Al Gore: Defending Paris on Fox News

June 8, 2017

Most climate deniers would rather drink battery acid than listen to someone who’s been right on climate, and a whole lot of other things for 40 years.

But maybe if he shows up on a trusted venue like Fox News, even Uncle Dittohead might listen?

supportdarksnow

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Al Gore: Defending Paris on Fox News”

  1. Torsten Says:

    34 years ago:


  2. “… maybe if he shows up on a trusted news outlet like Fox, maybe Uncle Dittohead will listen?”

    One of my breakthroughs will be when one of you-all finally comprehends that you guys complain about the very things YOU do. I watched Gore on Fox, and I could point to the various things he said which skeptic climate scientists dispute in detail. Gore’s bit about the Book of Revelations sounded very familiar, and the reason why is because I heard him say that at the desperation appearance he made last October at Hillary’s Florida rally. I own the DVD of his movie and his Our Choice, movie companion, and Earth in the Balance books. I routinely skim through Crocks posts and am indebted to Peter for inadvertent tips about Oreskes’ statements.

    Meanwhile, how many times has commenter “Dumboldguy” told you guys NOT to read my blog? How many of you have vowed never to read / watch material from folks on the skeptic side of the issue. How many of you shun any words from Limbaugh or Morano on the topic and would run, not walk, away from an invite to attend one of Heartland’s climate conferences?

    We do read/watch AGW material, at length. It’s something you guys should actually suggest NOT to happen. The more critical, objective thinkers you try to lure into your side, the more you undermine it.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      Russell, you are a cartoon head yammering on and on while springs and broken gears pop out of your ears amidst steam and Jews-harp “sproing” noises.

    • Torsten Says:

      Russell, you are deluded and clueless.

      Gingerbaker’s interpretation of you is perfect.

    • ubrew12 Says:

      “I own the DVD of his movie and his Our Choice, movie companion” Why? If you identify as a climate skeptic your beef isn’t with Gore, its with Climate Science. Gore is but a communicator and, obviously, a politician. He trusts the Science. He is NOT the Science. Yet, it IS the Science that you are skeptical of, not Gore. I’ve often wondered why so-called ‘skeptics’ of Climate Science have what appears to be a ‘Gore-fetish’. You OWN his movie, and movie companion? Doesn’t that seem just a little odd to you?

      The ECS is either above 2 C, or it is below 2 C. If the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity from doubled CO2) is above 2 C, as Science expects, then we need to take immediate action, on our policy, EVEN if that action appears ‘communistic’. If it is below 2 C, as skeptics argue, then action can be delayed, perhaps indefinitely. The ENTIRE purpose of the skeptical universe is to convince the general public that the LAST place to go for ECS is the Climate Scientists. Clearly, say the skeptics, these Scientists have sold their souls to the Devil, Karl Marx, the amazingly lucrative ‘Climate lobby’, or nobody-good. So, the public is now blind in one eye. So, we, the blind-in-one-eye public, appeal to you skeptics with the OBVIOUS next question: “what IS the ECS? What is the ECS, now that we can no longer TRUST the Climate Scientists to tell us the ECS-truth?” And the answer? *crickets* And that’s been the answer for 30 years now. So, ‘We-The-People’ are, as regards fossil emissions policy, now official BLIND IN BOTH EYES. What’s the ECS that drives policy? We can’t trust Science, and the Science-skeptics aren’t talking. We nevertheless need a policy, lets just TRUST in the politicians. And who do they trust? “In Donors We Trust”, is their official motto. And who are their Donors? The Koch Brothers.


    • You guys.

      Let’s review: Peter implied that enlightened education would result if only ‘Uncle Dittohead’ would just take the time to listen to / watch Al Gore in detail. I pointed out how I have, and offered one particular detail to prove it. I then asked a straightforward trio of questions – what were the results from Gingerbacker, Torsten and Ubrew12? Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep. Torsten, in particular, saying I was clueless. About what, exactly? From a thorough reading of my GelbspanFiles blog and related online articles of mine, I highly doubt that any objective bystander will say I am clueless to the assortment of political accusations made by Gore, Oreskes, etc, against skeptic climate scientists. And I doubt if any of you could make a case that I am, considering how many AGW-author books I own and quote directly from in my blog posts/articles.

      Call me any name you want, friends. The ‘name’ I call you all is ….. “predictable.” Meanwhile, the question remains: In the face of Peter implying that ‘somebody’ needs to open their minds to an opposing viewpoint, how many of YOU have adamantly told folks not to listen to an opposing viewpoint?

    • lesliegraham1 Says:

      You are not a ‘sceptic’ – you are a liar.
      There is no ‘debate’ or ‘argument’ about man made climate change in the scientific community and there hasn’t been for decades.
      Why would anyone want to read a pack of transparent lies?

    • Torsten Says:

      Russell wrote:
      “Peter implied that enlightened education would result if only ‘Uncle Dittohead’ would just take the time to listen to / watch Al Gore in detail.”

      I interpret Peter’s intent differently. That is, since so many people who watch Fox wouldn’t believe anything on any of the other networks, perhaps they’ll believe it because the message is now coming via Wallace’s show. After all, Wallace wouldn’t mislead them, would he? If I’m not mistaken, there are data that indicate a preference for that network amongst disbelievers. I’m not sure how you came to your peculiar interpretation, but that is part of the problem I have with you. You seem to draw conclusions that no other reasonable person would make.

      “I pointed out how I have, and offered one particular detail to prove it. I then asked a straightforward trio of questions – what were the results from Gingerbacker, Torsten and Ubrew12? Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.”

      I started writing a detailed response to your post, but my time was better spent doing something outside. Gingerbaker’s response pretty much summed up how I felt at the time. You are a tiresome commenter. You cannot be trusted to get anything requiring an assessment of quantitative data correct. You regularly misinterpret what I or others have written. You do not answer questions I’ve asked. You do not acknowledge mistakes you’ve made. But you expect people to trust your interpretation in the political realm. I won’t. Ubrew12 did a good job of laying out the emptiness of the pseudo-skeptics position. And you dare to call his response a sidestep? I’m not even certain why I am wasting a nice evening here responding to you.

      As to your trio of questions,
      1. Dumboldguy has stated numerous times that he thinks your site is a waste of time and people should not read it. But that doesn’t mean people won’t go there anyway and see learn for themselves what a waste of bandwidth it is.
      2. I have not made any vow not to read anything from the pseudo-skeptic of the issue. It’s just that whenever I do, I am sickened by the shallowness of the arguments, be they in the articles or the comments sections.
      3. Limbaugh and Morano are two sick people who I can’t stand to hear. And I’ve watched enough of the Heartland conference sessions to know what a waste of time they are. Don’t ask me to attend one, I’ll stick with the AAAS conferences, thank you.

      “Torsten, in particular, saying I was clueless. About what, exactly?

      -Temperatures in the arctic (two colossal failures on your part come to mind).
      -The rate of ice melt. In December you wrote, “Spin this any way you want, the Arctic ain’t melting on cue like you believe it is.”
      -Thinking that Limbaugh or Morano have anything useful to contribute. Seriously, Limbaugh and Morano? You have to be an idiot to take them seriously. And I won’t apologize for that assessment.
      -Your desperate need to defend the ICE campaign, writing “the “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” leaked memo phrase was NEVER a part of the ICE campaign.” It is clear to any person with a reasonable command of English that despite your insistence that this wasn’t part of ICE, this was their strategy, the main reason for the campaign.
      -Your writing: “the “denier” in question points out the necessity of the RRS Ernest Shackleton icebreaker accompanying that cruise ship that just went through the NW passage at the height of the Arctic ice summer minimum” to imply that ice breaking was necessary on that cruise. The passengers barely saw any ice. It was easy to learn the truth of the matter, and you didn’t bother, or meant to purposely mislead.

      Russell, whenever I dig into something you’ve written that seems “off” to me, I discover another example of your unreliability. “Cluelessness” on your part sums it for me.

      “From a thorough reading of my GelbspanFiles blog and related online articles of mine, I highly doubt that any objective bystander will say I am clueless to the assortment of political accusations made by Gore, Oreskes, etc, against skeptic climate scientists. And I doubt if any of you could make a case that I am, considering how many AGW-author books I own and quote directly from in my blog posts/articles.”

      You seem to think I’ve never read anything at your site (or blog, if you prefer). Frankly, the first time I encountered it I judged the author to be, well, not very bright. Watching him talk at Heartland’s conference was further confirmation. And again, you put so much emphasis on what Gore says. I’ve told you I am swayed by what I read in the primary literature, and in formal review articles. I posted the 34 year old interview above because it shows how Gore understood that this emerging scientific understanding was important and would have political implications. He was right. And your “skeptic climate scientists” do not have a coherent alternative to the now-mainstream view. Get over it.

      “Call me any name you want, friends. The ‘name’ I call you all is ….. “predictable.” Meanwhile, the question remains: In the face of Peter implying that ‘somebody’ needs to open their minds to an opposing viewpoint, how many of YOU have adamantly told folks not to listen to an opposing viewpoint?

      I’ll call you a predictably unreliable source of information or opinion on this topic. Sorry, that’s just how it is. As for the “opposing viewpoint”, in my discussions with people I prefer to show how the viewpoint is flawed. But once the point has been made a few times, it’s only natural to tune out the noise.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: