Al Gore finally says something I agree with. He laments the departure of reason from the political landscape. Now, I'm not so sure politics was ever the polite tea party he pines for, but I agree that since oh, about 2001 or so, the hysteria level seems to have gone way up.
The first place I noticed it was Bush v. Gore. I remember a campaign that was pretty bland, with both candidates competing over their prescription drug plans. Then came Florida, hanging chads, and finally the Supreme Court putting an end to Gore's increasingly bizarre recount schemes. Somewhere in that process, the left went batshit. 9/11 silenced a lot of that, but despite the fact that we remain at war, today we're dealing with an increasingly vocal, increasingly irrational opposition.
By the way, sports fans, for those keeping score at home, under any of the recount schemes he asked for, Gore lost. Counting. Reason.
But I digress. If Al Gore wants to inject reason back into politics, I say let's have at it.
But first, I'd like to deconstruct what I suspect is the real agenda here. I think Gore is making a rather transparent play for the educated moderate--the kind of voter who knows just enough to be dangerous. These are the kind of guys that say things like, "The Christian Right scares the hell out of me". Or, those who might be impressed by Gore's Oscar winning "documentary" without really having the brainpower to think critically about it.
"Reason" is the stalking horse here because I think Gore believes that, thanks to his books and movie, he owns that particular piece of our brains that light up when someone utters the word "reason". Al's the answer man, the inventor of the internet, the guy America, hell, the guy the whole world turns to for the answers to the big questions.
Al already knows the answers, so if we're going to be reasonable, we're going to have to do what Al says.
I don't know whether Al really believes the tripe he's selling, or if he's just counting on the fact that most Americans aren't all that knowledgeable about science and are inclined to lap up whatever NBC News or Time magazine says on the matter.
Surprisingly, a lot of people still pay attention to those sources, and in fact, may well consider themselves informed after consuming one of these news products.
Anyway, reason. Let's bring it back.
How 'bout we start with this?
Show me the scientific proof that so-called "greenhouse gases" actually trap heat.
The first place I noticed it was Bush v. Gore. I remember a campaign that was pretty bland, with both candidates competing over their prescription drug plans. Then came Florida, hanging chads, and finally the Supreme Court putting an end to Gore's increasingly bizarre recount schemes. Somewhere in that process, the left went batshit. 9/11 silenced a lot of that, but despite the fact that we remain at war, today we're dealing with an increasingly vocal, increasingly irrational opposition.
By the way, sports fans, for those keeping score at home, under any of the recount schemes he asked for, Gore lost. Counting. Reason.
But I digress. If Al Gore wants to inject reason back into politics, I say let's have at it.
But first, I'd like to deconstruct what I suspect is the real agenda here. I think Gore is making a rather transparent play for the educated moderate--the kind of voter who knows just enough to be dangerous. These are the kind of guys that say things like, "The Christian Right scares the hell out of me". Or, those who might be impressed by Gore's Oscar winning "documentary" without really having the brainpower to think critically about it.
"Reason" is the stalking horse here because I think Gore believes that, thanks to his books and movie, he owns that particular piece of our brains that light up when someone utters the word "reason". Al's the answer man, the inventor of the internet, the guy America, hell, the guy the whole world turns to for the answers to the big questions.
Al already knows the answers, so if we're going to be reasonable, we're going to have to do what Al says.
I don't know whether Al really believes the tripe he's selling, or if he's just counting on the fact that most Americans aren't all that knowledgeable about science and are inclined to lap up whatever NBC News or Time magazine says on the matter.
Surprisingly, a lot of people still pay attention to those sources, and in fact, may well consider themselves informed after consuming one of these news products.
Anyway, reason. Let's bring it back.
How 'bout we start with this?
Show me the scientific proof that so-called "greenhouse gases" actually trap heat.
posted by alwaysright at
7:45 PM
2 Comments:
"9/11 silenced a lot of that, but despite the fact that we remain at war, today we're dealing with an increasingly vocal, increasingly irrational opposition"
They are called the majority, sir!
And a majority of the planet, our closest allies and friends, are convinced by the real science appearing in real scientific journals, conducted by real scientist - not bought and paid for by the oil industry schill 'scientists' you would be most likely to cite - that the environment is under attack from man-made pollutants and this poses a significant threat to the existence of a viable and sustainable planet. And now, even the leading lights of industry are ready to admit that something has to be done, www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/opinion/18fri1.html and soon.
This is not a subject where sarcasm and sanctimony apply. It is not a subject where heavy-handed political narcisism will trump empirical evidence. You, having been a scientist, should understand more than most the wealth of data on this subject means there is an awful lot of money going into this research from both the private and public sector. A lot of people are very worried and rightly so.
You're right. I do have a science background. And that is why I'm completely unimpressed by the "science" behind global warming theory. It's a crock, RC.
But I am serious. The crux of the theory is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat. I have looked for some actual proof of that. I can't find it. Show me that, and I might come around.
The so-called leading lights you refer to are businessmen who understand a political, not a scientific reality. Big, powerful comapnies like GE will hire a bunch of lobbyists who will craft cap and trade legislation that will guarantee that they will make a lot of money. It will have no effect on the climate.
Oil industry scientists are not the only players with an agenda. If you understand the world of academic science, they are almost completely dependent on government grant money to fund their research. That's why it's so crucial to create a "problem" that they can sell.
I don't really fault any of them. Everybody's got to sell something. It's up to me to sniff out the bullshit, and I generally know it when I see it.
You know, scientists can't even agree on how to measure global temperature now, let alone precisely compare those measurements with a hundred years ago. Science is about making and PROVING hypotheses. You can't do good science with bad data, and computer models are only as good as the underlying assumptions. None of them, to my knowledge, has demonstrated any predictive value.
Science is not an opinion survey. Nobody has to do an opinion survey about Bernoulli's principle because it's proven science. The very idea that we're polling scientists about their opinions is proof that there is no hard science underlying global warming theory.
Here's what we really know. It may, or may not, be warmer today than it was one hundred years ago. If, in fact it actually is warmer, it may, or it may not be caused by a buildup of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, that may or may not be caused by human activity. Or it more likely may be caused by variations in the intensity of the sun's rays, which is a better explanation for the apparent warming on Mars, which probably isn't caused by human activity.
If it is actually getting warmer, it may be a bad thing, or it may be a good thing, and we may be able to do something about it or we may not.
What we can be almost completely certain about is that politically imposed "solutions" will cause a great deal of economic dislocation, and will impact disproportionately on the less well off, for whom the Democratic party advocates so tirelessly, from their 30000 square foot mansions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home