Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
Over the summer, I got into a bit of an argument with a certain Libertarian comic named Tim Slagle who doesn't seem to accept the scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening or that it is a potentially grave problem. In a perilous bit of criticism, given that comedy often depends on saying stupid things, I deconstructed his comedy routine in which he threw all sorts of bad arguments and straw men as attacks on Al Gore. It was a routine with the old trope that "science has been wrong before," with a truly unpleasant bit of scientist-bashing thrown in for good measure.
The blog argument petered out after a few exchanges, but I recently noticed that Tim can't resist trying to continue to tweak me from time to time, attempts that I've basically ignored―until now. The reason that I stopped ignoring him is because Tim did something useful for my purposes: He posted a video clip of part of the comedy routine that I deconstructed.
As your humble servant, how could I pass by an opportunity to show you more or less what I saw (or at least part of it) and then let you judge for yourself whether I was too hard, too easy, or just right on Tim? One thing that interested me is that all the patient schooling about the science of global warming and other topics that you, my faithful readers, and I tried to administer to him apparently sank in not one little bit. Four months later, Tim's still repeating the same anti-AGW canards about Al Gore, while adding a bit about his Nobel Prize. (In fact, if anything, Tim may well have gotten worse; I don't remember him comparing Al Gore to Pat Robertson or likening AGW science to religion in the show that I saw in June. Either my memory is faulty, or that's a new addition to the bit.)
In any case, check out this excerpt from Tim's comedy routine and tell me whether you think my analysis was on target or not. (The clip is a little less than six and a half minutes long.) Hey, maybe I was wrong.
It could happen.
Environment
Politics
Comments
His Pluto as planet argument is poor, beyond an appeal to "science has been wrong before." Scientific consensus on definitions and scientific consensus on realities of the world are two very different animals.
Posted by: Joseph | November 1, 2007 2:47 PM
Did the "self-important pinhead" comment upset you.
Sorry, I tend to agree with him. Al Gore flies around in a private jet telling us how we have to throw our old cars in the lake and buy hybrids. When I see him out putting solar panels on his mansion, or lobbying the government to give us the ability to sell back on to the grid (could you imagine if we all had panels on our roofs, and a windmill in the back yard... We'd have more electricity then we'd ever know what to do with).
Global warming is real - but it's also big business. Is a florescent light really going to save the planet? Nope, just more electricity for industry to use. Why is the diesel-electric engine not available in North America? Maybe if we had started in the '70's we could have saved the planet, but now......
And to be blunt, if global warming is going to cause wars over resources, why does he deserve a peace prize? He's a figure head, he does nothing but talk.
I really think that the Southpark episode nailed him exactly.
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 2:49 PM
Not at all. Why would it? After all, I've made fun of Al Gore before myself.
You are, however, missing the point. Whatever you think about Al Gore, the routine was full of distortions (the bit about Al Gore supposedly warning about sea level increases of over 20 ft taken out of context, for example) and at least one really dumb howler (the Pluto bit, as Joseph pointed out).
I really have no problem with comedians taking down politicians. As far as I'm concerned, they're fair game. What annoys me is when they insult my intelligence with routines based on such bad arguments where both science and scientists are misrepresented. The sad thing is that Tim can actually be funny and political without descending into dumb, even when I don't necessarily agree with his viewpoint.
Posted by: Orac | November 1, 2007 3:08 PM
"...if global warming is going to cause wars over resources, why does he deserve a peace prize?"
Because... he's trying to stop that from happening?
Or are you suggesting that Al Gore is somehow the cause of global warming?
Posted by: Joshua | November 1, 2007 3:16 PM
He's right when he says, "I may be ignorant..."
Posted by: Winnebago | November 1, 2007 3:16 PM
"... are you suggesting that Al Gore is somehow the cause of global warming?"
Of course he is. We never heard about it until he started talking about it. He actualized it in his mind. Its one of those Quantum Mechanics things...
Posted by: Yojimbo | November 1, 2007 3:35 PM
The Guardian today published an interesting look at various measures to deal with AGW, How to save the planet:
The full top 50 list is a PDF. The Guardian summaries the 20 as:
The suggested prioritised list is clearly a mixture of specifics (of varying degrees of immediate practicality) and "mind-set" changes; and a mixture of regulation and voluntary actions. I have not yet read the full list myself, so I don't know what metrics (measures) or timescales are proposed; nor indeed anything other than what is reported.
Posted by: blf | November 1, 2007 4:09 PM
You are, however, missing the point.
Okay,point taken, but he's a comedian, I don't think he was trying to pass this off as a science lecture. Yes his science is bad, not the worst that I've seen, but bad.
Or are you suggesting that Al Gore is somehow the cause of global warming?
No I believe he's in it for his own self pompous needs. After all - he did invent the internet....
But how is flying around in his own private jet and running up $3000/mo electricity bills in his mansion helping? He's got at least 100 times the "footprint" of the average person. He's a hypocrite. But according to his faithful, that doesn't matter because his message is so important as to warrant not living up to his own standards. Sort of like the PETA leader who uses bovine insulin, because her life is more important than other humans. Sure he buys "carbon offsets", but really, what does that do? Should I send money to PETA so I can eat meat and wear leather? I poison the planet, but I send money to charities, so that makes it all right.
Prove to me that he actually does something for the environment. What has he done? What has he told us that many before him didn't already know (David Suzuki has been preaching about this since the '70's). Carter at least tried to bring in some laws, but they got nixed by Regan. I didn't see him & Clinton putting the laws back on the books.
There are answers, unfortunately the good answers stink of "communism" (selling back onto the grid doesn't make the governments friends rich - although it will reduce your heating/electric bill). It's more environmentally friendly to make a car that lasts 50 years (or keep the old good ones on the road as long as possible) than to make us replace our cars every five years. On the car note, my '72 510 got 35mpg, my Nissan Versa gets 40.... We couldn't of improved more than that in 35 years? (And before you mention hybrids, I'm not rich enough to be that green, I just plan on keeping my car on the road for 20 years). Why are there not wind farms everywhere you look? Solar panels on every rooftop, cars that get 100mpg? or even electric cars? Toyota's supposed to have one that can plug into your household electricity, why isn't it on the market?
I do what I can, but I can't create a decent transit system, I can't build a car. All I can do is try and keep what I do down to a minimum. If Al Gore did the same, then maybe I'd back him.
And the peace prize belongs to people like Kissenger, Carter, or Ghandi, not Gore. IMO, it must of been a slow year.
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 4:36 PM
So because Al Gore is not God, he's part of the problem?
Even if he has a footprint 100 times a normal person, he's brought global warming to the attention of millions. Even if only a few thousand of those changed their lifestyles, that would cancel his footprint. And that doesn't count all the people who have joined or donated to organisations that promote solutions to global warming, lobbied their congressmen for infrastructure changes, etc.
But I guess all that doesn't count because he flies around in a jet instead of bicycling between his single-wide trailer and all his speaking engagements.
Posted by: Joshua | November 1, 2007 4:49 PM
I never said he was. I also don't buy the excuse that he's a "comedian" particularly since (1) I know he's smarter than that and (2) I know he's been exposed to numerous rebuttals and corrections of the bad science and the distortion of what Al Gore actually said about the "20 foot" sea level rise. It really is a matter of his Libertarian views making the science dumb.
Posted by: Orac | November 1, 2007 4:51 PM
Ugh. It's all I can do to wade into these... Same old, same old. But here goes:
Not really. He took credit for pushing forward the development of the internet as a congressional initiative:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
So he claims to have invented the internet to the same degree that he claimed to have personally carried out the improvements in the educational system. Clumsily worded, perhaps, but not what you claim.
The numbers I find say $15000/year, which is high though nowhere near $36000/year; in addition $5000/year of that is in premiums due to the fact that he buys 100% green energy, kind of negating your whole point. In addition, he has solar panels.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how carbon offsets work; whether that's a willful misunderstanding or not I won't try to guess. Carbon offsets work by removing carbon somewhere else - so his motorcade releases X tons of C, and he pays to sequester X tons of C elsewhere. It's not a charity, it's a global commodity.
Given that I've just demonstrated that this is essentially precisely what Gore does, I trust you'll back him now. His net carbon footprint is almost certainly smaller than yours.
Gore has a high carbon footprint because being a high profile public figure imposes a high carbon cost. He has done everything in his power to minimize and offset that. And someone has to do what he's doing. If it was someone else you'd just attack them. What the right wants is to silence those who are effectively communicating about AGW, and they do so through ad hominem attacks. It is the weak and desperate defense of the defeated.
Posted by: Evan | November 1, 2007 4:57 PM
Evan, you are missing the point. Al Gore won't be a "good guy" until he shuts up and lives in the cold and the dark like a "real" environmentalist.
lb, firstly, Al Gore has backed the ability to sell elecrity back to the grid. Secondly, Al Gore was the vice president. His only constitutional power was to cast the tie-breaking vote in the senate, so the Clinton Administration's record is relevant. Thirdly, as Evan pointed out nicely, Al Gore has limited his carbon footprint as much as possible while attempting to get his message out to as many people as possible. Finally, you are missing the entire point of Al Gore's message. He is trying to push governments to enact regulations to impact climate change because voluntary measures just won't do it. Getting people to voluntarily cut emissions is really only useful in getting them to care about the problem. He is smart enough to realize that real change won't happen until the US leads in the policy arena.
Posted by: Jim RL | November 1, 2007 5:08 PM
So because Al Gore is not God, he's part of the problem?
Nope, just slap some solar panels on that mansion, grow a garden, and use the internet (that he created) to do his speeches remotely.
He's a hypocrite plain and simple.
I never said he was. I also don't buy the excuse that he's a "comedian" particularly since (1) I know he's smarter than that and (2) I know he's been exposed to numerous rebuttals and corrections of the bad science and the distortion of what Al Gore actually said about the "20 foot" sea level rise. It really is a matter of his Libertarian views making the science dumb.
I agree with what you say about Tim, but as you can see from my above postings, I am not an Al Gore fan. (I also consider David Suzuki a sellout, but that's another story). I do believe that global warming is happening, I've seen the evidence. I just don't believe that the big-business proposals that are being put into place are the answer. Yet they're the ones taking center stage. When the hell did nuclear energy become environmentally friendly, does nobody remember Three Mile Island or Chernobyl? Unfortunately the other side of the coin is just as bad, "lets give all the land back to the natives because they're the guardians of the earth." Yep, and they can strip log/mine as good as anyone, I guess they just do it with more reverence.
Oh well, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "Those who take the middle of the road, get run down by both sides".
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 5:11 PM
So, the Clinton administration is irrelevant.
He's so important that his global footprint is irrelevant.
Yep, he preaches and preaches, yet when he's confronted with the practice what you preach argument, his worshipers deem it irrelevant.
Tim had one thing right - he is the environmental Pat Robertson.
Anyway, I've got to get off this site and get some work done.
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 5:17 PM
Do you always ignore substantive responses to your points?
At the very least, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to stop throwing around the "Al Gore invented the internet" canard, as this has been debunked left, right, up, and down -- even in this very thread. Or are you more interested in taking cheap shots than making honest criticism?
Posted by: Davis | November 1, 2007 6:19 PM
Translation: all of my points have been fully debunked and I don't have new ones, so I'll skulk away now.
Posted by: Evan | November 1, 2007 6:56 PM
"Unfortunately the other side of the coin is just as bad, "lets give all the land back to the natives because they're the guardians of the earth." Yep, and they can strip log/mine as good as anyone, I guess they just do it with more reverence."
lb, I'd be very curious to know who actually advocates this proposal. I'm pretty sure no one here does. Arguing against strawmen is cheap and annoying.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 1, 2007 7:25 PM
Ahh, the great quonset hut quandary. How can you be an environmentalist if you don't live in a quonset hut and eat dirt? Classic "you do it too" nonsense.
Al Gore != global warming science. It is impossible to inform people around the world about a problem in this world without consuming carbon, teleconferencing only goes so far (and it uses electricity!).
Also, Kissinger? Really? Winning a Nobel peace prize when there wasn't even peace in Vietnam at the time? He's one of the great creeps of history, to see you mention him in the same breath as Ghandi makes me want to puke.
Posted by: MarkH | November 1, 2007 7:30 PM
He even ripped off a joke from Drew Carey, almost word for word, when he talks about standing outside with an aerosol can trying to make it warmer.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | November 1, 2007 8:01 PM
Do you always ignore substantive responses to your points?
No, but I do believe his exact words were "I invented the internet".... Oh yeah right, taken out of context (Isn't it always.....). Also some of the points came up between when I started writing the response, and when I hit post. Internets kinda funny that way.
Translation: all of my points have been fully debunked and I don't have new ones, so I'll skulk away now.
Nope, just beating a dead horse... And I really do have work to do, I just keep coming back here as a work avoidance tactic.
lb, I'd be very curious to know who actually advocates this proposal. I'm pretty sure no one here does. Arguing against strawmen is cheap and annoying.
I went over the 50 things to save the environment, and I agree with them for the most part.
I differ on the following:
2 is a pipe-dream. Hey, but if it can be done then all the power to you.
16 "Bury the problem"? Out of sight, out of mind I guess.
17 Hydrogen Fuel Cells may be the way of the future, but they're a long way off. Electric cars could be on the road next year.
18 I'm not touching that one with a 10' pole, I'm really amazed they mentioned it. Who chooses?
19. Not just the rainforest - BC has been decimated by the pine-beetle, the government is fighting it by planting more pine? Ummm.... maybe we should plant something else?
23. Foraging for wild food in season sounds wonderful, if you're respectful about it. Mushroom pickers were not, cutting fences, destroying ecosystems, it was horrible.
46. If it's manufactured green, but I want someone there 24/7 watching them. Considering what's come out of China in the last year, I'm not going to take their word on anything.
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 8:35 PM
Oops misread your post.
Sorry, the native thing was something that came up in BC. We should give the old growth back to the natives because they will take care of it. Then the same "greenies" were up in arms because the native tribe started logging the area.
I see this post of proof of my point. Because I don't like Al Gore, I'm obviously a bark eating hut living nature nut. Well I live in a house, I go to work, and you wouldn't notice me walking down a street. But because I don't like the man, I should be hung (can't burn me at the stake, that wouldn't be eco-friendly now would it).
It's just that I've been hearing these same arguments for over 30 years now. I've done what I can, and I'm sick and tired of being told what a monster I am because of what?? I don't know. I see these carbon offsets as a way for rich people to throw money at the problem (Sure I fly my jet around the world, but I send millions to plant pines in northern BC (damn beetle), what do you do..... uh.. don't fly around the world in a jet?
I'm also tired of people who tell me how to live, but don't practice what they preach because they're "special". Sorry, but no your not. It's not just Gore. Suzuki preaches one child per family, yet has 7 of his own because he's special. Bono says governments should give more money to the developing nations but puts his own money into tax shelters (Does he not realize where governments get the money from?).
It just gets tiring after a while.
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 8:54 PM
Well, creationists do it all the time, right?
Sorry, but I expect better than this non-thinking claptrap.
Posted by: gwangung | November 1, 2007 9:00 PM
So let's see.... I'm accused of non-thinking claptrap. Accusing Al Gore of creating global warming.
Creationism.
Your right he didn't say he invented the internet, he said he "took initiative to create the internet". my bad, how could that ever be taken as "inventing the internet".
All I said is that I think he's a self-serving pompous ass who thinks he's better than everyone else. How you live your life is your business, but at least live by the same rules you expect others too.
But then again he's "special".
Posted by: lb | November 1, 2007 9:11 PM
Wow that was really bad. Much worse than I thought it would be. From your earlier article I thought - "I don't know". I wondered if you were over-reacting. After all, he's a comedian and they can take liberties. But that was just lame.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 1, 2007 9:45 PM
"18 Implement government policies to control global population growth
I'm not touching that one with a 10' pole, I'm really amazed they mentioned it. Who chooses? "
Well the first thing is to let women choose. In this case to have babies when they want, not when they have to have them. Empower women, give them control over ther own reproduction, given them equal rights as men, and this will be a good first step. After that we probably need to create a little morality based on the idea that overcrowding the earth and using a ridiculous proportion of its productive resources soley for mankind is not a very good idea. This is not a problem we have faced before so it is new in the morality game (religions are hopeless at this, all their ideas are based on ancient problems) and we do not seem to be making much progress at dealing with it.
Posted by: sailor | November 1, 2007 9:48 PM
Your right he didn't say he invented the internet, he said he "took initiative to create the internet". my bad, how could that ever be taken as "inventing the internet".
He said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." Which is absolutely true, the internet was not adopted en masse until the mid-90's. Gore backed legislative initiatives ("The High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991") that nurtured the development of the internet while disjoint private networks, like AOL, were in widespread use. When the manufactured controversy over his comments surfaced, several internet pioneers rose to his defense.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 1, 2007 10:29 PM
That's why, when I became aware that Tim had posted a clip of the routine in question, I wanted to post it for feedback from my readers. At the time, I wondered if I had overreacted, too. I would have posted a clip of the routine back then if there had been one.
Posted by: Orac | November 1, 2007 10:33 PM
Saint G,
I noticed the same ripoff. Maybe it was because I had heard the joke before and was stunned at the ripoff, but Tim's delivery was crappy. Maybe the crowd wasn't miked (miced?), but his best laugh line was about fake boobs and dodgeball. Yawn (and I kicked ass a dodgeball, thank you very much).
-------
lb, If you had some factual information about Gore, you might have some ground to stand on. Instead, you repeat urban legends and exaggerations. Besides, Gore isn't saying we can't be rich and live well, just that our net effect on the environment as individuals needs to be positive. His point is that if we start now, we can do it without a lot of expense or pain. You claim to already be making the attempt at this, so good for you.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 1, 2007 11:51 PM
here is the thing about Kyoto that denialists don't get... we have a very poor cohort study involving at least 2 nations to test the following Kyoto would have financially ruined our economy hypothesis. Back in 1998 England signed on and the US opted out. Looking ahead nearly 10 years later we see that England has aggressively reduced CO2 emission through governmental regulation while the US has sat on its hands, increasing CO2 emissions. The result? The pound is now stronger relative to the dollar than it was 10 years ago. Certainly there are confounding factors with each economies of the last 10 year... but I think we can safely rule out Slagle's "it would most probably have been devastating to the US economy" hypothesis.
Posted by: ks | November 2, 2007 1:56 AM
Tim Slagle steal a bit from Drew Carey? Hardly.
Tim's been in comedy longer than Carey and has been doing that global warming/aerosol can bit since I can remember. And I've got a long memory. If anybody lifted material from anyone here, you can be sure it was not Tim who did the stealing. You may not agree with his politics or even like his comedy, but Tim would never perform stolen material. However, he has had his material stolen more times than he'd probably like to admit.
Stand-ups steal from each other all the time. Famous comics get away with it. If they get called on it, nobody cares. Just ask Dane Cook. He's become a millionaire performing other comics jokes badly.
Posted by: Susang | November 2, 2007 2:08 AM
If it wasn't for the fact that the typical AGW Denialist arguments go along the same lines it would be amusing.
The idea that you can discredit the science behind AGW by attacking Al Gore seems to be the major AGW Denialist tactic.
Posted by: Chris Noble | November 2, 2007 3:36 AM
Personally, I had no idea whether that particular joke was ripped off or not, and I actually don't care much. I tend to doubt that it was. It's irrelevant, anyway. As Susang points out, comics steal each other's material all the time. Also, it's not uncommon for them to come up with the same sorts of jokes independently.
Posted by: Orac | November 2, 2007 7:50 AM
"Recently a lot of gays have spoken out against me for telling AIDS jokes that were "medically incorrect". Because I remember when I was going to medical school learning how to write fuckin' jokes,..."
- The late, great, Sam Kinison.
Attacking comedians while - at the same time - covering for Gore's obvious hypocrisy? It boggles the mind, how you'll twist yourselves into pretzels, ethics be damned. I really expected more from you guys. While I (still) despise new agers, you've given this layman/artist some serious insight into why woos don't trust you - and why I'll never think of your community as I once did:
You guys are as unreal as they are.
In a short time, I'm sure, you'll be hearing much more about me in the press. Unfortunately - while defending many of the same positions you hold - I will not be able to speak kindly of what I've seen here. You, and your intranseance (sp?), are, most definitely, part of the problem as I see it:
For starters, you really shouldn't be messing with artists,...
Posted by: The Crack Emcee | November 2, 2007 8:24 AM
Um Ib?
"17 Hydrogen Fuel Cells may be the way of the future, but they're a long way off. Electric cars could be on the road next year."
Honda debuted the FCX as a concept car in 2005 in Europe, and actually leased a small number of its predecessor to Los Angeles in 2002. They're going to put the third generation version into low-rate production in 2008, and are working deals with Shell, Chevron, and BP to get some refueling stations set up. Unlike most other Fuel Cell cars, Honda's models meet US certification requirements, so they can be leased and registered to individuals as their normal vehicles, not as some extended test.
It's a small start, but it's not way off by a long shot.
As well, speaking as someone who has to deal with video conferencing both from the support end as well as delivery, the idea that Gore should rely solely, or even mostly on "teh intarweb" for his speeches is laughable. Video conferencing requires reliable high-speed, low-latency networks. Those are not in place worldwide. Not by a long shot. the truth is, once you get outside of Europe, ANZAC, and the US/Canada, they're not common at all.
As well, because the man was the VP of the United States, he's an assassination target for the rest of his life. That means flying commercial is a bad idea, not just for him, but for everyone else on that plane.
Really, if "OMG, he doesn't use videoconferencing" is the best you've got, you don't have much.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 2, 2007 9:09 AM
Kinison was wrong; although comedians are generally (and appropriately) allowed wide latitude, given the nature of comedy (which is the main reason I used the word "perilous" in describing my deconstruction of Tim's routine), there is definitely a point beyond which it is perfectly appropriate to call them on the carpet for grossly misrepresenting science in the pursuit of a punchline, a point beyond the "it was just a joke" defense just doesn't hold water anymore. Kinison, as funny as he could be at times, deserved every bit of the criticism directed his way for some of his offensive AIDS jokes. Artists, be they comedians or other, are not, nor should they be, immune from being criticized when they say really dumb and/or demonstrably incorrect things. Again, even for comedians, there is a point beyond which the "it's just a joke" defense should not be allowed to shield them.
As for what you think of "us," quite frankly, I really don't give a rodent's posterior. And here's a clue: Woos wouldn't "trust" us even if we all decided tomorrow to start piling on Al Gore. They don't "trust" or like us because we keep reminding them that their woo doesn't have a leg to stand on, scientifically speaking. In fact, piling on Gore might make them "distrust" us even more, given how many New Agers tend to see AGW as validation that "natural is better."
Posted by: Orac | November 2, 2007 9:49 AM
Satire requires a grain of truth. That's why I find so many "comedians" people tell me I "shouldn't take seriously" to be unfunny.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 2, 2007 10:27 AM
Kinison was funny if very crude. Tim is just a dull hack.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 2, 2007 1:08 PM
Actually, I wouldn't judge Tim by that one routine, which in my mind was a misfire (although his ideology is such that he keeps doing it regardless). Most of his act was pretty darned funny. I kind of like his routine about vegetarians, for instance.
Posted by: Orac | November 2, 2007 1:31 PM
Tim Slagle is right on! I think Global Warming is a bunch of BS. Just another crisis invented by the "establishment" to control people and steal their stuff. When I was in college in the 60ties they were worried about the Coming Ice Age...
The earth has been around for billions of years. Where do these scientific types get off with their absurd theories and their arbitrary predictions?
Tim Slagle has the answer. They need to get laid ;-)
Posted by: Donna Mancini | November 2, 2007 2:00 PM
Hello,
I'm not sure what all the hubbub is about, Tim was funny as hell in this clip and probably made more sense then all the junk science spewed regullarly by the MSM.
Face it peeps no one here is capable to claim anything based on the science; it's the underlying science that largely is being ignored; it's this 'skeptical' science that is so desperately needed to challenge various hypothesis in order for science to fundamentally advance.
What is so wrong about that? Truth is anytime and just about everytime an assertion comes out to challenge the so-called 'consensus' they are automatically branded and threatened.
What is so horrible about those who scientifically state that we are not causing catastrophic AGW?? A neutral observer would take heart to learn it's not all floods and mass-extinctions and actually some moderate warming would have a net benefit to man, earth and its' inhabitants.
By the way most if not all 'mass-extinctions' in earths history have been linked to global COOLING not WARMING, but hey let's not let history get in the way of a nobel cause eh?
It's OK to Chill about 'global warming' and I contend man-kind only has a minimal effect on earths climate and may very well be contributing to cooling and keeping earths climate cooler from various aerosols and particulates we emmit in the atmosphere (volcanoes come to mind dont they)
I mean really, with all the billions of $$$ poured into funding, grants and research doesent it give pause to the neutral observer to concerns about scientific integrety? Nah, that can't happen right? I mean there can't possibly be incentives to achieve the 'holy grail' of scientific research? (hint = grants)
Whatever gave us the notion there has every been any prolonged 'climate stasis' or even the hint we can controll said stasis at some imagined 'normal' range? Who's to say it wont change anyway once we impossibly achieved it?
I contend there is no proof of catastrophic AGW, only theories and exaturated claims from those with vested interests.
Why is it there is still a mad march towards massive CO2 cuts at unthinkable economic consenquence? Most is based on the thoroughly de-bunked 'hokey stick' by Mann that was since removed from the latest IPCC report...and from a computer modeler desperately promoting his extremely expensive and outlandish 'projection' of future calamity.
Isn't it humorous to think these warm-mongers can accurately predict, control and prevent climate change when climate is change, it always has and always will and guess what people, we're at the end of our little inter-glacial period and that ain't controlled by GHG's that's controlled by the sun and our relationship to it...do you all actually believe this hype that a limited minor constituant of our atmosphere can stop a tremedous force of nature that has rulled our climate for the past 3 million years????
That's why I feel it's so damn stupid, all of this warming madness is and should be the brunt of any and every joke around!
There....bash away...don't matter to me none, everyone's entitled to their own opinion right?
Posted by: climate controlled 4U | November 2, 2007 2:01 PM
Donna,
There were a couple papers that tentatively suggested a cooling was a possibility. It got the media attention and became an urban legend that it was the scientific consensus.
Climate,
Can you define "theory?"
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The data is solidly against the warming "skeptics." Odd name choice, that. Skepticism requires that you go with evidence, not that you respond negatively against whatever you dislike.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 2, 2007 2:31 PM
Here's the problem: Slagle is a pundit. He's an intelligent guy using comedy as his vehicle to communicate different viewpoints on a host of topics. Frankly, I find his material to be not only downright funny, it's also on target in many ways. And yes, he may or may not be off on his statistics, but that's not the point. The point is that he's providing the fodder for his audience to think a little bit. For them to look at a subject from another side. Bottom line is if you put ten scientists in a room and ask their views on global warming, you're going to end up with 10 differing answers. I say 3 cheers for Mr. Slagle and I hope he continues his "rants" for a long time to come.
Posted by: George Worthy | November 2, 2007 2:48 PM
John,
from what I've read it will take 10-15 years for North America auto makers to put a line of hydrogen-vehicles on the road. Now whether that is because of the technology, or because they are dragging their feet, I don't know. I do know that Chev had an electric car, they still have the specs, I'm sure that it was reverse engineered by the competitors, and could be put back on the road within a year. A concept car is just that, a concept. Is it financially viable? Will the common working person be able to afford one? Toyota has a concept hybrid that is twice as efficient as the hybrids on the road today. Why it's not on the market is beyond me. Daimler has a hybrid diesel/electric that is for sale in Europe and Asia, but not here. Why? As I said in 35 years, Nissan has improved 5 mpg?
Donna,
Yes there are papers that say that cooling could happen. Basically they say that as the world warms, it will cause evaporation, that will cause cloud cover, that will eventually cause cooling. They're scientists not fortune tellers. They look at the evidence they have today and then try to hypothesis an answer. We won't know the true effect until it actually shows up.
As far as a definition for scientific theory, here's the one I like to throw at people. It's a quote from Stephen Hawkings:
"a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".
The only way of actually proving evolution, or global warming, or any other scientific theory would to build a replica of the earth down to the minutest detail, and then watch it grow. Of course we would also have to make sure that asteroids hit it at the same time that asteroids hit the earth (out by 100 years could throw the whole thing off). So as you can see that's pretty much impossible.
Posted by: lb | November 2, 2007 3:24 PM
Apparently, they have carbon-fiber cars that'll be on the market in 5-7 years, according to the Discovery Channel. These puppies'll get 100+mpg.
To clarify lb's statement above: it isn't support for a theory that makes it valid, it's the failure to prove the Null Hypothesis--the predictions we would expect if the theory were false.
As for GW, I think there's plenty of BS on both sides. I tend to agree with Bjorn Lomborg--he's about the only voice of reason I've seen on the issue. Google him, and read what HE has to say, not the words put into his mouth by others.
As for the Slagle routine, I thought it was hilarious! He has a point about smart people not making much money while the high-school bullies become corporate bullies, bullying their way to the top. A popular lawyer in my area used to bully me all the time--and he hasn't changed much since then.
Suck it up, people. You can't laugh as someone slams Pat Robertson and then get all huffy when he gets around to YOU. Learn to laugh at yourselves; you'll live longer. Well, maybe not, but you'll laugh more.
Posted by: Shane Killian | November 2, 2007 3:44 PM
Al Gore is an bloated idiot. I think we all know that. Tim Slagle is hilarious, and liberals need to get over it.
Posted by: Laura M | November 2, 2007 4:43 PM
Here's a pickle maybe Orac can help me with on a scientific level.
You say that this material - aside from being technically or logically flawed - is simply not funny.
Yet I clearly hear people laughing in the video.
If it's not some editing chicanery, how do you solve this conundrum? And let's not throw out that old "canard" that humor is subject to individual taste and perception. That's just a boatload of malarky.
stanhope
Posted by: stanhope | November 2, 2007 5:17 PM
I am completely devastated by the incredible logic, evidence, and intelligence of these retorts.
Really, is that the best the AGW "skeptics" can come up with? "Al Gore is a bloated idiot" or "it's all a scam," so the science behind global warming must be wrong?
And, from George Worthy:
Off in his statistics? That's putting it mildly. Let's put it this way: Tim took a quote so far out of context that its intent was clearly to deceive. That wouldn't necessarily be so bad if I knew that Tim had just read it somewhere. It could have been an honest mistake. Unfortunately, I and multiple other people have told him where that misrepresentation came from and shown him that it is a misrepresentation. Yet he keeps repeating it. At the very least, that tells me that his politics trump evidence.
And that is "making people think" exactly how?
No, it has nothing to do with "making people think" and everything to do with making people turn off their brains.
Posted by: Orac | November 2, 2007 5:19 PM
I don't know why you're getting your feathers so ruffled. People will say and believe what they like are entitled to their opinions. Comedians are little but a fount of opinions and if you don't like what they say... hm... don't listen, perhaps? It was funny by any account, and this world needs a lot more humor and a lot less doomsday predictions. Lighten up please. You're acting like a spoilt five year old that just got called a dirty name.
Posted by: Ela | November 2, 2007 5:19 PM
People laugh at fart jokes, too.
Posted by: Orac | November 2, 2007 5:24 PM
Don't know why the people on this web site are so up in arms.
I think that while the scientific community is in agreement that global warming exists, it is also obvious that the seas are not likely to rise up 20 feet in a few years or that a squiggly light bulb is going to make a big difference.
Whether you find Slagle funny or not, his point that much of the information about the impending doom of global warming is exaggerated, and that many of the proposed solutions are unlikely to have much effect, are both points well taken and worth making. Just because someone is politically incorrect, doesn't mean that their voice doesn't deserve to be heard. I think comedians like Slagle perform a public service when they cause us to question whether the emperor actually has clothes. In Al Gore's case. let's hope he keeps his on despite any rise in temperature.
Posted by: JEB | November 2, 2007 5:50 PM
How to lose any credibility whatsoever in a single sentence, by 'Climate Change 4U':
"Tim was funny as hell in this clip and probably made more sense then all the junk science spewed regullarly by the MSM."
1. Refer to something dull, uncreative, and flat out boring as 'Funny as Hell"
2. Misspell a simple word.
3. Refer to the 'MSM' as though it is a shadow entity with some sort of Socialist/'Big Brother' agenda.
Two bonus points:
4. Use the word 'peeps' in a broad, sweeping generalization of all scientists as untrustworthy eggheads.
5. Include a link to your AGW myspace page, titled with the words 'truth' and 'global warming', both used in an non-ironic manor.
*sigh*
some people never learn. However, I do thank them for continuing to make their opinions known such that all their bunk, baseless theories drift further and further away from anything that resembles a logical thought. Nature uses things like bright colors to signify poisonous plants, as a 'KEEP AWAY' sign. I'm glad the cranks have happily settled into their role as the vocal minority. They let us know to 'KEEP AWAY'.
Posted by: Jesse | November 2, 2007 6:01 PM
I dunno, Slagle fans: I suspect that no matter what you say, you are never going to convince anyone who's been made fun of that the joke is funny if they weren't in on the joke.
I don't fit into Slagle's theory at all - I'm a female scientist married to, and thus being "laid by", to use the charming term his fans seem to choose, a hot, smart, funny non-egghead man. We do fine, financially. The only person I blame for dodgeball is my gym teacher, who really should have known better.
So the joke wasn't on me, but I still find myself thinking that voice crying out with envy and despair was Slagle's "inner scientist", if you get my drift. How much does a Libertarian stand-up comic make per year, anyway? And how many boob-job boat girls are lining up to help spray *his* aerosol?
Posted by: jen_m | November 2, 2007 8:44 PM
The Algorian religion lives on the left, and the only reason for it is not to herald a future disaster, but to expand government and further shackle productive individuals.
Talk to anyone who lives in areas of extreme cold. They'll tell you that warm is good. Polar bears, if they could talk, would tell you that warm is good.
Roughly a thousand years ago, and for centuries, the Arctic was much warmer than it is now, and the Norsemen, who farmed in Greenland, prospered. Polar bears made it through that with a smile.
Algore, who continues in spite of his primitivist blatherings, to enjoy a lavish lifestyle even while criticizing the poor and middle class for striving to better themselves. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that he wishes to be a baron of a herd of raggedy feudal serfs.
I reject the Algorian Hoax just as I rejected the Ozone Hole Hoax and the New Ice Age Hoax of recent decads.
Posted by: Col. Hogan | November 2, 2007 9:38 PM
Question: What the difference between a Cadillac and a dead hooker? Answer: There's not a Cadillac buried behind my garage.
The point I'm trying to make is that some of you might of thought that was funny, others- not so much. While some of you might pose the argument that it is impossible to bury like 10 or 11...or is it 12 dead hookers in the backyard of a crowded suburban neighborhood like mine without anybody noticing. Others will say that it was funny; it needs some work; I don't agree with your thinking, but...
We get bombarded everyday with images and words and thoughts and viewpoints and homicidal impulses that while it is important to stand up once in a while and say "no more!", is disagreeing with a comedy bit where we make this big stand? Even faced with such overwhelming evidence regarding research and findings or odors or even the simplest "hey, where'd all the hookers go?", the bottom line is that it's either funny or it's not. People were laughing in the crowd. Therefore, people thought it was a funny bit. It's a matter of taste. If you no likie, you know next time not to go to his show or watch his video.
Life is too short to be worried about such things...
Especially if you're a hooker.
Posted by: Vegas Razz | November 2, 2007 10:02 PM
Jeb,
it is also obvious that the seas are not likely to rise up 20 feet in a few years
Who said that was going to happen in the near future? Oh, thats right, it is what global warming deniers claimed Gore said. Sort of like how his political opponents made up that thing about him inventing the internet.
Gore pointed out that if one of two specific ice sheets were to melt, ocean levels could rise 20 ft. There was no time frame mentioned.
Whether you find Slagle funny or not, his point that much of the information about the impending doom of global warming is exaggerated,
He finds the science unconvincing, so it is exaggerated? And he proves his point with falsehoods and misquotes picked from pundits?
and that many of the proposed solutions are unlikely to have much effect, are both points well taken and worth making.
Taken together, many small steps will have a great effect, and without great expense. I'm unsure as to why conservation and efficiency are so despised by so called conservatives. Lower energy bills, gas costs, costs of production and shipping. All of this will be good for business and the nation. If American automakers would produce efficient cars, they could compete on a global scale. It is within our means to become an oil exporting nation and reclaim our economy. How is this a bad thing? Even if you don't agree with the evidence of global warming, the economics should push you to make these changes.
By installing more ceiling fans, dimmers on most of our lights and a programmable thermostat, we cut our average electric bill from $100 to $55 per month. I don't use nearly as much energy as any of my neighbors.
Just because someone is politically incorrect, doesn't mean that their voice doesn't deserve to be heard.
Politically incorrect is one thing. Just plain incorrect is another. And nobody is silencing him. We are just pointing out that he is neither correct nor is this bit all that funny.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 2, 2007 10:44 PM
Great fun Tim even if there are others who aren't so fun. One thing I've noticed when it comes to doom and gloom enthusiasts, such as those who follow global warming, global terrorism, the new world order, 911 truth or whatever, they are not good at hearing criticism or humor when it is directed at their obsession. (They've heard the good news and believe, why can't I? I'm a heathen, that's why.) Of course that can make your nerdy scientist all the more poignant when failed persuasion turns into government coercion.
Posted by: Screaming Lord Skull | November 3, 2007 12:03 AM
I'm pretty sure I saw lb making the exact same comments about Gore on deltoid like 3 months ago, with exactly the same corrections and rebuttals offered, and they were all completely ignored.
Even if he's not the same guy, he's using the same tactics: he hates Gore and thinks he's being funny, so accuracy is irrelevant. He justs wants to be derisive and mocking, and get people riled up, then move on to a new inflammatory topic. Whoops, did I just define troll?
Posted by: Fox1 | November 3, 2007 3:51 AM
Yeah, this thread has been invaded by anti-AGW trolls, most of whose arguments seem to boil down to "Al Gore is a bloated idiot" or "Al Gore is a hypocrite."
Let's put it this way. Even if Al gore were both a bloated idiot and a hypocrite, it would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the science behind AGW is correct or not.
Posted by: Orac | November 3, 2007 8:46 A