From Al Gore’s Journal:
Denialists in Denial April 27, 2010 : 4:52 PM
Last week The Wall Street Journal published a ridiculous op-ed titled “Climate Science in Denial” claiming that “global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.”
Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic does an exceptional job dismantling this ridiculous claim:
“Actually, the subhead should be revised: “Global warming denialists have been re-discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric in today’s Wall Street Journal.” Far be it from me, a non-scientist, to dispute the scientific expertise of an MIT professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen, but then again, Lindzen’s selective recitation of the litany of arguments against global warming practically begs a rebuttal.”
“First, he mentions “Climate Gate” — those e-mails from the Climate Research Unit from the University of East Anglia. He suggests that the e-mails show “unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation.””
“The e-mails were actually quite ambiguous and contained evidence of churlishness and defensiveness from scientists whose data had long been under attack from climate denialists.”
Much of the media has done a particularly bad job covering the climate crisis. Instead of informing the public about the facts, they have treated the issue as if the same political divisions they exuberantly cover also exist in the scientific community. They don’t.
===========================
Hmmm, well Al Baby, here’s something to deny:
Do you think many people are reading your message on algore.com?
UPDATE: Willis Eschenbach writes in comments:
Well, I took Anthony’s Alexa Rating graph forwards, viz:
WUWT is the top of the heap, twice as good as the one in second place. (Sc) means a sceptical site, (Mid) is middle of the road, and (AGW) is AGW supporters. And Al? Well, at least he beat Tamino …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So at first I was confused by the graph…it looked to be upside down just like the AGW crowd has done! Then I realized that it was ranking, not traffic/time. Any way you can put a y-axis label on it?
Also, the log scale makes the comparison particularly hilarious…but what’s the deal with the spike up for Gore and down for WUWT in mid-Feb?
-Scott
Anthony: It’ll be interesting to see if his traffic makes a one- or two-day jump due to the link from WUWT.
Al – crawl back under your rock.
The only fools that believe in your … stuff … are your fellow politicians, scientists on the gravy train, and businesses lined up to profit from gov’t programs & subsidies.
Anthony,
Delete this if I’m reading the chart wrong but shouldn’t the 5,000 be at the bottom and the 100,000 at the top?
REPLY: No.
Al Gore started out to be a preacher and he ended up being a preacher. He just changed religions. He probably started out by ranting about people who denied Christ.
Al’s previous day’s comment:
State of Climate Legislation April 26, 2010 : 3:45 PMA statement from the Alliance for Climate Protection and other groups:
“Everyday the Senate fails to pass clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Americans are demanding the millions of jobs, energy independence, and clean air and water comprehensive legislation can deliver. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent.”
“The tireless work of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman is proof positive that bipartisan success is well within reach. The House has passed historic legislation; now it is time for the Senate and the White House to stay focused and finish the job. The moment is ours. Now is the time for our leaders to act.”
Who wants to be Al’s Babysitter….his diaper is always getting full.
Mighty nice of you to throw some linky love to Mr. Gore. I’ve heard he has difficulty getting his message out! /sarc
Where’s Algore?
Oh, I see … two little blue blips just above the cutoff line at 100,000 …
Had to use tweezers and a magnifying glass to find it (his ranking).
.
.
“The e-mails were actually quite ambiguous and contained evidence of churlishness and defensiveness from scientists whose data had long been under attack from climate denialists.”
I wonder how much time Al has spent pouring over the details of these emails? As much time as someone like, oh I don’t know… Steve Mc?
Anthony,
Gore says, “Far be it from me, a non-scientist, to dispute the scientific expertise of an MIT professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen, but then again, Lindzen’s selective recitation of the litany of arguments against global warming practically begs a rebuttal.”
Does this mean that the inventor of the internet is prepared to break with his own long standing policy and debate the issue with Dr. Lindzen? I’d love to see it, if only it were true.
I’d post the challenge on his site but I don’t want to impact his “extraordinary” blog rankings! 😉
“If we’re going to deal with the problem, we’re probably going to experience some pain, and we’re going to have to figure out the best way to distribute that pain so that it can best be tolerated.”
– Marc Ambinder; politics editor of The Atlantic
Why does this need to be painful?
Ummm… Well first of all I am a skeptic and not a Denialist. I do not say that AGW cannot be occurring only that the evidence for it to date is lackluster. It requires denying that the MWP occurred and accepting the fact that an increase in Carbon Dioxide is the ONLY reason the globe is currently ‘warming’. It also requires that I accept the use of proxy data and an obfuscation of temperature data that does a poor job of reconstructing a single global variable temperature ( not blaming the scientist really except for their dogged determination to say what they have done is right without question ) .
I may be shown in another year or so that CO2 really is the cause of Global Warming, however until a link other then correlation can be facilitated is it not proper for me to be skeptical? I have seen many ‘signs’ of global warming touted. The ice caps melting ( well they froze again ), The glaciers are melting ( well some of them and oh by the way they have been melting since at least the end of the little ice age ), Hurricanes ( ummm hmmmm ) In High school I was told that by 2005 the plain states would be barren deserts!!! ( No lie, my teacher actually had a video that made that claim!!! I wish I could remember what it was called ) So I am skeptical when people tell me there is AGW occurring.
Also I cannot believe that even if AGW was occurring it would mean all bad things that seem to be claimed. Hence I am skeptical of those end result claims. Is there no good to come from a warmer globe? No increase in food production? No increase in drinking water as a more active hydrosphere occurs? Honestly NOTHING good from a warmer planet? Heck at the very least would not a warmer planet not make it a little easier to generate power from water as the base temperature of water will be raised a little? Ever closer to changing to its gaseous state?
Anyway just my take on being a Denialist… Or whatever you call someone who does not believe something just because an Appeal to Authority argument is used. What do they call an argument when you prove your point by calling others stupid?
John from CA at 5:01 PM:
It is Rank not Volume, so the lower the number, the higher the rank. That is why the 5,000 is at the top and 100,000 at the bottom – where Algore dwells!!!
HAHAHA
The more the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative unwinds the more the denier label becomes infused with irony. I can see a time not long from now, Al Gore shivering in a federal prison cell, swearing that the whole world must be crazy for not seeing the incontrovertible truth in his head.
Buckle up Al, it’s going to be a rough ride back to reality…
Hard, honest efforts just pay off and succeed.
Tells a lot about the quality both sides deliver
and cannot be supressed.
But wait, isn’t Mr. Ex-Vice-and-then-almost.president Al Gore right when complaining that sceptics get much more attention ?
Am also confused by the chart ….. maybe I’m just being stupid but it looks as though Al is geting >100,000 most of the time. occassionally dropping below …. ….. whereas WUWT is steady between 10,000 and 20,000.
Sorry for being picky but either I’m too stupid or its just an appalling chart.
Doktor Gore is a very funny fellow, even if he doesn’t intend to be.
Nice graph. So out of the top 200,000 sites, according to Alexa, WUWT is ~15,539 and Al Gore is ranked ~189,087. Google, Facebook, and YouTube are the top three.
Al gore gets 100,000 hits a day? Nope, I read it again.
I checked Alexa, and that’s Al Gore.com’s ranking.
So Al Baby gets 189,000 rank, and WattsUpWith That ranks 15,500 or
a full dozen times better than Al.
Maybe algore is a bit sore.
Gee, that’s really swell.
Denialists in denial… isn’t that, like, a double negative dude?
Ambinder’s “exceptional dismantling” is the usual alarmist rebuttal. The format is amazingly consistent and almost always boils down to “Everyone who agrees with me says you’re wrong”. The implication is that that “everyone” is nearly universal, but if any citations are offered for reference they all seem to come from the same 20-30 people.
Ok … got it now .. its a ranking …. but ranking of what ? All global websites ?
Congratulations on the impressive trouncing of Al’s site Anthony.
Al’s inability to deal with, or even discuss, facts is undiminished. (He is probably still basking in the glow of only just losing to W).
But back in the world of smart world leaders, looks like Merkel (who is a PhD level physicist) has realized that the ‘consensus’ is overbought.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691194,00.html
Bailing out Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Britain will be distasteful, but topping up Goldman Sachs’ coffers with carbon credit Greengeld would be very un-Germanic.
Boy, does Al’s site rank highly. Then again, even liberals don’t like the guy. Kinda sad.
your chart is very impressive, anthony ; unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do not understand the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers. perhaps a graph showing the average numbers of hits per week would make it clearer for many. keep up the good work ; it is much appreciated.
plus 1 hit from me to check the Al reference.
“Much of the media has done a particularly bad job covering the climate crisis. Instead of informing the public about the facts, they have treated the issue as if the same political divisions they exuberantly cover also exist in the scientific community. They don’t.”
— Al Gore
It’s an interesting point in time. WUWT has done an outstanding job of debunking the “facts” from the point “Global Warming” turned into “Climate Change”.
In all fairness to a news media that rarely spends on research, how can they keep up with “facts” when “AGW ‘Climate’ Story Tellers” muddy the waters and constantly change a “Science” debate?
It is a shame Al doesn’t drop in more often for a chat?
Respectfully,
John from CA