Tim Blair, The inconvenient truths about Al Gore's hot-air footprint:
- Al Gore is fat.
Note that this was a column in the Daily Telegraph, so presumably there was an editor who could have saved a lot of ink and paper by trimming Blair's column down to just 11 letters.
'Shorter' concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.⢠Acknowledgement copied from Sadly, No!.
Update: James Massola promotes Blair's column in The Australian.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I raise the question, which has rattled around in my head for a while, after reading two posts, one by ScienceBlogling Tim Lambert, and one by Scott Lemieux. Tim connects the dots of the Gore-Chilean sea bass non-story:
Allow me to connect some dots here. How did the story get from People into an…
I've postponed writing about Gore/IPCC Nobel largely because I wanted to see how the denialists would respond, and it has been interesting.
The problem is worsened by what Paul Krugman called Gore Derangement Syndrome:
So if science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts…
This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H.E.Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's GW news roundup
(skip to bottom) Top Stories, Nobel, Anti-Gore, UK Court Case Melting Arctic, Walruses, Humidity, Solar Cycle Hurricanes, CO2 Equivalents, 455 ppm, GHG Sources, Glaciers, Sea…
Last night, instead of writing some blog entries for you to read today, I went to the movies and saw An Inconvenient Truth.
An Inconvenient Truth is the companion film to the book with the same name by former-Vice President Al Gore. This film chronicles Gore's life as he discusses some of the…
Hilarious!
I really does all boil down to 'Al Gore is Fat'... Wonders never cease.
Some of the comments appearing are funny as well.
I didn't realise you were being absolutely literal!
Thwack! Take that Al Gore! Timmy doesn't like you,and he'll...and he'll...[lip quivers]
No doubt about it,Blair always brings his best game when they give him a column.
Al Gore's avoirdupois is the key flaw in the entire climate catastrophist argument, and this revelation will doubtless bring the whole climate "science" gravy train to a shuddering halt.
Or something.
Jebus, I assumed you were exaggerating for comic effect too. Then I read the article and find you've distilled it perfectly. Astonishing.
I see Blair inadvertently forgot to delete his editor's instructions:
"Same exhausted jokes."
To steal another phrase from the Sadlynauts "Always trust the shorter". Blair's piece really boils down to "Al Gore is fat".
What is it with the Gore obsession? Like the hockey stick obsession, the Gore obsession seems to never, ever die....
I tried to post in the comments, just to see if I could.
No go, even with just a mild hint of disagreement.
It seems that there is a very particular type of moderation occurring at the Daily Telegraph.
Not only is Gore fat, but he also has nine bathrooms. Oh, I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!
I wonder if part of the obsession with Gore is that, according to elements that make up the denier ideology, "ALL-ENVRONMENTALISTS-WANT-US-TO-FORCE-US-TO-LIVE-IN-CAVES". Al's affluent lifestyle repudiates this bit of ideology so.... HE MUST BE A LIAR and HYPOCRITE because "ALL-ENVRONMENTALISTS-WANT-US-TO-FORCE-US-TO-LIVE-IN-CAVES", makes sense doesn't it? And that of couse moves easily onto Al being fat, makes sense doesn't it?
The "ALL-ENVRONMENTALISTS-WANT-US-TO-FORCE-US-TO-LIVE-IN-CAVES" meme has been spouted by Nick Minchin. In fact, for those on this blog from outside of Australia this meme is wisespread at all levels of Australia. My fellow Australians have a great capacity to follow meme's from both side of politics.
The thing is I wouldn't be surprised if Tim Blair actually believes what he writes.
That should be:
"ALL-ENVRONMENTALISTS-WANT-TO-FORCE-US-TO-LIVE-IN-CAVES"
Duhh on my part!
God Bless America! God Save the Queen! God Praise St. Tim Blair the Skeptic!
In this day and age of Political Correctness™, where people fear to say the truth about Al Gore for fear of being sent to the Liberal Gulags™, it is refreshing to see someone like Tim Blair being able to speak Truth to Power™, or should it be Truth to Fatness™. Like Martin Luther's 99 Theses, like Galileo's E pur si muove!, like Anne Frank's diary, the potent words of St. Tim Blair the Skeptic have pierced a sharp blade through the stultifying veil of political correctness that permeates our liberal-biased landscape.
No doubt the warmists will now be rushing to crucify this great hero, this great St. Tim Blair. They'll vilify him, mock him, call him names. But at the end of the day, they can't deny that what St. Tim Blair says is the Truth: that Al Gore is Fat! Magna est veritas, et prævalet! Veritas liberabit vos! Let the Winds of Freedom blow across the world, and chase away the Winds of Al Gore the Fat!
For slowly but surely, the scales are falling off the eyes of the public, and the public is starting to see the Global Warmist movement for what it is: a big, fat, bloviationary movement created in the image of Al Gore the Fat. The time has come for us to deliver the final blow to the fat bloated scam of Global Warming. This coming election, if you'll remember only one thing, remember this: vote for Koch, vote for America! Ave Cochtopus!
-- frank
Frank,
I confess that I read your missive with awe.....awe!
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Tim,
Approximately 5-years ago you posted a comment that said
"Category: Milloy
Posted on: September 27, 2005 5:23 AM, by Tim Lambert
William Connolley catches junkscience.com claiming that Global Climate Models can't recreate the temperature record of the 20th century. However, they can and its no secret unless you get your science from junkscience rather than actual scientists."
How are the models doing with the last 10 years? Still recreating them accurately? What about the Medieval Warm Period, do the models accurately predict that?
Snorbert Zangox, you have a point. As Al Gore gets fatter and fatter, the Medieval Warm Period -- which happened in medieval times -- also progressively gets warmer and warmer, to the point where a climate model from 2005 can no longer predict something happening in the past.
Can any of you imagine the billions and trillions and jabillions of dollars that went into so-called 'climate models' just to 'predict' the Medieval Warm Period? Yet none of them could truly predict the Medieval Warm Period, for the simple reason that the Medieval Warm Period happened in the past! How can anyone predict something happening in the past? This clearly shows that the trillions and billions and trillions and jabillions of dollars spent on 'climate models' were nothing but sunk costs used to prop up Al Gore the Fat's expensive scam!
Bottom line: We don't know whether there'll be catastrophic global warming in the works. What we do know is that the technocratic elitists at the IPCC -- THE IPCC!!!! -- have followed the footsteps of the Inquisition by spending billions and trillions and jabillions of dollars of your tax dollars -- YOUR TAX DOLLARS!!!! -- on trying to predict the past, and they've spent billions and trllions and jabillions more of dollars in trying to clamp down on brave, down-to-earth, skeptics such as St. Tim Blair -- he who, like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Antoine Lavoisier, has been blacklisted by Warmistas for the crime of calling Al Gore Fat.
Bottom line: Vote for Koch, vote for America!
-- frank
I posted a note to Tim Lambert. Who is Frank? Who is Koch?
Does Tim care to answer?
Frank,
I bow down in awe to your language. I now know why Christopher Monckton can express himself so eloquently.
I am in.......awe.
Snorbert,
Seeing you have taken the time to read Frank's brilliant expose of the whole AGW, sorry my mistake, CAGW scam (SCAM!!!) then I am sure you will have time to let your fingers do a little googling on the name Koch or just go straight to the New Yorker article.
Snorbert,
BTW when you posted your note Tim Lambert was likely to be asleep because the world is round and so to cope with that is divided into time zone thingys. Tim Lambert, who lives in Australia is in a different time zone thingy from I as I live in London which is why he most probably hasn't answered your postal. Seeing your posts time in at evening London time (gong, gong, gong....) I'm gonna make the assumption that you are in either the E'rup time zone thingys or the nth 'Merican time zone thingys.
Snorbert,
Since your post has little to do with Al Gore or Tim Blair's writings, I suggest you might have more luck in the open thread.
I suggest you might have more luck also if you don't confuse European/North Atlantic temperatures with global ones, then wonder why the global temperature models do not recover a particularly warm period in the middle ages.
Someone's smart:
http://www.votesanity.org/
"Because you might be mad, but they're crazy."
hat tip to: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Probably for the same reason that creationists obsess over Piltdown Man, which for the scientific community ceased to be an issue over half a century ago. It confuses the audience about the actual evidence (or in the case of Gore, the actual scientific authority).
Snorbert Zangox:
Snorbert, you have been misled by someone who forgot to inform you that 10 years is not long enough to measure climate. Why don't you try an averaging period appropriate to climate like 30 years? You'll find the models estimate that quite well.
[A piece today by Shaun Carney](http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-fades-to-green-20101029…) in The Age is headed by a cartoon by John Spooner. Have a read of the caption. Now we know where Spooner's little heart lies.
With due respect for his flat correctness, i find "frank's" pronunciamentos leave me flat.
Primo, not enough Latin. Please.
Secundo, his family is not one ... known to me. And if not to me, then unlikely to anyone of import.
Tertio, Albert Hussein Gore is not only fat, he's part of a dedicated Stalinist cabal I was instrumental in exposing and yet I am not credited.
Perhaps I should take my platinum Nobel pin to a better venue.
In a galaxy far away, Yoda say "Obese, Al Gore is".
Almost a negative cult of personality. What will they do without Gore?
What an idiotic article. Al Gore is fat. So are narwhals and yet New Scientist tells us they are proving that the Arctic depths are warmer than we thought. This a fatty conspiracy
@8, Tim Blair's censorship principles are nowhere near as rigorously enforced as the likes of Akerman though, Bernard.
I mean, all sides block or reject commentary to various degrees for various reasons, but the Far Right seem to be particularly in love with the principle. Akerman privately wrote in response to one blogger's complaint that he'd consider publishing his views only if they agreed with him!
That's what I like about this blog. Generally restricted is the obsessive trolling from those with untreatable psych problems, but ordinary denialati can still come here and make geese of themselves with silly arguments if they wish.
It's probably not a new low for Tim Blair but it's clear he has no long term program of lifting his game.
monkeywrench - Shorter Spooner "It rained, global warming is over".
But it is a nasty little effort isn't it? Also shows once again how effective these people have been in finding stunts (like taking AIC to court, stealing emails, "broken hockey stick") that, magnified by the media, resonate for years afterwards. It is a sign of how effective Gore was in creating a resonance in the other direction (something we seem to find difficult) that they hate him so much.
Sorry, AIT of course, brain snap there.
When it comes to weight Tim shouldn't be pointing fingers. Every year there's a little more to love.
[Note that this was a column in the Daily Telegraph, so presumably there was an editor who could have saved a lot of ink and paper by trimming Blair's column down to just 11 letters.]
15 if you count the period and spaces -- and they are the most interesting parts.
Says it all, doesn't it? Thanks for your help!
Considering we have the prize charlatan, Gore, with his multiple mansions, preaching this AGW/sustainability snake oil, it is quite telling that Mr Freeze-it can't refuse a cheeseburger.
Wouldn't you think?
Let's face it. Not even his own wife can put up with him. So why are defending the world's #1 hypocrite, TL?
You're going to have to try harder than that, bingbing. Some of the trolls that pop up here from time to time have at least got a bit of originality about them. Your kind of run-of-the-mill idiocy just isn't going to make much of an impression, I'm afraid.
bingbing:
In Tim Lambert's post, he says, and I quote:
>"Tim Blair, The inconvenient truths about Al Gore's hot-air footprint:
> * Al Gore is fat.
>Note that this was a column in the Daily Telegraph, so presumably there was an editor who could have saved a lot of ink and paper by trimming Blair's column down to just 11 letters.
>'Shorter' concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.⢠Acknowledgement copied from Sadly, No!.
>Update: James Massola promotes Blair's column in The Australian."
Explain to me, where is he, as you state: "defending the world's #1 hypocrite"?
I only see him pointing out that Tim Blair's puerile article could have been reduced to 11 letters and still say the same.
Ooh oooh bing bing they said nasty things about a denier article What can you do, what can you do? I know, Al Gore is fat!!! Hur hur game over.
"Incidentally, back at his old Nashville place, Gore's 2006 power bill was 10 times the local average."--Tim Blair
Yup.
Gore is a big fat hypocrite.
Which was actually the main thrust of Blair's article (as Tim Lambert well knows, when he pretends otherwise, he's simply doing what all lefties do 24/7...being dishonest).
People like Gore (and all AGW "true" believers I know) preach reducing CO2...but, don't practice.
bingbing: You are perfectly right. Al Gore's wife hates Al Gore, therefore, according to the scientific principles of logic and reason and laissez-faire capitalism, we must conclude that global warming is a hoax! Quod erat demonstratum; res ipsa loquitur; fiat lux!
And, Donald Oats: As Cicero might have said, Albertus Gorus obesus est. Lorem ipsum.
Come on, people! It's easy! Al Gore's wife hates Al Gore! Gore uses a lot of energy! Therefore, global warming is a hoax!
-- frank
Dave Surls, that "hypocrite" actually bought carbon offsetts for his entire energy bill. Exactly what he argues people should do in his book. Oh the horror, Gore DOES practice what he preaches!
Typical of wingnuts to leave the crucial details out.
Marco: Offsets, shmoffsets. We freedom-loving libertarians know that the only kind of currency that has any value at all are dollar bills produced by the money-making efforts of the Koch Industries and their 200+ rich allies. Indeed, by assuming at the outset that all activities not approved by Koch produce no value, we can mathematically prove that -- guess what -- all activities not approved by Koch produce no value! As a corollary, this also shows that Al Gore hates America.
Surely, in this age of liberal political correctness, this is an earth-shattering scientific result, and therefore I deserve a Nobel prize.
Remember: vote for Koch, vote for America!
Frank,
You can have a Nobel Peace Prize; they're cheap. I think that McDonald's has them to go with their Happy Meals.
Enjoy.
Snorbert Zangox: No, no, no, no, no. Surely, for my earth-shattering work showing the superiority of the Koch, you'll agree that what I deserve is no less than a Nobel Peace Prize for Economic Medicine.
And people, remember this: climate models never predicted that Al Gore and his wife will get divorced! If climate models are as powerful as climate scientists claim, surely they'll be able to predict this! Therefore, the conclusion is obvious: global warming is a hoax!
Al Gore is Fat. Vote for Koch, vote for America!
Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
Today, on the eve of the eve of the mid-term elections, our nation is faced with a stark choice. Before us lies two paths. One path is headed by Al Gore, who is a fat man, whose wife left him, who jets around the world telling people not to jet around the world, who received a leftist Nobel Prize. The other path is headed by Charles and David Koch, who are rich successful people, who give generously to non-profit groups, who courageously defend their rightful property.
One path leads to wealth and freedom; the other leads to poverty and oppression.
'But which is which?' I hear you ask. I understand your bewilderment: indeed, in these trying times, I myself have struggled with this question for a long time. But I was fortunate, because while struggling with this question, I discovered the Lord. And the Lord did shew me a very simple message.
"Vote for Koch, vote for America. And Al Gore is Fat. Amen."
It was at this moment that all became clear. I realized, there and then, that the path of Al Gore the Fat leads to destruction, slavery, fascism, the Antichrist, and mass extinction; and that the path of Charles Koch the Oily leads to democracy, diversity, wealth, and great happiness.
Therefore, you who are perplexed with the dilemma of which candidate to choose, I can now tell you this: Be perplexed no more, for the Great Lord hath spoken!
Vote for Koch, vote for America! And Al Gore is Fat! God Bless America! Amen.
Snorbert,
Have you learnt what climate is yet? Enjoy.
Dearest Snorbert Zangox
Seriously, [this](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-…) took me less than 5 minutes to find.
I'm not kidding. Less than 5 minutes.
Stop looking for a gotcha, and start doing some research.
You're welcome.
Never mind Al Gore's weight. How much does Tim Lambert weigh?
Christ, it's boring on Deltoid these days.
"Not only is Gore fat, but he also has nine bathrooms. Oh, I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!"
Well, I personally do find it rather shocking, and I think you're both right. Al Gore is right about global warming, and he is a hypocrite, carbon offsets notwithstanding. It is preposterous of global warming educators to live greedy, wasteful lifestyles, and then to lecture others about their much more modest lifestyles.
The social class differential when it comes to carbon footprints is not considered nearly often enough. We bitch about the ignorant redneck with his pickup truck while we jet around the world dozens of times per year and have nine bathrooms and several residences because, well, some people are just more important than others I guess.
Last I heard the whole carbon offset thing was questionable as well. And what would happen if everybody lived like Gore? Would carbon offsets still work then?
"Last night, Al Goreâs global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy."
"Goreâs mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)."
"In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home."
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWhâmore than 20 times the national average."
"Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWhâguzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Goreâs average monthly electric bill topped $1,359..."--Tennessee Center for Policy Research
And, that's just ONE of fat boy's mansions.
Biggest hypocrite on planet earth...in more ways than one.
Isabel, and Dave Surls,
Al Gore's girth or number of mansions have absolutely no bearing on whether he is right in calling for governments to legislate about global warming, just like it has no bearing on the scientific basis of his argument. Do you mistrust your general practicioner telling you you have cancer, only because he smokes?
Dave,
As commented of Tim Blair's case above, why don't you just rant:
>Al Gore is FAT!!!
And save yourself the time and wrist stress?
I'd previously accepted the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding global warming. Unfortunately, discovering Al Gore is nothing but a fatty fat fat, has rendered this consensus invalid.
Once again, Dave Surls, we REPEAT:
Yes, Gore is overweight (that makes him quite unique doesn't it?).
Yes, his wife left him (another rare-as-hens-teeth trait).
Yes, Gore has big energy bills and arguably should do more to reduce them.
Sooooooo........entertain me for just a minute here.......how does this affect what is happening with global climate and what we should do about it?
I agree with you Isabel, but don't you agree with Mike?
Al Gore is right. AND he is a hypocrite. This is extremely problematic (besides being incredibly offensive) because it gives his enemies easy ammunition, renders his pleas to average Americans offensive (they are not the idiots you believe them to be, they're just busy trying to get through the day, unlike Gore) making them much more likely to disbelieve him (yeah, i know after a hard day at the boring, hard job, the PTA meetings, dinner, they're supposed to take in a few scientific articles) and the whole fucking earth suffers as a result.
It's not about who is right, it's about what gets done. Is that clearer?
> Remember: vote for Koch, vote for America!
Are all Americans Koch-mad???
(PS would frank be a poe-dunk???)
> Snorbert, you have been misled by someone who forgot to inform you that 10 years is not long enough to measure climate.
What makes it a howler is that you cannot disprove the climate models with only 10 years data either!
For all their pontificating, if you take their cherry pickings and see if they disprove the climate models, they fail.
ChrisC
How about this. http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hansen88_v_obs2.jpg
ChrisC,
This one is fun too.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01348137ed36970c-pi
Too right Alex, the scales had to fall from your eyes eventually mate ... as soon as Al packed on the old avoirdupois, AGW theory was pretty much dead in the water.
Gore's lack of restraint at the dinner table means the denialwits can now validly claim to have won every argument they ever made no matter how clapped out, f**ked-up, contradictory, moronic, flatulant, lemming-like, spineless, cherry-picked, piss weak, spittle drenched, twisted, dishonest, pungent to the nostrils, and generally brain dead it is.
... and then, in a moment of skull busting brilliance, Snorer@60 delivers the coup-de-grace by posting a completely anonymous graph.
Utter. Genius.
Snorbert
>*This one is fun[ny] too.*
Had me smile and the stupidity of showing temperature ending 117 years before present then and using this to claim CO2 has no effect!
snorbert @59 and 60,
I get it! It was cold at home today, wasn't it?! How about you (again) start to learn the difference between [weather](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather) and [climate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate)?
Are you unable to comprehend, as I [explained above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/shorter_tim_blair.php#comment-2…), that a MWP detectable in Europe need not reflect on global temperatures?
As for your second graph, are you really trying to compare local temperature in the arctic (Greenland) with CO2 data from Law Dome (Antarctica) and seriously make a case that the local climate of one disproves the local CO2 of the other? You really are pretty clueless compared to the average drop-in...
Monsieur Zangox,
You're first link is broken, and I couldn't turn up anything after a quick peruse of Steven Goddard's site (although I did learn that Goddard not only doesn't know the difference between weather and climate, he also doesn't understand peer review either).
You're original "question" was:
You didn't seem to like the answer I gave, as you promptly shifted the goal posts to a single projection made by one modelling group more than 20 years ago. Fine.
So rather than rely on the likes Goddard, let's head on down to the [peer-reviewed literature](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Hansen_etal_1.html). How did Hansen's team do?
In short, quite well. The trends from 1984 to 2006 calculated by GISS and Hadley as 0.24+/- 0.07 and 0.21 +/- 0.06 deg C/decade. The model, scenario B gives a trend 0.24+/- 0.06 deg C/decade. Pretty good. However, Hansen et al caution on jumping to conclusions:
These issues haven't gone away, but a lot of work has been done on improving models.
As for the second part of your question, once again, lets have a look at the literature [here](http://www.clim-past.net/2/99/2006/cp-2-99-2006.pdf) and [here](http://www.clim-past.net/6/445/2010/cp-6-445-2010.pdf) (Warning: PDFs). In short, we're getting there. Simulating the pre-instrumental climate is a much more difficult problem than simulating the climate during instrument periods. From the later, more recent paper:
We have performed two millennium-long simulations with the IPSLCM4 climate model to evaluate the impact of Total Solar Irradiance variability, CO2 and orbital forcing on temperature during the last millennium. The SGI (Solar, Greenhouse gas and Insolation) simulation reproduces well the temperature evolution during the last millennium around the LIA.
We're getting there.
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your second link. If you're point is that temperature and CO2 are not perfectly linked, then you'll find no one here who will disagree. But a single (long) time series, from a single location in a region influenced by multiple climate drivers over the past millennia is not a way to make a point that CO2 and climate don't have any relationship.
"Gore's lack of restraint at the dinner table "
This whole theme of this post and thread is disingenuous. The article talked about his entire lifestyle which is far more damning. I challenge any one of the sarcastic posters to defend this. Is Al Gore more deserving than average workers, who are asked to sacrifice?
You can't defend it, so you focus on the fat aspect. That's your shorter version. The only one you feel you can rip to shreds. You're right, being fat is common. And it's not what makes people think he is a flaming hypocrite.
Do you actually care about the situation or is it all about your egos?
> The article talked about his entire lifestyle which is far more damning.
Only if you are of the opinion that wealth==evil.
Which, oddly, is a common meme amongst denialists and VERY widespread on the anti-eco lobby as projected on to the ecology aware people they wish to demonise.
Odd how you're subscribing to that meme.
Can you say what is damning?
And in what way is he asking for sacrifice from workers that the Koch brothers, Rush, Glen Beck et al are all demanding be done for their enrichment at all the tabagging parties?
Do YOU merely care about your ego and throw despite at someone who has acquired those things you lust for but not succumbed to their own ego and power?
ChrisC,
You are correct, the link did not paste into the comment accurately. Try this http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hansen88_v_obs2.jpg
ChrisC,
Well it failed again, let me try again. http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hansen88_v_obs2.jpg
I see what is happening, the end of the address is not reproducing correctly. As I see it on this comment page it ends with _v_obs2.jpg None of that is correct in the comment after it appears on the web site. Interesting.
Perhaps this post should be retitled: Fatter Tim Blair?
Snorbert, can I recommend reading the markdown help (link just above the comment box) and using the preview option.
The underscores in the URL are being treated as italics.
Those of us that have seen this mistake before have already worked out what your URL is supposed to be, and remain singularly unimpressed.
O! say can you seeby the dawn's early lightthat Al Gore is Fatat the twilight's last gleaming?
Know that Al Gore is FatScrew his glob'l warming scienceOil is good for your soulVote for Kochtopus right now
Because Al Gore is FatOh yes Al Gore is FatGave proof through the nightthat all science is a scam
Oh say does that star-spangledbanner yet wavebecause Al Gore is Fatand AGW's a scam?
"Odd how you're subscribing to that meme."
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Nice defense. Maybe you could just call me a teabagger and be done with it.
"Can you say what is damning?"
Really? You really don't get why having nine bathrooms (in only one of your residences) is offensive when you are asking ordinary workers to use less energy? Are you that dense?
ChrisC
Allow me one small protest, before I begin. You open with a paper by Hansen that compares model output to temperature over a 22-year period. One of the rude respondents instructed me earlier that 30 years is the minimum duration for climate studies.
On to the point. Hansen is comparing models that IPCC designed for the purpose of correlating temperature increases to carbon dioxide increases. This study merely continues the trend. IPCC has made no serious attempt to find alternative mechanisms for the current warming of the climate. If IPCC had successfully looked for and found alternative mechanisms, their models would do a better job of hind casting earlier temperature rises and falls. In addition, I think that were the models more inclusive they would include some means of describing the ongoing 15- to20-year episode of rising carbon dioxide concentration and steady or slightly rising air and ocean temperature. To paraphrase an old TV commercial-âWhereâs the heat?â
I ascribe little credence to your first link, the title of which implies that the authors wish to continue the myth that the Medieval Warm Period was a North Atlantic occurrence. Too much data put that claim to the lie. I applaud the efforts of the second paper to include a solar input to the attempt to describe past temperature changes. I think that if they are to succeed, they must find plausible mechanisms, outside of total solar irradiance. I think that the correlation between temperature and the inverse of solar flare rate must have some meaning, though few are trying to explain it. I also anticipate that as this type of modeling improves the relative contribution of carbon dioxide will shrink. Also, I think that we have a long way to go before we can do anything more than guess what the effect of clouds will be in a warming climate.
The second link was to demonstrate a 200-year period of increasing carbon dioxide concentration that lacks a concomitant temperature increase. In response to your objection about a single location, here is a link to similar data from Antarctica.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133edf823ab970b-pi
>*The second link was to demonstrate a 200-year period of increasing carbon dioxide concentration that lacks a concomitant temperature increase.*
Ha ha!
Aided by the fact that the temperature data does not include any change in the [last 139 years!](http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat)
Hilarious!
Isabel: How many strawmen can you fit in a single comment?
No-one is claiming Gore doesn't appear to be hypocritical in some respects, despite buying carbon offsets.
No-one is claiming Gore is "more deserving" than average everyday workers.
No-one is claiming Gore couldn't set a better example for efficient energy use.
What people here are asking you and others like Tim Blair, is "why do you have this completely morbid fixation on what Gore does and how fat he is?" You fiddle while Rome burns. You lash out at Gore as if his own example personally discredits the entire field of climate science and the work and expertise of hundreds of scientists, while Gore has absolutely nothing to do with the validity and reality of what is happening nor what needs to be done about it.
Tim Blair is an expert at this: incoherently rambling on side issues as if it's another "nail in the coffin" to climate science or the need to modify how we produce and consume energy. His devotees follow suit.
Snorbert Zangox:
You're just a fact-denying troll.
"What people here are asking you and others like Tim Blair, is "why do you have this completely morbid fixation on what Gore does and how fat he is?"
I said the exact opposite, that it is not about how fat he is. Welcome to another internet conversation. Yep, real helpful. I said he was a horrible example, and therefore a horrible spokesman.
And how many times to I have to say I agree with him as far as global warming? Seriously how many times? Please READ my posts before you address any more comments to me.
"You fiddle while Rome burns"
Actually that was my point about Gore's LIFESTYLE. That's what people who live like him are doing.
His facts may be correct, but he is a poor example, which gives fact-deniers easy ammunition. And yes, I think he is verging on the offensive.
I give up. It's too obvious apparently.
And yes people do seem to be denying his hypocrisy, or diminishing it, or throwing strawmen at *me*. (I am jealous of his riches etc).
Go on, call me a teabagger. That'll show me, and help to inspire and educate people!
From my reading of the Gore icon debate, he is only a hypocrite to the degree that his offset don't work.
So without knowing which type of offsetting he uses, it is difficult to tell how real their effect is, and thus wheather or to what extent Gore is a hypocrite.
Isobel, are you sure that Gore's offest are ineffective?
I know nothing about the guy's offsets. I simply know of no research supporting the value of offsets. Do you? Offsets are a short term solution for greedy energy users at best. Why doesn't he donate his money AND serve as a positive example?
Whatever their actual effectiveness, offsets appear to be blatant ways for the rich and greedy to throw money at the problem. Not good PR as far as the average citizen is concerned. I am concerned about educating and inspiring the fucking voters/public. Gore is a bad example. Most people (myself included) resent a wasteful greedy person telling them to use less energy. I am amazed that I even have to explain this.
It is not about people arguing their cases on the internet. That is totally irrelevant. It will not have any effect on the outcome. I am focusing on the big picture. Resentful people will resent following the lead of someone they resent, whether you think they are wrong or not. What you or anyone thinks of them makes zero difference in the outcome.
IT FUCKING DOESN'T MATTER. Sorry, please read my posts! Oh dear, I see more and more clearly every day why we are in the mess we are in, and yet it seems like I am powerless to do anything about it. Rome is burning, as someone pointed out above, and you want to have a debate and split hairs and prove who is smarter than who. As if that would help!
And he IS still a hypocrite because offsets are not only unproven as effective strategies (as far as I am aware-do you have evidence that rich jet-setters are really offsetting their damage by using offsets?) they are a short term solution at best. He can't give up his own lifestyle and he is not walking the walk.
And I now think YOU all are hypocrites, because I would bet anything that if some Christian traveling the world preaching abstinence and faithfulness to one's spouse turned out to be screwing tons of young unmarried women behind his own wife's back you (and PZ and Brayton etc) would have a field day.
Isabel, you're absolutely right.
The best way to inspire and educate people about global warming is to constantly point out ... that Al Gore is Fat!
The best way to show you're not a Tea Party wacko is to constantly point out ... that Al Gore is Fat!
Now, Al Gore's fatness is not the main point, but ... but Al Gore is Fat!
Why are you all rushing to defend Al Gore? You should all distance yourselves immediately from him and everything he's touched! Treat An Inconvenient Truth like nuclear waste! Quarantine the 'hockey stick' like it's the swine flu! Run away from cap-and-trade as if it's a swarm of locusts! Warn the whole world that Al Gore is Fat! Only then -- only then -- can we start to have a real, adult, mature conversation about global warming!
Isabel I come from NZ and from my perspective most Americans have excessive lifestyles. From the perspective of the people of Haiti it is I that has an excessive lifestyle.
This of course has nothing to do with the science of climate change, but does have a lot to do with possible remedies. It is this discussion that we need to be having. How do we address the cost of changing climate in a fair, equitable, and efficient manner? The Tim Blairâs of this world do not want to have that discussion so they obfuscate and confuse on the science. That is the point (ironically) being made here by Tim and others.
Also the âfactsâ are not his he is just presenting the âfactsâ using a flash PowerPoint presentation, but it is quite easy to circumvent Mr Gore entirely and just read the IPCC WG1 report or Spencer Weartâs book on climate science to get the âfactsâ. Then have a look at IPCC WG3 report on mitigation and WG2 report on adaption for possible costs and responses. I think that the Stern report is also online for an assessment of potential costs and response measures.
Letâs start talking about how we can respond to AGW in a way that might even possibly make the world a little better for our children and childrenâs children.
Doug,
Really? Most Americans have more extravagant lifestyles than New Zealanders? In what way? Please elaborate. And how is the difference, if it exists at all, comparable in any way whatsoever to the difference between NZ and Haiti??
One upper class American family burns 10 or 20 times (at least) more carbon than the average lower class family. What do you mean when you say "most" Americans?
"This of course has nothing to do with the science of climate change, but does have a lot to do with possible remedies. It is this discussion that we need to be having."
I thought that was what we were discussing.
Isabel,
Is Al Gore, because he's overweight, disqualified from pointing out that we have to do something about climate change and do it now? Or because he's rich? Does being rich and successful preclude him from using some of his (not inconsiderable) funds to point out the flaws in the system?
I rather think conservatives froth at the mouth at the mention of Al Gore not because they think he's a hypocrite, but because he's viewed as a traitor to the rest of them, as his suggestions will cost them (and him) money.
Isabel, how many americans that you know use a clothes drier instead of hanging their washing out on a line, as is the norm in NZ and most other countries?
So is the implication that you're not a fan of PZ or Brayton either, Isabel?
Hmmmm.....I detect the faint whiff of creationism and deep conservatism.....
OK, just for a single example, you've never driven on an American highway? Fair enough. I have, a lot. It still never ceases to amaze me how many gas guzzlers are on the road, how hard it is in peak hour to spot a car with more than one person in it, and how crappy most public transport is.
Oh no, let's not stop at one. The other thing which never ceases to amaze me (and everyone else I know who has been to the US), is the average food serving sizes. It has to be double (even more in some cases) what you get almost anywhere else in the world, a significant amount of which just gets thrown out when you're so bloated you can't get up from the table. I don't know much energy is wasted producing this gross excess then chucking it out, but it can't be insignificant.
Of course, as deftly pointed out by Tim Blair, we know where some of this excess goes, don't we? And Al Gore isn't the only one in the proud "fattest nation in the world".
"So is the implication that you're not a fan of PZ or Brayton either, Isabel?
Hmmmm.....I detect the faint whiff of creationism and deep conservatism....."
Hahahahahahahaha. Creationist! I love it! If you only knew! Hahahahhahaha. Thanks for that I needed a good laugh.
And by the way I am no conservative either. It's funny, every time I disagree with the status quo in a thread, I get no response to my views (except trivial ones like the NZ shit) but obsessive accusations about my apparent affinities with the perceived enemies. I must be a racist! A conservative! A creationist! I hate PZ! I hate Al Gore! I hate the rich because I am so jealous! It is not possible that I simply disagree. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
Anyway it's hard to carry on a conversation when my comments are randomly moderated and then appear in random order.
"I rather think conservatives froth at the mouth at the mention of Al Gore not because they think he's a hypocrite, but because he's viewed as a traitor to the rest of them, as his suggestions will cost them (and him) money."
So there is no point in me being here, no matter what I say you would prefer to blab on and on about how much you hate conservatives. While Rome burns.
And I wanted to see STATISTICS on excessive lifestyles, not your biased personal impressions. Americans suck! Again how can you possibly compare this to the difference between NZ and Haiti? Haiti???
I think it's just fun to hate. Isn't it?
haters!
:)
And thanks again for the laugh there.
Isabel
Why not just drop the whole Al Gore thing? It's not like he's the be-all and end-all of banner-wavers for reducing waste and GHG emissions. So he's a hypocrite - so what?
Tim Blair thinks AIT should not be shown in Australian schools because Al Gore is fat. Isabel, on the other hand, thinks AIT should not be shown in Australian schools because Al Gore is fat. Do I have that right?
>*Most Americans have more extravagant lifestyles than New Zealanders? In what way? Please elaborate.*
Mike could mean [this way](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissi…).
>*I know nothing about the guy's offsets. I simply know of no research supporting the value of offsets.*
OK, so you don't know if Gore is a hypocrite if you don't know if he is making net reduction to global emissions. You can debate the value of offsets (an important debate) but if Gore has strong ground to beleieve his offsets are real this supports him from accusations of hypocracy.
Since you are ad homing Gore, perhaps you are willing to share what power source do you use Isobel?
And what actions need to be taken by someone before you would not attack them as a source of information on AGW?
>*haters!*
I don't understand where that came from. I see that a lot of people show intense hate for Gore. Which people are you labeling haters Isobel?
"So he's a hypocrite - so what? "
Forgive me for thinking he was the maker of the movie and subject of this post. Yeah lets forget him!
"Do I have that right?"
No, you don't. I think it *should* be shown, and I think his weight is irrelevant (and that the author was using it as a metaphor anyway, and an apt one) but I realize how hard it is to actually read other people's posts. Or maybe you are trying to be funny? Hard to tell.
I'm not attacking anyone Jokerman, I am only saying he is a sad excuse for a spokesman (which he unfortunately is, like it or not). And even if his offsets did work, which is in doubt, he is still a hypocrite. He is not doing what he asks others to do because he is rich and doesn't feel he has to.
Is it really so hard to get this? And why people resent him and are subsequently easily led astray?
Have you ever seen the old 1960's TV show, Lost in Space? There is this one episode where the family and their stowaway Dr. Smith are on a planet and experiencing severe water shortages. Mom carefully goes over all the strict water use rules, no this no that, so many ounces drinking water per day, etc. There is some grumbling, but she sternly explains the dire necessity.
So the boy Will goes off for a walk and soon hears the sound of singing in the distance. Curious he follows the sound and comes upon Dr. Smith, who, with the robot's help, is lathering up as he enjoys a nice, leisurely shower. Will is shocked, but Dr. Smith laughs off his concerns.
In this example, Al Gore is Dr. Smith. Does that help?
As for extravagance, Europe and the USA have approximately similar standards of living but Europe has half the CO2 emissions. That says a lot about the kinds of things that can be done to reduce emissions without impacting lifestyle (and I'm pretty sure that hanging the washing outside is not universal practice in Europe).
Of course, I speak from the oh so economical land of Oz. Which now boasts the largest average house size in the world along with an Olympic medal in the per capita emissions weightlifting event.
And please don't associate me with this Tim Blair asshole, I am just pointing out that using "Dr. Smith" as a spokesman plays right into his hands. Nine bathrooms? How many houses and swimming pools? While Rome is burning? No not greedy or hypocritical at all.
Once more you're absolutely right, Isabel. Rome is burning, the Earth is warming, therefore the most important thing now is to point out ... that Al Gore is Fat!
Why are you all defending Al Gore? The most important thing now is to remind the world that Al Gore is Fat! We must stop him from saying anything about global warming! Only then can we save the world from global warming!
Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman! Al Gore is a bad spokesman!
Rome is burning! Al Gore is Fat! Stop global warming! Al Gore is Fat! Al Gore is Fat!
psycho.
How about walking the walk? Serving as an example. Ralph Nader did it. As long as rich people enjoy and flaunt their lavish lifestyles others will aspire to be like them. It's completely normal. I'd love to see some per capita usage stats by socio-economic class.
Why should they give up their cars if the rich, even the liberal ones, won't give up their private jets and fancy vacations? Will Al Gore ride public transportation?
Are you saying that as long as we pay someone to plant a tree somewhere far away, and vote for public transportation (both of which I think we *should* do) we can all have three mansions each, complete with swimming pools and nine bathrooms? Is that like that "abundance" philosophy, where we can create our own realities?
"The most important thing now is to remind the world that Al Gore is Fat! "
Judging by the popular threads on science blogs the most important thing any progressive person do is whine 24/7 about how stupid Christians/conservatives/republicans/americans are.
How is that helping?
Isabel, once more you're absolutely right! Before we can do anything else to stop climate change, we must make sure that Al Gore -- and Al Gore alone -- put a stop to his lavish lifestyle!
Do all the progressive liberal elitists out there not know that all the world's efforts to stop global warming hinge on only one person -- Al Gore?
We can write the most detailed scientific papers we want about global warming, we can debunk all the most brain-dead, inconsistent, and incoherent arguments for global warming denialism, but as long as Al Gore is Fat, it's all for naught! So says Isabel, and Isabel is always right.
Isabel, I don't think anyone here is "using" Gore as a spokesman.
To what degree he is, he is a self-appointed one.
While I get your point, another way of looking at it is the net effect. He may have much greater carbon footprint with all his flying, but if a good deal of that is to raise awareness and that results in reduced carbon emissions amongst large numbers of people, then he is having a net positve impact.
Here's an anaolgy for you - I could sit in my candle-lit bedroom, eating lentils and only riding my bike and that would save 'X' tonnes of CO2 emissions. But what if I fly around the world promoting renewable energy and emissions reductions and as a result 5 million people reduce their carbon footprint for the rest of their lives?
>*And even if his offsets did work, which is in doubt, he is still a hypocrite. He is not doing what he asks others to do because he is rich and doesn't feel he has to.*
That's incorrect, he is claiming to be reducing his net carbon emissions. That's what he's promoting.
What standard are you holding him to? It's fallacious to hold him to a different standard (your own) to push the charge of hypocrisy.
He isn't and I forgive you. Tim Blair made him the subject of his illiberal and preposterous rant, which is the subject of this post by Tim Lambert.
And if I read the OP correctly, it's the bizarre fixation on Gore (not to mention the Greens and "greenies") that the Murdoch press regularly gives in to that's Tim Lambert's real target. So if you really want not to be associated with "this Tim Blair asshole", try stopping yourself sounding exactly like him.
Alright Isabel, if my "scent" was wrong, then so be it and I unreservedly withdraw the remark.
It's just that, you know, expressing a personal dislike of Brayton and PZ generally comes from certain corners and political persuasions, so you can probably excuse (or at least understand) my slant there.
Alright, let's start again:
Al Gore's lifestyle is not austere and energy-conscious enough to set a good example to us lower class people while he urges action over climate change.
Do you actually have any other point to make? Any at all? Why are you here? Why is everyone (except yourself apparently) misunderstanding you?
SteveC
You were almost convincing until your last line-I sound "exactly" like Tim Blair? After I said the film should be shown, it's irrelevant that AL Gore is fat, Al Gore is correct, global warming is real, we should reduce carbon emissions and use more public transportation and plant trees and Tim Blair is an asshole?
Wow. That's the internet for ya!
I agree with his characterization of Gore as a hypocrite. Therefore I am now exactly like him. Oooookay.
Listen I could give a shit about AG. But this OP is weak and disingenuous. THAT'S what I am saying.
Goodnight.
Isabel, anyone ever told you you've got extraordinarily long toes?
So I said "exactly". So scrub "exactly". Better now? Got the point yet?
Get over your fixation with Al f***ing Gore. There's more to life, there really is...
Michael,
I'm curious how the multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms per house help him "get the word out" so *other* people will cut consumption. You know, those people not rich enough to buy carbon offsets.
Also, I have asked numerous times for evidence of the effectiveness of the offsets. Anyone?
Mike,
it isn't that he's not austere enough, it's that he is over the top greedy and wasteful.
Whether he is being used or is a self-appointed spokesman is not relevant: he is in the public eye (he used to be vice-president and made a famous movie on the subject) so it is hardly "bizarre" that assholes like Blair focus on him. And hardly unexpected that his own lifestyle would be called into question.
Okay I will look forward to all your replies and insults in the morning.
Sweet dreams of a better future to you all!
Haha just saw this after hitting send and have to reply - *I* am fixated with Gore now? I couldn't care less about the guy. Saying he's a hypocrite = fixation? Well I don't know what the fuck you are on about with the bizarre toe fetishizing - you are obviously obsessed with me. Get over your sick fixation!
You guys are hilarious:)
Please stop so I can get some sleep!
> I'm curious how the multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms per house help him "get the word out" so other people will cut consumption.
I'm curious how you listen to someone who has multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms and think they're the doberman's doobries, but when someone does this and offsets their usage by buying eco power, pay for higher insulation and reduced use and says that you should do so with your one swimming pool and bathroom home, you get all pissy.
I also fail to see why this makes the science wrong.
Just because Evel Knivel rode a motorbike over a canyon etc, would he be the WRONG person to tell you about safe driving?
Would it make you immune to crashes in a car at 120mph?
frank, it's more like the liberal elitists like Isobel (since it is the liberal elite who hate wealth and the wealthy) are making a big issue of how someone who is wealthy IS A BAD MAN and will remain so until they become poor.
Quite how she gets on with Rush who thinks anyone like Isobel who hates the rich is a nutcase is anybody's guess.
Isabel,
Do you not understand or are you just ignoring the issue of net effects?
If i was to buy solar panels for my domestic electricity generation, you would criticise me as a hypocrite for the large carbon footprint of the PV panels?
> IT FUCKING DOESN'T MATTER.
If, by "it", you mean whatever you're complaining about Al Gore about, then yes, it fucking doesn't matter.
If Al Gore ground up cute puppies and ate them live on stage, it wouldn't make Climate Change not happen and it wouldn't mean you could ignore the exhortations to cut waste in energy and find better ways of using the energy you can get cleanly.
Your hate against Al Gore who is
a) rich
b) has turned upper-class traitor
doesn't matter.
Your posts don't matter.
Are you going to reduce your waste?
THAT MATTERS.
> And yes people do seem to be denying his hypocrisy,
We haven't yet heard the hypocrisy, except that he is both rich and not wasteful and asks that others waste less too.
Apparently, for you, the rich cannot tell the poor what to do. EVER.
> or diminishing it,
See above.
> or throwing strawmen at me. (I am jealous of his riches etc).
You are and they're not strawmen.
You have stated explicitly that he cannot tell working people to reduce waste because he's rich.
You hate the rich.
Or at least the ones who campaign for less consumption.
And, again, since our newest hateraid drinker seems to have forgotten her own words:
> The article talked about his entire lifestyle which is far more damning.
Al Gore lives a rich lifestyle and this is damning.
Isobel hates the rich.
OK, Isabel, let's make this simple for you:
re you a troll, or a concern troll, or just an idiot?
(Oh, and if you reply with 'Waah! You're calling me a teabagging neocon!' then you've just exposed yourself as a concern troll who's also an idiot.)
* * *
Wow:
> frank, it's more like the liberal elitists like Isobel (since it is the liberal elite who hate wealth and the wealthy) are making a big issue of how someone who is wealthy IS A BAD MAN and will remain so until they become poor.
Clearly Isabel isn't an "elitist", because she sounds so folksy, and she speaks for the little troll guy.
> Clearly Isabel isn't an "elitist", because she sounds so folksy, and she speaks for the little troll guy.
This is EXACTLY why she's a *liberal* elitist. She's "talking for the little guy" as if they can't talk for themselves and they need someone to do it for them.
Bah.
She thinks she knows what's good for them and doesn't even care to educate herself.
Isabel:
I think I see what (one of) your problem(s) is. If someone is rich and leads a lavish lifestyle then even if he ensures that he does not generate emissions then he has no right to tell poorer people to stop polluting the atmosphere because it will cost them money. Among these "poorer" people, Isabel includes Australians in general. I can't quite figure out how this is anything other than wealth envy. (Real "poor" people, of course, hardly generate any CO2 emissions at all.)
Wow:
> This is EXACTLY why she's a liberal elitist. She's "talking for the little guy" as if they can't talk for themselves and they need someone to do it for them.
I beg to differ: that just makes her a self-appointed spokesgoon. (Like, um, Al Gore. Except much dumber.)
> Like, um, Al Gore. Except much dumber
Do we have anything on the avoirdupois issue for Isabel? :-)
" IT FUCKING DOESN'T MATTER.
If, by "it", you mean whatever you're complaining about Al Gore about, then yes, it fucking doesn't matter."
My posts were moderated and out are of order. I meant the analysis of his offests.
"I'm curious how you listen to someone who has multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms and think they're the doberman's doobries,"
I would always think they are a greedy asshole in todays' world. Who needs all that to be comfortable? No one.
"I also fail to see why this makes the science wrong."
So do I. Your point?
"You have stated explicitly that he cannot tell working people to reduce waste because he's rich."
Liar. I said he's a poor excuse for a (self-appointed) spokesman because he's not reducing his own waste asshole.
". If someone is rich and leads a lavish lifestyle then even if he ensures that he does not generate emissions "
Okay I missed how he ensured this. How did he do it?
"and doesn't even care to educate herself."
About what? I know quite a lot about global warming (I am a science grad student) and I said I looked for evidence that offsets are effective as claimed, couldn't find any and asked for your help. How is that "not caring to educate myself"?
I'm disappointed. All those messages, all ignoring the points I brought up and all you can come up with is I hate the rich (based on me thinking one person who does not practice what he preaches is a hypocrite) and I am dumb. >yawn<
ALL I said is the article is correct about the hypocrisy issue, Gore is indeed a spokesman in the public eye (was VP, wrote famous book and made famous movie) and it is hardly "bizarre" that his political enemies would "fixate" on his hypocrisy. I would counter that anyone who couldn't predict this outcome is pretty dim themselves.
Sorry I went away for a while so did not respond to Isabel earlier.
I think that the issue of consumption by Americans as compared to most of the world has been addressed. My point is that compared to the poorest inthe world we are all hypocrites, but that is not a reason to do nothing.
And no you are not discussing how we might address climate change you are discussing your hatred for Al Gore. That is not the same thing and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You need to move on and think about what needs to be done not necessarily who is saying it.
Isabel,
With regards to Al Gore, a few points:
1) He is not asking people to live in caves. He is pushing greeening of the economy -- increased use of renewable energy, decreasing demand through recycling, stuff like that.
2) It is true that in 2006 he used a lot of electricity. He does have a large house. This was before he had completed the green renovations on his house which is now a showcase for green technologies.
3) In 2006 the company which supplies power to Nashville did not have a green energy switch, it now does a he pays extra for green energy. I know for a fact the PG&E has a green power program, since I purchased power through that program while I was living in Northern California. I suspect that the power used by his Montecito mansion is supplied through that program.
4) At the time I researched this claim, he got his offsets through his investment company, Generation Investments. They invest heavily in companies developing renewable generation capacity and technologies. I suspect that his offsets are effective.
Yes, Al Gore is rich. But he does seem to be doing the things which he is promoting in his talks and through his work with the Repower America program. This makes him not a hypocrite, but rather an example of how you can live a greener life w/o impacting one's lifestyle -- exactly the message which he is promoting.
Rich people are powerful people. They're also very afraid of losing the rich lifestyle.
Having a rich man upfront on how to live that lifestyle while also being carbon neutral / friendly is a great propaganda item against the "You want us all to live in caves" theme song.
Rich people matter. Their opinions and their decisions matter. The more of them take up Gore's approach the better off we'll all be. Rich people's decisions affect the way the markets go. They affect where the technology goes.
OK, I think I've got it now. Isabel, you seem to have the following message:
I hate Al Gore. He leads an opulent wasteful lifestyle and he's a hypocritical ass.
and
You guys are asses too.
and
Tim Blair is also an ass.
which could all be neatly summed up as:
Everybody's an ass.
No-one hates you Isabel. I think we're mostly just trying to work out what you're trying to say, and I fully concede you've had me totally confused at various points as to what side of the fence you're sitting on, or even if you're on one at all.
Disliking people who have big houses or lots of money is pointless. Reducing fossil fuel consumption is a team effort whether you're rich or poor (while poorer people have less capacity to do this, it's irrelevant to the principle - every bit helps), and I think Gore has clearly made efforts to do that. Articles like Blair's though, never let facts get in the way of a good story, and your contempt for Gore is, I believe, both misplaced and somewhat irrelevant.
"Rich people matter. "
Best response yet. As long as you don't care about public opinion, and feel it is not important, cool.
I never once implied I dislike or hate anyone. He is not making any sacrifices, and yet he asks others to do so. Can you make the changes you want in green energy and infrastructure without caring about public opinion? If so (and I don't agree) cool.
But saying those against the changes are "bizarrely fixated" is ridiculous.
"(while poorer people have less capacity to do this, it's irrelevant to the principle - every bit helps)"
No. Your comment is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
And I would still like to see those stats. I've heard Americans are 5% of the pop and use 25% of the energy. Same would apply to classes within the US.
Isabel,
Your comments seem to assume much. How do you know Gore "is not making any sacrifices"? I'm not so in tune with his life to know one way or the other.
At any rate, I think his arguments are not about sacrifices but primarily about renewables - and he walks the talk on that.
Isobel writes:
>*"Rich people matter."* Best response yet. As long as you don't care about public opinion, and feel it is not important, cool.
I don't see any logic in Isobel's follow up inference of: *"As long as you don't care about public opinion, and feel it is not important, cool."*
>*[Gore] is not making any sacrifices, and yet he asks others to do so.*
He is trying to break the lock-step link between CO2 emissions and the economy. You seem under the impression that Gore trying to achieve another goal that requires some unclear, unstated sacrifice.
Perhaps rather than fallaciously calling Gore a hypocrite (for failing to meet your unclear standards) you could simply argue that Gore is not striving for some other goal than you value.
What sacrifices do you want him to be making? What is your goal that is not shared by Gore?
By now I think I'd like from Isabel some actual analysis, with a decent reference, of just what Gore is or is not doing to reduce his own CO2 emissions. I'm as sceptical as Isabel of the (multiply fatally) flawed concept of CO2 offsets itself and even more sceptical of the offsets lobby generally, but can Isabel actually prove her case against Gore?
Just beware, btw, Isabel that more than a couple of links in one comment, or use of expletives such as f**k, are likely I think (is this true?) to see you in moderation limbo.
Isabel:
Oh so that's what you're really worried about. Then why, pray tell, did you need to start complaining about how well off he is? Why are you obscuring your message?
frankis and Isabel,
Could either of you respond to my comment which pointed out that he is not a hypocrite?
Rattus,
Sorry I did not respond to your link. I am glad no one will have to change their lifestyles. I did not realize that, especially as heating bills are not the only aspect of a rich lifestyle. I will spread the word among my working class friends.
Isabel
Rattus, its becoming clearer as this thread progresses that clarity is not Isable's ally.
On the matter of posts being moderated out of order, this is not the case.
If one uses key words or too many links one's post can be held in moderation, but once released they go onto the thread in the chronological order in which they were submitted.
If one's posts do not make sense it is merely because one has said or done something in a particular post that means it will be delayed.
The final order of posts, once released from moderation, is entirely the poster's responsibility.
I rather suspect that all this fuss is about different visions of what a lower energy lifestyle / community might look like. It does not mean sacrifice in any real sense of the word.
In terms of selling it to the public at large, I think rather than advocating the get your fingers dirty activities I like, growing veg, keeping chooks, etc. it might be worth another look at a seriously technologically modern way of life. The Jetsons was a fun cartoon concept - and the idea that wealthy societies could live in communities powered by silent, invisible distributed solar in roads and buildings, with a bit of wind and geo to cover the gaps, in Mediterranean style climates would look like Jetson-style magic to earlier generations.
Other climates need more wind and tidal, but it's still possible.
We do need to "sacrifice" in terms of trivial consumption of shoes and car ornaments and food wastage, but there's no reason to sacrifice personal comfort or daily mobility.
Isabel,
When I was in Nor Cal, the green option was about a 10% premium. Let's take that as a baseline.
I am one of the working class. I live in an 800 square foot apartment. I drive a 10 year old economy car. Which I dearly hope to be able to make last another 10 years. I make 36K a year, which is considerably below the US national average. Working class enough for you?
My power company does not offer a green energy option, but let's take the 10% premium I paid in CA as an example. When the heater is off, my power bills are currently about $40/month. 10% premium for green power means 1.25 fewer beers per month at happy hour. Ouch. During heating season, my bills go up to about $140/month (leaky windows that I can't get my landlord to fix, and in MT, that is expensive, although she did replace the bad windows with good ones on a neighboring apt which had heavy exposure to the record hailstorm we had here in June). A 10% premium is about $14/month. This is about 5 fewer happy hour beers a month. Bear in mind that I go to happy hour every f'in day. I would gladly pay this if I had the option.
The cost to "go green" is quite small, even in the cold, cold clime of MT. Of course if you have chosen to buy an oversize house it will cost proportionately more, but then nobody made you buy that house. Lots of families (like mine) raised their kids in much smaller houses than have been popular in the US up until now. Of course lots of people who bought bigger houses than they could afford are in bigger problems right now...
Of course when I lived in Santa Cruz, many of my friends lived in smaller houses and chose to spend there money on admittedly lavish things like sailboats, but that is a, oh what do you call it? A lifestyle choice.
I wrote to Al Gore's press operation and I'm waiting for a reply. When I get it, I'll post here.
Rattus @ 118 & 126: the Gore story as you've presented it is much the way I'd understood it, but I'm not as keen a Gore scholar as Isabel (I am a fan of his film though). Thanks for your efforts there. On offsets as a general proposition I'm super sceptical as I mentioned.
>*On offsets as a general proposition I'm super sceptical as I mentioned.*
More so for some than others for me. I am pleased that a rich person like Gore is investing in Green Tech rather than other options for rich to spend money.
Early adoption is costly but helps nurture a market reachable by wider population over time.
James Hansen lamented recently (last year of so) that we may need to wait a decade for the strength of evidence of the risk os AGW to overcome political intertia. In the mean time I'm willing to ally my self even with rich people who back the cutting edge of green tech.
I'm a big fan of his movie and his Paul Revere like efforts to raise awareness.
I'm keen to hear Isabel's critique jakerman because like you I'll be pretty much giving Al a big fat "Pass" if for him "offsets" means investing in clean energy technology and renewables. Come along please Isabel we wait with 'bated breath ...
Here are some helpful hints fat boy offers to the hoi polloi...
"Buy fresh foods instead of frozen"
"Seek out and support local farmer's markets"
But, when it comes to their personal dining habits, the Gores prefer to feast on patagonian toothfish, which are caught in Antarctic waters, then frozen and shipped all the way around the world to amuse the palates of uber-rich energy hogs...like the Gores.
"The youngest of Al Gore's three daughters, Sarah Gore, 28, married businessman Bill Lee in Beverly Hills on Saturday, family spokesperson Kalee Kreider confirms to PEOPLE..."
"...The Gore family hosted a rehearsal dinner for 75 family and friends the previous evening at Beverly Hills' Crustacean restaurant, a longtime favorite of the Gores."
Crustacean's executive chef, Helene An, created for the wedding-eve party a six-course tasting menu that included Chilean sea bass..."
LOL. Avoid frozen foods and shop for local products, eh?
Spare me.
The only point Tim Blair was trying to make is that Al Gore is a huge, gigantic and utter hypocrite...and there is no question whatsoever that Blair is exactly right.
And, no amount of disingenuous defelection by guys like Timmy Lambert is going to change the fact.
Deal, lefties.
Dave Surls hasn't that particular talking point been debunked?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/joining\_the\_dots\_on\_an\_antigor.php
If you were getting your worldview from avid following of Tim Blair rants you wouldn't be expected to be keeping up with progress in the real world too much, I'm sure. Perhaps Dave you can get out of gaol on this one as your name doesn't seem to appear in comments on that particular Deltoid thread, but I bet you're not going to retract or apologise or substantiate your bleats of "hypocrite", are you? Go on - why not surprise us!
I can't say that I've heard much from Al Gore about being a locavore. Being a locavore is a minor win.
But I've never been much of a fan of "Chilean Sea Bass" aka toothfish -- something which used to be considered a junk bycatch fish. I don't eat seafood unless I am in a place which has a fishing industry, and if it ain't caught local, I don't eat it. Fish that isn't off the boat just is not fresh enough for my taste. When I lived in Santa Cruz, I would eat Albacore, shark if it was being caught locally, salmon in season (once gaffed off the boat, cleaned in front of me and from there to the kitchen and to my plate, can't get any fresher...) I'd eat shark when it was available and calimari during season. Lots of people have a tolerance for seafood which is less than fresh, but like I said, I have not heard Gore say "be a locavore".
For example, the Repower America site says nothing about being a locavore. Quit setting up strawmen, you'll come off better.
"Dave Surls hasn't that particular talking point been debunked?"
Since I made no comment concerning the endangered species status of the toothfish...it's hard to see exactly what your link is supposed to be "debunking".
It's certainly not "debunking" anything I said.
I just don't get haters like Blair and Surls. Al Gore's youngest daughter gets freakin' MARRIED ... and like a raft of unflushable turds, denialists bob up from around the S-bend foaming at the mouth about a millionaire spending his money on a family celebration and eating farmed toothfish !! FFS, the guy can't let his hair down once in a while ??
Isn't the whole idea that we don't have to retreat to the caves to try and counter AGW, we just need to make more intelligent choices about how we live our lives to reduce the adverse impacts we're having on the planet ??
> Isn't the whole idea that we don't have to retreat to the caves to try and counter AGW,
Isn't it odd, too, Chris, that so many people who hate ecological warnings prattle on about how the greenies want them to live in stone age caves, yet THEY are the ones insisting that other people live in squalor.
Of course, when someone comes along who DOES live like that, they're derided as "nuts".
Both projection and a double-forked two faced lie.
The denialist position is that you're a hypocrite unless you live in a cave and are self-sufficient or are otherwise living a primitive life. They then say they don't want to live like that.
> They then say they don't want to live like that.
Then they say you're a nutjob for living in a cave, so your position MUST be wrong.
(you forgot that piece, Chris. I wish I were joking...)
[Children's books these days](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/speaking_of_mental_illness.p…):
Well, salty, when the ice at the poles are gone, where are all the polar bears going to go? After all, isn't one of the many mantras of denialists "we just have to learn to adapt" and polar bears would adapt by moving where there's lovely food and warm caves.
I.e. your house.
So I hardly see how sitting on polar bears *disproves* AGW, but maybe your great intellect will allow illumination on this score...
Huh? Did you follow the link?
It's rather dangerous to do so when spots has spread tunyurls to what might be goatse's site for all the sense he makes.
So no.
If that would lead me to a different interpretation, then sorry. However you share some blame for it: context would have been helpful. There are many idiots who also have scienceblogs sites.
Wow, Wow. I share the blame for your jumping to absurd conclusions? The context was provided. That's obviously a quotation. If you hover over the link, you'll see that it's to a post at Pharyngula (perhaps you've heard of it? - the biggest Sb blog by a mile) with the title "Speaking of mental illness." (Not to mention that I've posted here in the past.)
Ease off the trigger, there.
My experience of Pharyngula is it's always worth a read. PZ Myers writes excellent stuff.
Children's books these days
Anyway, the conclusion is that some childrens books these days are written by politically-motivated nutcases. The climate science denialism was one thing PZ Myers didn't mention. He occasionally takes on the climate science denialists who tell you to, "come over to our blog and we'll explain everything to you". Riiiight.
That's why I did.
Yes, and often when they post there, I'll send them (dare them to come) here, where I know they'll find information...and be pummeled. :) At least one actually has, and I think he did stop with that particular line after the responses. (Don't get me wrong: there are great commenters willing to set them straight there, but countering AGW denialism is the specialization here, as countering pseudomedicine and antivax lunacy is at Orac's.)
> I share the blame for your jumping to absurd conclusions?
No, salty. But only because they weren't absurd conclusions.
In what way was your post indicating anything other than repeating how it's all a fake?
If you don't like it, tough.
Wow, what is wrong with you? There was a link in my post, to the most popular blog on this site, that was easy enough to follow (you could also have clicked on my name and gone to my blog, where you might have noticed Deltoid on my blogroll).
Look, just acknowledge the obvious - that you lazily jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I recognize that the number of denialist trolls here makes for reasonable suspicion of commenters unfamiliar to you, but in this case a few seconds' checking would have put it to rest.
Sheesh.
Salty, what's wrong with you? You seem unable to read what you wrote, never mind what I wrote.
I remain flummoxed and perplexed.
Maybe you're just in denial.
Salty Chocolate, have a look at spots:
> this sea surface temp is a worry pinocchio !
> http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
> The temperature on 11/08/2010 is
> 529.24 deg F warmer than this day last year
> hhmmm..... temp data ?????
> Posted by: sunspot | November 10, 2010 5:23 AM
over on thread 55.
Your post had a link and copied the atrocious story.
spots posts links and copies the atrocious story.
Added to which you could very easily still be a fifth columnist who is merely extremely pissed off that he's not under cover far enough. After all, as I remember reading recently in New Scientist, when you copy the lies, even if to debunk them, the lies get more eyes and gets more believed.
This may be your aim.
Or, alternatively, you seem unable and unwilling to accept that you could EVER be at fault for ANYTHING and that any problems are PROOF that everyone else is wrong.
What an aberrant mentality.
It was a link to friggin' Pharyngula, assclam, with a title that should have been at least suggestive.
Oh, easily. All of it over lo these many years - my activism, research, dissertation, teaching, thousands of comments on Pharyngula and other science blogs (including here), and blogging - all of it merely a ruse to ensnare the unwary until I can...post sneaky links that look like mockery on behalf of my corporate overlords.
The only thing worse than a paranoid loon is a lazy paranoid loon. I won't be responding to you further. (Oh, and I'm female.)
What is "pharyngular" and in what way am I supposed to know you did so?
> with a title that should have been at least suggestive.
> 143
> Children's books these days:
> > "As you can see from the hockey stick graph," Mr. Snore announced, "The earth will be ...
Suggestive of what?
Are you saying it is impossible for this to mirror some of the many posts by tin curtin, sunspot etc which contain pretty much the same copying of an atrocious piece of work verbatim as if this is somehow devastating to the IPCC's case?
Gah. I can't resist.
What part of THERE WAS A LINK AT THE BEGINNING OF MY POST @ #143 do you not understand? You can mouse over it and see what it's to. Pharyngula, once again, is the biggest Scienceblog by a wide margin; it's also one of the most popular science blogs on the planet. Look at the "Most Active" list on the right of the page once in a while. I was referring to the title of the post I was linking to: "Speaking of mental illness." You could at least have clicked on it before responding - would have taken far less time than it did to scribble your little comment. Or you could simply have asked for clarification.
Damn, but you're an idiot.
Yes you could.
Off topic, you're confusing me with someone who cares.
It's not in the slightest ever your fault, is it. And you call my words absurd...
Nut.
Well, the first step is to recognise the fact, salty. You can begin healing yourself now.
Wow, you occassionaly engage in 'friendly fire' incidents.
Can happen to anyone, plagued by trolls as we are here at Deltoid, but you unfortunately seem resistent to acknowledge the error.
Otherwise, your contributions in troll smiting are invaluable.
Hmm, Michael. Friendly like this:
> your jumping to absurd conclusions?
?
Salty posts something that states that ecos are terrifying and indoctrinating children.
And NOTHING about that could possibly be interpreted as supporting that idea? And anyone who does so is SOLELY AT FAULT!!!
Salty balls here is not friendly, he's an arse.
Note that MFS is also having problems with salty here.
Yet, strangely, not salty's fault in either case...
Note that MFS is also having problems with salty here.
Yet, strangely, not salty's fault in either case...
PS when you state:
> but you unfortunately seem resistent to acknowledge the error.
Yet salty balls here insists that this:
> However you share some blame for it: context would have been helpful.
is absolutely and inescapably wrong and he is NEVER AT FAULT!!!
Are you sure you're not shooting a friendly yourself?
PPS in what way is this:
> If that would lead me to a different interpretation, then sorry.
Not an admission Michael?
But no, that's ignored, isn't it. Salty ignores it and spews venom then you try with the two-faced "moderate" approach. Is this a good cop/bad cop routine you two have going on?
1) As I've mentioned, I'm female. Stop referring to me as "he."
2) You seem to have some real issues with paranoia, to be perfectly honest, and I'm not trying to insult you now. I've read many of your comments here, and agree with Michael that you otherwise make good contributions, but you really should think about this.
3) MFS and I are simply having a conversation. How that translates into MFS "having problems with" me here, I have no idea.