Patterico's Pontifications

4/22/2007

Cold Personality Warmed

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 11:11 am



How much faith does Al Gore put in global warming?

Apparently, Gore thinks that greenhouse gases have warmed, not just the Earth’s surface, but also his cold personality — enough for him to consider a presidential run.

Now that’s faith!

(Via Captain Ed.)

28 Responses to “Cold Personality Warmed”

  1. I doubt that Gore’s position on global warming has much to do with faith at all. He appears to base his views on the best scientific evidence available… which is precisely why so many of us would be relieved to see him in the White House again.

    After eight years of faith-based foolishness, I think Americans will be very happy to elect someone who understands science and is willing to tackle the difficult (and inconvenient) problems facing our nation.

    Oregonian (28d254)

  2. God save us all from Al Gore. If he wants us to go ‘Green’ he should set an example and stop jetting around in his G5. Rather than burning up the last 6 inches of midwest topsoil on corn for fuel, he should REALLY say something revolutionary; like
    a Green Manhattan Project. You small government types take notice. The oil industry spent 3 basis points on energy alternatives last year. The government is the only way this is going to take off. Like it or not.

    semanticleo (2f60f4)

  3. Naah! He talked so much about “What would Jesus do?”, and so did the Shrub BTW, that I thought that neither of those guys really want to be President. That they would sell off all their property and give the money to the poor and follow Christ. So I voted for Ralph Nader. Who is truly “Green”.

    nk (6415d7)

  4. Fat Albert in the White House again… isn’t that where he “invented Internet?” What a joke!

    dubya (c16726)

  5. Of course there’s so many haters on the left who can’t get over their PEST that he may not have to try litigating his way into the Oval Office this time.

    dubya (c16726)

  6. Oregonian, one thing you learn if you spend enough time around scientists is how willing they are to twist, fold, bend, and manipulate science in order to fit their political agenda. Whether it was Thomas Malthus’s insistence that the world could not grow enough food to feed the expanding population, or whether it was Paul Ehrlich and his silly “Population Bomb,” or whether it is the global warming advocates of today, “scientific consensus” is often driven by the Chicken Littles.

    And as for the “difficult (and inconvenient) problems facing our nation,” I would say that the rise of Islamic Totaliarianism, the impending crisis of entitlements for senior citizens, and the disinterest of the “World Community” in facing these challenges are far more pressing than the two-tenths of a degree of warming that has occured over the past 100 years.

    JVW (bcc29b)

  7. Al Gore, the gift to the GOP that just keeps on giving.

    I seriously wonder which of the Red States that went GOP in 2000, does Al think he is going to carry in 2008? Doesn’t he realize that a very significant number of the FL votes that were cast for him in 2000, will not exist in 2008?

    Plus, his new-found appreciation for residential alternative energy production is a sham, and everyone (sentient) knows it.

    As to “Manhattan Projects”: Going as far back as the 50’s and the Feds’ push for uranium production, the Carter era push for oil-shale, and the endless alternative solar/wind/thermal energy plans; once government subsidies and/or tax credits were removed/expired, all of these plans failed because they were economically unvieable.

    Economics can be a cruel science. If the marketplace will not, or cannot, support an industry, only the foolishness of government can allow it to survive. But, eventually, even the government has to throw in the towel when the subsidies rob the treasury of funds to conduct the required functions.

    We are slowly discovering that the overly-generous public-employee retirement/health-care systems (including SocSec and Medicare) will do this very thing to us. Taxpayers will be so far on the hook to keep these systems viable, that there are going to be precious few funds available for dream projects to save the Earth (even if we were able to either save or destroy it), let alone funding DoD, DoJ, or the true money-flushing agencies like HHS, HUD, and DoEd.

    Now, if we could come up with a proposal to biologically alter fallafel that would cause Muslims to question the flawed precepts of their religion, we might be able to garner support for a Manhattan Project of that type. But of course, that would require that we actually believe that this conflict we are engaged in is existential, and that there is no alternative to victory.

    Unfortunately, we are still accursed with too many left-over “Better Red, Than Dead” types!

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  8. Hey, Malthus had the right conclusion (too many people) but the wrong hypothesis (not enough food). Whether you believe the warming story or whatever other “crisis of the day,” there’s no escaping the conclusion that if humans were fewer and farther between, things would be a lot better for everyone and everything.

    dubya (c16726)

  9. He appears to base his views on the best scientific evidence available…

    And yet he feels he can buy indulgences to compensate for polluting like a gluttonish, earth raping, capitalist pig.

    That’s some science. No wait, that’s faith.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  10. there’s no escaping the conclusion that if humans were fewer and farther between, things would be a lot better for everyone and everything

    That would only be true if we did not live in a society where we depend on a continually expanding young population to support an ever-larger retired population. This is why Europe faces such hugh budget crises in the near future — they have a expanding group of pensioners who expect to be supported in relative luxury by a population that is shrinking due to low birth rates. Here in the U.S., we once had something like 9 active workers for every citizen receiving Social Security benefits. When the Baby Boomers have all retired, that ratio may very well slip below 3:1. It’s a shame that in all the talk of population control we forgot to talk about dismantling the pyramid scheme of social benefits.

    JVW (bcc29b)

  11. “He appears to base his views on the best scientific evidence available”

    Oregonian, I thought the NY Times published an article saying that many reputable scientists thought Gore’s science was junk.

    Patterico (222575)

  12. That would only be true if we did not live in a society where we depend on a continually expanding young population to support an ever-larger retired population.

    Isn’t that my point?

    dubya (c16726)

  13. no escaping the conclusion that if humans were fewer and farther between, things would be a lot better for everyone and everything.

    Comment by dubya — 4/22/2007 @ 12:29 pm

    It is hard to even imagine how someone could be so ignorant of history that they’d make such a ludicrous statement. That sweeping generalization is just laughable.

    Will you be moving to Antarctica soon? Hardly anyone lives there.

    Perhaps you’d prefer a little time travel; by your theory, life in North America circa 14000 b.c. would certainly be “better for everyone and everything,” right?

    I blame public education.

    PB (c65bfa)

  14. What was so wrong with life in 14000 BC in North America, PB, and how would you know? Were you there?

    As I learned in (private) school, history wasn’t recorded prior to about 3000 BC, so what’s your point other than spluttering, bloviation in an attempt to slur the PERSON you disagree with rather than the IDEA?

    dubya (c16726)

  15. That would only be true if we did not live in a society where we depend on a continually expanding young population to support an ever-larger retired population.

    Isn’t that my point?

    OK, if you are making a purely libertarian point about population control and self-reliance, then I agree with you to a large degree, though it does kind of smack of elitism. As humans we are hardwired in our DNA to procreate. It was a survival mechanism from back in the day of high infant mortality and shorter adult lifespans.

    JVW (bcc29b)

  16. Al Gore is full of HOT AIR he is a liberal left-wing unscruplous politician and his film is nothing more then lies and his own over inflated ego

    krazy kagu (6c49b1)

  17. What are you saying, Patterico? Call me crazy, but didn’t Gore win the vote the last time he ran? So, logically, trying again might not be the worst idea in the world, from his perspective anyway? So it might not be a tremendous leap of faith? Also–

    Oregonian, I thought the NY Times published an article saying that many reputable scientists thought Gore’s science was junk.

    Could you provide a link?

    Russell (b42f63)

  18. Who will Gore use as a lesbian manliness coach this time around?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  19. The non-snide answer to comment 7. Compared to 2000, Democratic prospects look better in NH (Kerry won it), OH, CO, WV, MO, and AZ, probably in about that order. Also taking back the 2004 loss of IA and NM. Except for FL and LA, which were already GOP, I’m at a loss to think of a state where Republican prospects are improved.

    Have you guys assimilated the 2006 results yet?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (0fe558)

  20. Have you guys assimilated the 2006 results yet?

    Because, as we all remember, the Democrats’ huge Congressional shellacking in 1994 doomed their Presidential Candidate to a landslide loss in 1996.

    JVW (bcc29b)

  21. Could you provide a link?

    Sure.

    But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

    And it goes on like that.

    Patterico (5b0b7f)

  22. Response to 21: I thought that was going to be it. I don’t think that article is as assertive as you say–what I got from it is that Gore exaggerates the science here and there (for example, where he talks about hurricanes), but on the whole, he gets the idea right. Here are the final paragraphs, for example:

    Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

    “On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”

    That aside, it seems self-evident to me that Gore would make a strong candidate, regardless of whether you would vote for him or not. Am I missing something?

    Russell (b42f63)

  23. Gee Russell, so the guy who advised Gore on the movie (and was presumably paid for rendering such service) actually comes to his defense? Who woulda thunk it?

    JVW (bcc29b)

  24. What exactly did he get right?

    His assertion that increased CO2 heralds temperature increases, except for the little detail that the CO2 increase lags the temperature by a few centuries?

    That the glaciers are melting while the antarctic ice sheet in growing thicker?

    That the polar bears are going extinct whilst their population climbs, no mean feat that?

    That the sea level rise will not only not be catastrophic but will be gradual and mild?

    Taltos (c99804)

  25. I don’t think that article is as assertive as you say–what I got from it is that Gore exaggerates the science here and there (for example, where he talks about hurricanes), but on the whole, he gets the idea right.

    Well, this looks a bit stronger than that…

    While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”

    If I were running a campaign against Gore, I’d just repeatedly scroll that quote over a loop of Al screaming “HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!”

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  26. Gore?

    That schmuck couldn’t find water if he fell out of a rowboat.

    mojo (8096f2)

  27. I have a book DEMACRATS DO THE DUMBIST THINGS and it has a few pages of AL GORE and he once said A ZEBRA CANT CHANGES ITS SPOTS. hah wrong animal mr green man your not passing fool just getting a F- or make gores grades four Ds a F and a H

    krazy kagu (d982eb)

  28. “I have a book DEMACRATS DO THE DUMBIST THINGS”

    -krazy kagu

    You misspelled “Democrats”.
    You misspelled “Dumbest”.
    You are an idiot.
    Stop talking.

    Leviticus (1daf74)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2387 secs.