It's finally time to comment on Gore's Law: "As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one."
I don't know why this is. I remember the first bumber sticker I saw after crossing the NC-Tennessee border during my first trip into Nashville, Tenn., for my training session with Gore and his Climate Project. It was a 2000 campaign leftover reading "A Gore-free Tennessee." What Gore did to warrant such antipathy is beyond me. I wasn't living in the U.S. during his tenure as vice-president, so maybe I missed something. But I can't find anything on the computer network he invented to justify the feeling.
But hate him the climate change pseudo-skeptics do. The really frightening thing is the hatred extends to anyone who expresses solidarity with Gore's fears about the fate of the planet.
In a more general sense, the time between initiation of debate on climate and the first use of a snarky, irrelevant, ad hominem attack seems to be growing shorter all the time. This is not so much a problem at Scienceblogs, which has a relatively reasonable and respectful readership. (For those who would beg to differ ;;;; I said "relatively.") Elsewhere, the language that appears in some blog commentaries can be depressing in the extreme.
In response to a post I wrote at my Forecast Earth blog, in which I note "the failure of Barack Obama's campaign to demonstrate it understands the significance of [the climate crisis], I received the following reply:
Well, James, besides exposing your lunacy to the world with your global warming beliefs, you also run the risk of being labeled a racist. Good luck! (well, not really...I do enjoy seeing tree huggers and race mongers beat up on each other...)
This is par for the course on the comments section of FE blog, where anti-science sentiment runs rampant for reasons that are not readily apparent to me. I can take it, especially since I occasionally attract a gratifying word of support from those who advise me to pay no attention to such stuff.
But it all pales in comparison to the vitriol aimed at those who enjoy a higher profile in the climate wars. Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and one of the prime movers behind realclimate.org, has generously shared with me some typical "fan mail." Here it is, sender's name included:
Subject: Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:09:53 -0600I suppose you've heard the quote. The same applies analogously to computer models and NASA scientists. In addition to being a bonehead, you are also one of the ugliest proponents of anthropogenic global warming on the planet. May I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and feel that large, hot, bright ball on your face? You know that ball, don't you, the one that controls 99 percent of climate effects on earth?
Regards,
Marv Luse
Livermore, Colorado
I asked Gavin why the notion that the sun is responsible for global warming is such a resilient contrarian theory. His answer was "Because it's so obvious. And contrarians and the people they convince are not interested in subtleties."
Indeed. So how do you argue with someone who isn't interested in subleties? Or details. Or facts. Or civil discourse. Do you even bother? I think you have to. Because even the most stubborn among us can see the light, given the right conditions. It takes a lot of patience, but I see no alternative but to keep plugging away.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
He's a liberal. For a lot of conservatives that in and of itself is enough to justify an undying hatred that borders on psychosis. Worse: he's a liberal who is both successful and an effective communicator of progressive ideas. That makes him basically the anti-christ.
"Race monger" is now the official wingnut term for those who dare to mention issues of racism?
It would seem that at least one in five Americans is not just separated from reality, but bitterly divorced from it and refusing to pay child support.
Just how Barack Obama can offer a vision of "post-partisan" agreement in this climate puzzles the hell out of me. How does he really plan to proceed if he wins/blocks theft of the election?
ciao a voi tutti da scorz� Venezia
The Gore hatred is like the Clinton hatred. It is deep and irrational. I think it was originated and continues to be fed by the conservative talkroaches like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
"I asked Gavin why the notion that the sun is responsible for global warming is such a resilient contrarian theory."
I suspect it has the same sort of appeal for global warming denialists as the assertion that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics has for creationists.
I've notice myself how similar Neal Boortz - the guy who broadcasts blatant idiocy 33 hours a week where I live - sounds to creationists when he talks about warming.
http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2007/12/cut-from-same-cloth.html
Oh yeah, I forgot about Neal Boortz. He can sound almost reasonable on some issues, but then he turns on the crank and ends up spewing like the rest of them. He is the one who made me realize that a libertarian is just a republican who is too ashamed to admit it.
"Because it's so obvious. And contrarians and the people they convince are not interested in subtleties."
It's obvious for a reason. It's the big energy furnace that provides all energy for the earth. Changes in the sun = big changes in the climate.
But most of all, look at the huge amounts of data and excellent correlation that exist between climate and solar behaviour. Like you know, we've seen it time and again in the past.
This's something that the CO2 theory totally lacks.
Thick skin, you gotta have!
I see you've had yourself a banner July...a whopping total of about 60 comments.
Now compare that with Anthony Watts's or Climate Audit websites. Anthony Watts is approaching a million hits/month.
Ever get the feeling your movement is getting nowhere?
Jim,
Would you be in favour of an Obama government shutting down skeptic websites like Climate Audit or Watts Up With That?
Yes or No.
I for one would be in favor of Pierre Gosselin shutting up.
Pierre:
If I care enough about freedom of expression to let silly comments like yours stay on this blog, then you shouldn't have to ask if I would condone censorship of those who disagree with me.
And by the way, only sources I can't afford to annoy get to call me "Jim."
Thank you James,
I'll take that as a "no".
I was having fun a Climate Progress. Seems the folks there aren't aware of the CO2 emissions situation.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/06/light-truck-sales-drop-25-in-july…
CO2 emissions:
Gore/Clinton
1993: 5.6 billion tonnes
2000: over 6.3 billion
Rate of increase: approx 900 million tonnes per annum
Cheney/Bush
2001: 6.3 billion tonnes
2006: 6.5 billion tonnes
Rate of increase: approx 40 million tonnes per year
CO2 emissions growth during the Gore/Clinton years was more than 20 times higher than Bush/Cheney.
During the Bush years, CO2 emissions indeed began to fall.
Ill leave it up to you on what to conclude from all this.
Source:
http://www.iwr.de/klima/ausstoss_welt.html
(scroll down)
"Ill leave it up to you on what to conclude from all this."
I conclude that Pierre Gosselin is innumerate.
For those who have difficulties managing numbers, in many European countries a point is used to designate 1000s and a comma is used in place of a decimal point.
For example 10.987,5 is ten thousand nine hundred and eight seven point five.
So, in 2006 according to the IWR the USA emitted 6.469 Mio tonnes of CO2.
That means six thousand four hundred and sixty nine million tonnes, which is in US English 6.469 billion tonnes.
http://www.iwr.de/klima/ausstoss_welt.html
How ever you wish to look at the data, Bush has curbed US CO2 emissions, while Gore/Clinton increased them like no adminstration has ever done.
Indeed Bush has been the greenest president the US has ever had. So you have to give credit where credit is due and fault where fault is due. Gore's record as VP is proabably the greatest environmental fraud ever perpetuated in modern history.
LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND ALARMIST!
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-hou…
(Hat-tip IceCap)
"Indeed Bush has been the greenest president the US has ever had."
Yes, and he's also been the biggest pacifist in U.S. history.
You're right! Gore and Clinton outdid him there too.
1. Iraq 4 times,
2. Kosovo
3. Sudan
4. Haiti
Have you forgotten?
Dude, you seriously need to get your brain cleaned. Anyone that can only frame any understanding of any issue in terms of what Clinton/Gore did or didn't do has some critical thinking problems.
Give my regards to Bizarro Superman.
Living in an area with some conservatives (and having pretty conservative family members, and thus, getting e-mails all the time about this shit *sigh*) I can say that it comes from the conservative/liberal divide in the US where large portions of members of each side demonize the other (and sometimes make the 'other' into the anti-Christ). To them Al Gore gets double evil points for being VP under Clinton (though I don't necessarily think the hatred of him is irrational - read Hitchens' No One Left to Lie To) AND running for president and nearly winning. Therefore, in their minds, if Al Gore believes it, IT MUST BE WRONG. Quite sad since they seem to forget that, even if they do disagree with Gore on absolutely everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The ironic part is that people like my father (who is one of those that think it's a lie because Gore believes it) had no problem with GW before Gore started talking about it. Hell, my father used to frequently talk about the Greenhouse Effect (to my knowledge GW is an 'extension' of that, so to speak).