THE LATEST
« »

Search Archives:

Custom Search

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Where Global Warming Denial Has Come to Die -- In the Pretense of Stupidity

If you want evidence that the debate on global warming is over, look no farther than the attacks on Al Gore for daring to win an Oscar. After having every argument against the reality of human caused climate change shut down, there's nothing left to them but to attack the messenger. NewsBusters (the right wing 'answer' to Media Matters) tells us "Sean Hannity Exposes Al Gore’s Inconvenient Global Warming Hypocrisy" -- as if Hannity were anything other than a shameless PR tool. Next up, Ann Coulter 'exposes' the fact that all liberals eat brie and drink merlot while performing abortions at gay wedding receptions. The only people still on the global warming denial train are the idiots who don't matter.

So what is Gore's 'Global Warming Hypocrisy?' He uses electricity, flies on jets, drives, and generally behaves like someone who doesn't live in the stone age.

Hannity, via NewsBusters:

In short, flying in a private jet does more than four times the carbon emission damage to the environment than flying a regular commercial jet. So if you were worried about your quote-unquote "carbon footprint" on the environment, and if you are concerned about carbon neutrality, the last thing that you should be doing is flying on private jets. Sit in coach, you might save a polar bear.


Hannity can't even keep his bullshit straight. Despite previously telling viewers that global warming is just a liberal scare tactic, he's now all worried about the 'carbon emission damage' of Al Gore's plane.

Of course, Sean Hannity's a freakin' idiot. If you need proof (other than Bush's deficits) that the modern conservative movement is filled with people who are bad at math, look no further than their misunderstanding of the concept of carbon offsets (for a good explanation of carbon offsets, check out Killfile's post here).

See, it works like this, X-X=0. In fact, X+1-(X+1)=0. As long as I'm subtracting the same amount, I can't add to the sum. Crazy how that works. By buying carbon offsets, Gore reduces his carbon footprint to zero.

I couldn't put it better than Jim Henley does at HighClearing.com (via Gristmill):

Al Gore uses a lot of electricity. Al Gore buys carbon offsets. Libertarians who take anthropogenic global warming seriously - count me among them - generally favor markets in emissions over hard regulatory targets for individual homes and businesses. That way people and companies can decide to conserve or offset or buy unused capacity as they see fit, minimizing emissions while maximizing utility.

Curiously, the "free market" think tank that gives us our first link declares that Gore's free choice to use his own money to offset his family's carbon output makes him a "hypocrite," since he thinks global warming is bad. This may seem odd, but perusing the Hit & Run comment thread from which I got the above links will clarify: libertarians believe in principles, and one of the most important principles is

AL GORE SUCKS AND IS FAT FAT FAT!!!!

Therefore anything he does is wrong. I believe this is explained somewhere in the works of Ludwig von Mises.


That pretty much sums it up. If Gore were living the lifestyle chumps like Hannity pretend they want him to live, Hannity would be asking, "You want to ride a horse everywhere and read by bioluminescent moss like Al Gore?" He's being criticized for not living like a character in The Flintstones. What do you want to bet he'd catch as much flak if he did?

Another bit of fun is some idiot from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. This guy has been all over the place telling everyone who'll listen that Al Gore sucks up juice like nobody's business. But the truth is that if Gore buys enough offsets, he could use as much energy as freakin' China and still have an effective output of zero. It's that crazy math thing again.

I heard TCPR's president, Drew Johnson, on the Ed Schultz Show yesterday and the guy was a freakin' moron. He attacked Gore for saying he buys renewable energy by pointing out that there's no direct line from a renewable generator to his house. At that point, I yelled at my radio, "It's math you freakin' idiot!"

Let's ignore the fact that Gore has solar panels, so he does have a direct connection to renewable energy. No one who buys renewable energy from a utility has a direct line to the generator -- there's no reason to build a separate grid. If I buy X kilowatts of renewable and my utility generates X kilowatts of renewable, then X kilowatts of renewable energy are generated -- if X% of consumers buy X% of green, X% of the juice in the grid is green. That involves the arithmetic, so it's beyond the understanding of your average modern conservative. Again, X-X=0.

This is where the global warming denial argument has come to die; Al Gore's a hypocrite. Even if it were true, it wouldn't do a damned thing to disprove his point -- a smoker, for example, can tell you smoking's bad for you and be 100% correct. But that's what you call your 'logic.' Logic is similar to math, so these guys either pretend to misunderstand it or are stupid enough to misunderstand it.

Unfortunately for the global warming deniers, there aren't many who are as stupid as the deniers pretend to be.

--Wisco


Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; buys . He also understand -- something doesn't so much get

15 comments:

Simmons said...

Here's a factsheet on global warming:
http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2007/02/factsheet.html

The statement that global warming denial has come to die is as easy to believe as the statement that there aren't any Bush supporters left. As silly as it sounds, its not true. It never ceases to be amazing.
Example numero 1:
http://lordcrimson.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/truth-behind-global-warming-part-ii/
And then look at the comments. There are so many. It is incredibly pathetic. They blame "socialism".

green.897 said...

Simmons, why is it so unbelievably hard for you to fathom that there would still be global warming deniers? Did you know that nearly half of scientists do not believe that global warming is caused by man or that CO2 is even the cause of it? Do not be so quick to assume that every environmental issue that is brought about is done so for honest purposes. Once you do that you go from being a concerned environmentalist as I consider myself to nothing more than religious fanatic.

Wisco said...

Did you know that nearly half of scientists do not believe that global warming is caused by man or that CO2 is even the cause of it?

Did you know that's not even remotely true?

green.897 said...

Ok wisco, the number is closer to 45 percent, sorry for the grievous error there. The fact of the matter is Al Gore is being sued by the founder of the Weather Channel, Coleman, for fraud. Al Gore refused to have a fair open debate with Coleman and so Coleman decided that he would sue Gore so that he could bring in his scientists and they could argue the issue. C02 is the result of an increase in global temperature, not the cause.

Wisco said...

I think the "grievous error" lies in pulling numbers out of your butt.

Here's a fun question; if CO2 levels are the result of warming, how does that mechanism work? I mean, you're so damned sure, so you'd think you'd be able to explain that one.

Also, the founder of the Weather Channel is at odds with -- wait for it -- The Weather Channel.

Global waring deniers remind me of evolution deniers. It's not about science at all, it's about politics. Both just declare things to be true and never back it up.

green.897 said...

I can't explain the mechanism behind it. However, if you were to observe a time-lapse graph of the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels you would see that the increase in CO2 lags behind the increase in temperature by hundreds of years.

Wisco said...

You can't explain it, yet you know it's true. I hate to tell you, but that's not science, that's faith.

Unfortunately, it's faith based on incorrect data.

BBC

Earlier results from the Epica [ice] core were published in 2004 and 2005, detailing the events back to 440,000 years and 650,000 years respectively. Scientists have now gone the full way through the column, back another 150,000 years.

The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.

green.897 said...

Yes, global warming is occurring. I have never once denied that. What I am trying to say is that man is not the catalyst. Faith is something I do not deal in and therefore I do not understand why it is you bring something like that up. When I say I do not understand the mechanism I mean I do not know exactly what causes the increase in temperature. However, what is clear is that CO2 is NOT the cause. Faith is believing a crappy documentary created by a man who knows nothing about science and who uses more energy than anyone I know. Don't you think it would at least be more rational to hold a formal and fair debate on the issue to get all the facts out in the open?

Wisco said...

I need to ask you a question. The problem is, I'm not sure which of two to ask; "what the hell is wrong with your head?" or "what the hell do you think is wrong with mine?"

You're an environmentalist in the same way that I'm a geni. The debate you say hasn't happened has happened. You just don't like the results. It's called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won a Nobel Prize. In that debate, flatearthers like you lost.

You can't argue the truth into submission. Facts are stubborn things and will not be changed. Your opinion of the facts are irrelevant and -- frankly -- completely unhelpful. As is your pretense of environmentalism. You may think you can trick people into thinking you're "green," but you're not smart enough to pull it off. Like a creationist's, your arguments are only convincing to others who already share your deliberate and jealously protected ignorance.

If you're trying to convince me to join the Flat Earth Society, stop wasting both of our time -- it's never going to happen.

green.897 said...

Many scientists were not included in the so-called "debate". My name being 'green' has nothing to do with the environment it is my last name. You claiming that facts I have presented are simply my 'interpretations' is completely false. The FACT is that over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that global warming is a fraud with a political agenda behind it. Here, read for yourself:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

green.897 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
green.897 said...

Sorry, seems the URL was cut off. Again:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/
17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

...Don't you at least find it somewhat odd that the mainstream media chose to completely ignore all 17,200 scientists who objected? I wish you would stop referring to me as a "flat-earther" and a "creationist", of which I am neither.

Wisco said...

Too funny...

Again, are you stupid or do you think I am?

First you said that 45% of all scientists doubt global warming. Then you give me 17,000. You may not know this, but that's not 45%. Hell, there are probably 17,000 working in the oil industry alone.

And you'll also notice that it doesn't say anywhere that they're climate scientists. If some geologist thinks that global warming is a hoax, it's hard for me to come up with a reason to care.

Seriously, you're wasting your time here, culty. I'm not stupid enough to fall for this bullshit.

green.897 said...

You are terrible at information processing. Did I say that the 17,000 scientists who signed the petition made up 45% of the scientific community? No. However, getting 17,000 people to sign anything is a pretty big accomplishment. My own geology professor stated his doubts on whether or not climate change is man-made. If you knew anything about climatology you would know that the earth goes through natural changes in climate. It is self-important and ignorant to think that a climate change which is only large relative to our own perception of temperature is anything major when it has been shown that in the past the temperature has been much higher than even the most grave predictions for warming and life still survived. I believe whole-heartedly that we should strive to find alternative sources of energy and reduce emissions into the atmosphere. However, it is foolish to make rash and possibly economically and physically devastating decisions and legislations based on a global doomsday prediction that has yet to be conceded by the scientific community.

Wisco said...

Here's a fun question; what part of "You're wasting your time" are you having trouble understanding?

So there are a few nuts out there -- so what? Doubt is meaningless if it has nothing to back it up. And I don't care what your geology professor said. I can find you geology professors who think the Grand Canyon was caused by the "Great Flood" in the Bible. Your appeal to authority, like all your other arguments, is a logical fallacy.

If you want to have the last word here, you knock yourself out. I'm done arguing about the nature of reality with a cultist.