Al Gore


Michael Allen Yarbrough's picture

Lonnie Hall,

I said I would certainly accept the facts if I found that global warming was overwhelmingly a reality. I said this because I hadn't yet delved deeply into any writings on the subject--the sentence was my statement that I'd attempt to remain objective and would not dismiss AGW out of hand, without the proper knowledge.

Since then, I have read some compelling articles. The best I found regarded this flawed hockey stick graph you mentioned. Here's an essential passage:

Imagine the irony of this discovery. After we published our findings in Energy and Environment, Mann accused us of selectively deleting North American proxy series. Now it appeared that he had results that were exactly the same as ours, stuffed away in a folder labeled CENSORED.

Michael Mann is the researcher who published--er, manufactured--the hockey stick graph, a formulation whose facts weren't checked, a graph whose data sources were forgotten by its authors...generally a sickening mess of thought on which so much policy has been based, on which so much public opinion will rely....what dreck.

Here is the article in pdf, "Kyoto Protocol Based on Flawed Statistics" Read it!

The 'we' in those sentences above is Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, who basically reveal there that NOT fucking with data yields--instead of a raped and beaten Mother Nature looking down Her nose with righteous indignation at the Hubristic Soul Of Man--a fairly constant temperature over the last millenium.

LW Hall, of course it's easy to complain about the mental chicanery Gore plays with pronouncing AGW skeptics holocaust deniers and snake charmers. But what's more difficult is to study the science and make an objective conclusion; so that's what I'm doing, and I think I'll end up where you are, since it seems that you've done your detective work as well.

I am also chewing this article, signed by numbers of professors, that professes that:

increases during the 20th Century [in atmospheric CO2] have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

YEEE see ya later

Michael Allen Yarbrough

Gore poisons the well

LWHALL's picture

against anyone disagreeing with his movie by comparing them to those who do not believe we landed on the moon. I would expect no better from him.

Michael writes:

"I'm quite ready to accept that global warming is real"

To which I would reply: I am a long way from accepting global warming as a true event in the sense of being caused by mankind. There are too many discrepancies with data they are using to justify their positions. One of their major props is the "Hockey Stick Graph" which has been shown to be flawed in it's use of data.

Anyone who is really interested in this should do some research before coming to conclusion, because this has and will continue to directly affect business as more regulations are forced upon them.

The following is an excerpt from a site which takes exception to the "Hockey Stick Graph" and is a warning from the NAS(National Academy of Science)about allowing those in the scientific world to pooh-pooh dissention coming from outside their ranks.

A booklet titled "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research" [18], published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides us with a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists as they navigate their way through the difficult choices they have to make in the way they conduct themselves ethically.

"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."

Here, scepticism is held up as a virtue, in contrast with the hostile treatment afforded to sceptics in the climate sciences. But we also have this cogent warning against dogma and collective bias intruding into a science. This caution is directly applicable to those involved in climate change research as they have demonstrated numerous times a collective bias in their work, a bias that must inevitably contaminate the peer review process itself.

A common failing of scientists, particularly those engaged in research which may have impacts upon the public, is to reject any input from the public in the conduct of their work. The peer review process provides an effective barrier to public scrutiny of a science, as is the tendency to regard the public as people to `be educated' instead of being learned from. The resulting intellectual arrogance has the effect of making scientists into a sort of medieval priesthood, keepers of secret and exclusive knowledge, and to be kept away from prying public eyes. Such an attitude, common with many scientists, is unpardonable given that most research is paid for by public money. This however, does not prevent such scientists from adopting a proprietorial view of their research results. The NAS booklet cautions -

"In fulfilling these responsibilities scientists must take the time to relate scientific knowledge to society in such a way that members of the public can make an informed decision about the relevance of research. Sometimes researchers reserve this right to themselves, considering non-experts unqualified to make such judgments. But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means."

This is a direct criticism of `scientism', a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer's money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world and is clearly opposed by the National Academy.

Yet in the climate sciences, we have numerous examples of public criticism and concern being dismissed with gratuitous statistics and spurious appeals to academic authority.


Saw it today

Michael Allen Yarbrough's picture

The movie premiered in Nashville today. I caught the third showing.

The film was not as frankly anti-business and anti-progress as I feared it would be. I must say, a good deal of the data presented was in the form of graphs, numbers, and amounts, and not as invective and gloom-and-doom (however, the movie poster presents a hurricane emerging from a smokestack. I thought this was absolutely terrible).

this sort of evidence was about half that was presented. the other was composed of emotional, visual, anecdotal evidence.

I just backspaced over a sentence or two going into detail about the previous little paragraph. I thought this would be redundant and too long; if you want to know what he says, do a google search, or go watch the movie. I took notes Sad.

Anyways, the point is that a lot of the evidence seems to be circumstantial and emotionally-driven, the science seemed limited to only describing trends, I've read some cutting things about the film, and the anti-progress psychology is rooted in deep irrationalism significant enough to commit intellectual dishonesty.

I'm quite ready to accept that global warming is real. however, I doubt that the solution is more government, as Greg says there. we'll see. Also Greg I'm familiar with the abetterearth site--and their essay contest--and I know it's fantastic.

So maybe my reading over the next little while will make me a climate change expert, and it may be that I'll know enough to confidently leave essays or articles at theaters so that there is some objectivity to the debate.

Michael Allen Yarbrough

The main problem

Greg Mullen's picture

I have with Gore and the mainstream environmental movement is that even if they are correct about some of the science they are dead wrong on the solutions. They fail to see that government is notoriously the worst polluter and government intervention into the free market caused the vast majority of today’s harmful externalities in the first place. In fact #4 of theTop 10 misconceptions about government
is "The government keeps the environment clean."

You are welcome for the link and here is a website with some decent articles and info with a more free market approach to environmental concerns.


Michael Allen Yarbrough's picture

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure everyone should.

What Gore, his movie, and the entire anti-progress argument need is rapierpoint, fine-toothed, far-reaching, and broad and deep reasoning. I am totally confused by anyone who would think that a sour refusal to see the movie could stand in for an actual mastery of the concepts it mishandles. I haven't seen it yet because I've been sort of apathetic to the movie; I've mostly only thought 'oh dear....' when seeing its ads. However, since reading some of the TCS articles on the movie, it's clear that the falsehoods are outrageous and must be engaged and blown out of the solar system.

George Reisman posted here the beginning of his very -very- thorough refutation of Kevin Carson's recent book on Mutualism. Astoundingly, the book makes the backwards claim that Capitalism actually means slavery. As I neared what I thought was the end of Reisman's long series of examples, he writes:

"[A]s Mises used to point out in his seminar, it is dangerous simply to dismiss people as cranks, or to attack their motives, without fully unmasking their errors. And, following that advice, this is what we must do with Carson [in the remaining 36 pages of this article]."

'thirty-six more pages?' I thought. Okay, not seeing the movie is no subsitute.

There should be activism, probably something minimal like an excellent essay or article being handed out at theatres. any recommendations for one? or should someone author a new one, which of course closes with an explanation of the leftist anti-industrial philosophy (with links to SOLO)? I'm actually rather serious.

and I know, yes, it's terrible and horrible and unscientific to approach a documentary in opposition to it, with a closed mind, and blah, blah. Well that's what I do go away.

Also, thanks very much to Greg Mullen for the link.
TCS with a few general arguments
TCS's special reports on global warming and such.
a critcal open letter from Gore's 'friend'.

Michael Allen Yarbrough

stupid movie

Greg Mullen's picture

TCSDaily has a few good articles exposing the inconvenient truths behind An Inconvenient Truth.

What the hell does Al Gore

Victor Pross's picture

What the hell does Al Gore do anyway--that has any worth?


Prima Donna's picture

...this *is* the same genius who invented the internet.



-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

I was just watching Al Gore

Victor Pross's picture

I was just watching Al Gore on CNN, just now, and he says that those few odd-ball scientists who disavow global warming are also those who think that man's landing on the moon was really a sound stage. [I’m thinking here, of course, of Ross' post].Too much.

Victor: Objectivist--writer--artist.

Al Gore

jtgagnon's picture

Al Gore is a dirty whore. His supposed "ideas" are nothing more than junk science...

"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."

The dog pic was fine,

Ross Elliot's picture

The dog pic was fine, Victor. It was the sniffing bitches I couldn't take Smiling


Victor Pross's picture

Incidently Ross, I must say...I miss the picture of you where you turn into a dog. Don't ask me why I'm reminded of that. Smiling

Goodness, let me be clear: I

Ross Elliot's picture

Goodness, let me be clear: I was joking about Oprah. She ain't an interviewer; she's a talk show host.

But it's a good question: who are the good interviewers?

Larry King's rep?

Craig Ceely's picture

Does King have a rep for being a good interviewer? I've never thought so. Oprah gives a harder-hitting interrogation.

To answer your question, Ross: yes, King enjoys -- but has never earned -- a rep as a good interviewer.

Yeah, I hear ya, Ross. On

Victor Pross's picture

Yeah, I hear ya, Ross. On the side, I don't care for Oprah. She's hard-hitting alright: the person can barely get a word in edge-wise. There have been many times when I have wanted to listen to the person she was interviweing--and that person was being cut-off on question one just as they got started--when question two cranks in!
Oprah, will you shut the &%$#*^% up!! [Whew, I feel better now].

No, and I won't be. But I

Ross Elliot's picture

No, and I won't be. But I did see Larry King interviewing Gore a few nights ago. What a prat. And King slobbered all over him1.

When asked what car he drives, Gore said he had a hybrid Lexus! Oh, sure, like the middle-class has the luxury of buying Lexi. They're too damn busy paying their taxes!

1Does King have a rep for being a good interviewer? I've never thought so. Oprah gives a harder-hitting interrogation.


Landon Erp's picture

I have not yet... Not sure if I want to... I'm serial I don't think I want to.


Inking is sexy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.