Gore Calls for National Drive Towards Clean Energy

But as I pointed out.... (1.00 / 1)

...the alleged consensus is continuing to collapse and it's not like Gore and his supporters aren't  traveling by fossil fuel.

As I have said before, I'll believe that there is a crisis when the people who are telling me there's a crisis act like there's a crisis.

---

by: briangriffiths @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:21:28 AM CDT

Good lord (4.00 / 1)

talk about being three days late with already debunked news.

So here's how it went:

Lord Monckton, a British politician, posted a forum entry about global warming.  It contains the following disclaimer:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Lord Monckton, when he isn't busy with global warming, has an unfortunate tendency to claim credentials for himself that, alas, aren't true.

So he posts a forum entry on an American Physical Society (APS) website, and Michael Asher decides that this British loony now speaks for the entire organization:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

   [...]

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

That's like saying that Red Maryland now believes that all conservatives are idiots based on this comment thread.

Like Pavlov, of course, all the conservative websites leapt for the bait.  You're WAY late, Brian.

Now it turns out that Monckton's screed was (1) not a paper, (2) not published, (3) not peer reviewed, and (4) there's no debate.  Most importantly, it doesn't represent the views of the APS:

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.  The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum."  This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Even the Doughy Pantload himself was forced to admit that the story is BS.

If you're going to publish wingnut fantasy, Brian, you've got to be FASTER.  This one was debunked before you started typing.  Better luck next time, son.

---

by: lefty @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

First off..... (1.00 / 1)

.....I never claimed that the entire APS repudiated the idea.

Secondly, this is merely the latest in a series of individuals who are debunking anthropogenic global warming, something that I have documented for some time.

Wingnut fantasy is assuming that something is happening without the data. Wingnut fantasy is unenlightened obsequiousness to somebody's ideas who believes in them so much, that he takes no legitimate steps to reduce his own carbon output. And wingnut fantasy is screaming "there is a consensus on anthropogenic global warming" into the echo chamber when, in fact, it is a bold faced lie.

Get your facts straight, then come talk to me.

---

by: briangriffiths @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:21:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"The latest (0.00 / 0)

in a series of individuals" with no credibility, whose blog ramblings get mendaciously sensationalized into something they're not, which then sets off a feeding frenzy of conservative mouth-breathing.

So if I write a blog entry that says that all conservatives are deranged sociopaths who like to have carnal relations with goats, would it be OK for a bunch of allegedly influential liberal bloggers to pick up the story and create a similar feeding frenzy, on the grounds that the "consensus is building that Brian Griffiths and his conservative friends are all goat fuckers"?  That's the moral equivalent of what you're claiming.  The problem is that this kind of stupid-ass feeding frenzy only happens on the starboard wing of the blogosphere.  

And for you to tell me to "get my facts straight" is laughable after you belatedly cite to an already debunked story.  Do you not consider the sources you are quoting?  Do you not care about credibility and at least a shred of intellectual honesty?  Is it all about the gotcha moment, even if story after story after story blows up in your face?  Do you have no shame?  None at all?

---

by: lefty @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 13:02:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The only sensationalization.... (2.00 / 1)

....is that left-wingers like you will myopically follow whomever is at the vanguard of the latest movement to increase the size of government, raise taxes, and generally make life more and more miserable for the middle and working class families of Maryland and America.

So if I write a blog entry that says that all conservatives are deranged sociopaths who like to have carnal relations with goats, would it be OK for a bunch of allegedly influential liberal bloggers to pick up the story and create a similar feeding frenzy, on the grounds that the "consensus is building that Brian Griffiths and his conservative friends are all goat fuckers"?  That's the moral equivalent of what you're claiming.  The problem is that this kind of stupid-ass feeding frenzy only happens on the starboard wing of the blogosphere.  

You're ramblings are so deranged here I'm not even trying to figure out what you say. But your ostrich-like refusal to acknowledge that there is real debate on anthropogenic climate change really belies the fact that you are nothing more than a lemming to whatever is fashionable in the fringe-element of the Democratic Party. The "feeding frenzy" is the fact that people like you refuse to acnkowledge that the case for anthropogenic climate change is sketchy, at best, and that leading scientists dispute it. Then there are people like you who are so far out there to compare anybody who questions anthropogenic climate change to holocaust deniers really shows how absolutely clueless and senseless people can be on this side of the issue.

And for you to tell me to "get my facts straight" is laughable after you belatedly cite to an already debunked story.  Do you not consider the sources you are quoting?  Do you not care about credibility and at least a shred of intellectual honesty?  Is it all about the gotcha moment, even if story after story after story blows up in your face?  Do you have no shame?  None at all?

Just because you disagree with the conclusion of the story does NOT make it debunked. What is intellectualy dishonest is for non-thinking trolls like you to just obediently follow the party line. That's what's sad and that's why the issue is so divisive is that because instead of arguing the merits of climate change solutions you want to berate people because you disagree with them. Where is YOUR shame, and maybe your shameful, most myopic outlook and this and a multitude of other issues is why you hide behind a pseudonym, because you are too embarrassed to say these stupid things with you own name attached.  

---

by: briangriffiths @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 13:48:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A very wise man (3.00 / 1)

once said, "when you're in a hole, stop digging."  You're about 20 feet deep in it, big guy.  Quit now before you get to China, OK?

For those who care, this isn't Big Bad Brian's first stab at the goalpost-moving pseudonym argument.  My response is here.

Bye, Brian.  Nice debating you, again.  Happy to play, any time, any issue.  Although I have to say, it really isn't a fair fight so far.

---

by: lefty @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 20:06:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This isn't debate (0.00 / 0)

This is you being petulant, as usual, because you feel it is easier to attack me personally than debate ideas.

And you're right, it's not a fair fight, because it's not fair for somebody like me to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man like you.

---

by: briangriffiths @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:18:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pushing the boundaries of what's possible (0.00 / 0)

The best way to take Gore's speech is less as a realistic plan of action -- even at my most optimistic, I don't see carbon being completely cut out of the electricity supply by 2020 -- and more as a marker of the outer bound of the policy debate on climate change. Now, something like moving to 50% renewables by 2025 and 90% by 2050 doesn't seem quite so demanding.

My main criticism of Gore's proposal, however, is that it's focused solely on renewable energy, which, while sexy, isn't necessarily the top climate policy priority. Compared to ramped up energy efficiency and even nuclear power, renewables are important, but by no means a silver bullet.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

---

by: Isaac Smith @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM CDT

Y'know Brian (4.00 / 1)

you keep calling me "petulant."  I'll leave it to others to juuge this in the end, but the only petulance I see is from you, both here and in your little whine festival back home.

I point out the weakness in your argument, you run home and call me sycophantic and obsequious, and once again obsess about pseudonymity.  In your little whiny rant at Red Maryland, you attempt to take one analogy out of context to scandalize your conservative friends (he said "fuck"!  OMG!  How can we talk to these people?)  You must get tired dragging those goal posts around the field.

As to the tired pseudonym argument, I notice you only do that after you're losing the main point of the argument (if pseudonymity is so awful, why engage me at all?).

Your antics may work among friends.  But when you venture into the other guy's neighborhood, you're not going to get the same "right on" and "Amen" responses you do at your own sites.  Here, we have a different view, and some of us can see through your BS.  If you're going to debate us here, be ready to go beyond the platitudes and the slogans, and really get to the point.  Get ready to get hammered, not on your terms, but on someone else's, and be ready to engage on those terms.  You haven't done any of that -- instead, you think we should be impressed by your brilliance in citing to a completely bogus and already debunked story.  We're not.  Sorry if that upsets you, but there it is.

Based on my recent experiences with you, Brian, you are intellectually dishonest, whiny, lazy, prone to anger, and generally not interested in a real debate, but in lamely trying to score points and then run back and say to your friends "hey, look what I did, I schooled the liberals."

Until you can have an exchange with your opponents and not just your amen corner friends, you are just a poser wannabe with just enough ability to use big words without knowing what they mean.  Oh, and with a faux macho "tough guy" self-image that is more appropriate to a 13 year old than to someone who wants to be taken seriously in the world of politics.

---

by: lefty @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM CDT

And there you go again..... (0.00 / 0)

.....you STILL won't actually debate the issues. All you want to do is take cheap shots at me. Trust me, I can handle it because I have been called worse things by better people.

You still won't acknowledge that there is no consensus on global warming (remember that? That's what started all of this nonsense).

I'd love to have an exchange with somebody (ANYBODY) who will stick to the issues. Obviously, I'm barking up the wrong tree.

The only intellectual dishonesty going on here is the concept that you, in fact, want to debate the issues. When you debate the issues, you lose, hence your continued avoidance at doing so.

You're right, I probably shouldn't engage you. It's not like you want to deal in any way, shape or form with facts.....

---

by: briangriffiths @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 17:15:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bonus points (0.00 / 0)

for the Ronald Reagan reference!  Ooh, good one.

It's a shame that your best effort came after your body parts were strewn all over the room, and it's an even bigger shame that your one good line was followed up by some really lame attempts at rejoinder.

Cleanup in Aisle 3!  Can I get a store employee to Aisle 3?  I think Mr. Griffiths is bleeding all over the pork rinds.  Yuck.

My work here is done.  Moving on . . . . . .

---

by: lefty @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:13:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's only.... (0.00 / 0)

....from jamming a pencil in my ear due to your insistence on talking about anything but the issue of global warming.

But, since you're moving on, I'll declare victory and move on, thanks.

---

by: briangriffiths @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 18:00:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]