warming deniers abandon science.”
Okay Ed then here are some people who don’t agree. The noted physicist Hal Lewis (emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara) and several fellow scientists, including physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin of Princton, Laurence Gould of the University of Hartford, and climate scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT, have sent to Congress. “The sky is not falling,” they write. Far from warming, “the Earth has been cooling for 10 years” — a trend that “was not predicted by the alarmists’ computer models. Then there is John Christy an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth’s atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.
Hundreds of scientists reject the alarmist narrative. For non-experts, a steadily-widening shelf of excellent books surveys the data in laymen’s terms and exposes the weaknesses in the doomsday scenario — among others, Climate Confusion by Roy W. Spencer, Climate of Fear by Thomas Gale Moore, Taken by Storm, by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick, and Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. Get busy Ed you have a lot of reading to do.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Gore’s acumen as a businessman should tell you about his ability to see trends and capitalize on them.”
Ed Gore is not a businessman – he never has been. He’s politician.
LikeLike
Ed said: “As I noted earlier, your claims about that are false. Gore doesn’t benefit from talking about warming except in the instant that he can convince people to try to save the Earth. Gore’s acumen as a businessman should tell you about his ability to see trends and capitalize on them. Warren Buffet invests the same way, and he stands to make much more money than Al Gore on such investments — and yet, you wouldn’t dream of claiming Buffet to be dishonest, or profiteering.”
Funny Ed but the facts dispute your claim. One only need look at Bore’s… uh Gore’s bank account.
LikeLike
Ed said: “So you refuse to look at the facts, Hexmate? I wish I were surprised.”
Show me some Ed and maybe you might begin to gain some integrity.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Out of all the glaciers on Earth, one is growing in mass, and that appears due to lake effect snows.”
Ed you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the behind. You are so politically tainted that you only see and believe what you want to believe. Like your statement above. Which by the way is incorrect.
Perito Moreno glacier is growing at an astounding rate of 6.6 feet per day. Interestingly Perito Moreno is not the only glacier that is growing. There are dozens of them:
NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier
CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier
France
Mt. Blanc
ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov
RUSSIA
Maali Glacier
The Hubbard Glacier near Yakutat, Alaska, for example, is growing at an even faster rate than the Perito Moreno — 7 feet per day. This glacier is growing so fast that it will soon close the Russell Fjord, thereby creating a 30-mile-long freshwater lake (the future “Russell Lake”).
LikeLike
Ed, let me help you with some things.
When global warming critics say “closing down industry” they are refering to statements such as the one by Obama – “My policies will bankrupt the coal industry.” Its a simple connection that you should be able to make.
When people say that Gore stands to profit from Global Warming issues they mean that he makes a lot of money talking and investing in global warming projects. So the more people believe in global warming, the more money Gore will make. Despite your charitable characterization of Mr. Gore, his net worth has greatly increased. I would imagine that he doesnt fly around in his private jet and give speeches for free, does he? Also, one company that he is invested in was given favourable treatment my the government over other companies. So he uses his political connections for his own financial benefit. Lets agree that his motives are not as pure as they might appear.
The most accurate description would be “global climate change” and not “global warming” since recent measurements indicate a slight decline in global temperatures over the last decade. This may be due to melting ice which may be caused by human activity.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html
The fact is that the global climate is a very complex thing and anyone who says that they can explain it all is lying. I know that human activity has negative effects on the environment. That is beyond questioning. But the significance of the effects, the consequences, and the proposed solutions can all be debated.
Consider the cap and trade bill. Some US politicians think that by increasing the cost of pollution, there will be an incentive to produce cleaner energy. This is a sound statement. But at the same time, the price of energy and goods will increase because they will cost more to make. This is effectively a tax on everyone. It makes business less competitive, atleast in the short term, and could have serious economic consequences.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml
If there is a cheaper, cleaner, and better way to make energy, then eventually it will be accepted. But politicians should be careful about manipulating the market to create manufactured demand.
Innovation will occur with or without goverment intervention. The question becomes whether or not innovation will come soon enough to avoid serious global changes. This is where Al Gore and his buddies are needed to incite fear in people. If people are patient, then they will wait for the innovation to occur. If people are afriad, they will allow politicians to “do whats right.”
LikeLike
global warming is a fraud, cap and trade is a HUGE scam and so is Al Gore, evil scumbag/
LikeLike
Oreskes studies history. She has no hypothesis about warming, but she records what scientists say and do, and when. As she notes, in much of the history of science that I lived doing air pollution research, there is broad consensus about air pollution causing massive problems. This science was a key and keen driver of the Clean Air Act, its small-step predecessors and its amendments since.
If you find nothing there of use, you are, as Santayana warned, doomed to repeat the grotesque errors of history.
Some people don’t know history, and repeat the blunders out of ignorance; some people think they know history, and repeat the blunders out of hubris (Hitler invading Russia on the same day Napoleon invaded puts a spotlight on that type of error); those who refuse to study what is laid out before them get no immunity from Orpheus or any other god that protects them from the errors of history.
So you refuse to look at the facts, Hexmate? I wish I were surprised.
Note the parts of her speech where she documents that opposition is not based in science, but rather is based in politics-driven propaganda theory. Had you bothered to listen, you’d note that she documents the dates and publications where warming deniers abandon science.
If one is not concerned with people, with the future of the Earth we leave to our children and grandchildren, then any politically-driven position on science is as good as another. Those who don’t believe in ethics are doubly doomed if they don’t know history, I believe.
Out of all the glaciers on Earth, one is growing in mass, and that appears due to lake effect snows.
You state a point of science that you claim would make the case, but you deny all the data. Sen. Patrick Moynihan said that we are entitled to our opinions about the facts, but we are not entitled to our own private set of facts. I think he was right.
Significant history on three points: One, it shows that science has been subverted, to the harm of millions of individuals and society as a whole, in the past. Two, it demonstrates the methodology by which public relations can be used to cover up the facts, to hide the truth from innocent citizens, and to convince them to act contrary to their own good and the good of the greater community. Three, it demonstrates that many of the early deniers consciously adopted those tactics fully aware that they were acting contrary to science, and counting that they could find a group of sheep-like people who would follow them fervently over the cliff.
Lessons there, for the alert and wary.
As I noted earlier, your claims about that are false. Gore doesn’t benefit from talking about warming except in the instant that he can convince people to try to save the Earth. Gore’s acumen as a businessman should tell you about his ability to see trends and capitalize on them. Warren Buffet invests the same way, and he stands to make much more money than Al Gore on such investments — and yet, you wouldn’t dream of claiming Buffet to be dishonest, or profiteering.
Gore makes money if he tells the truth, in a highly regulated industry where not revealing all the facts is considered reason enough for a court to take away all profits, and where criminal sanctions tend to catch up to high-fliers without facts. In addition to Gore’s businesses being regulated fully by the SEC and FTC, anything he does in the area of protecting against global warming is regulated by the CFTC and even EPA.
Do you have a case? You are obligated to take that information to your local U.S. attorney and the CFTC.
You haven’t made any case at all here, and we can tell from your bluster that you have no case to make.
How, do you claim, would Al Gore make any money from his advocacy for environmental protection? He’s already donated his Nobel prize money, and any profits from his award-winning film.
Make a case, if you can.
>blockquote>In addition there are huge sums of money to be made off this hypothesis so these people are no different than the people who worked for RJR.
Clean air is beneficial, but making money off of cleaning up the environment requires a lot of hard work. On the other hand, stealing clean air is also very profitable, and that’s what you’re arguing for.
Hard work on one hand, larceny on the other. Why are you arguing for larceny? And aren’t you blushing at least a little when you do?
I’m not God. You have no data.
The article at the top of this thread discusses on small area of gross error by the makers of this film, their bizarre claims about DDT. Each of their claims is amply documented to be in error.
If the rest of their film is as wrong, it’s difficult to tell if they mean it as a parody. No one defends “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” as historical, nor as an alternative reading of scripture. But the makers of that film also did not make gross charges against the accuracy of scripture nor campaign to kill churches.
I’m having a difficult time finding any reason to grant your claims credence. Can you make an argument based on fact? We have not seen it yet.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The warming is indisputable.”
No Ed it is disputable, but it doesn’t fit your mental model so you can’t accept anything else.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Listen to Oreskes’ lecture.”
Sorry Ed, there are no facts presented here, or wherever you wanted me go read this about Oreskes’ hypothesis about global warming; along with the fact that it is supposedly man made. Her survey data is now out of date because the number of people who believe that global warming is real has slipped from 72% to 57%. If global warming were the case then all of the glaciers would be melting and there would be many other significant data points to present that would support this claim. She spends a lot of time discrediting those who oppose her view and does so based on a diatribe about their work for RJR. I find that consistent with the association with Al Gore and his work to enrich himself from global warming theory to the point he is now worth $100 million. In addition there are huge sums of money to be made off this hypothesis so these people are no different than the people who worked for RJR. So as my VP used to say, in God we trust; all others please bring data. That means you Ed.
LikeLike
Listen to Oreskes’ lecture. She details the propaganda effort to hoodwink people into thinking there is no warming, just as they hoodwinked people into thinking cigarette smoking was not a health issue.
The warming is indisputable. The only issue among scientists is the degree to which human actions are responsible. Of course, if one denies that warming occurs at all, one is ethically disqualified from the second discussion.
Listen to Oreskes’ lecture.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Did you have a point to make in favor of allowing warming to continue?”
There is no global warming Ed. That’s just your wet diaper you are wearing. Get it changed! Now do you have some point to make because thus far you haven’t PROVEN anything.
LikeLike
Nick said: “*Yawns* let me know when you have something intelligent to say, Hex, instead of stupid conspiracy theories and ad hominen attacks that don’t even work. Sorry, did you think you were insulting me? You simply don’t have the ability or the intelligence to pull that off. You’re the child here, you’re the one arguing from sheer stupidity with no actual evidence to back your whackjob claims.”
Nick don’t yawn like that. Nick you haven’t said anything intelligent in any post you have put up, now have you? Obviously you have a very high opinion of yourself without facts, data, or proof to back it up. I haven’t made any claims I just asked you to provide data that support your theory but you have none. So when you are done pontificating and are ready to display some intelligence I’m ready to look at it. Let’s see how smart you are boy!
LikeLike
*Yawns* let me know when you have something intelligent to say, Hex, instead of stupid conspiracy theories and ad hominen attacks that don’t even work. Sorry, did you think you were insulting me? You simply don’t have the ability or the intelligence to pull that off. You’re the child here, you’re the one arguing from sheer stupidity with no actual evidence to back your whackjob claims.
LikeLike
Did you have a point to make in favor of allowing warming to continue?
You should watch this:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/naomi-oreskes-the-lecture-lord-monckton-slept-through-which-he-hopes-you-will-not-see/
LikeLike
Nick said: “I’m 34, child. Been living on my own for a long time. I just consider you a brainless idiot and see no reason to treat you with any respect or even as an adult. You’re a sociopathic liar and an idiot. Time for you to go away now.”
Nick I didn’t know you were that demented. Usually, once you reach that age, you can demonstrate a higher level of maturity which leads me to believe you are lying or have serious behavioral problems that are preventing you from reaching full maturity. Have your mom and dad take you to see the doctor. Your accusation is rather amusing but correlates directly with the malady you are suffering from. It is interesting to observe the one demonstrating bad behavior try to turn the blame on to the other individual in order to protect them or set up a defensive shield. Nick I am not going away so you can relax. Now you 2 are going to be late for school if you’re not careful…don’t forget your lunch!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Hexmate, we converse with adults. We toy with you. Denialists are so predictable. Faced with facts, they turn to insult. Nick, I may post a “Do not feed the trolls” sign.”
Ed really – you converse with adults? You may post but you do not have the maturity necessary to actually carry on a conversation as evidence by your behavior. You don’t toy with me boy… I’m having a blast here!
I love it… denialists? Doesn’t it take one to know one Ed? Sure it does!
Wow the children are so creative with troll signs – Ha! What are you guys dressing up as for Halloween? Star Wars characters or Beavis and Butthead?
LikeLike
I’m 34, child. Been living on my own for a long time. I just consider you a brainless idiot and see no reason to treat you with any respect or even as an adult. You’re a sociopathic liar and an idiot. Time for you to go away now.
LikeLike
Hexmate, we converse with adults.
We toy with you.
Denialists are so predictable. Faced with facts, they turn to insult.
Nick, I may post a “Do not feed the trolls” sign.
LikeLike
Hey Nick and Ed. Do your parents know you are on the internet playing with adults? I mean both of you can’t be more than 16 years old.
LikeLike
Nick said: “Do you like being purposely stupid and disingenous, Hex?
Hey Nick I would have to ask you the same question – so do you? Oh and it is Hexmate Nick.
LikeLike
Whoa Ed is back – recesss over Ed?
Ed said: “Your refusal to stick to the facts is unbecoming.”
Ed the facts are that your lack of facts, data, proof, etc., etc., or anything else relevant to the topic is an abysmal farce.
LikeLike
Nick said: “I never said, you twit, that Gore invented the internet. And that’s not what he said either. What he said was that he was on the Senate Committee that provided the funding for it go from being ARAPANET which belonged to the US military only to the internet which belongs to us all.”
Nick, you are so articulate. That would be correct though, Gore didn’t invent the internet he discovered it. He invented global warming for his own personal gain. Ya got it now?
LikeLike
Nick said: “And you still haven’t figured out a way to get past these two points: 99% of the world’s leading scientific experts in this area agree that global warming is a real thing. And 2: What if you’re wrong?”
So Nick did you go out and do a statiscal survey (99%) in order to determine this number? I’d like to see your data. It would be nice to see you guys back up some these statistics with data. More importantly Nick is what if you’re wrong?
LikeLike
Nick said: “Are you being purposely stupid or is it that you’re just a sociopathic liar?”
No Nick this would be your area of expertise. You can get help for this malady you know?
LikeLike
I never said, you twit, that Gore invented the internet. And that’s not what he said either. What he said was that he was on the Senate Committee that provided the funding for it go from being ARAPANET which belonged to the US military only to the internet which belongs to us all.
Are you being purposely stupid or is it that you’re just a sociopathic liar?
And you still haven’t figured out a way to get past these two points: 99% of the world’s leading scientific experts in this area agree that global warming is a real thing. And 2: What if you’re wrong?
LikeLike
You stop trying to sell us excrement from bulls, we’ll noted it. But until then, we’ll call the stuff for what it is.
No one is trying to close down industry. As I’ve indicated at some length in this thread — to which you have been absolutely nonresponsive — our experience is that cleaner air is good for business, not bad.
Now, do you have a response that is more than effluent from bulls?
LikeLike
Your refusal to stick to the facts is unbecoming.
LikeLike
Go to http://www.globalclimatescam.com and watch all the clips. Then watch this one (from somebody who actually has a phd, something I can not say about mr. Al): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=PlayList&p=A2DA7F33E2B09673&index=0 (all 4 parts). Then there’s another thing. Go read the climate change treaty. It’s a tax and people like Al Gore will profit from it. Global warming and cooling is linked solely to the sun, this has been proven by scientific research. Wake up!!
And please, stop writing articles without motivating your point of view, but just simply saying the statements made come out of a bovine anus.
LikeLike
Nick said: “Get off this asinine notion of yours that because CO2 is a thing of nature and necessary for life that it can’t possibly ever be life threatening.”
Nick I think you are really getting off on this stuff – that’s scary man, or boy, or whatever you are.
LikeLike
Nick said: “He (Gore) was on the Senate committee, you moron, that provided the funding necessary to turn ARAPNET (as it was then known) into the internet.”
Okay Nick if you say so we’ll let Gore discover the internet, and then that will confirm that he invented global warming too. This gets better all the time.
LikeLike
Nick said: “Really? Ok lets test that theory. Go stay in a room in which there is nothing but CO2.”
Really Nick? That is an interesting experiment now isn’t it? However that is all it is – a manipulated or staged experiment. Nothing natural about or related to the real world in any way, shape, or form. Now why don’t you go do something productive for a change.
LikeLike
Nick said: “Do you like being purposely stupid and disingenous, Hex?”
Nick I’m not doing any of those things. Do you like being a fraud and a fake along with being a purveyor of a scam? Grow up Nick and get a real job! Some day somebody might respect you for it.
LikeLike
Hexmate writes:
Ed said: Gore never claimed he invented the internet. He claimed exactly what he did…
Your right Ed. He said he discovered the internet… he invented global warming!
He was on the Senate committee, you moron, that provided the funding necessary to turn ARAPNET (as it was then known) into the internet.
Do you like being purposely stupid and disingenous, Hex?
LikeLike
NEWS FLASH: CO2 is NOT a poison, not a pollutant;[do you work for the EPA?] it is essential for life. Break out your high school biology text.
Really? Ok lets test that theory. Go stay in a room in which there is nothing but CO2.
Is CO2 essential for life? Yeah…..in moderation. But that’s the key. If there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere you, me and every other human on the planet are going to be risking our healths and our lives.
Get off this asinine notion of yours that because CO2 is a thing of nature and necessary for life that it can’t possibly ever be life threatening.
LikeLike
Ed said: CO2 is poisonous and a pollutant, both. For example, see here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/killer-co2-cloud-the-story-climate-change-skeptics-hope-you-wont-read/……
Ed what do you do really? This is all fecal matter without and scientific backing just links to a bunch of psycho science babble. You can do better than that. Well may you can’t!
LikeLike
Ed said: Gore never claimed he invented the internet. He claimed exactly what he did…
Your right Ed. He said he discovered the internet… he invented global warming!
LikeLike
SDCougar said:
My point there is that we have heard the same argument against regulation of each pollutant, and it has been wrong each time. Cleaning the particulates didn’t break up industry. Cleaning SO2 and NOx didn’t break industry. Banning chloroflurocarbons didn’t stop the production of all refrigerators as business interests promised.
Cleaning CO2 isn’t going to require the cessation of all industry, either, especially if we use the ideas put forth by people like Freeman Dyson, using good alternatives to effectively sequester carbon from the air.
You keep forgetting that I used to do research in this topic; for this part, you should know I was the assistant for the graduate level class.
And see my previous post. I think it’s likely you don’t understand what a pollutant is (a substance out of place), nor how CO2 works.
I really hate it when people lecture me on history and get it dead wrong.
Gore never claimed he invented the internet. He claimed exactly what he did — he saved ARPANET from being dismantled; ARPANET became the internet. The first Reagan budget proposed to kill all development. Gore realized what a disaster that would be, and he stopped it in Congress. Gore alone understood, and he personally made the pitches where it counted.
You’re an ingrate for trying to ridicule the guy who makes possible all your internet cruising.
Grace Moore didn’t invent the computer, either, but we all owe her a great debt for the advances she made.
A 20-foot rise in sea level is at the low end of predictions if the Greenland ice sheet goes. You’re aware, I hope, that the action in Greenland is now running much faster than predicted, and Gore’s low-end estimate may be low.
Next year? No. Sooner than Gore predicted? Good chance of that. Of course, you’d have to pay attention to what Gore said to know when he said it might occur. That’s more research than most “skeptics” are willing to do.
Heartland Institute is an industry astro-turf organization. Everything they say should be taken with several grains of salt.
This guy is not censored, I note, nor has anything bad happened to him. It’s a bit odd to claim he’s scared and slandered, by pointing to a very public statement of his.
Ultimately, Lindzen’s piece sounds as if it could have been written by Sir Frederick Hoyle in 1970. Hoyle became a master at stopping short of calling Wilson and Penzias quacks for their find of the confirmation of Big Bang; and Hoyle never would admit that Steady State was wrong. His last few interviews became quite sad, though, because he understood that his view had lost out — not because of politics, but because the universe didn’t arise the way Hoyle claimed, and ultimately the universe refused to cooperate to cover up its own tracks.
Truth wins. Robust debate is good. Especially you should read Lindzen’s paragraph about the evils of argument from authority.
Did you notice? Each of your arguments is an argument from authority.
We still don’t have to poison the planet to keep industry going. Clean air and clean water have their benefits that we should not ignore. Stopping warming would be a good thing, too.
And why should we not argue from authority? You keep claiming Gore is bad at science — but you’re ignoring history. Gore was right about ARPANET. Gore was right about organ transplant drugs, and registries of people who need and people who can donate organs. Gore was right about orphan drugs. Gore was right about the Superfund, and he was right about the Clean Water Act Amendments and Clean Air Act Amendments.
Gore’s record on science policy issues has been solidly in the right for more than 30 years. Authority? Gore has it.
Oddly, Gore argues the facts. Maybe that’s why he’s right so much, and so good an authority.
LikeLike
CO2 is poisonous and a pollutant, both. For example, see here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/killer-co2-cloud-the-story-climate-change-skeptics-hope-you-wont-read/
and here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/climate-skeptic-shell-game-please-dont-read-how-co2-amplifies-warming/
and here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/can-carbon-dioxide-be-classed-as-a-pollutant/
LikeLike
From critique of movie “5. The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet.”
NEWS FLASH: CO2 is NOT a poison, not a pollutant;[do you work for the EPA?] it is essential for life. Break out your high school biology text.
And as for the claim the Al Gore got the science right!…20 foot rise in sea level? Hockey stick that left out the medieval warm period? A graph going backwards in time at one point!? Yup, Al Gore, the nations chief scientist and inventor of the internet….making millions on his British hedgefund with the carbon credit scam.
You want to understand why so many scientists are reluctant to speak out? Read this by a world class Professor of Meteorology at MIT who has been slandered time and again.
Click to access lindzen.pdf
LikeLike
“SDCougar, the interview Margaret Warner was a little more nuanced than your quote would allow — nor was her statement challenged by the UN guy.”
Nuanced? It was a flat, catagorcial statement.
And WHY wuould you expect the guy from the UN to challenge it?? He believes the same thing!
And to Ed, yes, Christy opposes the IPCC report and that’s not hard to find out. He had a debate last Feb. opposing it. And he is not the only IPCC member to speak up:
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science… I have found examples of a Summary saying
precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”– Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author
“.One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a nobrainer.”– Richard Lindzen, Alfed P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT; UN IPCC
What do you think of Claude Allegre’s current view on global warming?(YAHOO Qs)
Claude Allegre was one of France’s top AGW alarmists, and one of the first French scientists to voice concerns over global warming. He wrote on the dangers of burning fossil fuels and rising CO2 levels.
He’s changed his mind though, and now sees global warming as “over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank”.
He’s also said that “there is no basis for saying, as most do, that the science is settled” and that “the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena.”
LikeLike
I find it poetic that the propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth” is being challenged by some inconvenient actual truths.
LikeLike
SDCougar, the interview Margaret Warner was a little more nuanced than your quote would allow — nor was her statement challenged by the UN guy. Here’s a big chunk of the interview, from the transcript:
[There’s more at the News Hour site.
LikeLike
While I usually admire Bill Moyers’s work, that piece about Carson has some serious problems.
For example, it cites Roger Bate. Bate is neither an unbiased nor an expert player, but is instead a tobacco lobbyist astroturf creator — his organization has no members, is funded by industries trying to promote a pro-smoking lobby, and of the millions he has bragged about collecting, not a dime has gone to fight malaria. (Start here to get the lowdown on Bate: https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/bated-breath-bated-brains-bated-sense-and-ddt/).
Second, it accepts without question the claim that Carson’s science was not top notch in Silent Spring. That’s pure poppycock. As I have challenged others in this thread, show me the science claim Carson made that has not borne up over time. There simply are none of any import. She was right on all major points, and there has never been a peer-review science paper published that questioned anything she wrote.
On the other hand, there is zero support for the uncharitable, crabby view of Carson that claims her book was overinfluential and somehow persuaded African leaders to allow millions of their people to die — a racist claim at root that assumes Africans are the stupidest and most complacent peoples on Earth.
So I wonder what you mean when you say that the Rachel Carson inaccurately described in the film “is true.” That short piece on Moyers’s site does not support such a claim.
The facts are that Carson was dead right about DDT. She accurately forecast that if agricultural overuse were not stopped, mosquitoes and other pests would become resistant or immune to DDT — she documented that bedbugs had already become mostly immune at that time (but was that in the book? Hmmm. I’ll have to check.).
Carson urged the use of integrated pest management. That is what is being used with great effect to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes in Africa now. Had we only listened, 40 years earlier when she told us, how many millions of lives could have been saved?
If Gore’s net worth climbed so precipitously — and I know it was much higher than $2 million before — it’s not due to the movie, from which his share of profits went to charity. Gore is an extremely savvy businessman, one of the brightest guys I’ve ever worked with. Odd that the normally free-market types who despise science and Rachel Carson would begrudge a guy making money in a free market.
But with Carson critics, I find that ethical consistency is something they prefer to criticize in others, and not something they care to live up to.
LikeLike
The Rachel Carson about DDT described in the film IS TRUE… Link from Bill Moyers of PBS fame:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/profile2.html
Glad someone is finally making a film to refute Gore’s Convenient Inconvenient Truth. I hear his net worth has climbed from about $2 million to over $70 million since his movie. VERY convenient indeed.
LikeLike
SDCougar:
1. John R. Christy’s views are considered in the IPCC report — he’s one of NASA’s guys. While some portray him as a “skeptic,” he also worked on the team from the American Geophysical Union which adopted this position statement:
Do you have some information which suggests he opposes the IPCC report?
2. The words attributed to Itoh, I can’t find listed for him. Are you sure that is a quote from him?
Among quotes I can find is this one, which suggests his views may not be as contrary to IPCC as portrayed in your post:
LikeLike
Oh, I forgot this:
http://desoggybog.com/index.php
LikeLike
The big problem with the non-debate is that so many people are, understandably, misled by the news media. On Sept. 18 on the PBS NewHour, Margaret Warner stated that: “this huge team of scientists from all over the globe issued these unanimous warnings about the really extreme danger to the planet.”
This, of course, is balderdash. She obviously does not do her homework or lives completely inside that little incestuous bubble of the news media.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
– Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg, NOAA
Dr. John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, a lead author on IPCC report–“Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that. This is an extremely complex system, and thinking we can control it is hubris.” [THIS is the most important fact of the whole issue].
DR. CHRISTOPHER W. LANDSEA, UN IPCC author, NOAA–““I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”–withdrew from IPCC, along with several others that said the same thing.
UN IPCC Japanese Scientist DR. KIMINORI ITOH–“The worst scientific scandal in the history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Meteorologist HAJO SMIT, former member of the Dutch IPPC Committee–“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again, and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can, at best, be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”
Climatologist DR. ROBERT E. DAVIS, UN IPCC–“Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts — in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists.”
DR. RICHARD TOL, Author of three UN IPCC Working Groups–“Warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu.”
DR. PHILIP LLOYD, UN IPCC lead author–“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil.”
6
“I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
This is only the tip of the iceberg [Global warming can’t melt these away…and you wonder who hawks ‘junk science’!]
LikeLike
Al Gore said that a 20 foot rise in sea level is what would happen if “Greenland broke up”. Of course, that’s silly because Greenland is the world’s largest island, not an ice floe. Regardless, Greenland used to be green, and in fact it was called Greenland to encourage immigration. It was a flourishing farm land, colonized by the Vikings until abandoned around 1450.
Gore says that in the past 650,000 years. atmospheric CO2 had never gone above 300 ppm, and linked this rise to temperature. He said, “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.” Then he said with respect to the ice core data, that “within less than 50 years” CO2 will be “off the chart”. So putting two and two together, Gore says that the climate will be warmer than at any time in the last 650,000 years, so Greenland will have lost its ice sheet (again), and that that will happen in less than 50 years.
Is that not “in the very near future”? On the scale of the climate, it is nearly instantaneous. Only supervolcano eruptions and meteor impacts have had so sudden an impact on climate, and they didn’t last the 30 years required to declare a climate change and not a weather event.
The trailer to “Not evil, just wrong” did not put quotation marks around “in the very near future” and attribute the words to Gore as Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub blog did. The phrase was the opinion of an anonymous voice, and it was not off the mark. MFB blog has misrepresented both the trailer and Inconvenient Truth, and with the latter, Al Gore.
As a postscript, the ice core data are measured inside a CO2 sink, while the 300 ppm figure is measured in the plume of a huge CO2 source. The combined polar sinks and the source circulate 15 times as much CO2 as man emits. The sink should not be compared to the source, and the source should not be attributed to man.
Gore relied on an erroneous comparison of CO2 to conclude something about an unprecedented temperature. Earth’s temperature can be estimated reliably inside the CO2 sink because the estimate relies on the oxygen isotopic ratio, and oxygen is poorly absorbed in the ocean so tends to be global. The same ice core record which Gore reproduced and relied on shows that the present temperature of Earth is below the maximum reached four previous times in the last half million years. Earth has about 1ºC to 3ºC to go to match the record, and that is due to natural causes. The ice core record and the thermometer records show that we might not make it.
Next, the greenhouse effect warms but does not regulate Earth’s climate. Earth’s albedo does the regulating, and it switches between the frozen surface albedo in the ice ages to cloud albedo in the warm state, like the present.
Finally from this little sampler of Gore’s errors, the atmosphere does not trap heat. Heat cannot be trapped. Heat is the flow of energy from warmer to colder bodies, and heat ends when the temperature equilibrates.
See http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com for further explanations or argument.
LikeLike
Ed who are you really?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Read some of the stuff, get some knowledge, let it become wisdom, and stop your nasty attack on a good man for no particular reason, especially considering Carter has nothing to do with the science Nobels, and your bizarre implicit claim that Nobel science winners are evil or worthless.”
Well Ed I think it would be wise for you to read some of the stuff as you put it and get some knowledge.
Ed since you you want to continue this charade related to Jimmy Carter then I’ll be glad to carry on with it. Let’s address Carter’s gubernatorial campaign first in order to establish his use of racism to get elected.
A flier was sent to barber and beauty shops, in envelopes addressed by me, when Jimmy Carter ran against Carl Sanders in the l970 Georgia gubernatorial campaign. It is racist. Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s friend and long time associate, created it. In my naïveté (I was 20), I didn’t consider the racism, instead, it was a great way to score a win against the Republican candidate. Get that? Accusing the Republican candidate of cavorting with blacks. Reverse racism?
The flier is only a historic footnote. It shows the complexity of Jimmy Carter’s character. Hans von Spakovsky, posting on The National Review Online, comments on the same. In l956 Carter attempted to halt construction of a new black school, reacting to the segregationists who wanted to keep black and white children apart.
Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1818-Denver-Election-Reform-Examiner~y2009m9d18-President-Carter-racism-is-complex-remember
Then we can continue on a few more facts with regard to Carter’s acts of racism.
As Jimmy Carter portrays conservatives as violent racists, it’s worth remembering Carter’s own history of racial demagoguery. Carter campaigned for governor of Georgia as a self-proclaimed “redneck,” in an era when that word had pronounced racial connotations. His campaign distributed a photo of his gubernatorial opponent Carl Sanders being embraced by black basketball players to a Ku Klux Klan rally. Carter pledged to invite Alabama’s infamous segregationist George Wallace to Georgia if elected. He once said he was “proud” to have the equally segregationist Lester Maddox as his lieutenant governor following the 1970 election, calling Governor Axe-handle “the essence of the Democratic Party” (which he was).
Now let’s take a look at his presidential years.
Without Carter’s policies, the Iran-Iraq war would not have raged for nearly a decade; the United States would not have had to form an unsavory alliance of convenience with Saddam Hussein, in order to hem in the mullahs; Hezbollah would not receive $100-$200 million a year from Tehran’s coffers; al-Qaeda would not have received training in Iran in 1992; and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if they existed, would be of no consequence to the West whatsoever.
Jimmy Carter’s presidency was the lowest point of American prestige in modern history. The missteps he made during those critical years continue to threaten the United States and the West.
Average gas prices more than doubled during Carter’s presidency, reaching $1.25 a gallon by election day 1980, or roughly $3.00 a gallon today. Carter’s price controls gave us gas lines, shortages, and rationing. Prices continued to rise until Reagan abolished price controls by executive order. Rather than stand up to OPEC during the 1979 gas crisis, Carter cracked down on the American auto industry, and blamed the American people for their “crisis of confidence” in his incompetent leadership.
President Carter’s economic genius created the situation that, by 1980, interest rates stood at 21 percent, inflation at 13.5 percent, unemployment at 7 percent, and the “misery index” he coined during the 1976 campaign reached 20.5 percent.
Then lets take a look at some of his the bumbling mistakes his has made once he left office and again these are facts. During his 1994 trip to North Korea, Carter found time to bolster the image of the Stalinist enclave, saying he didn’t see anyone starving, and the well-stocked groceries of Pyongyang reminded him of the “Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia.” Soon, he worked out agreement to give Pyongyang 500,000 metric tons of oil, tons of grain, and a light-water nuclear reactor – and he pressed the Clinton administration for a weaker agreement yet. The unverifiable agreement Carter designed allowed North Korea to develop as many as half-a-dozen nuclear weapons – which he now blames on George W. Bush.
However, it was during the Clinton administration that his personal diplomacy reached its zenith. Carter writes that, in 1994, when North Korea began threatening to build nuclear weapons, he left on negotiations “with the approval of President Bill Clinton. Clinton allowed Carter to visit, after Al Gore pushed for the trip. However, as President Bill Clinton tried to convince Pyongyang all options were on the table including a military response, Carter “unilaterally” promised that even economic sanctions would not be forthcoming. When asked about this discrepancy, President Clinton told reporters, “None of us have talked directly with President Carter. We don’t know what he said.” For once, Bill Clinton sounded believable. Carter’s behavior in North Korea led a Clinton administration Cabinet member to call him a “treasonous prick.”
Ed this guy is great all right; he is great at screwing up anything he touches.
LikeLike
You global warming alarmists are scared because people aren’t just buying your crap. You complain about a non-scientists movie ABOUT a non-scientists movie? That’s rich. You prove our point, THE SCIENCE JUST IS NOT THERE, either way. 20 years ago all I heard was that we were entering another ICE AGE. How did that work out? When they can tell me the weather next week to any degree of accuracy then I will maybe listen, but they can’t tell me what the weather will be tomorrow, 24 hours from now. Besides, New York city used to be covered under twenty feet of ice. What melted that ice floe, caveman fires? The facts are simple, we have an extremely incomplete picture of how weather works. We certainly cannot predict a hundred years into the future, and all your whining doesn’t make a single one of your catastrophic claims true. Waa waa waa, there’s no consensus on global warming, scientific or otherwise.
LikeLike
Richard, please cite any single issue upon which Carson was wrong. I can find no place where she erred.
Molly, I’ve only addressed the errors in the trailer, which I’ve gone over many times.
Also, as you can read in other comments, the judge in England did NOT rule on scientific accuracy, only on the British version of the fairness doctrine — and the judge tossed out 26 of the complaints.
No science errors in Gore’s film.
Where does that leave Philim and McAleer? Not sitting well.
LikeLike
Guess what Rachel Carson was just flat out wrong. And as far as global warming now climate change (notice the name change, so if global cooling occurs they will still look right) anybody who believes this crap is an idiot. Go look at real scientists not Al Gore and the idiots he flies around with.
LikeLike
9. “So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all?”
How can we really know Al Gore if he will not take questions? It is not so difficult. What exactly does he fear? If he doesn’t know the answer, all he has to do is say so. No big deal. People, in general, will accept and even respect an answer of: “I don’t know, but I will find out.” I use this answer when necessary as I run my real estate brokerage. I do the necessary research and then report back to my client. No big deal. Four years with no questions, excepting those softball pitches. Come on. Answer the questions, Al. Give me a reason to take you seriously. I won’t put a moratorium on my brain just because Al says I should take him for what he says and not question.
LikeLike
How about all the people who believe this documentary to be a farce, reserve comment until they have actually watched it. All these comments are benign until people know precisely what information the documentary presents. If the children of our future are to be critical thinkers, we need to present both sides of the argument. I was furious when An Inconvenient Truth was shown to my son without permission and without any consideration for the other side of the debate. I confronted the teacher with the fact that the High Court of London ruled that the film could only be shown if the 9 alleged errors concerning the film were addressed. She didn’t even know about the case. To top it off, Al Gore won’t take questions. What kind of fool cannot elaborate on his theories in public? After four years, one would think Mr. Gore could answer a few questions from those who disagree with him. The fact that he could not, only substantiates the opposing view.
LikeLike
That’s funny, Stewart. Got a link to a news story about the event and non-attendees?
LikeLike
Good news! NEJW opened in Calgary this week (the home of Canada’s oil businesses) and NO people attended. That’s right. 0. Zero (en Francais). Nada.
That’s the attention it deserves. Even Monckton got about 7 geriatric attendees. Meanwhile, our very conservative government is cntinuing to plan for the loss of glacial meltwater over the next 50 years, and funding carbon capture technologies. Scientific feedback can make you do things you don’t want to admit to, I guess.
LikeLike
Also see The American Experience biography of Carter. Also see the Nobel Foundation’s biography of Carter, which includes a list of the many places he’s been called to mediate a peace.
And remember, that’s just a refutation of the bizarre claims you made in a post that confused the Nobel Peace Prize with the Nobels in Chemistry, Physics and Medicine, in which you sought to denigrate the science awards by claiming winners of Peace Prize were nasty people, as if there were some connection.
The guy who said there is more stupidity in the universe than hydrogen might have been right. Why is stupid so often coupled with proud ignorance and an ugly mean streak?
Read some of the stuff, get some knowledge, let it become wisdom, and stop your nasty attack on a good man for no particular reason, especially considering Carter has nothing to do with the science Nobels, and your bizarre implicit claim that Nobel science winners are evil or worthless.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I know my manners well enough to understand that insult isn’t argument. How many posts without facts are you shooting for? Your goal is too high.”
Ed you should start practicing what you preach here. You have managed to contribute your fair share of insults up to this point.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Carter, who was a relatively successful governor who promoted anti-racism as in Georgia, among other things created the weapons we’ve used for the wars we’ve had in the Middle East over the past two decades. You owe a great debt to that man, especially if you’re a veteran.”
Ed you better check your facts again about Carter. He ran using a racist ad campaign, remember the Pickwick and Lester Maddox? Don’t believe me – it is a documented fact so go look it up. You don’t teach history do you Ed? You get funnier every time you post Ed. The ramble you made about the Middle East weapons is unintelligible, and Jimmy Carter never jack squat for me as a veteran. You beating this Jimmy Carter thing to death – he is a big fat zero, always was and always will be.
LikeLike
Truth? When have you offered any support for your slanders against Carter? Never.
Truth is fine, but really, quit with the slanders, especially those you don’t have any support for. I can’t tell if it’s because you genuinely don’t have the sense to support your claims, or if it’s because you’re just vicious. But stop it, please.
Carter, who was as relatively successful governor who promoted anti-racism as in Georgia, among other things created the weapons we’ve used for the wars we’ve had in the Middle East over the past two decades. You owe a great debt to that man, especially if you’re a veteran.
Gratitude doesn’t appear to be a virtue you possess.
I know my manners well enough to understand that insult isn’t argument. How many posts without facts are you shooting for? Your goal is too high.
LikeLike
Ed, you need to get a checkup, your brain isn’t firing on all cylinders. I never said anything of the sort. What a joke, you can’t even get non GW related facts correct.
LikeLike
Ed said: Some of us think that oath binds for life. You insult fellow vetarans. Shame on you again.
Better yet Ed we’ll compare notes and we can talk about similar experiences we had in war and what that means. You know, band of brother stuff!
LikeLike
Nick said: You mean like Bush’s even greater ineptness?
Let’s see Nick… last time I checked Iraq is free! From a dictatorship to a free government just like you have Nick. Are you jealous that they have freedom Nick? Wow that is ironic considering what you said Nick.
LikeLike
Ed said: Some of us think that oath binds for life. You insult fellow veterans. Shame on you again.
When you get a little experience Ed come back and tell me about it.
LikeLike
Nick said: You mean like Bush’s even greater ineptness?
Well Nick time will tell won’t it? Once Obama gets done he will dwarf anything Bush spent and in fact he already has – over 5 trillon and counting. What was Carter’s little contribution? Camp something or other. What did that result in? Oh nothing – that’s right! Great example Nick. Thanks for playing try again!
LikeLike
Ed said: Some of us think that oath binds for life. You insult fellow veterans. Shame on you again.
Ed you don’t have a clue as evidenced by your comment. Some day when you grow up maybe you’ll understand.
LikeLike
Ed said: More unsupported slander.
Ed you really need to change your paradigm. The truth just doesn’t fit your mental model.
LikeLike
Hex writes:
You mean like Bush’s even greater ineptness? And Cheney’s desire to turn the Presidency into an dictatorship? At least Carter has accomplished things. The only thing Bush and Cheney accomplished was authorizing torture, spending the country into a hole, destroying the middle class and getting us into a stupid war in Iraq predicated on lies. Was Carter the best President we’ve had? No. But at least he didn’t come close to destroying the country.
At least Carter had the Camp David accords.
LikeLike
Some of us think that oath binds for life. You insult fellow vetarans. Shame on you again.
LikeLike
More unsupported slander.
If you have a fact, why not post it?
LikeLike
Ed said: “My experience is that your brands of bigotry never occur accidentally. Is there no member of the armed forces you won’t insult? You don’t know peanuts about Jimmy Carter. I dare you to take the citation from the Nobel Peace Prize committee and comment on it, showing their error.”
This is some special rambling you are carrying out here Ed. Armed forces? Well Ed I am a veteran – Call Sign Hexmate. Jimmy don’t know peanuts Ed that’s why they kicked him off of the farm. The Nobel committee is nothing more than a political mouthpiece Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said – “Why are you pissing in your boots in the first place? Jimmy Carter could instruct you on personal hygiene if you would let him — and heaven knows, somebody should. So, I presume, you’ve been drinking from your boot it to keep from having to show the boot heel? Your charges against Carter are wholly unjustified, and they demonstrate how small you are. Shame on you.”
Ed you are such a hoot! I’m not pissing in my boot – I don’t even wear boots. You may find it acceptable to drink piss but you would only do this in an emergency otherwise it is a tasteless act that sounds like you have tested out like your global warming theory. I was just making a statement of fact with regard to Carter’s ineptness. History has already documented his bumbling of the presidency and since then he has managed to continue his charade of accomplishment. His peanut days are over because he couldn’t even do that right. Actually I find it exhilarating to tell the truth. You should try sometime.
LikeLike
I noted I don’t teach science. You’re going to show McAleer’s film — in your unit about propaganda? Where else could a teacher ethically show such a thing?
LikeLike
Many of the climate change “skeptics” are so hysteric they cannot distinguish between Nobels in science (Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine) and Nobels in Peace. When I noted that Nobel science winners don’t follow along with the bizarre claims of climate change “skeptics” Brett offered a bizarre and largely unjustified attack on Nobel Peace Prize winners, including a completely undocumented and libelous attack on Jimmy Carter.
I called him on that attack and its falseness. Brett responds by attacking me — demonstrating once again that, even if there are facts to support any skeptic’s claims, they do not know them and they cannot pass up a chance at attempted character assassination.
Hexmate said:
You can’t possibly know. You’ve never run into it.
Why are you pissing in your boots in the first place? Jimmy Carter could instruct you on personal hygiene if you would let him — and heaven knows, somebody should. So, I presume, you’ve been drinking from your boot it to keep from having to show the boot heel? Your charges against Carter are wholly unjustified, and they demonstrate how small you are. Shame on you.
You can’t educate anyone here. You don’t know the difference between a prize for peace and a prize for chemistry. What you don’t know bars your way to the doors of knowledge.
I should take down your posts to prevent your children from being embarrassed. But that might provide a greater injustice.
My experience is that your brands of bigotry never occur accidentally. Is there no member of the armed forces you won’t insult? You don’t know peanuts about Jimmy Carter. I dare you to take the citation from the Nobel Peace Prize committee and comment on it, showing their error.
But don’t bother, really. When you find yourself trapped in a mudhole next to an outhouse and in danger of drowning from the seepage, you should stop digging as a first rule.
I thought you were going to defend your claims? I thought you promised not to come back here to spread falsehoods? (Or was that Brett? All stupid bigotry begins to look the same after a minute.)
More promises broken. No wonder you think all recipients of the Peace prize are unworthy — they work against your goals.
But what explains your confusion about chemistry and diplomacy?
LikeLike
Ed said: What a scumbag thing to say.
Jimmy Carter accomplished more before he was 21 than you have in your life. With honor.
I’ve never banned anyone from this blog, but you’re making me wonder if it’s not a good idea.
Well Ed the truth hurts doesn’t it? Scumbag! Oh Ed such strong language. Jimmy Carter couldn’t pour urine out of boot if the directions were written on the heel. I accomplished more by accident thus far than Carter did on purpose and please remember Carter has no honor. You should spend your time more productively trying to prove your global warming theories.
LikeLike
Well Ed, you said it your self. I found your blog through Google and it is not science at all. So I’m going to agree with you on this point.
LikeLike
Biggest scam in human history. Just give it up! Guess what, Ed? I’m a teacher too, and I’ll probably show this next year instead of that worthless Inconvenient Truth!
LikeLike
After reading the toilet humor in the response to the movie, I’m convinced the movie has hit a nerve and the truth hurts. I think I will try to get it viewed in my son’s junior high class since the students were forced to watch Al Gore’s movie without rebuttal. This movie appears to be a legitmate counterweight…and yes, “global climate change” is a ruse to raise our taxes and lower our standard of living.
LikeLike
You’ve read one post on a minor point. So far as I can tell, you don’t read much beyond your own posts. Certainly you’re not reading any of the other posts I’ve made on this topic.
Don’t blame me for what you don’t see, when you don’t look. That’s not my myuopia.
There are a few, not many. Especially there are not many in proportion to the sound climatologists, physicists, meteorologists, paleometeorologists and others, including especially air pollution scientists, who make the solid case for two things: First, that warming is occurring, and second, that humans are playing a significant role in that warming.
It’s not a criminal case, but environmental crises rarely are — and it’s unfair and unwise to apply a criminal law standard to the evidence. We need only clear and convincing evidence, a preponderance of evidence, and not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I wish it were true that the climate were not warming. Even were that true, that wouldn’t excuse our polluting the environment. If it were true that our contribution to warming was dwarfed by natural processes and that we can do nothing to stave off disaster, that would be a poor excuse to continue polluting.
You have no idea what I’ve read, over how many years, on this topic. You can’t begin to appreciate the hours I’ve spent in policy hearings at the federal level, and in two different state governments, in addition to the years I put in working in air pollution research in academia. But you come in guns blazing, touting a crank scientist as your authority, and spouting insults and judgments so thick that no one in their right mind would do anything but stay away, as if I should bow down to your superior — what? — bluster?
If you want to make a good argument, go look up the work of Pat Frank. I’m convinced he’s found most of the evidentiary holes in the case for warming (there are a few) and the case for human contributions to it (they are separate issues, you appear not to realize).
I wish for the sake of my children and grandchildren, and for the sake of the planet, that it were true this were all a hoax — and tomorrow we could go on burning fossil fuels as if there were no tomorrow.
Tomorrows come, however. That’s reality. It’s time for you to wake up and smell the coffee, while we still have clean water to brew it, while the coffee plants still produce good coffee, while we can afford to roast and brew the stuff.
Got a citation to Dyson calling warming studies “lousy science?” That’s not what he said in the famous NY Review of Books article (which I cited earlier, and which I still think you haven’t read). Dyson thinks there are cheaper solutions than what he understands Gore to have proposed. But importantly, Dyson does not deny warming nor the human causation. If you have a contrary set of data, I’d like to see it.
You can’t find the best science on Google. If that’s the best you have, it’s no wonder you’re seriously malinformed.
As I suspected, your charges are slanderous, but without any evidence. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about with regard to grants to study climate change.
You can’t count votes, either. You’re more politically naive than you are scientifically naive. Were that true, why is it no nation has made the necessary steps to stem the tide? Why is there no climate change-stopping bill in law in the U.S.?
At this moment, the side with the expensive public relations campaign to promote disaster over saving the planet is winning. That’s your side, if you didn’t catch the reference.
I wish it were false. I wish you had a clue what you’re talking about and could offer references to support your claims.
I wish I would win the Texas Lotto, too — odds about equally good of that that you are right, several billion to 1 against.
Conversation? You came in screaming, didn’t produce anything to inform anyone, dismissed all references to information that were informative, and rarely shut up so anyone else could get a scream in edgewise.
Self-flagellation is not a conversation. You’ll feel a lot better when you stop. You might even be able to hear a fact fall.
LikeLike
Ed:
As I have stated before, you have consistently demonstrated a myopic viewpoint in favor of APGW. Your retorts, citings and whatever else you put forth are all skewed toward a very narrow focus that APGW must exist.
There are many sound climatologists and scientists who have presented arguments against APGW. I can see these don’t matter to you though.
As Dyson has said, Al Gore and James Hansen are forwarding “lousy science”. This has created a tremendous disservice to nonscientific people and the real truth about the Earth’s climate. Go to google type this in “earth cooling since 1998”. I guess all those people are crazy right along with myself.
About grants and along the lines of your example. If I had a billion dollars and I offered grants to anyone proving APGW was a myth. The argument would be over in a heartbeat, APGW would end just like that.
At this moment in time the prevailing tide is in favor of APGW. Just as much as you steadfastly hold to APGW, I hold to knowing it will be proven false. I know this because a growing number of respectable scientists are stepping into the fray to correct APGW falsities that have been foisted on the public.
Until then this conversation is finished. o-o
LikeLike
That’s a crock. 1998 was a peak year, but we’re in no cooling trend. Track temperatures back past 1998, and you’ll see we’re not cooling at all. Track ’em back to 1800, you’ll see we’re far from any cooling trend.
What makes you think no one will notice that either you don’t know how to read charts, and you’ve gullibly accepted some crank science, or you’re trying to pull the wool over our eyes?
What effect do solar variations have on greenhouse gases? None. Oops. Monckton misled you again. Gullibility has its prices.
That’s a crock, too. There were a few fools who seemed to come late to the game and didn’t figure out how this 30-year (or so) process works, and there were quite a few scam artists, like Monckton, to claimed to have been misled though they were never part of the process.
But IPCC’s procedures have been published and well-established longer than my children have been alive (they’re in college now). Anyone who claims they were misled is either terminally stupid or evil.
Are there disagreements? Sure. Those are well noted.
Not only are you gullible, you tell tall tales, too.
Your description of the grant process is insultingly stupid — insulting to anyone who knows better. If you don’t know better, let me ask you to detail where you would go to apply for a government research grant.
And before I note your grotesque falsehood, let me apprise you that I was on the team that wrote the law that puts scientists in jail if they hoke up results or lie on their grant applications about their credentials. You’re accusing scientists who face criminal penalties of committing crimes. That is libel if you’re not right — and if you were right, do you seriously think George Bush’s Justice Department would not have prosecuted?
Gullible, ill-informed — should we add dishonest to the list of what you demonstrate here, or are you willing to admit you had no clue about the grant-getting process?
All greenhouses are, technically, open systems. The glass in the greenhouse slows the process down, however, making it an effectively closed system from one heating cycle through the cooling cycle and to the next heating cycle.
Our system is open as to energy inputs and outputs, but not open as to accumulation of greenhouse gases (with the possible exception of helium, but it plays a small role if it is a greenhouse gas).
So, even though we have an open system, greenhouse effects mean we have warming.
Go study greenhouses for a while, you may begin to figure it out.
But please don’t tell us greenhouses don’t work. Many of us have been too many years in horticulture to do anything other than yell “QUACK!” at people who make such ill-informed statements.
I don’t have a billion dollar budget to tell lies like the “climate skeptics” do. In fact, no one has a billion dollar budget to counter the falsehoods from the “skeptics.” Truth wins in a fair fight — that’s all I’m doing, trying to keep the fight fair by spreading accurate information.
Clearly, you’ve gotten soaked by a load of crap. It’s tough to protect gullibles from a billion dollar propaganda campaign.
See, a couple of posts back I noted that this isn’t the area I teach in. We probably will have to resort to licensing people who can’t hear and won’t read to keep the fight fair, if you’re any indication.
You should read Freeman Dyson sometime. He thinks we can solve global warming — but he doesn’t deny that it happens. He doesn’t think we need massive controls on air pollution, so much as other inventive ideas, like his idea to sink CO2 in soils. Frankly, Dyson is more hopeful than skeptical of warming. He’s looking hard at the science, which shows that CO2 is rising. Dyson wonders whether the effects will be so damaging as some predict, and his doubt about the greatest damage is tempered wholly by his faith that we can come up with inexpensive, innovative, and perhaps purely organic ideas to control CO2 in the atmosphere.
Don’t put yourself on the same side with Dyson. Dyson doesn’t give 10 seconds to cranks like Monckton — and I’ll wager you can’t find Dyson even mentioning Monckton.
The truth may not be that we face catastrophe, but the truth certainly is not what Monckton says it is in any form.
If you can’t quote correctly the people you agree with, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at your wildly exaggerated misperceptions of the accurate science.
But it means we have to regard everything you say with a few grains of salt.
LikeLike
Again, nice attempt to twist my statements into something that serves to further your propaganda. Ed, why don’t you tell that same Marine how you will only teach about APGW. OK, so you say that Milankovitch cycles are not in the teaching standards, I suppose that extends to anything that would counter APGW. Just another way of saying there is an active agenda to subvert education to create social engineering.
So Ed, why haven’t you addressed my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998? I know this really doesn’t fit into your ideal of supporting APGW. Ask any Ham radio operator why the Earth has been cooling since 1998. They can tell you in different terms. Solar activity helps radio signals bounce around the World via the X, X1 and X2 layers in the atmosphere. There has been a decline in Solar activity since 1998. Gee maybe Lord Monckton has something there when he talks about Solar variations which produce cosmic rain and its effect on Earth.
Ed, you cite the IPCC, you forgot to mention that the IPCC mislead scientists as to its intent. Some climatologists had to go to great extents to have their names removed from the list of supporters. The IPCC is forwarding the APGW agenda, plain and simple.
Ed, you are in denial in your refusal to explore and potentially understand the science that can demonstrate Man has little to do with climate change. Let me give you an exercise, go to the government and tell them you can prove APGW is not true. Ask them for grant money. You’ll be laughed out of the building. The current agenda only supports APGW.
Ed, another point you over looked is that the Earth is an open scientific system. If you know anything about science you know that nothing can be proved in an open system. It is all just speculation. Any scientist claiming to have proved APGW exists is not following basic scientific practices.
Frankly the most alarming point I see in this blog is that you have to counter anything that does not fit your myopic viewpoint on APGW. This is exactly why I think you are dangerous. A teacher like yourself with an absolutely closed mind should not be in our schools. You need to take by example Freeman Dyson, at 84 scientists credit him for one of the most open minds in their community. By the way, he does not believe the CO2 has anything to do with climate change.
LikeLike
What a scumbag thing to say.
Jimmy Carter accomplished more before he was 21 than you have in your life. With honor.
I’ve never banned anyone from this blog, but you’re making me wonder if it’s not a good idea.
LikeLike