Are Al Gore's lies 'good lies'?

[Vanguard1917]

In the light of revelations that Al Gore's documetary An Inconvenient Truth contains serious scientific errors and alarmist claims, many environmentalists are simply replying 'so what?' - i.e. that even if Al Gore's documentary was indeed scientifically flawed, it is still useful as a means of 'raising awareness' about global warming and telling the 'greater truth'. These are of course the same environmentalists who denounced Martin Durkin, the maker of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, for his scientific errors. (See this article from today for a background (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3966/))

So my question is: is it justifiable to overlook bad science if it nonetheless promotes awareness about climate change?

[LogicalPimp]

Sure, why not?

If the scientific proof says the climate isn't as bad as Al Gore said it was, what does it mean for humanity?

No fear of immediate danger ----> No change

If we knew we had roughly "50 years" to make some drastic changes, I imagine little if anything would be done.

Trick people into starting something good now, at the moment, and what is the harm?

[mikelepore]

Shouldn't technology err on the side of caution? If the alarmist is right, cities could be put underwater, hurricanes intensified, etc. If the alarmist is completely wrong but taken seriously, worst case, science will have merely invented some new ways to generate energy, conserve resources, process chemicals, manufacture products. The environmental agenda sounds win-win.

[Defender]

Science isn't as objective as people are led to believe anyway. Today's "good science" is tomorrow's "bad science." And the "scientific" conclusions you arrive at are largely due to where you're standing.

But this aside, I agree with mikelepore. While every claim may not be totally substantiated, it is probably wise to take possible risks into account.

[Comrade Rage]

Half of Al Gore's documentary is bullshit, and if that makes people do good things it's still bullshit. Even if people react well to it-it's still wrong.

Ban NON-HYBRID SUV's for all I care, but don't lie to people just to make them get rid of them.

And WTF is it with those 'carbon credits'?!

[phasmid]

I think Al Gore should be run over by a truck. He's a lieing, fat, capitalist pig who is using the work of other people to promote himself. He doesnt care about the environment, he cares about the power, the adoration and his big fat cheque. Someone once said, "nothing says I love the environment more than parking your clean green car next to your private jet."

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:52 pm
I think Al Gore should be run over by a truck. He's a lieing, fat, capitalist pig who is using the work of other people to promote himself. He doesnt care about the environment, he cares about the power, the adoration and his big fat cheque. Someone once said, "nothing says I love the environment more than parking your clean green car next to your private jet."
Great post!

The fact that he helped bring global warming into the USA's public discourse is the only reason I could see him as slightly more than just another bourgeois politician.

But I agree with this.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by rev0lt+October 16, 2007 12:56 am--> (rev0lt @ October 16, 2007 12:56 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 05:52 pm
I think Al Gore should be run over by a truck. He's a lieing, fat, capitalist pig who is using the work of other people to promote himself. He doesnt care about the environment, he cares about the power, the adoration and his big fat cheque. Someone once said, "nothing says I love the environment more than parking your clean green car next to your private jet."
Great post!

The fact that he helped bring global warming into the USA's public discourse is the only reason I could see him as slightly more than just another bourgeois politician.

But I agree with this. [/b]
Thank you.
However I cant help but feel that the global warming issue will fade from the public and governmental mindset before any actions of real value are undertaken.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:25 pm
If the alarmist is completely wrong but taken seriously, worst case, science will have merely invented some new ways to generate energy, conserve resources, process chemicals, manufacture products. The environmental agenda sounds win-win.
What if the environmentalist is using inaccurate science and alarmist claims as a means to justify restraining much needed economic development worldwide? That certainly isn't 'win-win' for those who live in poverty due to economic underdevelopment.


Sure, why not?

If the scientific proof says the climate isn't as bad as Al Gore said it was, what does it mean for humanity?

It means that humanity is made to worry about threats which in fact do no exist.

It's like the fear of burning in hell if you don't watch your 'sins'. Many environmentalists portray climate change in the apocalyptic language which we would normally find in religion. Religious themes are extremely prevalent: for example, the idea that we will all burn if we don't start practicing some austerity and self-restraint in our everyday lives as greedy consumers.

So environmentalism is based more on politics and moralism than on science. It's a political and moral project to reign in development and human ambition in general. It's a like new form of religion - a secular religion for a 21st century Western society.

The science is used by the environmentalists only when it suits them. When it doesn't, they say 'so what?' In this sense, if global warming didn't exist, the environmentalists would have to create it, or at least find another excuse to oppose human progress.

[mikelepore]

True, the environmentalist shouldn't lie, but for a statement to be a lie requires that it be false and also that the person who says it knows that it's false. The planet's environment is a very complex system with many parameters and feedback loops. Get a dozen supposed experts in a room and they may have a dozen mutually contradictory interpretations. Oddly, while we're not smart enough yet to actually understand it, we are smart enough to know that survival may depend on coming to understanding it. Just that much information is a good sign that we may need to stop doing certain things. I think we need to stop burning so many hydrocarbons.

By the way, I have to take a moment to mention my favorite environmental agenda. I'll bet there are a lot of conceivable ways to use natural forces to produce relative motion between two things. Way back in the 1830s Faraday proved that we can generate electricity by any conceivable method that will give us some relative motion between a magnet and a coil. It might be the already-tried methods of having wind or water rotate a turbine, but it can be any additional method we might think of. There should be a lot for the human imagination to work on there.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Lying about climate change, or deliberately exaggerating or playing down it's effects, is inexcusable. Exaggeration can lead people to distrust climate change as a whole, while downplaying it can produce complacency.

The only policy is to always, to the best of one's knowledge, tell the truth, and to admit mistakes and gaps in knowledge and data.

[STI]

What lies and inaccuracies, specifically, were used in An Inconvenient Truth?

I'm working at a tenth grade level when it comes to ecology and earth sciences, and it seemed pretty good to me.

...Heh, maybe that's what makes it so harmful?

[rouchambeau]

You sir, are the king of loaded questions.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:57 pm
You sir, are the king of loaded questions.
His questions assume no facts that are not in evidence. It is evident that Gore's declarations on climate change have quite a few inconsistent and, frankly, incorrect statements.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Is only a loaded question if the person being questioned is not a known wifebeater.

[Defender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:33 pm
What lies and inaccuracies, specifically, were used in An Inconvenient Truth?

I'm working at a tenth grade level when it comes to ecology and earth sciences, and it seemed pretty good to me.

...Heh, maybe that's what makes it so harmful?
Someone's probably got a list going somewhere, but here are some in this article the BBC reported a judge found:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:33 pm
What lies and inaccuracies, specifically, were used in An Inconvenient Truth?

I'm working at a tenth grade level when it comes to ecology and earth sciences, and it seemed pretty good to me.

...Heh, maybe that's what makes it so harmful?
Thanks for asking. You see, the premise of the question is wrong. Gore wasn't lying or exaggerating. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an..._same_thing.php (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php)
If people would really look into this stuff, we wouldn't see such threads. I'm also quite surprised that people here trust the capitalist infotainment industry. :-(

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Wilfred+October 21, 2007 05:34 pm--> (Wilfred @ October 21, 2007 05:34 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 05:33 pm
What lies and inaccuracies, specifically, were used in An Inconvenient Truth?

I'm working at a tenth grade level when it comes to ecology and earth sciences, and it seemed pretty good to me.

...Heh, maybe that's what makes it so harmful?
Thanks for asking. You see, the premise of the question is wrong. Gore wasn't lying or exaggerating. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an..._same_thing.php (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php)
[/b]
A fucking blog? That's your "evidence"?! The bloke's not an environmental scientist, he's not even a fucking biologist - he's a computer scientist, why the fuck should we trust his crackpot opinions?


If people would really look into this stuff, we wouldn't see such threads. I'm also quite surprised that people here trust the capitalist infotainment industry. :-(

It's not trusting capitalism, dimwit, it's paying attention to prevailing scientific opinion without hysterics or fear mongering.

[lilo32]

i think all this bullshit with the global warming got out of hand. WE do not create global warming we just make it fuking worse with all the chemicals we use. i think al gore saw the chance to get himself fuking noticed again and he took it. but honestly whats wrong with telling people to take care of the enviroment, recycling and using our resources wisely?..?..?

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 23, 2007 12:25 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 23, 2007 12:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:34 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 05:33 pm
What lies and inaccuracies, specifically, were used in An Inconvenient Truth?

I'm working at a tenth grade level when it comes to ecology and earth sciences, and it seemed pretty good to me.

...Heh, maybe that's what makes it so harmful?
Thanks for asking. You see, the premise of the question is wrong. Gore wasn't lying or exaggerating. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an..._same_thing.php (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php)

A fucking blog? That's your "evidence"?! The bloke's not an environmental scientist, he's not even a fucking biologist - he's a computer scientist, why the fuck should we trust his crackpot opinions?


If people would really look into this stuff, we wouldn't see such threads. I'm also quite surprised that people here trust the capitalist infotainment industry. :-(

It's not trusting capitalism, dimwit, it's paying attention to prevailing scientific opinion without hysterics or fear mongering. [/b]
Sigh, then I'll respond with a link to another blog, but would you now please read the material and this time note *who* wrote it?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...nient-untruths/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/)

[Andy Bowden]

Most of the errors I can see in Gores film that have been raised are,

* Overestimation (albeit vast) of the increase in tide lines by flooding within the next few years

* False attribution of polar bears dying to climate change

* False attribution of Mt Kilimanjaro's loss of snow to climate change.

These are sloppy errors which someone with a scientific background probably would have checked. However there is no serious attack on the main thrust of Gores documentary; that climate change is happening, and is caused by CO2 emmisions.

The difference with Durkins film much of his core argument - that there was a correlation between sun flares and global warming - was a deliberate hoax, based on graphs that were deliberately cut off.

Put simply you can still accept the thrust of Gores argument with these error; you cant do that with Durkins, his errors fuck up his whole argument irrevocably.

[Wilfred]

Furthermore the icecaps of Greenland are melting faster than previously anticipated, unfortunately uncertainty cuts both ways. :-(

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:27 pm
Furthermore the icecaps of Greenland are melting faster than previously anticipated, unfortunately uncertainty cuts both ways. :-(
Exactly why we should move more towards a mass transit based transportation infrastucture.

[STI]

You sir, are the king of loaded questions.

Woah, I leave for a while, then come back and am touted as royalty after my first post!

I could get used to this :blush:

I'll overlook the omitted "e" at the end of what should have been "sire"... just this once.


Exactly why we should move more towards a mass transit based transportation infrastucture.


That's easier said than done.

People invest a lot of money into their cars, money that (for the working class, at least), took a lot of time and effort to get their hands on.

When a lot of effort is invested into something, it becomes very appealing (this is peoples' way of protecting their self-esteem, not being keen on the idea of having worked very hard to achieve something that sucks).

So we can build and run as many buses as we want, people won't want to give up their cars, especially given the convenience, independence, and comfort cars facilitate... not unless their attitudes change in a big way

Cars are part of "day-to-day life", and as such people need a "day-to-day life" reason to change their attitudes... maybe free 24/7 bus fare, coupled with better long-distance mass transit systems (who wants to take a family of 4 on the Greyhound if they don't have to?) and a higher at-the-pump gas tax would do the trick... much as I'd hate seeing the state get more money.

The big thing, though, is attitude change, and people won't change their attitudes without a reason to.

[CAPITALIST SLAVE]

Al Gores utter lies to get himseif back in the lime light thankfully blew the whole political agenda apart. The whole basis of humanities' effect on climate change is it's emmission of carbon, yet the graph that prick used clearly shows that carbon levels rise as a result of global warming, he just moved the graph lines to suit his arguement that global temp increases with the amount of carbon.

The earth has always got hotter and colder, sea levels have always risen and fallen. 300 years ago parts of Sussex were under the English Channel, hence why we now have some of Henry viii's ports ten miles inland. And remember the Romans? THey used to have Vineyards all over England...why.... because it was 4.c warmer than it is now. must have been the emmissions from their horse drawn chariots. Before them, you could happily walk from Dover to Calais. Some people even lived there!

I'm all for cleaner air, less waste etc but lets get real.....this is another way of capitalism having it's contol over the poor.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, that's why so many corporations are so eager to support the global warming theory. :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 30, 2007 07:15 pm
Yes, that's why so many corporations are so eager to support the global warming theory. :rolleyes:

Apart from one or two rogue companies in the oil business, they all seem to.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+October 31, 2007 12:41 am--> (Vanguard1917 @ October 31, 2007 12:41 am)
Led [email protected] 30, 2007 07:15 pm
Yes, that's why so many corporations are so eager to support the global warming theory. :rolleyes:

Apart from one or two rogue companies in the oil business, they all seem to. [/b]
Then why doesn't the Bush administration, the "corporate administration", sign the Kyoto treaty?

[Vanguard1917]

They haven't ratified the treaty because of a perception that it's not in America's interests.

Why has almost every other country in the world, including every single major capitalist state bar America and Australia, signed and ratified the treaty? Are they somehow going against their interests as capitalist nations?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:50 pm
They haven't ratified the treaty because of a perception that it's not in America's interests.

Why has almost every other country in the world, including every single major capitalist state bar America and Australia, signed and ratified the treaty? Are they somehow going against their interests as capitalist nations?
Why has every country in the world signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Are they somehow going against their interests as capitalist nations?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 31, 2007 03:52 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 31, 2007 03:52 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 03:50 pm
They haven't ratified the treaty because of a perception that it's not in America's interests.

Why has almost every other country in the world, including every single major capitalist state bar America and Australia, signed and ratified the treaty? Are they somehow going against their interests as capitalist nations?
Why has every country in the world signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Are they somehow going against their interests as capitalist nations? [/b]
Not at all.