Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[jethro]

Al Gore was talking about political will being needed to fight WWII and AGW/CC. Besides, did we just fight the Nazis? What about Japan and Italy?

When people stop defending the gross misrepresentation of what AL Gore said by WUWT then perhaps we can move on - but plenty of people still seem to be defending such indefensible action and I for one am busy opposing that :winky:

Then why didn't WUWT drop it?

I'm sorry, I see no gross misrepresentation by WUWT, I see quotes taken from an article in The Times, together with a link for verification. Why so much vitriol directed at WUWT and not The Times? If there is a problem with mis-quoting Gore, surely the blame lays with them?

As for misrepresenting or mis-quoting Gore and your belief that he made no reference to Nazis, what does this mean then? "Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as that from Hitler". Was Hitler leader of the Nazi party or the Lets all wear pink tutu's party?

[Solar Cycles]

You're like me then, I don't buy anything I read on WUWT :winky:

But Dev I think you do buy all things pro AGW,and their lies the difference.

[noggin]

No need to put words in my mouth - what WUWT said is quite clear 'Gore and Nazis' You may not see you're being fed, but I can

The implication was WUWT's, not Gores - the title WAS 'Gore and Nazis'. But Al Gore did not use the word Nazi, or compare himself to Churchill. He talked about political will being needed to win world war two and tackle AGW/CC. WUWT completely misrepresented him, and the commentators there went completely OTT. I can't understand how anyone can defend that.

Dev, I think that the implication was The Times' and not WUWT's. WUWT was merely reporting that The Times had originally "lumped" Al and the nazis together in the original headline but had later changed it to something less inflamatory.

The comments following the article are those of WUWT's readership and Anthony Watts makes quite clear his view on the use of the word "nazi".

In fact, the first two links that I posted were from newspapers.....The Mail and The Times. The article on WUWT was merely referring to the Times article.

You don't like Anthony Watt's website. do you? :o

Actually, in the original Mail article last night the reporter/journalist used "Hitler" where The Times used "nazis". I was so appalled that I nearly posted the link last night, but decided to go to bed instead. It would appear that both papers had second thoughts overnight and toned the, ummmm, tone down a bit for this morning.

Journalists, eh...... :winky:

[laserguy]

Why so much vitriol directed at WUWT and not The Times?

Because WUWT? is a massive thorn in the warmista's soft white underbelly,and they would love to see it slain so that they may carry on regardless without this massive hinderance and font of inconvenient facts in their way. Long live WUWT?- "all it takes for evil to prosper is good men to do nothing",or something like that. WUWT? is far,far from being a lone voice,but is instrumental in the prevention of the whole civilised world falling hook,line and sinker for the great CO2 scam/hoax,or whatever term one cares to apply. People 'like me' are 'holocaust deniers',right? Just what depths of ridiculosity have yet to be plumbed in the death throes of AGW?

[Devonian]

I'm sorry, I see no gross misrepresentation by WUWT, I see quotes taken from an article in The Times, together with a link for verification. Why so much vitriol directed at WUWT and not The Times? If there is a problem with mis-quoting Gore, surely the blame lays with them?

The Times corrected their story and changed the headline, WUWT did not...

besides, read some of the WUWT comments, they hate Al Gore, any excuse to attack him is gratefully accpeted...

As for misrepresenting or mis-quoting Gore and your belief that he made no reference to Nazis, what does this mean then? "Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as that from Hitler". Was Hitler leader of the Nazi party or the Lets all wear pink tutu's party?

That's not what Al Gore said is it, it's a quote from a report isn't it? I'm interested in what Al Gore said.

Because WUWT? is a massive thorn in the warmista's soft white underbelly,and they would love to see it slain so that they may carry on regardless without this massive hinderance and font of inconvenient facts in their way. Long live WUWT?- "all it takes for evil to prosper is good men to do nothing",or something like that. WUWT? is far,far from being a lone voice,but is instrumental in the prevention of the whole civilised world falling hook,line and sinker for the great CO2 scam/hoax,or whatever term one cares to apply. People 'like me' are 'holocaust deniers',right? Just what depths of ridiculosity have yet to be plumbed in the death throes of AGW?

No you are NOT a holocaust denier - but you do say things that are wrong. There is no hoax,no scam, and repetition does not make it so.

[Solar Cycles]

The Times corrected their story and changed the headline, WUWT did not...

besides, read some of the WUWT comments, they hate Al Gore, any excuse to attack him is gratefully accpeted...

That's not what Al Gore said is it, it's a quote from a report isn't it? I'm interested in what Al Gore said.

No you are NOT a holocaust denier - but you do say things that are wrong. There is no hoax,no scam, and repetition does not make it so.

I wouldn't say AGW is a hoax Dev, over hyped yes. I still maintain it's effects are minimal. Unfortunately AGW as become a political hot potatoe, were political ideologies have taken over a theory, and have used this theory for their own agendas! You only have to look at one of it's forefathers to see that Dev!!

[jethro]

The Times corrected their story and changed the headline, WUWT did not...

besides, read some of the WUWT comments, they hate Al Gore, any excuse to attack him is gratefully accpeted...

That's not what Al Gore said is it, it's a quote from a report isn't it? I'm interested in what Al Gore said.

There was no correction in The Times, there was a headline change - that's it. The origin of the story lays squarely with them, not WUWT.

Al Gore is reported in The Times as likening the battle against climate change to the battle against Hitler. Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party. The Times were presumably present at their sponsored event, I doubt they have mis-quoted him. The only sure fire way to get the words straight from the horses mouth is to be present at the speech, or possibly ring Al Gore or his press secretary and ask for a transcript.

It makes no difference whether or not WUWT hate Gore, they accurately reported an article in The Times, nothing wrong with that.

I'm puzzled that you are so upset, not only with the content of the report and dispute it's accuracy but also with WUWT, surely you should be cross with the original source of the story instead?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

WUWT did not claim Al Gore was used the word a "Nazi". Is it now agreed this one observable fact is true?

Just want to clear up one part of the discussion for everyone reading.

[jethro]

WUWT did not claim Al Gore was used the word a "Nazi". Is it now agreed this one observable fact is true?

Just want to clear up one part of the discussion for everyone reading.

Agreed.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Agreed.

Thanks :winky:

Obviously, I was hoping someone else who had ignored me would respond so that we could then finish that part of our disagreement with a gentlemen's agreement and then move on to something else more interesting.

When you get no response you are stuck in "limbo" and don't know what do say next.

[The Penguin]

Jesus!

Anyone would think they'd stumbled into the Serious thread...

[Devonian]

Jesus!

Anyone would think they'd stumbled into the Serious thread...

Ahh, the 'I'll put myself above the fray.' approach - must try it myself sometime :winky:

[Devonian]

WUWT did not claim Al Gore was used the word a "Nazi". Is it now agreed this one observable fact is true?

Then, again..., why was the headline 'Gore and Nazis'? Isn't that a teeny weeny bit misleading? You betcha!

Just want to clear up one part of the discussion for everyone reading.

The WUWT article finishes with this "I had never ever, wanted to have Nazism be a discussion on this blog, and had deleted such references in the past so as to not incite further. But when Gore makes it headline news, what choice do I have?" So, it's clear WUWT is saying 'Gore' makes nazism headline news. That is plain wrong and misleading, but it makes for open season in the comments.

Anyway, we can all check what Al Gore said here when the speech is put on line.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Devonian

[HighPressure]

Boy does this sort of thing really anger me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141352.stm

"Leaders of the G8 leading industrial countries have agreed to try to limit global warming to just 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels by 2050."

There is no science or technology available, to allow such a statement to be made its deliberately dishonest and misleading.

I love to see them challenged in court on that, its a disgrace and the public deserve better information than that crap

Edited July 8, 2009 by HighPressure

[The Penguin]

Ahh, the 'I'll put myself above the fray.' approach - must try it myself sometime

Oh never above, dear Ian of Devon, but occasionally too frayed.

[noggin]

Boy does this sort of thing really anger me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141352.stm

"Leaders of the G8 leading industrial countries have agreed to try to limit global warming to just 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels by 2050."

There is no science or technology available, to allow such a statement to be made its deliberately dishonest and misleading.

I love to see them challenged in court on that, its a disgrace and the public deserve better information than that crap

Completely agree with you, HP. I read it, gave a little sigh and shook my head in despair. I can't even be bothered getting angry about it any more. I'll do my bit, by being green and clean and paying my taxes, but other than that, I have decided that what will be, will be, as far as AGW/GW/CC is concerned. These leaders can go on with their noise-making all they like. If I stand back and look/listen, it can be quite amusing, in a frightening sort of way, how they go on.........and on........and on........and on..................................

[Devonian]

Boy does this sort of thing really anger me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141352.stm

"Leaders of the G8 leading industrial countries have agreed to try to limit global warming to just 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels by 2050."

There is no science or technology available, to allow such a statement to be made its deliberately dishonest and misleading.

You missed the words 'try to'?

I love to see them challenged in court on that, its a disgrace and the public deserve better information than that crap

Again, they will 'try to' - it's, I agree, a cop out.

Oh never above, dear Ian of Devon, but occasionally too frayed.

Not Ian but from Devon - and I do like geology.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Devonian, I'm glad you agree that Al Gore did not use the word "Nazi" - we agree on something. I do also agree that WUWT associated his name with the Nazis... but then my response to that is touche. Al Gore went too far when he talked of the fight for civilisation, and then drew an analogy with WWII... in Europe.

Boy does this sort of thing really anger me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141352.stm

"Leaders of the G8 leading industrial countries have agreed to try to limit global warming to just 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels by 2050."

There is no science or technology available, to allow such a statement to be made its deliberately dishonest and misleading.

It's beyond a joke but its success has always been 100% based on politics - big state socialist economics and energy security, and holding back the development of third world countries to make them dependent on importing expensive first world "green" technologies.

On so many political levels it's so convenient to let the global warming idea run, and stoke it up every now and then.

You also wonder how many jobs now depend on the idea of global warming for some extra cash and vulnerable to be corrupted by the scam. The Met Office is obviously one, as is academia, "green" energy business, bankers and their carbon traders.... anyone who can make some money saying "global warming is a threat, action now!"

[Devonian]

Devonian, I'm glad you agree that Al Gore did not use the word "Nazi" - we agree on something. I do also agree that WUWT associated his name with the Nazis... but then my response to that is touche. Al Gore went too far when he talked of the fight for civilisation, and then drew an analogy with WWII... in Europe.

Well, if, as you clearly do, you think AGW/CC isn't and wont be a problem then you will think that way - fine. But, please, show some respect to those who've looked at the science, and Al Gore has, and come to the conclusion it might well be very serious. It's your opinion he went to far, we don't know did - and wont until some way into the future. AGW/CC less than a degree or so may well not be a problem i for one am not sure it wont be more and is thus a problem we need to tackle.

It's beyond a joke but its success has always been 100% based on politics - big state socialist economics and energy security, and holding back the development of third world countries to make them dependent on importing expensive first world "green" technologies.

On so many political levels it's so convenient to let the global warming idea run, and stoke it up every now and then.

You also wonder how many jobs now depend on the idea of global warming for some extra cash and vulnerable to be corrupted by the scam. The Met Office is obviously one, as is academia, "green" energy business, bankers and their carbon traders.... anyone who can make some money saying "global warming is a threat, action now!"

If you use words like 'scam and 'jerks' (as you have) you give people like me (part of the broad group you apply such words to) two options. Take our cue from your words and start slinging it back, or try to respond in another way. I say to you that AGW/CC isn't a scam, that people like me aren't jerks and that my view of the science is that there is a likelihood that in the future the more serious prediction could happen and politicians should address that.

Now, I might be wrong, that doesn't make me (us) either jerks or part of a scam but it would make us wrong. You might also be wrong - again you are not a jerk or part of a scam. OK?

[Thundery wintry showers]

It doesn't surprise me that AFT sees AGW as an excuse to bring in socialism, after all the arguments in the Political Discussion. As it happens, there's a growing awareness among environmental campaigners that we do NOT want to be holding the developing countries back to a large extent because for example increased development in those countries implies less poverty and lower birth rates- one area where I am in 100% agreement with them. However we do want them to develop using cleaner technologies rather than going through the same energy-inefficient phases as the developed world did. It would make sense even if AGW wasn't a major issue because we have the issue of dwindling fossil fuel supplies which are harder and harder to extract, and continuing "business as usual" would probably avert a short-term, gradual, small recession in favour of a sudden depression in the long term.

The comments on "restricting global warming to 2C" are almost certainly based on an assessment of the IPCC scenarios, assuming that they approximate truth, and determining what level of CO2 increases would be required to generate approximately 2C of warming. The flaw lies in the possibility that the IPCC, and by inference the current scientific consensus, might not be right. However, limiting AGW to within 2C is a very good aim in itself, as a 2C warming across the globe probably wouldn't be too much of a problem, unlike say 4-6C of warming.

I think the smaller cuts proposed for 2020 are reasonable (though probably won't be reached) and that 80% cuts in CO2 by 2050 is a bit steep.

[jethro]

It doesn't surprise me that AFT sees AGW as an excuse to bring in socialism, after all the arguments in the Political Discussion. As it happens, there's a growing awareness among environmental campaigners that we do NOT want to be holding the developing countries back to a large extent because for example increased development in those countries implies less poverty and lower birth rates- one area where I am in 100% agreement with them. However we do want them to develop using cleaner technologies rather than going through the same energy-inefficient phases as the developed world did. It would make sense even if AGW wasn't a major issue because we have the issue of dwindling fossil fuel supplies which are harder and harder to extract, and continuing "business as usual" would probably avert a short-term, gradual, small recession in favour of a sudden depression in the long term.

The comments on "restricting global warming to 2C" are almost certainly based on an assessment of the IPCC scenarios, assuming that they approximate truth, and determining what level of CO2 increases would be required to generate approximately 2C of warming. The flaw lies in the possibility that the IPCC, and by inference the current scientific consensus, might not be right. However, limiting AGW to within 2C is a very good aim in itself, as a 2C warming across the globe probably wouldn't be too much of a problem, unlike say 4-6C of warming.

But the reality is, developing countries cannot afford the newer, greener technologies. Coal is by far the cheapest option for them, if we in the developed world want to veto the use of coal then we either have to heavily subsidise the developing world, or prevent their development.

We're not very good at subsidising developing nations, we're quite good at rushing in when there's a crisis, but those countries don't want to rebound from crisis to crisis, they want a bright and better future. Quite rightly (IMO) the response to all the "oh no, you can't do that, you'll have to do this" plaudits being bandied around, will be a resounding "you pay for it then". Will we? Can we? If CO2 is the big problem we hear so much about, we in the developed world have caused it, third world countries haven't, why should they pay the price? The argument is always "they'll be the hardest hit by some of the expected climate change", doesn't that mean we owe them twice over? Pay to help them develop using green technology, pay to mitigate any changes they suffer as a consequence to any damage already caused.

The G8 have a poor track record in following their rhetoric with actions, so to be honest, I don't expect much in the way of concrete change in the near future. It's always struck me that these meetings of the world's bigwigs aren't a great deal different than the interminable meetings we've all endured; you know damn well that next month's end meeting, you'll still be discussing the same old stuff at the previous months end and the one before, the one before that and the one before that. Lots of words, seriously short on action.

Here's the latest from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/world/eu...p;th&emc=th

Edited July 9, 2009 by jethro

[Methuselah]

But the reality is, developing countries cannot afford the newer, greener technologies. Coal is by far the cheapest option for them, if we in the developed world want to veto the use of coal then we either have to heavily subsidise the developing world, or prevent their development.

Yes, you are right there, Jethro; we do need to step in. It's hardly that we don't have the technology either...Better that, than help them along with 200 years' of carbon production?

Two wrongs don't make a right! :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, it's an unfortunate conundrum, but entirely correct IMHO, and the environmental campaigners are increasingly coming around to this conclusion also.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Well, if, as you clearly do, you think AGW/CC isn't and wont be a problem then you will think that way - fine. But, please, show some respect to those who've looked at the science, and Al Gore has, and come to the conclusion it might well be very serious. It's your opinion he went to far, we don't know did - and wont until some way into the future. AGW/CC less than a degree or so may well not be a problem i for one am not sure it wont be more and is thus a problem we need to tackle.

Al Gore is an activist. I've looked into the science too, and I have come to a different conclusion. Certainly, there is no basis to liken the fight against global warming to a fight against Germany in WWII - that's political rhetoric and should be kept out of science. Do you agree political rhetoric has no place in science?

If you use words like 'scam and 'jerks' (as you have) you give people like me (part of the broad group you apply such words to) two options. Take our cue from your words and start slinging it back, or try to respond in another way. I say to you that AGW/CC isn't a scam, that people like me aren't jerks and that my view of the science is that there is a likelihood that in the future the more serious prediction could happen and politicians should address that.

Now, I might be wrong, that doesn't make me (us) either jerks or part of a scam but it would make us wrong. You might also be wrong - again you are not a jerk or part of a scam. OK?

I've not said you are a jerk, anywhere. Absolutely you're not, or else you simply would refuse discussion or debate. Unlike your good self, Al Gore doesn't respond to question or even entertain skeptics. Al Gore believes debate has ended.

Nor have I said the AGW believers are either. Please don't misrepresent what I say. There are a lot of reasonable, honest people who believe in AGW for what they believe are honest reasons. Many are open to skeptical views but are not as yet convinced of the skeptic side. That they demand evidence first is a good thing.

I believe these reasonable people would agree that divisive rhetoric that demonises a great many good scientists is not helpful.

(As far as I believe the political-economic manifestations of the global warming idea is a scam many AGW believers concur, for their own reasons. The term "scam" is not a new one.)

Edited July 9, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[noggin]

You also wonder how many jobs now depend on the idea of global warming for some extra cash and vulnerable to be corrupted by the scam. The Met Office is obviously one, as is academia, "green" energy business, bankers and their carbon traders.... anyone who can make some money saying "global warming is a threat, action now!"

I am sure that I have heard :lol: :lol: Gordon Brown :wub: :lol: refer to a "carbon based economy" more than once.