The Editors comes up with the best description of one my posts ever:
Finally, an all-star panel of warbloggers attempt to relieve the glory days of the Summer of War by holding an authentic olde-timey "Fisking" of an essay about global warming. Written in crayon. By a six-year-old. They fail. I wish I was exaggerating.
The Editors also delivers a well deserved shellacking to:
-
Ron Bailey, who, while professing to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, reserves all his criticism on the topic for people like Al Gore who also accept the consensus and gives his buddies at he CEI a free pass for rejecting the consensus. Mind you, Bailey's criticism of Gore proves that Gore must be pretty accurate, since Bailey has to resort to making stuff up, claiming that Gore implied that sea level would rise by 20 feet (because of accelerating ice flows) by 2100. Of course the "by 2100" part is Bailey's invention so he can make a misleading comparison with the IPCC estimate of 7-23 inches (excluding accelerating ice flows) by 2100.
-
and Glenn Reynolds. The WG2 Summary for Policy Makers is out (see also the video), and the impacts of global warming will not be pleasant. Glenn Reynolds wantsd to bring it on.
It was a very rare example of two-stage humor. (Not counting the Blairites, since they didn't think they were being funny.)
Here is a YouTube-recorded entry which shows how yours truly punk'd GW denier Dennis Avery on a radio show.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bEukc0BFGZ8
These deniers crave adulation.
The scaremongering trick of Al Gore is that he shows a map of flooding Manhattan and the Netherlands and he doesn't tell when it is going to happen, or what the likelihood is that it ever will happen. Besides that, his map of the Netherlands is also wrong.
Yes, Hans. Gore should tell us when it's going to happen. Oct. 18, 2377*.
Seriously, Gore could have been more clear, but that's no excuse for the seemingly unstoppable lie that he said it would happen by 2100.
And what's the matter with his Netherlands map, did he use Holland by mistake? We Americans always get those confused :)
*+/- 88,700 days.
"Seriously, Gore could have been more clear, but that's no excuse for the seemingly unstoppable lie that he said it would happen by 2100."
It's a development of the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. In this case, its a "wrong" by omission and a wrong by a blatant lie, make a right argument.
OT: The Murdoch press's war on science continues. Perth's Sunday Times is citing approvingly calls by both the Catholic and Anglican archbishops for intelligent design to be taught in public schools.
Al Gore says it is "deeply unethical" to keep continuing the emission of CO2.
I find in deeply unethical that a student of Revelle shows an ice age graph and suggests that the change of temperature in the ice ages is caused by CO2 and that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is linear. Of course there is this hedging statement "it is more complicated than this".
Also Al Gore suggests that Katharina was caused by CO2, take a look at the AIT DVD box.
Deeply unethical.
Is Al Gore the new hockey stick? It just seems that now the tactic is to derail all GW discussions onto how Al Gore is a big fat lying hypocrite, no matter what the original post was. Exactly in the same way that the previous tactic was to derail all discussions onto how the hockey stick is broken and Michael Mann is the ultimate source of all evil in the universe.
It's spooky how the same tactics seem to appear at once throughout teh internets. Is there a memo that goes round or something?
You are correct, the right wing anti-GW minions (unlike some ordinary people I know who just aren't ready to accept GW yet) try to scream about Al Gore! Al Gore! Al Gore.
This is a mistake, as the ordinary American doesn't hate Al Gore like the right wing passionately hates Al Gore.
The second problem they are encountering is that the super, ultra, way way rich people of the world are accepting GW and are beginning to demand a response to protect their own investments.
So you'll find that the right wing will shut up soon enough when enough of the super-ultra-rich people they worship are demanding that you and I pay to protect them from the effects of Global Warming.
WG2 summary summary:
"What if..."
But Cid, the right apparently feel its okay to hate the rich if the rich disagree with them - witness not just Al Gore but the hatred directed at Teresa Heinz (for daring to be married to John Kerry) and the conspiracy theories about George Soros (some of which incorporate open antisemitism).
Hans Erren content summary summary:
WG2 summary summary:"What if...AlGore wasn't fat"?
Best,
D
Also Al Gore suggests that Katharina was caused by CO2, take a look at the AIT DVD box.
Katrina?
If we judged this by the Gore Standard we'd have to call it a lie.
Speaking of "deeply unethical," Hans, what's your take on Patrick Michaels? Maybe you're evenhanded, but I see a lot of selective outrage aimed at Gore, when the so-called Sceptic scientists engage in deception like removing lines from graphs in their testimony to congress.
Compared to Christopher Monckton, for instance, Gore's missteps are miniscule.
Let me suggests another reason it is necessary to attack Gore. If Gore's point of view is accepted as part of the debate then the window closes on Inhofe and CEI.
Hans: See Matthew 7:3
The denialists and the alarmists a shouting the loudest, the scientists are caught inbetween.
Tim, I'm not religious, why do you quote the bible on a science blog? Why are you never critical about the alarmists? When will your first "Phil Jones screws it up again" posting appear?
"I find in deeply unethical that a student of Revelle shows an ice age graph and suggests that the change of temperature in the ice ages is (partly) caused by CO2"
What is unethical at all to suggest that the change of temperature in ice ages is partly caused by change in CO2?
"and that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is linear"
So it's logarithmic. Yeah that's a huge "ethical" failing. On a par with saying CO2 influence on global temperature is insignificant.
On the other hand I find it deeply unethical for someone to say that coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is only caused by El Ninos (unless of course it is backed up by a Nobel-prize-winning paper on the non-causal effects of the 2002-2003 El Nino).
Deeply unethical.
Wow. What a sentence. So full of wrong that I'm doubting the name at the start is correct. It's actually impressive.