Tête-à-Tête-Tête

You’re forgetting that this is a moral issue.
A politician told me so (which was the first time that it was ‘okay’ for a pol to declare that certain public policy is a moral issue…….gee, wonder why?).

I have to smile when I read some of your blogs.

You speak as if you and the “true” scientist have some sort of claim on “the truth” and all those poor ignorants who disagree just need to be educated and then all will be well with the world.

Are you familiar with the following?

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

Claude Allègre, geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Claude Allegre, a French scientist and former socialist government cabinet member who was one of the leading scientific promoters of the global warming theory for a number of years. Allegre now believes, based on the scientific data that is available, that the popular theory that humans are causing global warming is in fact incorrect.

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers. When did ‘humans’ arrive there?

Whichever scientist you choose to believe on this, I think the real clincher is found in Al Gore’s unwillingness to change his own lifestyle. If he believes that humans are causing the problem, and he is human, why is he exempt?

Are you familiar with the following?

I am quite familiar with them. They are oft-quoted by politicians and the followers of politicians who find it expedient to look the other way on global warming. Not only that, I’ve presented scientists who discuss their arguments (as I mentioned before, well known, accounted for, and not very persuasive on the major issues), and their quasi-arguments) - linked to them… reiterated their arguments. I’ve done it here in posts and comments. I’ve done it on other blogs in the comments. So, yes.. I’m familiar with them. Since you haven’t seen those posts & comments, let me refer you to a post I made mainly as a digest of these responses, here. There are a lot of other resources that deal with these scientists and arguments, both in the scientific literature and on the internet. I encourage you to seek them out.

I’d also like to make another point.. You named 7 people, including two non-scientists:

Tim Ball (doctorate in geography/non-scientist)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Chris de Freitas
Richard Lindzen (Most respectable critic of GW in geophysics)
Roy Spencer
Nigel Calder (non-scientist)

Five scientists and two non-scientists.

For comparison, I can name six scientific oganizations that endorse the consensus view, without even resorting to the IPCC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
American Chemical Society
(taken from here

The point here can be expressed by taking your statement about choosing “which scientist” to believe and pointing out that the singular form of the word scientist is much less appropriate to the choice for the acknowledgement of global warming than it is for denial.

Now it is sometimes the case that only one or two scientists first advance a new theory, and that for a time, they are a minority of scientists and are right about the argument. However, in every historical case, this has occurred when there was a new theory that others simply hadn’t caught on to or resisted for a time until enough evidence came in. In fact, that was the case with global warming. As recently as 1997, only about half of surveyed scientists believed that humans contributed significantly to global warming, and only a small majority believed that global warming was happening. The point is that it is new theories that have only small minorities of scientists in support of them and are still eventually borne out by the data. When the number of dissenting scientists is vanishingly small because the rest of them were convinced along the way of the contrary view, that usually means that the minority are not well supported by the science itself.

If you like, I can give you lots of examples of exactly this trend: both in terms of new theories being supported by a minority of scientists, but eventually accepted by nearly all of them (global warming is such a case), and in terms of minority dissenters hanging on to outdated viewpoints, and being proven wrong.

You have a list of minorit hangers-on to old viewpoints, no longer tenable according to the data.

Going on…

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Yes… I discussed an example of this just the other day. Fortunately, scientists aren’t easily stifled. Some of them even blog.

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers. When did ‘humans’ arrive there?

This is, by internet standards, quite an old argument. Whomever presented it to you could only have been unaware that it has no merit (having not bothered to do the most rudimentary research on the question), or did not care. Unfortunately, too many people put politics ahead of science. Some of them merely have too much faith in their political leaders and don’t bother checking out claims that support their political leaders’ position. Some of them care more about their politics than about their own honesty, and are willing to deceive you about the science in order to bolster their political viewpoint. This is an excellent example. A good, and old, answer to the question about “global warming” on Mars can be found here. And, another one is here. Also quite good.

I think the real clincher is found in Al Gore’s unwillingness to change his own lifestyle. If he believes that humans are causing the problem, and he is human, why is he exempt?

It’s a common thing, when someone has no valid argument against a proposition, that they will instead make an argument against someone who holds the proposition. I know the notion that Al Gore’s lifestyle has something to do with climate science didn’t come from you, but instead from someone you listened to. That should be a signal to you - if the people you are listening to had valid arguments, they might present them for scrutiny. The fact that they wish to talk about Al Gore’s lifestyle should signal to you that they do not have any good arguments to make about the science. That’s to be expected from politicians.

Over and above that, they are completely wrong about Al Gore. Al Gore has changed his own lifestyle to reduce his ‘carbon footprint’. So, if you buy into the notion that global warming depends on what Al Gore does, then you must accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. You may or may not understand or agree with Gore’s lifestyle changes, but he is spending boatloads of his own money on them, and it is dishonest to pretend that he has not made them. A few for instances: installing solar panels, driving a hybrid car, replacing all incandescent lighting with fluorescents, taking advantage of TVA’s “Green Power Switch”, and purchasing carbon offsets for all of his energy use. Personally, I think that global warming science would be the same whether Al Gore wove all of his own clothing and ate nothing but tofu, or whether he dynamited humpback whales for sport. But, if you think it all comes down to Al Gore changing his lifestyle, then congratulations - you are no longer a global warming skeptic.

I know the notion that Al Gore’s lifestyle has something to do with climate science didn’t come from you, but instead from someone you listened to.

You know that….how?
Look, Al Gore is seeking for the government to mandate that we all change our lifestyle and he\’s saying that it\’s a \’moral issue\’ for us to change our lifestyles. Pointing out that he\’s a proverbial preacher who has a mistress on the side while he\’s giving a sermon on infidelity is not exactly a stretch. Buzz words: moral. Issue.

Al Gore has changed his own lifestyle to reduce He\’s said that he \”tries\” to purchase carbon offsets (along with John Edwards, the \’two Americas\’ doesn\’t pertain to their side). That\’s the supposed trump card: hey, I\’ll buy something where someone else promises not to do something….see, I\’m forgiven!

Hey, I won\’t cut down the trees in my back yard that I was planning on downing & using for firewood. Therefore, it\’s okay if I go out and buy an SUV. I\’ve offset my carbon imprint! Nice scam, if you can get folks to buy it. The guy has a thousand dollar a month power bill while preaching to the rest of us about this being a \’moral issue\’ and you guys are still praising his sacrifices.

Apparently, we\’re not as moral since we don\’t sell mining rights on our property that we get millions from in order to buy \”offsets\” from our own company.

You know that….how?

Because it defies credibility that anyone who knows Al Gore personally - enough to have firsthand knowledge of his lifestyle - would be commenting on my blog… whereas rumors about his lifestyle and how it supposedly proves the earth isn’t warming circulate daily on right-wing blogs. It doesn’t take a genius to figure which way Snooks got the idea. And the reason I pointed it out was to be clear that I wasn’t criticizing Snooks, but instead the people he/she was listening to.

Look, Al Gore is seeking for the government to mandate that we all change our lifestyle and he’s saying that it’s a ‘moral issue’ for us to change our lifestyles. Pointing out that he’s a proverbial preacher who has a mistress on the side while he’s giving a sermon on infidelity is not exactly a stretch. Buzz words: moral. Issue.

Ok… and Al Gore is doing what he asks others to do: making smart changes in his lifestyle to reduce our energy use without changing his day-to-day life, and buying carbon offsets (certified by carbonfund to be spent on reducing carbon emissions) to further reduce his carbon footprint. As I said, you may not like or understand the way Al Gore has changed his lifestyle, but the notion that he has not changed it is a false one. The notion, as it was relayed to Snooks, that this has some impact on the reality of global warming is also false. The notion that Al Gore is asking others to do anything that he himself is not doing is false. I don’t know how it gets any simpler.

RW - sorry about the backslashes — there was a renegade blockquote tag in there…

The blockquote was my fault.

The notion that Al Gore is asking others to do anything that he himself is not doing is false. I don’t know how it gets any simpler.

Asking? When did this become a component of choice? He’s wanting the government to mandate what people are able to do. Let’s be clear. Pushing for people to use a certain type of lightbulb is one thing (akin to my peeing into the Atlantic & expecting it to pollute the ocean, but that’s an aside)….wanting the gov’t to step in with what is most certainly the real goal: energy rationing; is another. Hey, I’m all for Gore & co. leading a campaign to have everyone help the enviro by watching what they do. 100% behind it. It doesn’t stop there, however, again, his home power bill shows us how much he’s changing his life. He’s just been given a virtual pass because he’s on the “right side” and he’s able to use his millions to buy stuff that you & I can’t afford to buy. And all the while I’m supposed to feel bad because my wife drives an SUV (I’m not part of the moral equation).

And I’ll note that I’m not a Gore hater. He’s a good guy & anyone who can stay married for that long & have no personal scandals is a standup fellow in my book. That said, he’s a fricking politician pushing a political issue & calling it a moral issue. I didn’t see any follow-up to that: how do you feel about a politician telling you when legislation is moral?

BTW, I’ve decided not to buy a new A/C unit for my basement, so I delcare that it offsets my choice to BBQ on my deck throughout the summer. To do otherwise wouldn’t be MORAL, after all (sorry if I seem a bit a-hole-ish, but no pol…left or right…is going to attempt to tell me what actions of mine are moral. Especially coming from someone whose administration vetoed a partial birth abortion ban, for goodness sakes. Back then, the gov’t couldn’t decide against the choice of a person. Now, when it comes to my lightbulbs, it’s ‘moral’. Sheesh.

Because it defies credibility that anyone who knows Al Gore personally - enough to have firsthand knowledge of his lifestyle - would be commenting on my blog

His usage was fairly well reported several weeks back. Decent sized story. One needn’t assume that someone is marching in lockstep if they disagreed with Gore’s obvious hypocrisy.

Maybe I’m just being too generous.

He’s wanting the government to mandate what people are able to do. Let’s be clear. Pushing for people to use a certain type of lightbulb is one thing (akin to my peeing into the Atlantic & expecting it to pollute the ocean, but that’s an aside)….wanting the gov’t to step in with what is most certainly the real goal: energy rationing; is another.

True - I was talking about the perceived disconnect between what he was asking private citizens like himself to do, and what he does himself. Of course he also advocates for government regulation of businesses that produce carbon emissions. And of course, any business he is in will have to conform to the same standards, and the ones he purchases from will have to conform to the same standards, too. So, again, he isn’t asking for any regulation that won’t affect him just as much or as little as it does everyone else.

Now, I don’t deny that the logical angle is better if you are just criticizing Al Gore for hypocrisy, rather than what Snooks was doing, which was hanging a decision about the merits of the case on Al Gore’s pecadilloes. There may be merit to a criticism of Al Gore the person based on this perceived hypocrisy (though I don’t think so - as I have explained)… I won’t deny that.

And, I won’t deny that might figure into how you might react to certain policy proposals in reaction to global warming. That’s part of the political debate. And, as I said in this post… let the political debate commence. I’m more steamed about the prevarication going on about the scientific debate.

His usage was fairly well reported several weeks back. Decent sized story.

From what I read, it was reported by an advocacy group in Tennessee, who wasn’t very clear about where they got it, and there are questions about its accuracy… But even the Gores admit that their usage is higher than average for their area - in part because they have a large home, and in part because both of them use the home as an office. The point is that knowing a number reported as power usage - whether or not that number is entirely correct - is not equivalent to knowing anything about his lifestyle. He’s a public figure, so his lifestyle is somewhat more accessible to people who don’t know him than someone who never served as Vice President, for instance… but whatever Snooks may know or think he/she knows about his lifestyle is almost certainly second-hand.

And again - the point isn’t that he/she is marching in lock-step - the point is that my criticisms are not against him/her, but against the people that he/she is listening to. So, when I say that the argument is without merit, hopefully he/she will feel animus toward the people who passed it off on him/her, rather than toward me for attacking it.

Of course he also advocates for government regulation of businesses that produce carbon emissions. And of course, any business he is in will have to conform to the same standards, and the ones he purchases from will have to conform to the same standards, too. So, again, he isn’t asking for any regulation that won’t affect him just as much or as little as it does everyone else.

I love you, but come on. Do I get to use that sort of stretch should I call for legislation that outlaws the usage of the words “a”, “an” or “the” on public television & then declare that it’d affect me too if I eventually purchased a television network or were currently a stockholder in a show? The guy is calling for all of us to lower our energy usage, yet he’s getting a complete pass on how much he uses.

…is not equivalent to knowing anything about his lifestyle

So, his lifestyle trumps the “moral issue”. We’re supposed to change our lifestyles, but not those preaching the religion the loudest? Maybe we can get a list of folks get a free pass on following the testament-according-to-global-warming so that the rest of us heathens can know if we’re one of the chosen few? So far, from what I understand, you’re okay if you’re a Democrat and support the correct legislation OR if you’re rich enough to purchase offsets (cough, scam, cough). You don’t have to do a darn thing, really, if you’re in that select group. The rest of us peons, however…..grab your wallet.

I love you, but come on. Do I get to use that sort of stretch should I call for legislation that outlaws the usage of the words “a”, “an” or “the” on public television & then declare that it’d affect me too if I eventually purchased a television network or were currently a stockholder in a show?

Ummm.. yeah… I mean - I’m not big on the FCC, but I won’t make a big deal about it if someone at the FCC who says “ban the f- word” uses the f-word in his private life. Now, if the guy has a t.v. station and uses the f-word all the time on it, then asks for the FCC rule to ban it, I’ll have questions - but even then, unless he tries to exempt his own t.v. station from the rule, I’m going to assume that he is just doing what he has to do to survive in the current (hypothetical) unregulated market.

It’s the same way for any kind of regulation. Should delta have to install steel cockpit doors in all of its planes before they ask for a regulation requiring steel cockpit doors? Should I, as a private citizen, have to install steel doors in my house before I can ask for such a rule?

So, his lifestyle trumps the “moral issue”.

I didn’t bring up his lifestyle. Snooks did.

We’re supposed to change our lifestyles, but not those preaching the religion the loudest?

No, the way I understand it, everyone should reduce energy usage where they can, and try to offset as much as they can afford to of the rest. That’s what Al Gore is doing, and what he says we all ought to do. That’s pretty simple. He’s not asking anyone to go paleolithic. He’s asking people to take their current lifestyle and turn it into a more energy-friendly one. He’s asking those who can afford it to purchase offsets for what they cannot reduce. That’s what he’s doing.

And the fact is that there is a moral issue. That moral issue translates into a personal issue about one’s own lifestyle, but it translates a lot more directly into a political issue, since we are impacting the environment as a society, and can only reduce that impact as a society.

It’s not a fake “moral” issue like keeping the moral foot on the backs of gay people to keep them down. It’s a lot closer to the question of abortion, which is - no matter what your perspective, choice or life, a question to which one’s moral perspective will impact the answer. Does the life of a fetus trump the right of a woman to reproductive freedom and sovereignty over her own body? Does the life of our progeny trump the right of a corporation to pollute freely? I don’t see why is should be inconsistent to answer “no” to the first, and “yes” to the second. Even if you disagree about that set of answers, I don’t see how someone’s answer to the first one can make you angry about their answer to the second one…

And with that, you can hopefully see why some of us refer to this issue as a religion. “The debate is over”. “It’s a moral issue”.

Were me & my fellow Christians to have such dogma towards the religion that we profess, no doubt God would be much more pleased with his creation. [I just couldn't resist this, smijer, so please give me some leeway. That door was so wide open......]

Well, the debate is over on the molecular basis for heredity, too (Watson & Crick pretty much put that one to bed) - does that make it a religion?

Moral issues? What do they have to do with religion?

[two can leave the door open, huh]