Situation desperate, Gore goes to 60 Minutes
As more people stray from the flock, the Church of AGW understands something must be done. Skeptics are Kryptonite to a new religion. So the founder of the Church of AGW will appear on 60 Minutes on March 30th to calm the waters. Or perhaps part the waters?
Confronted by Lesley Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is manmade, Gore responds: “You’re talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. “That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off,” he tells Stahl.
Gore’s campaign to make the world more aware of man’s role in global warming won him the Nobel Peace Prize last year. He donated the $750,000 prize money to The Alliance for Climate Protection, the non-profit he started to help him on his quest. He and his wife, Tipper, tell Stahl they not only matched the Nobel money with their own, but they are also donating to the organization the significant profits from his book and Oscar-winning documentary film about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The funds will help The Alliance for Climate Protection execute a new $300 million ad campaign on global warming set to start next week.
Question, if this is so obvious, why is there a need for a new $300 million ad campaign on global warming set to start next week? Are some of the sheep straying from the flock?
The need for a $300 million ad campaign is a first step toward combating the much more expensive misinformation campaign of the oil and coal industry.
You need to be careful there, niner.
Forbid if you’re a global warming denialist or William will post your real name and where you work.
Dick “Last throes” Cheney?
Now there’s proven credibility…
The need for a $300 million ad campaign is a first step toward combating the much more expensive misinformation campaign of the oil and coal industry.
Who decides what misinformation is? All I see is that whenever anyone questions Church orthodoxy they are accused of being heretics funded by the Devil Exxon.
Dude, you do it to. And you are one of the reasonable members of the flock.
Do three hail Mary’s and ride your bike to work tomorrow.
In advance of an attack by William, I posted this on his blog…
Villiam! I never had you figured for a stalker. People who desire privacy on the ‘net have a right to do so; if you want an example of a failed stalking the best I know is Dr. Deborah Frisch, who stalked blogger Jeff Goldstein, with the result of numerous legal sanctions and loss of her job as adjunct Risk Management professor at the University of Arizona. G00gle ‘Deb Frisch’ for the background.
You, now, have become worrisome. I live in the same county you do, and we disagree on just about every point politik. I’m an arch conservative; you are a yellow-dawg democrat.
Just to make you aware: I too had a stalker once. A State of Tennessee employee, a high-level guy with access to Bredesen, hated me. We clashed on the Nashville City Paper forum. As a result, the NCP had to shut down comments for nearly a year; I started blogging, and the stalker made a mistake…he threatened to expose me. He did so using State computers.
Big mistake. I forwarded the threats and IP information to an independent State lawyer, out of his realm of influence. He was sanctioned, put on ‘unpaid leave’ for a term, and all of his online activities were banned.
MTSU…let’s see…that’s a State-run facility, isn’t it?
I’m sure you’ve seen this…
In advance, don’t even think about it.
All I see is that whenever anyone questions Church orthodoxy they are accused of being heretics funded by the Devil Exxon.
Well, they are decidedly in the minority of opinion, and they are almost exclusively funded by the fossil fuel industry. Why is it wrong to point that fact out? If the scientists who argued that global warming is a real problem were overwhelmingly funded by “big solar” or some such, wouldn’t that be a relevant fact?
As far as “who decides,” I’ll leave that to the people most qualified to make that call: the scientific community.
Tgirsch, if you know anything about the scientific community, then you know that there is always debate. It’s expected, because there are few constants in our universe.
“The debate is OVER” is, never, a fact. That statement was the worst, most ill-timed remark anyone could say concerning a scientific ‘theory’. Gasoline on a fire. You’ve heard that the ’speed of light’, c, is a constant? Well, even that is debated.
Is Gore putting his 300$ Million or carbon credits in his ‘lock box’, like how he fixed social security?
As far as “who decides,” I’ll leave that to the people most qualified to make that call: the scientific community.
Dr Tom J. Chalko, MSc,PhD is a member of the scientific community. I guess you mean people like Dr. Tom.
Some of the people you look to as to be the “deciders” are kookoo for cocoa puffs.
http://www.musiccitybloggers.com/2007/12/01/global-warming-update-can-the-earth-explode/
Abstract: The presence of the Earth’s solid inner core in the center of our planet is verified by six decades of seismic measurements. This article presents a proof that the very existence of the solid inner core implies the existence of a lower bound for its size and density. The fundamental equilibrium conditions prove that Earth’s solid inner core could not have “grown” to its present size over time, simply because a core any smaller would not remain concentric. The solid core that we detect today could have only decayed from a core of larger size.
The existence of the lower bound for the size and density of the inner core constitutes a proof that virtually all heat generated inside our planet is of radionic origin. Hence, Earth in its entirety can be considered a nuclear reactor with an “inner core” providing a major contribution to the total energy output. Since radionic heat is generated in the entire volume and cooling can only occur at the surface, it is obvious that the highest temperature inside Earth occurs at the center of the inner core. Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.
Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior.
Tgirsch, if you know anything about the scientific community, then you know that there is always debate.
While technically true, you take this too far. The only real debate within the scientific community concerning global warming is over the particulars. The fundamentals are as well-established as those of relativity and evolution. In other words, pretty much all of the debate is over the “how bad” and the “what next” — there’s no meaningful debate over the “whether.”
“The debate is OVER” is, never, a fact.
Again, depends how you define “debate.” The bona fide scientists who are “skeptical” of global warming comprise a very small minority, and that minority is getting smaller and smaller with each passing year. While it would be unfair to pretend these dissenters don’t exist, it’s at least as unfair to exaggerate their numbers, their support, and their case.
(By the way, who here said “the debate is over?”)
Number 9:
As previously conceded, there are always a few dissenters, no matter what area of science you’re talking about. But in science, once a theory is well-established, the burden of proof is on the dissenters to convince others that the conventional wisdom is wrong, and to present an alternative theory that works better. If they can do so, they will receive much fame and probably fortune. But until they do so, there’s no reason to let them stop the whole show. If you wait for every single dissenter to go away, you’ll be waiting forever. Which, I suspect, is your preferred outcome.
OMG. It couldn’t be.
Could it?
But in science, once a theory is well-established, the burden of proof is on the dissenters to convince others that the conventional wisdom is wrong, and to present an alternative theory that works better.
What? Where did you learn that? Your grasp of science is a little shaky.
Your grasp of science is a little shaky.
Coming from you, that’s hysterical.
Pop quiz: How did the current conventional wisdom (on any given scientific subject) get to be the conventional wisdom?
Answer: It got there because it has been thoroughly vetted. It has already been subjected to a very high burden of proof, and has met that burden. Yes, the possibility always exists that it’s wrong (or, more likely, not sufficiently precise), but you don’t just get to claim that’s so. You have to prove it if you want to knock off the big dog. Or, at the very least, you have to offer up an alternative that works better.
It’s not just true of science, either, but of most areas of academia. When challenging the conventional wisdom, you face an uphill battle, and you can’t declare victory until you actually fight — and win — that battle, by convincing others. The global warming deniers have convinced no one, except for themselves and those politically/financially invested in global warming denial.
Of course, if that’s not YOUR understanding of how things work, I’m sure it would be amusing to hear how you DO think it works.
Answer: It got there because it has been thoroughly vetted.
We still do not understand E=Mc2. Billions of dollars and countless time has been spent to prove this theory. Not just the dissenters, both sides. While it works well for planets, it does not work at the sub atomic scale. The equation is not complete.
If you think AGW is thoroughly vetted you display your bias.
I am surprised with some of your argument. I took you for a more open minded person.