I heard the Fresh Air interview, and I thought Gore was insufferable. He went on and on about how "incurious" a man Bush is. I was waiting for him to start in on that "Bush lives in a bubble" meme.
In a talk he gave in my town, RFK, jr, the Riverkeepers activist, called Republicans "uninformed Democrats". In other words, he was calling Republicans like me ignorant. This was a few weeks ago, and I'm still angry. The sad thing is, I agreed with some of the other things he said in his talk, but I would never support his cause because he obviously is more interested in scoring political points than helping the environment.
I am very heavily involved in several environmental organizations, but I don't like being insulted. Where I live (South Texas), the biggest donors of money and time to environmental orgs are Republicans. We are interested in results. I think people like Gore and RFK, jr are less interested in results than in showing off their moral superiority.
What else could explain their going around insulting half the electorate?
I dont know anything about RFK, jr and it's a bit of a stretch (not, actually a HUGE stretch) to insinuate that he's anywhere near Gore's level as a potential leader. Often, the right has to go and find these small-town personalities on the left in order to make the increasingly strained equivalence between "insulting half the electorate" by the Left as much as the Right does. If you listen to conservative talk radio and count the number of times that Liberals, Democrats, even "city folk" and "northerners" are routinely insulted you'd realize that the Half-of-America-Haters on the Right have a far larger broadcast platform than pipsqueaks like RFK jr.
As for Gore, he never insulted half of america - just called Bush incurious. Somehow this seems to be equivalent in your mind; fair enough. I find that the ongoing attempts to constantly vilify Gore rather tiresome however. Judge the man by what he actually says, not the endless parade of strawmen that represented the interpretation of your fevered anger at him.
I should do a post on Gore Derangement Syndrome...
Kevin, I'm curious because you keep bringing it up and I still don't know what you're talking about. What peer-review articles predicted planetary cooling based on environmental data, that you seem to think aren't being talked about?
I hope you don't mean you heard about this from Popular Science, or the news (which predicted planes falling from the sky dec 31 1999).
Aziz, I agree with many of your posts on this blog despite my being a Republican (maybe because I was born and raised a Democrat).
As I said, I am heavily involved (as a state board member, etc) in some environmental orgs that have accomplished the protection of millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and have saved several endangered species, over many decades. I do volunteer fundraising for one. Also, I have work experience on the Recovery Team of a species of endangered bird.
These orgs are very careful to remain apolitical, so as not to alienate potential supporters.
So I am just telling you what, in my personal and professional experience, gets results on the ground, in my part of the country at least. True, I shouldn't get overemotional. But to me, Gore should have just expressed his policy disagreements with the president without getting into issues of personality, and he would have been more persuasive. It's all about marketing, and winning hearts and minds, and he did not win me over, even though I should be a receptive audience.
To more specifically address the Gore interview's climate points: Gore was still expressing regret that we did not ratify Kyoto. But everything I've read says that Kyoto would have almost no effect on the climate, even if everyone followed it. Also, how come Gore never mentions nuclear power, which I understand might be the most effective way to cut CO2 emissions?
Wikipedia has a pretty good write up about it all.
Additionally, I find it curious that global warming proponents claim that both any raising or lowering of temperature supports their position. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
And, what about the unexplained occurance of the sun getting hotter? Surely, this has a role to play.
What about the recent accouncement that the Artic Circle used to be a tropical? Doesn't that say that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends?
We had a cooling trend from 1940s to the 1980s. Now we're on a warning trend. We know of other warming and cooling trends in history. What's so different about this one? I'll tell you:
Politicians using fear to gain power.
Our increasingly secular society worships at the altar of science and chants evolution and global warming as its litergy.
It's government sanctioned religion we're dealing with.
Isn't this line of reasoning akin to saying you'll believe Newton about gravity once alchemists isolate the quintessence? I think the idea, as stated in the very wikipedia article you link, is that the cooling prediction was wildly naive. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that any warming or cooling supports their position, could you point me to a reference? climate science has advanced considerably from 1945, so we need to be talking about papers and predictions from the state of the art. the predictions and widespread msm reporting on the cooling trend serve as a cautionary tale, but they don't serve to wholly discredit today's research. you should be discussing the global warming research on its merits, not on the flaws of earlier research.
"But everything I've read says that Kyoto would have almost no effect on the climate, even if everyone followed it. Also, how come Gore never mentions nuclear power, which I understand might be the most effective way to cut CO2 emissions?"
Because Gore would not attempt to mesmerize Aziz and his ilk with a solution that does not enhance his dreams of achieving power. There is something in the liberal mind that believes that wealth should be more equal, and nuclear plants might bring CO2 emissions under control, but would never make Americans the economic equivalent of Biafrans. For Gore, his interest is clear for all to see. For the useful idiots, who ignore his demeanor and choose to believe his "sky is falling" rhetoric, I have no idea why they sign on. Now Aziz will claim to like American-style wealth, and call me crazy, or an idiot, while blithely going on with his specious beliefs that a change in CO2 emissions on the order pf parts per billion will cause major climate changes. Unbelievable!
btw Stace, Nuclear power is something I support and I think you do Gore a disservice if you assume that absence of mention of nuclear power neccessarily implies that Gore is against it.
It's a good question though and I will try to dig up something on Gore's position on nuclear power. I do suspect that the topic *is* addressed in either the book or the movie, but i have not yet seen either.
Aziz, of course you have ilk. It is defined as "n : a type or kind of person." Is it really news to you that you have a type? Or is the problem that you don't like that I have detected it? Or maybe that you believe that my detection of your ilk is somehow incorrect?
In the pursuit of full disclosure I hereby declare that I have ilk. Now, Dean may not, but, if not, that is a very unusual condition. Actually, on further reflection, Dean must have ilk, but his ilk is difficult to nail down. You and me, Aziz, our ilk is there for all to see. I am proud of mine. You should realize that denial is not just a river in Egypt, and let your ilk flag fly.
What? Climate scientists were wrong about that and would rather not talk about it? For shame. There goes my faith in the whole field...
In a talk he gave in my town, RFK, jr, the Riverkeepers activist, called Republicans "uninformed Democrats". In other words, he was calling Republicans like me ignorant. This was a few weeks ago, and I'm still angry. The sad thing is, I agreed with some of the other things he said in his talk, but I would never support his cause because he obviously is more interested in scoring political points than helping the environment.
I am very heavily involved in several environmental organizations, but I don't like being insulted. Where I live (South Texas), the biggest donors of money and time to environmental orgs are Republicans. We are interested in results. I think people like Gore and RFK, jr are less interested in results than in showing off their moral superiority.
What else could explain their going around insulting half the electorate?
As for Gore, he never insulted half of america - just called Bush incurious. Somehow this seems to be equivalent in your mind; fair enough. I find that the ongoing attempts to constantly vilify Gore rather tiresome however. Judge the man by what he actually says, not the endless parade of strawmen that represented the interpretation of your fevered anger at him.
I should do a post on Gore Derangement Syndrome...
I hope you don't mean you heard about this from Popular Science, or the news (which predicted planes falling from the sky dec 31 1999).
As I said, I am heavily involved (as a state board member, etc) in some environmental orgs that have accomplished the protection of millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and have saved several endangered species, over many decades. I do volunteer fundraising for one. Also, I have work experience on the Recovery Team of a species of endangered bird.
These orgs are very careful to remain apolitical, so as not to alienate potential supporters.
So I am just telling you what, in my personal and professional experience, gets results on the ground, in my part of the country at least. True, I shouldn't get overemotional. But to me, Gore should have just expressed his policy disagreements with the president without getting into issues of personality, and he would have been more persuasive. It's all about marketing, and winning hearts and minds, and he did not win me over, even though I should be a receptive audience.
To more specifically address the Gore interview's climate points: Gore was still expressing regret that we did not ratify Kyoto. But everything I've read says that Kyoto would have almost no effect on the climate, even if everyone followed it. Also, how come Gore never mentions nuclear power, which I understand might be the most effective way to cut CO2 emissions?
Wikipedia has a pretty good write up about it all.
Additionally, I find it curious that global warming proponents claim that both any raising or lowering of temperature supports their position. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
And, what about the unexplained occurance of the sun getting hotter? Surely, this has a role to play.
What about the recent accouncement that the Artic Circle used to be a tropical? Doesn't that say that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends?
We had a cooling trend from 1940s to the 1980s. Now we're on a warning trend. We know of other warming and cooling trends in history. What's so different about this one? I'll tell you:
Politicians using fear to gain power.
Our increasingly secular society worships at the altar of science and chants evolution and global warming as its litergy.
It's government sanctioned religion we're dealing with.
Isn't this line of reasoning akin to saying you'll believe Newton about gravity once alchemists isolate the quintessence? I think the idea, as stated in the very wikipedia article you link, is that the cooling prediction was wildly naive. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that any warming or cooling supports their position, could you point me to a reference? climate science has advanced considerably from 1945, so we need to be talking about papers and predictions from the state of the art. the predictions and widespread msm reporting on the cooling trend serve as a cautionary tale, but they don't serve to wholly discredit today's research. you should be discussing the global warming research on its merits, not on the flaws of earlier research.
Because Gore would not attempt to mesmerize Aziz and his ilk with a solution that does not enhance his dreams of achieving power. There is something in the liberal mind that believes that wealth should be more equal, and nuclear plants might bring CO2 emissions under control, but would never make Americans the economic equivalent of Biafrans. For Gore, his interest is clear for all to see. For the useful idiots, who ignore his demeanor and choose to believe his "sky is falling" rhetoric, I have no idea why they sign on. Now Aziz will claim to like American-style wealth, and call me crazy, or an idiot, while blithely going on with his specious beliefs that a change in CO2 emissions on the order pf parts per billion will cause major climate changes. Unbelievable!
Mike, i posted a new entry, just for you.
btw Stace, Nuclear power is something I support and I think you do Gore a disservice if you assume that absence of mention of nuclear power neccessarily implies that Gore is against it.
It's a good question though and I will try to dig up something on Gore's position on nuclear power. I do suspect that the topic *is* addressed in either the book or the movie, but i have not yet seen either.
In the pursuit of full disclosure I hereby declare that I have ilk. Now, Dean may not, but, if not, that is a very unusual condition. Actually, on further reflection, Dean must have ilk, but his ilk is difficult to nail down. You and me, Aziz, our ilk is there for all to see. I am proud of mine. You should realize that denial is not just a river in Egypt, and let your ilk flag fly.