I like Gee Guy. I know he's written some pretty bone-headed stuff before, but frankly, so have I. He runs one of the most engaging, investigative and well written websites in the state ... from a right wing perspective, no less. *SHOCK* So when Gee Guy challenges me to justify where I'm coming from, I tend to pay attention. Just such a challenge was laid in a comment to yesterday's post. I want to respond, and I urge you to read the comment as a whole, because I'm going to break it up into a few parts to reply. Gee Guy writes:
We can debate global warming all day, Wulfgar. In fact, I think you and I have been doing just that for a couple years now.
Actually, no we haven't, and I think that's the very problem at hand. We've been debating the debate on global warming (how META!) but not one word I've written has ever been in reply to the actual science of global climatic change. I'm not a scientist; I'm not a climatologist. All of our discussion on the topic has focused on how global warming is presented and argued, in newspapers, blogs and media. That's not debating global warming; it's debating who's favored ox is getting gored on that particular day. (Yes, the pun was intended.) I'm trying, very hard, to keep up with the science. But that isn't what's being discussed anymore. What's being discussed is the hypocrisy of Vice President Gore, the presentation of global warming in the media and the conspiracy theory of scientists seeking grant money to scare us all to death. Bwahahahaha!
There's a lot to discuss in that, which was what I tried to do in my post of the yesterday, but it sure ain't science. And it sure ain't discussing global warming.
But I am not sure why you are defending Al Gore on his hypocrisy (at
least you're not using the whole carbon neutral, rich people should be
allowed pollute argument). You are not a 'knee-jerk' liberal, so I am
surprised you jump to his defense here.
This is the real meat of Gee Guy's comment. I am defending Al Gore for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I don't think he's a hypocrite. The MetaFilter thread ripped the accusations against Gore a brand new asshole. It turns out, that '20 times more than average' figure isn't established at all. It can't be verified. Nashville utilities won't admit to releasing the numbers, and the organization that claims to have received those numbers has already lied it's ass off about the fact that they are independent and non-partisan. The AP review of Gore's power bills show them to be twelve times beefier than the average in Tennessee, substantially less than the 20 times figure claimed by the Tennessee Center For Policy Research.
Second, energy offsets aren't the fantasy that Coulter and others believe them to be. It may not be utile in the long run, but it is making an effort. Remember, what's being discussed here isn't effectiveness of effort. It's hypocrisy. And Al Gore doesn't roll that way.
Third, and to me this is huge, there is hypocrisy displayed by the very people who point the finger at Al Gore.
The International commission to study global warming has said that global warming is likely to be human caused. The dissenters immediately focus on the weak terminology of 'likely'. They claim that the science isn't all in, yet. I tend to agree. The best of Michael Crichton's comments concerning the science is we're not actually looking at and trusting the science. That's all well and good ... except, the very people who scream the loudest that we aren't reviewing the science are coming up with the wildest conspiracy theories about why the science that supports Al Gore is wrong. Like Ryan, they keep coming back to the few (the extreme minority) and claim that these people must be correct. And when challenged as to why so many in the climatology community disagree, they fall back on bad conspiracy theory.
For a conspiracy theory to be a good one, it must fit the facts at hand. The global warming denier's conspiracy theory doesn't. It posits that scientists are being manipulated by censure and the promise of grant money if they agree that global warming is human caused. Question: how did Al Gore learn about global warming before it became such a profitable issue? If scientists are only jumping on the band-wagon because it's so damned profitable, how did the theory of human caused global warming ever gain legs before people were willing to pay? And who are these people? Exxon Mobile is willing to pay considerable sums if you are willing to *deny* human causes for global warming.. But somehow, some magical way, the grant fairy has enticed the bulk of the scientific community into saying "Shit, man! The Earth's warming up and we gots the CO2!".
Further, the people screaming the loudest about scientific censure are the scientists who disagree that global warming is a reality (human caused). "Any one who disagrees will be buried!" they cry. Except ... they haven't been. That's kind of a major flaw when pointing fingers at a great cabal of grant-scratching science thugs, isn't it?
Jack Horner has argued that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a scavenger. He's full of shit, of course, but I love the guy anyway. By claiming such, in bold defiance of the paleontological community, he has gained more than a little notoriety ... and profit. If you want a conspiracy theory to drive you conclusions, isn't it more rational to suspect that the dissenters are the one's with the most to gain? Well shit yeah it would ... but that doesn't fit the narrative. No, the point is to manipulate the facts to fit the agenda; the point is to claim to value the science while devaluing the science. That's hypocritical. Blame Al Gore that your scientists aren't as trust-worthy as his. Yeah, that's a problem, kids.
Fourth, the claims that Al Gore is a hypocrite ignore the obvious that hypocrisy is individual in nature and solutions often aren't. If global warming is human caused, Al Gore can't solve the problem. He can help, and is attempting such. But he can't do it, and calling him a hypocrite is ridiculous from those who refuse to help in the least.
By now, I'm sure you've all heard the "ChickenHawk" argument as refers to the Iraqi war. The argument is simple; those who support the unleashing of our unbridled fury against the Muslim menace should be willing to put their ass where their mouths are and sign up (or kiss that ass goodbye ... whatever.) Many war supporters have tried to portray the argument other than it is, but that's just cheap avoidance. There's something to be said about the hypocrisy of supporting all out conflict, as long as somebody else deals with it. I've written before that I am not a big fan of the ChickenHawk argument. I think it's flawed. One can easily recognize the ideological necessity of an action, and still hold to the belief that they have not the skills or wherewithal to perform such action by themselves in a direct roll. I accept that. It stinks of hypocrisy, but really it isn't.
Here we have Al Gore, a minister preaching about global warming. He is doing what he can to offset his carbon signature. Here we have a bunch of people who openly mock the idea that they need to participate in the grand campaign against Muslim fascism, and yet won't lift a fricking finger off the keyboard to fight in such an epic struggle. And the latter are the very people screaming loudest about how Al Gore owes them a pound of flesh. Who is the bigger hypocrite I ask you?
And surely you can see that someone who is staking his whole next
presidential campaign on being the climate change rock star is a little
more exposed on the whole hypocrisy scale than the environmentalist who
drives a Yukon. It's just the difference between talking the talk, and
walking the walk.
The guy hasn't declared, nor if he does will he base it entirely on a movie that he participated in. Let's at least keep it real.
And expecting someone who lectures me about my eco-unfriendly lifestyle
to walk the walk is something different than saying anyone who wants
roads should build them themselves.
And here is the very proof that we are not discussing global warming. Al Gore is walking the walk, but yet you blithely accept that he isn't doing so to your satisfaction. I'm sorry, Gee Guy, but he is at least trying. What is truly stunning is that those who believe that Al Gore isn't doing what they think he should (given their assessment of him as some kind of eco-freak-hippy) can still think that anyone who denies Gore's claims must be somehow above favoring their own special personage. Uhhm, no. Seriously, not. Al Gore has lectured, as you put it, that human kind is responsible for the consequences of a warming planet. You choose to see that as a personal affront. I would ask you to justify that stance ... but I think it's all too clear.
We're not really talking about global warming because it's too delicious to discuss the messenger instead of the message. It is entirely possible that global warming is caused by sunspots or cow-farts ... possible, but highly unlikely. Regardless, that isn't what the 'opposition' is focused on. They are focused like a laser on proving Al Gore to be WRONG.
A couple of years ago, there were a whole bunch a folks focused on the idea that Michael Moore was clearly wrong. After all, he's *FAT*. He'd just won an Oscar for doing a movie with unpalatable claims in it. Yeah, that Michael Moore was just so wrong ... except he wasn't. He claimed that Bush lied us into a war. Bush has admitted such. He claimed that Bush had a history of incompetence. Established fact. Moore claimed that military recruiters would do whatever to get bodies to fight Bush's war. Proven. That's where we find ourselves with Al Gore.
No, my friend. We haven't discussed global warming. We need to get past the tripe first ... and I'm sincerely convinced that that's not possible yet. Maybe someday.