Al Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?
Al Gore wrote in the New York Times on July 1st, “This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.”
The former Vice President goes on to give a science lesson on Carbon Dioxide and the Planets of the Solar System. He manages to get almost everything wrong.
Mr. Gore’s “facts” are so egregious that a well thought out response titled “Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?” was written by George Reisman. It is well worth the read.
Excerpt:
No, Mr. Gore, it’s not the carbon dioxide. If you take the trouble to do an Internet search on Google for “carbon dioxide” + “Martian atmosphere,” you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is –63° C (–81° F).
But even putting this decisive objection aside, there is simply no informed or honest way for you to suggest that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth is or ever will be comparable to the amount on Venus. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, the atmosphere of Venus is 96 percent carbon dioxide. The atmosphere of the Earth, in contrast, is less than .04 percent carbon dioxide. That’s not .04, but .0004, i.e., four one-hundredths of one percent. To be precise, carbon dioxide is presently 383 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere. All of the brouhaha going on about the subject is over a projected increase to perhaps as much as 1000 parts per million by the year 2100, i.e., to .001 percent, which is 10 one-hundredths of one percent.
It is on the basis of such ignorance or dishonesty that you declare that
we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
It is a valid question, is Mr. Gore Ignorant or Dishonest?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:27 am
What’s not smug about them? Both entries are pure, unadulterated smarm. A site proving that global warming on Earth, Mars and Venus is happening independently of the sun would be interesting. A site merely asserting that as though it were an established fact is not.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I’m reminded of the princess bride…”you keep on using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It appears your definition of smug means “scientists telling us what they think.” I refer you to my above post. Am I smug when I point out you’re wrong when you claim the atomic mass of Cobalt is something other than 58.933200?
If your definition of smug includes scientists telling you things you don’t want to hear, then you’re really not grown up enough for this. Sorry.
Oh well. Grow up a bit and get over it. One of the perks of being a scientist is they’re not really under any obligation to not report their findings because you find them uncomfortable. They could be calling you a poophead while they do it, the plain truth is that there’s no set of observations about Mars or Venus that hurts the case for AGW.
Too bad for you that neither of those links–which you apparently didn’t read in the first place–is doing that. They’re merely pointing out that three years worth of climate observation in a small region of Mars doesn’t tell us much about what the effect of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere of the earth will do.
If that bugs you…well…call a whaaaaaaaambulance.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Oh, and for the record…scientists aren’t smug. I’m smug. Big difference. They’re just reporting empirical observations and drawing logical conclusions.
I’m the one pointing out that letting your irrational, emotional attachment to ideas like “AlGore sucks!” and “I can do whatever the fuck I please without consequences” isn’t very scientific. Your intuition and the seat of your pants aren’t useful scientifically nor are they wise tools for forming public policy.
If that makes me smug, well it’s a title I’ll wear gladly.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Both.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
JDI–assuming arguendo you’re right…so what?
Why not just call him a poopie brains? Anything that’s easier than thinking, right?
July 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
PGP, just show the evidence that link your data to your assumptions to you conclusions. That’s all. You never do that. You state some fact. Then you state assumptions that you haven’t proven are related to those facts and from there you draw conclusions without so much as one provable causal link.
When challenged you just get ugly on a personal level. That tells me you don’t have the proof, only the emotional need to feel superior to those you view as geo-rapists.
For instance, I didn’t know that CO2 was directional. But it must be if your premise is true. It can trap heat in, but can’t trap it out. Please explain that. Just explain that one thing, for a start. If you can we can move to your next point. “Because I said so.” doesn’t count.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
For instance, I didn’t know that CO2 was directional. But it must be if your premise is true. It can trap heat in, but can’t trap it out.
Yes, how exactly does this mysterious process work? Is the exceedingly small amount of CO2, 383 parts per million, or .000383 for those of you without calculators, equally dispersed through the atmosphere? Or does it form a ribbon around the atmosphere to trap the heat? Maybe it forms a barrier between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere? Maybe little bunnies are the cause? Aliens, could it be the work of ET?
How exactly does it trap the heat? Is this a refractive process, a radiative process, a reflective process, or just something from the Goracle Bible, ie realclimate.org, that isn’t really explained? Is it conduction or convection? Is it real or is it fantasy? Is it something the faithful accept on faith?
How does this miracle gas let heat through, but not let it escape?
Bonus points, what is the volume of the atmosphere? Scott you can help too.
But wait, there’s more. Maybe Global Warming is just a way for hippies to get even with rich middle aged men with bad hair. Yeah, take away their little red Porsche. That will fix the bastards.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Well, the level of ozone in the atmosphere that is considered unhealthy is 85 ppb (as in billions). Should we divide 83 by a billion and say that is a really small number?
Scott, why do you think I asked about the volume of the atmosphere? You and Sebastian-PGP keep comparing a human being to the Planet Earth. I appreciate you may believe in Gaia and think the Earth is alive, but a human being is much smaller than the Planet Earth.
If you want to play the math game work a little harder. It is about volume and dispersion. If you want to compare apples to hammers go ahead. But do not expect more replies on what is just goofy.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
The climate forcing of CO2 is pretty well understood. I’d be happy to link to information that will help you better understand it. Here’s a good explanation of how the GHE works, and why your question doesn’t really make much sense. The answer is that some solar energy is absorbed, and some is reflected back into space. CO2 isn’t “directional” at all. Hope that helps.
Sorry if you don’t like that I get testy with you and certain other folks, but it’s pretty clear that you guys have a very poor grasp of the basic science at work here…and yet you’re quite convinced the science is wrong. You’re basically saying you’re sure the AGW thing isn’t happening, even though you don’t understand it very well.
It kinda reminds me of Rep. McCarthy and the barrel shroud.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Oops, forgot the link above that I wanted you to look at.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Check the link I provided, it explains how the greenhouse effect works in layman’s terms pretty well.
Just a thought…seeing as you’re conceeding that you don’t understand how the GHE works, don’t you think it’s a bit silly of you to insist that AGW isn’t happening?
How does this miracle gas let heat through, but not let it escape?
Asked and answered. The atmosphere reflects some radiation, it absorbs some, and some passes through and is absorbed by the earth. A portion of the radiation reflected back toward space is captured and retained in the atmosphere. This isn’t hard, dude. But the fact that you don’t understand this process really sheds light on how un-meritorious your skepticism is. In short…you’re talking a lot of shit on a subject you don’t know jackshit about.
You really do have a very poor understanding of the basic physics here…but you’re convinced it isn’t happening. Even the biggest GW deniers don’t doubt that the GHE is real. We wouldn’t be here if it didn’t.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
This pic explains it pretty well.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Just a thought…seeing as you’re conceding that you don’t understand how the GHE works, don’t you think it’s a bit silly of you to insist that AGW isn’t happening?
I have purposely put a phrase in twice to test you and you have missed it each time.
You also used the wrong formula to calculate the percent change in CO2. A simple math calculation. Yet you are telling me I don’t understand. The picture you posted is laughable. It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis. In fact it is better used for that hypnosis than man-made Global Warming.
I concede nothing at this point. I appreciate your passion. We disagree. It is not a big thing. I don’t need to insult you or correct you. America will not approve Kyoto or any of the crazy Global Warming remedies. I think you know that. My interest is in how and why people believe this. I am fascinated by how many people believe in Man-made Global Warming.
This whole Man-made Global Warming thing reminds me of the “Spanish Prisoner” con. You have to want to believe for it to work. I don’t have that need. But obviously many do.
You do understand how arrogant it is to say that a certain place should have a certain temperature?
I would however be very interested in seeing the detail of how Man-Made Global Warming works. I have watch Mr. Gore’s movie several times and read much more of realclimate.org than needed.
Can you show how specifically the process works? For instance, why have studies not be performed using the mirrors on the Moon from the Apollo program. You would think that reflecting laser light off the Moon and calculating the timing would provide some clues as to Mr. Gore’s hypothesis. Where are the studies in infrared from satellites? Why all theory and and so little experimentation? Where are the breakthrough experiments?
Or is that not a fair question?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:09 am
This reminds me of when a girl says “there’s nothing wrong” when you’re supposed to know that something’s wrong. What sort of trick do you think you’re pulling?
It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis.
Assuming arguendo you’re right and I goofed on the math, what bearing does that have on the fact that climatologists OVERWHELMINGLY AGREE WITH ME AND DISAGREE WITH YOU? Me being careless with math (a mistake a later explained) doesn’t change the fact that YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE WELL ESTABLISHED BASICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAT NOT EVEN THE STAUNCHEST CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS WILL ARGUE WITH.
Get this through you thick fucking skull–even Singer and Lindzen and Gray won’t try to argue that the GHE isn’t real. Only a real idiot would do as much…thanks for showing us just how stupid you really are. It really is amazing that Uncle tolerates your presence, let alone your posting here. It’s the biggest blemish on an otherwise great blog.
No, it’s how the fucking physics of the GHE works. You really are an uneducated twit.
Can you point to anything that’s wrong with it? No. Can you point to anything it’s got wrong? No. You’re just being a fucktard. You really are an embarassment to yourself–your posting stuff that’s in direct contradiction to well established science. You might as well insist the sky might be red and e does not equal mc squared.
I can’t wait to see the explanation on this one. This is like Jessica Simpson insisting that Einstein didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to that whole relativity thing.
PS: It’s been shown that cosmic rays cannot explain observed climate trends.
It IS a big thing. You consistently post really dumb shit. You can’t even grasp the basics of the greenhouse effect but want people to think your skepticism about AGW has merit. It’s like somebody who can’t change a tire insisting he can do a turbocharger upgrade and a head gasket swap.
In short….you’re a retard and really annoying to listen to. Time after time, link after link, I show you how wrong you are…and you keep at it.
I don’t want to be your friend. I don’t want to make nice with you. I certainly have no interest in being nice to someone as willfully ignorant as you are. Go fuck yourself.
As though someone as misinformed and willfully moronic as yourself could do either.
No. Who the fuck ever did any such thing?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:36 am
For the record…you do realize that A) you’re dumb enough to admit in public that you doubt the veracity of the GHE (something as well established scientifically as atomic theory, the periodic table, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, etc) and B) when you say something like “that pic is laughable”, you actually need to bring some evidence to the table to indicate why?
You putting 383ppm of Polonium on those Wheaties yet? Let’s talk about some of the shit you got wrong. Like the idea that CO2 has to reflect all of the sun’s radiation into space for the GHE to happen (stupefyingly ignorant on your part). Or more importantly the idea that increasing the relative concentration of a key GHG by a third (since as you pointed out so carefully the formula) is somehow “miniscule”. You failed to address any of the posts by me and others showing how ridiculously misinformed your objection here was.
If CO2 concentration XYZ results in global mean temp A, why is it hard to understand why CO2 concentration XYZ+35% is going to be substantially different?
You can’t even grasp the basics of the greenhouse effect when they’re shown to you in simple layman’s terms…but you want to us to think you’re anything but a blathering idgit on this subject.
Sorry, but I simply don’t suffer fools like you very well.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Another energizer bunny thread I see.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Oh piffle. You can’t even define socialism. I’ve heard you conflate it with both fascism and New Urbanism, fer crying out loud.
So here’s the challenge – define socialism. And no Wikipedia, please.
Sorry Rachel, I missed that. You do deserve a response.
Man-made Global Warming is socialism. Soylent Green is people. Same idea.
See, I told you so.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“Man made Global Warming” as you call it is socialism, eh?
I guess these guys are all Marxists, right?
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Cause every one of them has endorsed the IPCC findings.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Ok, it’s boring now.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
More non answers. Try this, establish a green house without the solid enclosure, in other words, only atmosphere and the universe beyond your greenhouse. When they glass in the planet your SWAG might work.
SWAG=swinging wild ass guess
July 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Man, you guys aren’t even trying anymore. No links to contrary information, no actual indictments of any of the information I’ve provided, just the naked and unsupported suggestion that we’ve provided “non-answers”…whatever that means.
You really don’t get it, do you? Sad. It’s really not all that hard to understand that the atmosphere retains heat.
This really is like somebody who failed pre-algebra in the 7th grade insisting that multivariable calculus is bunk.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
You don’t want to go there. Your understanding has already been demonstrated. That was more than a math error.
Provide one experiment that proves the hypothesis. It is a stretch to call it a theory.
Just one. I can read realclimate.org on my own. When you have something beyond what you can parrot make your case.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 am
You’re absolutely right. We just don’t get it. It is very difficult, nay, impossible to get a grasp on no substance.
You have been asked politely to post any proof whatsoever of your position. You have yet to do so. You have been the beneficiary of alternate theories and explanations, which you have refused to address or refute. Your total argument seems to be “All the people that make me feel superior posted this and I have linked to it. You all are so ignorant that you can’t see that popularity of opinion makes truth.”
You are absolutely correct again, I can’t see that popularity of opinion in a few hysterical sufferers of inferiority complex makes their position true.
None here have disputed that warming is taking place, you are one of the few, though, that think you are omniscient. Funny how that works, you know what and /or who is causting it , but you don’t know how you know.
NO Thank you. I’ll wait for the science to catch up.
The earth has been much warmer, relatively, than it is now. Explain why the planet isn’t dead as per your prediction based on current conditions.
The ignorance is on your part. To hold the position you now hold it is necessary to ignore millennia of history, contradictions in evidence, and the deep divide between those who make a living off this farce and those who are actually studying the climatological changes on Earth. NO, my friend, the ignorance is on your part and you are a willing ignoramus.
You have yet to answer the question of whether or not global warming is a bad thing. Tell us about the polar bears. You remember, those poor little animals that had about 3 weeks in the limelight about how they were drowning due to global warming. Tell us about that, while you’re at it tell us about the sudden disappearance from the media of that particular issue. You might even go on to examine the great European starvation in medieval times and tie that to climate. Or haven’t you yet been told what you believe about that?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
[…] local membersof the global warming denialist club:Bill Hobbs, Terry Frank, Mark Rose, Glen Dean, Say Uncle #9 … to name a few. Spread It Around: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where […]