George Will On The Gore Win

George Will agrees with me. Sort of. Some of his explanations are simplistic and subject to debate, however, his general thesis that the scientist do the work and Gore draws the attention to that work is correct. It just seems to stick in some people's craw to give Gore credit for creating such a monstrous rise in awareness.

More evidence that the debate has moved beyond is it happening to what will be the effect?

H/T: The Moderate Voice

Overrated But Moderate

JimV thinks I'm overrated but moderate. Well, given some of the things I've been called, I'll take overrated as a midway compliment. However, I'm right proud of being called a moderate. I feel like half the time I'm trying to explain to one side I'm not a liberal egg head and to the other side I'm not a heartless free market absolutist.

But more importantly, Jim unravels the mystery behind the now infamous British case on Al Gore's little climate change movie. It seems the plaintiff is something called the New Party. They are the very definition of fringe and also, unlike me, are proudly free market absolutist. So take that little bit of context into your next climate change knife fight.

As far as my response to the meme floating around, let me provide a little of my own context. Hey, I may be overrated but at least I let my readers reply directly.

When I saw the British Court meme repeated at Jason's place, I knew it for what it was. I've seen it a million times before. Kent Hovind is a creationist and he is also, even in creationist's circles, a joke. His method is to throw as many talking points at a person in as short a time as possible creating a situation where it is impossible to respond. His crap against the wall lists are filled with items which are patently false or given so little context they might as well be false. Sound familiar?

This exact tactic is what I mean by the Kent Hovind effect.

The problem with Gore's little film and what can make it dangerous is what I call slide show science. As I've said before, in these crusades you must be pure as the driven snow. The lunatics, aka the Hovinds, will pick the slightest nit and attempt to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Gore puts on a great show and the science is there, but even the slightest misstep, like the Katrina argument, gives trolls like these New Party people a potential AHA! moment and allows them to use this "evidence" to influence those not so well versed in the arguments.

Bottom line, I like Gore's film and I recognize its great service in broadening awareness of climate change. However, it ain't science. The science in it is pretty good but it still ain't science. Watch An Inconvenient Truth at home with your family and follow it up with a good discussion. In the classroom, we would be better served by leaving out the slick presentations and sticking with the real meat and potatoes of climate study.

Like maybe the work of the people with whom Gore shared the prize. You know, the actual scientists at the IPCC. Strangely, they are hardly ever mentioned in these little hit pieces.

UPDATE: Jason has his own response to Mr. V's little rant.

Al Gore On Torture

A brief departure from Georgia politics.

Andrew Sullivan notes a particular section in Al Gore's new book "The Assault On Reason".

For the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War...It is too easy — and too partisan — to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?

I did not vote for Gore in 2000 although if I had a do-over, I probably would. However, I agree with Andrew that Gore freed of the merciless grind of electoral politics has become a much more powerful voice.

Some hope he runs in 2008. I certainly understand the seductive reasoning, but I am reaching the conclusion that I hope he does not.

An Inconvenient Talking Point

I should have started a pool on how long after An Inconvenient Truth's oscar win we would hear this little gem.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)...blah blah bah...etc etc etc...

Three things you probably will not hear in the repitition of this mostly accurate story.

1. It's an old one. It's been around forever and some right wing sites have risen the zombie once more in an attempt to embarass Gore.

2. Gore buys carbon offsets. These waivers allegedly balance the cost created by the emissions. Having said that, I don't approve of carbon offsets. The point is to remove the amount of crap we are putting in the biosphere. Not to create a system where rich folk can "buy" there way out. (Just so you don't think all conservatives will leave this out, Capt Ed brought it up first thing. He also reflects my point.)

3. Most importantly, none of this hoo-hah does anything to invalidate the science behind climate change.

A Convenient Review

An Oscar bump for this one. Originally published on 1-23-07:

Oscar nominations were announced this morning. As expected Al Gore's slide show movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is nominated in the Best Documentary category. Expect much caterwauling from the usual suspects about another "Michael Moore" moment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I finally watched the movie yesterday. Given my predilection for science subjects, particularly weather related, my reticence to watch the year's global warming "blockbuster" may surprise you. However, my gut refused to bypass the feeling that science and politics, although at times a necessary evil partnership, do not mix well. A description of a non-scientist spending 90 minutes using a slide show in an attempt to distill a complex idea to palatability brought visions of creationist abomination Ken Hovind.

Also, the clips I viewed seemed overwrought. My impression being Gore had gone for the easy sell; conflating individual disasters into evidence of a global problem. Science is not easy. Understanding weather is like plowing the ocean. I begin to claw my eyes when people use Katrina as evidence of global warming. They are both right and wrong, but miss the point.

As anyone who follows Creation/Evolution battles knows, a warrior for the right and good has to be a paladin not a politician. There can be no gray. There can be no vagaries. There can be no right and wrong. You must be pure and true in your quest. Since your enemies will use every stumble as a new flank for attack, you must give them no room for maneuver.

Following 2005's collossal hurricane season those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous screamed that the record number of hurricanes resulted from global warming. Many including myself cringed. What would happen we thought if 2006 was a fizzle? Hurricanes are the epitome of vagary in action. What little we do know about the formation of hurricanes is they are a delicate combination of multiple factors which must be stirred into a near-perfect witches brew. As is now known, the witches brew never bubbled the following year and the global warming doubters exploited the cries of the chicken littles to seed more doubt.

Predicting hurricane frequency is akin to reading the bones. Predicting strength not so much. It's a fairly simple formula. Hot water combined with little wind shear creates monsters. While the media obsessed with the ever increasing numbers of hurricanes in 2005, hard core weather observers noted the Gulf of Mexico reaching its hottest surface temperatures in decades. It was apparent that any storm reaching this boiling pot of water would explode. The frequency only made it more likely it would occur. Thus Rita, Wilma and of course Katrina.

Gore does slip into the mistake of exploiting Katrina but more about that later.

"I see obstacles to understanding and I want to find ways to overcome those obstacles." ~Al Gore

If "An Inconvenient Truth" were merely the story of a charisma-challenged politician driven into the wilderness by circumstance then returning with near messianic power of persuasion it would be compelling. But without the science it would be hollow; a confection, tasty with no sustain. The penultimate compliment I can pay the film is the science is there. The ultimate compliment is Gore changed my mind.

Science is about evidence. Sometimes evidence leads you in a certain direction. Sometimes it skews you off the road like ice in winter. But if you can amass enough compelling evidence in a particular direction you will at least know you are on the right road. Gore presents a mountain of evidence. Evidence that despite certain criticisms has been verified by a consensus of scientists. My fear that Gore would cobble together a patchwork of anecdotal evidence that could easily be attacked has been allayed. Instead, he presented wave after wave of compelling anecdotal and empirical evidence; never leaving a flank unprotected.

It was a Gore most had never seen. A Gore his supporters wish they had seen in 2000.

And about Katrina. Gore is no scientist but like any good scientist he understands the importance of an addendum. In the special features of the DVD Gore notes that new data reported after filming leaves the correlation of frequency of hurricanes and global warming still unknown. However, he quickly points out the correlation between water temperature, hurricane intensity and global warming has little question.

Gore understands that science is not dogma. Science is about admitting you do not know everything. Most importantly, science is processing all evidence. Not just evidence that is convenient.

The PMRC

The youngers Drift readers are saying, "do what"?

The more elder of us (Aging Hipster, I'm looking your way) are saying, "wow, that was a long time ago"!

The PMRC was an early 80s advocacy group that included several wives of prominent U.S. Senators, including Tipper Gore. They were upset at some of the lyrics of the day and demanded that the record companies take some action to protect the children. The result were the now very familiar Parental Warning labels. Being a teenager at the time, I was very passionate and vocal about such goings on. I actually used it as one of the reasons to not vote for Al Gore in 2000. I still cannot forgive Tipper.

Now the point of all this.

Shakespeare's Sister has a very interesting take on this bit of history. You can see my disagreement in the comments. You are welcome to comment here or there but comment you should. Definitely if you are one of us geezers that actually remember watching the hearings. Frank Zappa, god bless your departed soul.

New Election Idea

For reasons that are not important, a friend and I were looking at past electoral maps. As I looked at 2000, I once again became annoyed that stupid Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state.

So here's the deal. We no longer all vote on the same day. The week before the national election only the home states of the candidates get to vote. If a candidate doesn't carry their home state, they are finished. Done. Out of the race.

If the people that have known you your whole life don't trust you, why the heck should I?