"Climate Reality" is Al Gore's Gettysburg

Story submitted by Stephen Rasey

On  July 12, I wrote a comment cautioning not to underestimate the Gore Climate Reality event scheduled for Sept. 14, 2011.    Mixing metaphors, I said that this was an “All In” bet and that this was Gore’s D-Day.

Pickett’s Charge from a position on the Confederate line looking toward the Union lines, Ziegler’s Grove on the left, clump of trees on right, painting by Edwin Forbes via Wikipedia

A better analogy is that this is Gettysburg, July 3, 1863.  Al Gore’s Climate Reality is “Pickett’s Charge”: thousands of troops, marching in formation in the open field, supported by the artillery of the internet and mass media, bent on destroying the deniers that stand in the way of themselves and Washington D.C.

Today we are engaged in a great Civil War of testing whether our nation, or any nation, conceived in liberty and individual freedom, can long endure the calls to “save the planet” through strong government and world government to better control the use of energy, land, and air by constraining the freedom of its subjects.

Back in late-June 1863, Robert E. Lee carried with him knowledge of a letter from Jefferson Davis dictating terms of peace to Lincoln.   It was Lee’s strategy to bring the Union Army of the Potomac into the open, destroy it, and then march on Washington.  The Letter would be delivered to Lincoln and hopefully end the war.

Today, Al Gore carries with him the plans for the IPCC Rio+20 Sustainability Agenda.   The “Climate Reality” Charge is to bring “denier’s” out into the open, destroy them, and carry the momentum into Rio meetings in June 2012 and Washington for the Nov 2012 elections.    The green energy carpetbaggers are already among us.  After a Rio recharged by a Gore victory, there will simply be more of them acting without restraint.

The critical question is, “Is there a strong enough opposition standing between the Charge and Washington, D.C.?”

Today, my answer is, “No, the skeptic’s are not yet strong enough.”    Skeptics are more of a disorganized guerrilla force of sharp-shooters.   (Of course, I could be completely wrong and I’m just blowing the cover of an entrenched ambush.)

I do not think skeptics can field an army; it is not in our individualistic nature.  But that does not mean we cannot prepare the battlefield.   We know from which direction they will come.   We know the type of ammunition they use – much of it is blanks – false, misleading statement, but full of fire, smoke, and noise.   The skeptics artillery of web sites can be zeroed-in.   Counter their arguments before they have the opportunity to fire theirs.   We can field forward observers, and squads armed with facts and backup.

We must make it obvious to all observers the skeptics’ side in the climate debate is fighting against slavery of billions of people.    I’m willing to help as a defender of freedom.   It will take some organization.

Who are our, Buford, Reynolds, Chamberlin, and Hancock?

In what may be a related action, Anthony Watts has asked readers to find quotes for “ice free Arctic by the year xxxx”.   This is the kind of preparing the ground and zero-in we need to do now in advance of September.

We know who the CAGW leaders will be.   Find every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years.   Create an index by name with pages listing those statement with links to the source.   Keep it factual.    Let their own words come back to haunt them.

We know the basics of their arguments and lines of “evidence”.   Cross reference each of the statements above with the type of evidence.

How can we efficiently do this without a Wiki?   A Wiki would only be vandalized.    We also want an efficient division of labor.   I don’t suggest we eliminate duplication, but let’s avoid quadruplication.     Somewhere we should start a list of the Whos and Whats to research.   Volunteers can comment that they are searching sources X over dates Y-Z and will report back in 48 hrs.   Someone will have to organize it.

In the responses to Anthony’s plea for help, many people provided links without helpful context and additional information about Who, When, What and Where.   We can do better.    But the response has been helpful showing that Anthony (and other moderators) could delegate research work to the readership of the blog and they can do more target location and synthesis.

Is there a simple six column Excel format OR six element Text format we could use to make a table driven content page work?

Person, Topic, Date, Link, Quote, Comment and Context

Or

[P] Person(s)

[T] Topic

[D] Date

[L] Link

[Q] Quote

[C] Comment

Advertisements

164 thoughts on “"Climate Reality" is Al Gore's Gettysburg

  1. I’ve spent 30 years selling IT solutions and my first rule when a client asks “is there a way to do X?” is to respond as follows:
    Yes there is. Now let’s put that aside for a moment and let’s talk instead about what you are trying to do. Then we can talk about how to do it.
    If I understood the thrust of your article, what you are trying to arrive at is a way to identify the key players in the CAGW movement, what they’re positions and talking points are, what the facts are and how to use them in rebuttal, and make that information easy to reference and publish on demand. Is that a good summary? If so, is there anything you would add or delete that is important in your mind? Or is that description completely off base? If so, could you summarize in your own words?
    Dave

  2. Al might find himself pre-empted by events that are actually important.
    Besides, you know what effect he has on our weather. We certainly don’t need that.

  3. Find every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years.
    Isn’t the IPCC report enough?

  4. We have to be careful though – we don’t want lists of skeptics falling in to the hands of the ecoterrorists. They’ve already been given carte blanch to do what they want in respect to the environment or what hey perceive as an action against it. We are not dealing with mentally stable people remember. But we are smarer than them, that’s been proven scientifically.

  5. Climate scepticism has been on a steady, successful, upward curve since climategate. What the key sceptical bloggers have done and are doing is having its effect. Don’t be distracted. The way this is working is by convincing people one at a time by measured and reasonable arguments, combined with ever more unreasonable, dishonest and frantic behaviour from the AGW side. Is Al Gore’s day going to be any different? I suspect not, and it won’t convince a single person who is inclined to be sceptical, and it may put others off. Steady as she goes.

  6. Kipling said “THE ODDS ARE ON THE CHEAPER MAN”
    My money is now on ANREA ROSSI`S ITALIAN/GREEK alliance and their E-CATS.

  7. We’re in a “Interglacial period”, which says quite a bit in itself.
    Ask those that are undecided or full out warmists how much of the planets life has been spent in Interglacials and if they know the answer, then they may be paying attention.
    Another favorite of mine is: Can man stop the next glaciation period from ocurring?

  8. “Person, Topic, Date, Link, Quote, Comment and Context”
    Exactly! That is the excerpted information I tried to provide to Anthony, albeit in text form with links. If we can do better, I’m all for it and will support. Until a better way is identified and agreed upon however, I’ll continue to research new quotes and forward them in text form with links, as time allows.

  9. The difference is that Gore most certainly has not gone through his severest struggle to get to the point where he is standing right now. The man has neither shame nor honor.

  10. While I agree with the author, the battle of ideas has been fought and won. The truth, all the facts, and a pissed off public are on the side of sanity and freedom.
    Al Gore is a neurotic self absorbed narcissist cult leader wannabe. America cannot afford his self indulgent pantomime horse charade. While America was once wealthy enough to put up with wasteful green planet saving “solutions” the fad is over. Algore is what he always has been, e.g. – Algore is a fat ass, has been, bloated tick. Algore wants to feed his life long habit at the public trough he helped drain. Statism is dead on its feet. It has collapsed upon its own weight and bankruptcy.
    Algore is the poster boy of big government waste, fraud, and abuse.
    And failure.
    So welcome to the fight Mr Rasey. The bloody fighting is done, the battle is over, the war against science and sanity has been quelled for now.
    Funny thing is, I don’t remember Mr Rasey when the barbarians were at the gate. A little late to the party….maybe we can put Rasey to work cleaning up Algore’s vomit stains…
    ps, perhaps Mr Rasey can bring a pooper scooper and a snow shovel to Algore’s newest and coolest, greeniest and most meaningless sustainability Woodstock EVER!
    You go and fight the big green monster Alogre Mr Rasey, the rest of us warriors will warm our battle tired bones beside the fire.

  11. I think Julian @ 11:35 has the right idea. A big orchestrated campaign (to continue the military metaphor) is problematic on many levels.
    I suggest each person prepare a short and well stated letter to you local and state officials hoping they will review evidence and not fall for the agenda being pushed by Gore’s event. Download a few things you personally can related to (e.g., sea level isn’t . . ., glaciers are not . . ., temperatures have not . . .), mention it in your letter and send a copy of the appropriate chart. Keep it short, clear, and friendly. A short letter to you local newspaper regarding Gore and the involvement of the U.N. and their desire to tax Americans without representation (remember that other war?) may be helpful.

  12. I don’t get it,
    you seem to oppose the scientific search of the earth’s complex behavior, on one hand, with freedom, on the other hand? Mix modelling and taxes? Temperature measurements and regulation?
    To me, it looks this point of view is biased from the start. Eventhough politicians might use scientific endience to guide their choices for society, scientists don’t base their conclusions on their political orientation. If you think otherwise, you’re deeply in a procès d’intention. This way of doing things can only lead to a complete failure.

  13. @davidmhoffer let’s talk instead about what you are trying to do. Then we can talk about how to do it.
    A very intelligent approach, David, because exactly what we need is still nebulous.
    Let’s start at the atomic level, because Anthony’s request “I need your help..” resulted in a promising response, but in a fashion and format where much work remains to orgainize it. Replies that were links only make other people need to open them to find out their basics. Other people supplied some of the ‘meta data’ to each link like who, and when, but there was no template to standardize the type of replies.
    So let’s imagine readers of this website wish to contribute to a bank, a database, a crossed-referenced resource of
    Who, Said What, When, Where, and what is its significance to the debate.
    It isn’t so much that we want to find out Who, but that we have 100 people contributing quotes on 20 people about 50 statements each from 300 sources with a fair bit of duplication.
    Let us also imaging that we would like to easily access a list of these quotes
    By Person
    By Topic
    By Claim:
    By Source:
    By submitter (hey, we have to know who submitted the quote)
    Where can we go for an index list, a summary listing with hyperlinks to details, of all the misstatements, falsehoods, refuted and withdrawn source material, and failed predictions of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”? From Google:
    Monckton 2007, 35 errors in Inconv. Truth: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
    Gpwayne 2007, “was accurate and represented the science as it stood.“ http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
    How do we skeptics add to that list as time progresses?
    What’s more, what is the easiest way to do it with the assets we have at hand? Keeping it simple is essential.
    Let’s do the dumb things first. Take the results of Anthony’s June 16 call for help. How would we have liked the data to be submitted by volunteers, so that it can more quickly be organized by Person, Date, Source, and importance? Could a text encoding on this website help? Does someone have an existing website with a different structure that could help as an intermediate or final product?

  14. This project is, I think, a wise plan.
    Whilst ever the thermageddonists hold virtually all the cards (MSM, the Scientific Societies, the great majority of politicians, the major “scientific” publications, Wall Street, the UN and EU and not forgetting limitless funds) I’m not convinced that our “rag tag army” can win.
    But I am certain that eventually we will win. If by no other metric than the fact that the thermaggedonist cause is based on so many ludicrous exaggerations and bare faced lies. Dogma, incompetence, greed and malice.
    But I think it is likely that it will take many years. So I’m not building any hopes that (for example) the 2012 US elections will be more than another inconclusive skirmish on the road to victory.
    But when we do win, we will need this database of dishonesty to hold the perpetrators to account. Who knows how much damage they will have done by then?
    They’ve done enough already.

  15. The approach is dangerous. Any kind of index of notable warmers with thier projections would legitimise a list of deniers and thier “offences” which will be come a handy research/publishing blacklist. Except where there are clear grounds to suspect personnel malpractice lying or conflict of interest, we need to avoid going personnel. Lists of peer viewed papers both for and against and showing how they relate OK, but not comments by people on blogs, or on TV.

  16. I really don’t like the idea of these things being made into a war or battle TBH. A publicity mistake in the making.
    That tapped I have to ask hasn’t this been done already ? There is the (seemingly unmaintained) Climate Fail files here, the endless list of “Things Caused by AGW”.
    I’m also nervous of a “Green List” of scientists.

  17. For ‘numberwatch’ above, go to index, then into ‘things caused by global warming’.
    Reply: This is a perfect example of incompleteness causing more work, in this case a small amount, in other cases, sometimes complete mysteries. Why not just insert the correct link?
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
    A little preparation goes a long way when handing work of to others. ~ ctm

  18. it might be a good start to enumerate the anticipated arguments.
    shame without factual refutations will have little effect – e.g., prince phillip wants to be reincarnated as a killer virus to wipe out much of the human race, yet that is not cause for reproach from his cronies.
    the individuals whose ambitions are to pull off the biggest heist in human history are without shame.
    btw- there is a distinction to be drawn between a subject and a citizen.
    americans are not subjects.

  19. I agree with Stephen Rasey that the response to Anthony’s request was less than ideal, and that brief metadata points would make it easier to weed out duplicates etc.
    Constructing a database takes forethought, as David Hoffer points out. A few thoughts on organisation below:
    1) Type of statement
    is scientific, political or ideological: claiming to be factual, certain, possible, likely etc
    2) Who made it
    are they a scientist, a politician, a blogger, an NGO representative, a journalist or a blog commenter
    3) Place
    Was the statement made at a scientific conference, in a newspaper, on TV, in a parliament or political congress, on a blog, in a news conference
    4) Temporal Context
    Was the statement made In response to: another statement, a climatic or weather event,
    Observation:
    Within hours of the arrest of Neil Wallis, the Outside Organisation website was altered to remove him as far as possible, and limit damage where possible. A publicly available list or database will be used as a guide for removing embarrassing material. Web pages need to be saved and archived along with a dated screenshot.

  20. Anthony’s site has gone green. Any mild criticism is memory holed and not responded to.
    The author seems to think some large response to Algore’s latest mental episode is needed. None is needed. Algore is an oafish baffoon. Sit back, relax, and enjoy Algore’s latest parade of stupidity. At this late date, for reasonable men to muster a call to arms to defend against an idiot like Algore makes about as much sense as blasting air raid sirens to alert the citizenry of Manbearpig. Why raise Algore to any level of credibility at all? Why go throught the intellectual hysterics? Why pretend Algore is nothing more than a has been wannabe green cult guru fraud?
    Go into your tizzy if you must. Green old moldy perverts like Algore don’t excite me.
    [Reply: Note that your mild criticism has not been ‘memory holed’, and is responded to here.☺ ~dbs, mod.]

  21. Today we are engaged in a great Civil War of testing whether our nation, or any nation, conceived in liberty and individual freedom, can long endure the calls to “save the planet” through strong government and world government to better control the use of energy, land, and air by constraining the freedom of its subjects……………….We must make it obvious to all observers the skeptics’ side in the climate debate is fighting against slavery of billions of people………
    World government? Slavery of millions? Sorry Anthony, while I accept your point that Al Gore is behaving very strangely and we must keep up the struggle for truth, the quotes above seem way over the top and seem to be a mixture of far right Tea party politics and a longing for the triumphs of revolutionary America. Such comments do not resonate outside US politics and as we are engaged in a much more universal debate than that, can we be a bit more objective about climate change and leave the hard right fantasises out of the debate?

  22. Until Gore permits discussion in his profit led meetings it is difficult to see how a direct approach will work.
    Keep filling the web with truth to counter the lies as and when they appear. There are a few big, relative, organisations such as SPPI but they probably need more help.
    Main problem is the media is not on our side. In particular the BBC who insist in ignoring any accusation of bias or scientific inaccuracy or falsehood. Their science and environmental reporters are too set in their ways to look at facts.

  23. A database of warmista nonsense, as suggested here, sounds like a really useful tool for sceptics – and it sounds like an interesting project that we could all get involved with.
    But, I don’t think the warmsters need any extra help from us to fail. They’re doing a fine job of it all on their own.

  24. I really don’t think we should trouble ourselves with Al Gore. He’s a spent force. A never-been has-been. The way to deal with Al Gore is to, frankly, ignore him.

  25. With regard to Mr Gore’s efforts I am once again reminded of the old Limey saying….
    ‘you can’t polish a turd’.

  26. No matter what strategy we devise or attempt to use, the real teacher is Nature. I don’t know whether we have time to wait for the lesson to be learned. Perhaps not, however, let’s try to avoid making the story about us. It should be about the real consequences to people of these ideas and the policies they support. We might also explain who is behind it, and perhaps what they hope to gain. I’m not sure scientists can make these arguments.
    There must be a coordinated effort by various professionals and scientists to make a strong case describing domestic consequences of CAGW policies and regulations, backed by authentic science (that part we have). The real impact of the Green monster on freedom, jobs, and our future should be explained. We need healthy, economically secure, and strong families living in a sane society. Finally, we might consider roadmapping a better way forward.

  27. Anthony,/ Stephen
    1) I volunteer to help out in any way I can. You have my email address.
    2) “Skeptics are more of a disorganized guerrilla force of sharp-shooters.” Agreed. We do not have access to the MSM and therefore cannot indulge in Pickett-like head on charges against greater forces. Your strategy is therefore appropriate to the resources we have at hand. Build the spreadsheet in as simple a format as possible but the key thing is, we have to catch them on their way to Gettysburg, not when they’ve arrived and formed up. This means we have to start building the “ammunition spreadsheet” now, publish it here as a work in progress and start using it well before the Reality Event.
    To all you climate skeptics out there, it’s time to put up or shut up. We need boots on the ground for this one.
    Pointman

  28. I hope I don’t live long enough to see climate war re-enactors complete with slide rules and corporate sponsors.

  29. take time out for a laugh. u can’t make this up:
    16 July: UK Independent: Scientists ask for escort in Indian Ocean due to pirates
    By Roger Maynard in Sydney
    Scientists are seeking the help of the Australian and US navies to repel Somali pirates who are threatening one of the world’s key climate monitoring programmes…
    The instruments, which record ocean heat and salinity patterns, are programmed to submerge and eventually resurface to upload their data to satellites.
    But with piracy in the western Indian Ocean making it too dangerous for commercial or research vessels to deploy the robotic devices, Australia’s government research department, the CSIRO, hope naval forces will help them out.
    The increase in piracy had serious implications for their understanding of a region which had a major influence in Australian and south Asian weather and climate, said Dr Ann Thresher of the CSIRO. “We can’t send anybody in that area, research voyages have been cancelled and I know there’s a report of at least one ship that hired an armed escort – that’s pretty extreme when you’re talking about climate change.”…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/scientists-ask-for-escort-in-indian-ocean-due-to-pirates-2314582.html

  30. Who is the target audience for such a list?
    For the general populace, who are the target for all politicians espousing the need for carbon control, they are generally not interested in or don’t remember the facts, only the rhetoric.
    Hence, in Australia, we have every talking head saying ‘pollution’ ad nauseum. Never mind the science, that has been pushed to the background in the rush to provide a political ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ of ‘pollution’.
    Our media is still placing smokestacks and cooling towers with false contrast to make the graphic darker behind every story concerned with our impending carbon tax. The fact that CO2 is odourless and colourless is irrelevant, it’s the spin that counts, not the facts.
    If the warmists will not debate, this list may be a fruitless exercise.

  31. I also disagree that skeptics need to start a war with people like Gore and the other warmist leaders We just have to show integrity and to keep getting the message across. They are destroying themselves without the need for us to give them a target to aim at.

  32. Even though it is two years down here in the Antipodes until our next election is due, our two main parties are engaged in an election campaign focused on a single issue, Anthropogenic Global Warming and a Carbon Tax. Our incumbent government has an approval rating below 30% Our television news has been inundated recently with clips of people saying they do not trust our Prime Minister. The only reason that her party hasn’t replaced her is that they would be even more hated by the general public.

  33. Moncing round the bushes and making up lists of lists, isn’t going to acheive much.
    Get these liars like Albert Gore in COURT, in front of a Judge, and send them to jail.

  34. Why give the opposition ammunition. Wait and see what their strategy is. Gorehas limited credibility. Better to use guerrilla tactics keep focussing on rebuttal and specific targets. The military analogy referred to is out of date.

  35. Agree with Davidmhoffer on the need to pry back the question. The correct goal-oriented question is almost always two or three layers behind the one that’s asked.
    At this point in history, the powers and principalities are having plenty of trouble. Remember Algore’s Birkenstock-masseuse troubles, DSK’s troubles, Murdoch’s troubles…. Think of the Arab Spring … There’s a strong mood of “Bring down all the arrogant secular idiots” spreading through the world. Experts and journalists have lost all credibility.
    It may be better to let Algore run on his own, let him unfurl his foolishness at full length. If there’s a way to help him do that, I’d be glad to participate, but an equal-and-opposite reaction will tend to re-legitimize him.

  36. NOTE: Not commenting on the main post here, but I just have to agree with one comment.

    davidmhoffer [July 16, 2011 at 10:47 pm] says:
    ” … my first rule when a client asks “is there a way to do X?” is to respond as follows:
    Yes there is. Now let’s put that aside for a moment and let’s talk instead about what you are trying to do. Then we can talk about how to do it.”

    ROTFLMAO! Truer words were never spoken.
    In all things computer, the customer is almost NEVER right!
    /NoSarc

  37. I think a database is the right way to do this. A couple months ago I got fascinated by the idea to enter quotes/claims in a database (inspired by the idea behind the Climate Fail Files), so the data is better organized and could be searched specifically by author, organization, end date of the claim, category, source, tag, search terms,… I then started a personal project in my free time to make a quote web application, but it is still in an early stage of analysis at this point. I am not a professional programmer, but wrote several webapps in the last 5 years in jsp/java and mysql.
    I am willing to contribute to a project like this, if I can help just let me know.
    Michel

  38. Gareth Phillips says:
    July 17, 2011 at 2:07 am ..dah dah dah…))
    Are you serious or not up to speed. The AGW scam is, and always will be, a political war using the victims money to fund their carbon imprisonment. Read up on the Global Marshall Plan, Maurice Strong etc etc. Then get on board.
    Gore is a frontman for Wall st banks. They stand to make billions annually.
    The end result otherwise is a world enslaved to the UN sociopaths and their minions at national level. An Orwellian nightmare.
    regards

  39. Better to just ignore him, politely correct any sillyness misrepresentations,etc.
    Don’t fight him that is what he wants, political confrontation, tribalism
    Just be nice.
    Outside the USA, I think people will be bemused by his behaviour and switch off from his over the top political rhetoric

  40. “Climate Reality” is Al Gore’s Gettysburg
    Yes, i agree, but it must be said the American electorate has had an extremely bad hand in selecting it’s President’s lately.

  41. Read the following gem that matches the brainwashing in the USSR

    Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works. Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realize (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

    http://bit.ly/owP83h

  42. I can’t help myself. Gore and the rest of that crew constantly remind me of Lewis Carrol – “The Hunting of the Snark”. The Snark of course being Global Warming. Which at “Fit the Eighth” is discovered to be a Boojum.
    Trouble is I can’t decide which of the characters is which. Is Gore the Banker or the Bellman?
    What of Hansen? The one who had forgotten his name?

    He would answer to “Hi!” or to any loud cry,
    Such as “Fry me!” or “Fritter my wig!”
    To “What-you-may-call-um!” or “What-was-his-name!”
    But especially “Thing-um-a-jig!”
    While, for those who preferred a more forcible word,
    He had different names from these:
    His intimate friends called him “Candle-ends”,
    And his enemies “Toasted-cheese”.
    “His form is ungainly—his intellect small—”
    (So the Bellman would often remark)
    “But his courage is perfect! And that, after all,
    Is the thing that one needs with a Snark.”

    Who might be the Baker?
    Can somebody help? 🙂 😉

  43. Berényi Péter says:
    July 17, 2011 at 12:20 am
    The difference is that Gore most certainly has not gone through his severest struggle to get to the point where he is standing right now. The man has neither shame nor honor.
    ———-
    I do not defend (nor attack), what Gore says, but I think this comment indicates what a good many skeptics seem to feel about him, and this where they go wrong in their thinking. The notion that he has no “shame or honor” would seem to indicate that he is intentionally trying to deceive. This is absolutely incorrect. He, to the very core of his being, truly believes in what he says and does related to climate change. To not understand this, is to not get a fundamental truth about those you would oppose.

  44. I got interested in the mendacity of AGWers in the early 2000s. Until 2006 and the first half of 2007 they were on a roll. Virtually no one contradicted the official line. Al had his Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize and most people believed the IPCC was an unimpeachable source of peer reviewed science.
    Cracks began to appear midway into 2007, and with climategate the bricks were falling out of the wall.
    Nowadays, Gore is increasingly a figure of fun, and AGWers seem to be distancing themselves from him. I’m reasonably confident his event will be a damp squib, much like the Live Earth concerts. He has lost his clout.
    When you think of what the sceptics have achieved in a very few years it is truly remarkable. A huge backlash is developing even without financial backing and the MSM. Just look at the opinion polls and the comments on previously pro threads. Be very proud of that.
    It will take time and I have no doubt we will prevail, but we are up against those who will not, or cannot let the AGW bandwagon stop. The wheels are loose, but they’re not off yet. I believe Al Gore is the least of our worries.
    (Please excuse the overly idiomatic language above….got a bit carried away!)

  45. Gareth Phillips says:
    July 17, 2011 at 2:07 am
    Gareth – the post you are commenting on was written by Stephen Rasey not Anthony Watts.

  46. Rob Vermeulen says:
    July 17, 2011 at 12:46 am
    Eventhough politicians might use scientific endience to guide their choices for society, scientists don’t base their conclusions on their political orientation.

    Scientists are not supposed to base their conclusions on their political orientation, that much is true.

  47. This seems like a Tea Party effort, one born out of TP desperation since they are going down the tubes on their irrational fiscal/deficit policies.
    The left/right wing politicians that I have been emailing and talking to have allready ducked for cover on the CAGW issue. The Climategtate e-mails were the killer. Too many lies, obfuscations, distortions, manipulations. Kyoto is dead. Only a few pockets of delusioned politicans remain, as most of the world China/Russia/Canada/USA willl not sign on to any more Kyoto malarky. Yes, the green subsidy wars are still being waged, but budget realities is hurting more than anything we can do.
    Nope.. please keep this science site free of efforts that smack of Tea Party resurrection politics.

  48. I’m not as knowledgeable about the southern battles of the Revolutionary, as New England finished up its part with General Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga NY in 1777. Live Free or Die and all that.
    How’s the correlation with Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown four years later? Seems to me there was some grousing about how a ragtag army of colonials managed to defeat the best disciplined army of the world despite the Red coats’ much greater resources.

  49. As time has passed, my sympathies have trended more and more in favor of the people who decided – as they had every right to do – to leave the scheme of mercantilist predation cooked up by Alexander Hamilton and his co-conspirators and being rammed down their throats by a highly-paid corporate lawyer elected in 1860 to become the dictator required to impose the Morrill Tariff and other crippling exactions upon the import-dependent southern states.
    Gettysburg is a lousy analogy, unless you’re a partisan of Algore and his conniving, thieving, lying sputniki. Those battered, exhausted troops in butternut and grey were the real heroes on that Pennsylvania battlefield, going up against an army of aggressive invaders under the command of politicians who had long suppressed their industry, and who were now blockading their coasts, seizing their resources, pillaging their homes, burning their crops, and molesting unarmed and helpless civilians.
    From the perspective of the average soldier in the Army of Northern Virginia – the overwhelming majority of whom were not slave owners – those blue-coated foreigners dug in along Cemetery Ridge looked like nothing more than a bunch of armed and deadly tax collectors, intent upon doing to the people of the south what King George III had been trying to do to the American colonists in 1775.
    Find another comparator, willya?
    Oh, yeah. And you misspelled the name of Joshua Chamberlain, a decent man fighting in a truly evil cause.

  50. Careful with the Gettysburg comparisons. Some of us are still a might sensitive about that. A Gore is a Gore is a Gore! He Ain’t a Confederate. He ain’t Lee! And this ain’t Gettysburg, PA. The first rule in leadership is Don’t Tick Off Your Own People!
    Ref. Climate Reality, use Gore to beat Gore. He’s been very good at shooting himself in the foot (and other body parts).

  51. Al Gore’s strength comes from the multitude of people that have been brainwashed into believing that the government should be in charge of everything and that they will be given other people’s property out of a sense of “fairness”. These sheeple only see “what’s in if for me” and will believe anyone, ANYONE, who is now or has ever played to that selfishness. Al Gore still remains a hero who was cheated out of his rightful place as President of the US to these people. They will not listen to logic, truth or anything else that does not validate their ideological position. Al Gore does not care what skeptics say or if he is exposed as a fraud, he knows that his minions will never listen to those arguments. Their motto is “In Al We Trust”.
    Do not over estimate that the truth will win out.

  52. I know it is counter intuative to us reasonable folk but maybe we should take a leaf out of the oppositions book.
    Noisy demo’s,shrill headline grabbing soundbites and the boycotting of firms who pander to this eco-bullcrap.

  53. While I understand the sentiment, you are granting too much importance to [Gore] and his movement.
    The chances are this latest piece of Gore theater will end up more like 10:10 and its “No Pressure” campaign than a great military battle.
    Gore and his sycophants and supporters are more pitiful than dangerous.
    Now that a skeptical community has grown up and matured under the steady abuse of shills and AstroTurf groups calling us every name under the sun, and have a pretty good idea of what we are saying and doing, and more importantly what the AGW promoters are saying and doing, there is no way they are going to pull off this ridiculous publicity stunt successfully.
    That said, it is a very good idea to make an accessible data base of the phony, fear mongering manipulative trash the AGW social mania vomits out on the world.

  54. Wow! Is the truth getting its boots on? Or will this also die in laziness, unwillingness to bell “the mighty cat”, indifference, apathy of the scientists, though skeptic?
    As @Martin Brumby said “The thermageddonists hold virtually all the cards (MSM, the Scientific Societies, the great majority of politicians, the major “scientific” publications, Wall Street, the UN and EU and not forgetting limitless funds) I’m not convinced that our “rag tag army” can win.”
    This battle might be won. IMHO it mostly depends how many little bloggers are enabled and multiplied, as indeed the MSM will never cooperate, lobbying politicos is quite hopeless,(unless they are honest ones), the only hope would come IF ALL would start blogging like mad, as many among us are already painstakingly doing daily, and I am not talking about Facebook. Get a WordPress blog and find your particular niche and audience, and start getting visits. In between your normal posts, insert powerful WATTS articles. Yet in order to reach normal people–as I have mentioned here long ago–WATTS has to come up with a new line of easily digestible science articles.
    You have reached the scientists. 90 % have already decided for or against AGW, by ideology, but mostly for reputation & resources (fame & funds!) In that respect the debate is over. But now you scientists have to come down from your ivory to reach the simple populace with simplified science, to win votes! The alternative media will only reprint WATTS articles they easily understand, (I ought to know!) so make a new line of General Public articles with lots of pictures. The Greens (because of the money) are way ahead of you with lots of graphics and easy headlines, they get lots of photo footage. “Here is Greenpeace hanging a sign on the Sidney Opera house roof! They never raised a sign against BP killing the Gulf water, animals and people, but hey that is RedPeace for you. Globalist outfit funded by Wallstreet, will never embarras their Sponsor BP! Are you kidding? Ha!)
    Only ONE major fact is on your side! NOBODY normal wants another carbon TAX, except the fanatic Green watermelons, red collectivist globalists on the inside! And they are lethal (No pressure?) and from what I have seen, mostly much more motivated than the salon skeptics, armchair generals within the scientific community. Yeah, you could set up a databank of statements, but average Joe will never be reached that way, who reads warmist Yahoo or the AGW China Post, and all other MSM and fortune magazines. Even architectural magazines are preaching Green technology! How do you want to win that war, unless you dig in your heels and start being the media! Otherwise save your breath!

  55. Tom Rowan wrote what many others expressed:
    ” Algore is an oafish baffoon. Sit back, relax, and enjoy Algore’s latest parade of stupidity. At this late date, for reasonable men to muster a call to arms to defend against an idiot like Algore makes about as much sense as blasting air raid sirens to alert the citizenry of Manbearpig. Why raise Algore to any level of credibility at all? Why go throught the intellectual hysterics? Why pretend Algore is nothing more than a has been wannabe green cult guru fraud?”
    The problem, Tom and others, is that there are many people who are completely taken in by Gore and believe what he says. A dear, misguided, friend spent the money to go all the way from Australia to the USA to be indoctrinated by Gore, and I am sure that she is not alone. We have to keep presenting facts to counter their deceptions. My #1 line is there is no scientifically valid proof that added CO2 would have any more than a minuscule effect on temperature (and climate), so there is no justification for any of the heroic measures being proposed to counter the supposed problem (a problem that does not exist).
    On another tack, this one grammatical, please note that an apostrophe is used to indicate possession; it is NOT used to form plurals. And “it’s” means “it is”; it is NOT the possessive of “it”.
    IanM

  56. Being in the ad game, I’m trying to figure out what Alex Bogusky will bring to the party. He is (was) a big name in the business but is as self-absorbed as Gore. I can tell you that their presentations will be well crafted and persuasive, but like Bogusky’s TV spots, they will have no substance because the “Global Warming brand” does not live up to it’s promise.
    The Gettysburg analogy is apt. The first objective for me is to determine the other side’s strategy, then what tactics it will use to reach it’s goal. It will be an all out assault on TV and online, think of it as RC directed by Steven Speilberg, written by Saul Alinsky, it will appeal to emotions, create titanic villians, and will attempt to stifle any criticism or debate through guilt and false association. The main weaknesses of its armour are “follow the money” and the sheer narcissism of its general, George Armstrong Gore. Fix bayonets.

  57. Hoser says:
    The real impact of the Green monster on freedom, jobs, and our future should be explained.
    Yes, and the economic trashing of Europe and America is a major explanation of the current severe “recession.”
    But the worst damage is to the environment itself. Colder is NOT better–who mows their lawn in the winter time? The human death rate by month goes up a bit in the summer–and a lot in the winter. And ameliorating the summer deaths requires air conditioning, which requires energy. Greenies are thus murderers, literally. They also murder by calling for corn ethanol, which has caused killing food shortages, and also caused many riots, killing even more people.
    The biological effects of AGW hysteria are even more severe than the economic ones. They are NOT “exaggerated,” they are 180 degrees wrong, and this needs to be emphasized.

  58. How to win a propaganda war with the extreme AGW massive public subsidy carbon trading type scheme group. Start a summary/overview of the key issues and the logic of the problem.
    The current facts on the ground and in the past are on the “skeptics” side. Massive attempts to limit CO2 will not be successful, serve no purpose, and will result in trillions of public funds being wasted.
    No need to distort the facts or mislead. Be polite and thoughtful. The skeptics can win over the environmentalists and the fiscal conservatives as increased atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere and humans. Many environmentalists truly care about the environment and do not want trillions of dollars spent on boondoggle projects.
    Higher atmospheric CO2 is beneficial. Plants eat CO2. The biosphere will expand due to higher levels of atmospheric CO2 with moderate slow warming
    1. Plants eat CO2.
    2. All of the food crops respond to higher levels of CO2 by increased yield and faster growth.
    3. Desertification is reduced when CO2 levels are higher as C3 plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces transpiration. (C3 plants, trees and scrubs, lose roughly 50% of their absorbed water due to transpiration. (One of the so called extreme AGW tipping points is greening of the Sahara desert which by the way has started to occur.)
    4. Most of the warming was and will happen at high latitude regions. The biosphere is currently limited by cold temperatures as there are ice caps on both poles.
    5. Planetary cloud cover increases and decreases to resist forcing changes.
    6. 75% of the late 20th century warming has due to solar wind bursts which remove cloud forming ions by the process electroscavenging.
    7. Solar cycle 24 is the start of a Dalton minimum or a Maunder minimum. There are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age occurred for a reason. The is a technical reason for the current delay in planetary cooling. The planet will cool. With falling planetary temperatures there is no extreme AGW driver.
    Pick the high road strategy. Military analogue is confusing. The skeptics are fighting a propaganda war with a small faction [who] personally benefit from the money spent on the extreme AGW schemes. Demonstrations and photo ops – the tactics of the extreme AGW schemers – are counter productive. Simple strategies such a short polite letter to congressional representative sounds like the best strategy. Keep the facts in public view.

  59. There appears to be an impression that communicating facts will deter the Algorites. While an admirable effort, it will only deter a few, ones that CAN be convinced by facts, people with at least a scientific bent. Many others go only on emotion and no amount of evidence will sway them. So what is the answer? I propose that everyone who is skeptical to actually talk about the Algore PR effort on the day it comes out. I work for a utility that uses a lot of fossil fuel and am therefore “tainted.” People tend to discount my position based on my employment and ignore the facts that I bring up. Since I live in a very liberal area, I don’t even bring it or argue about it when it comes up. There may be others who behave like I do. I therefore will not hang back from discussing the Algore climate reality. I will discuss it and keep to the facts. And if I am attacked based on my employment, I will remain calm and ask them to address the facts, not the source. I may not convince them, but at least they will see there is not a monolithic “97%” consensus of all people who are conversant in the climate arena. I invite anyone else to do the same.

  60. My sense is to just rely upon Al to do his own damage. Skeptics provide only credibility to him to meet him on his battlefield so to speak. It will be obvious what it is going on that day – a political stunt.
    My view is that Americas “BS” detectors are already upon full alert with this guy; I suspect that he won’t be able to restrain himself from his shrill hysterics yet again and he will do further damage to their cause. His ego has no bounds.

  61. I am reading Ann Coulter’s new book, “Demonic” and it has good lessons about dealing with a mob and the warmists do fit that description. This post recommends reasoned arguments. Mobs do not respond to reasoned arguments. You need to provide them with mental pictures based on good arguments such as:
    Headline: “Electricity prices to double.” followed by a picture of the sweltering poor unable to afford air conditioning.
    Headline: “Greens stop coal plant in Africa.” followed by a picture of a hut where burning dung has to be used to cook food.
    Video of some idiot saying, “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
    Video of the unemployed in Montana where an aluminum plant was shut down because the greens in California will not allow power plants to be built.
    Get the picture? Every time the warmists show a picture of a polar bear, show a picture from Detroit.

  62. In the end it is the finance that will floor them – and floors them if you ask about it. They have no answer. And it is that that will totally enrage the population, whether in Europe or the US.

  63. All the warming scientific chatter is intended for the US Congress, the EU and the UN and they are carrying it out on the scientific and moral fronts for use by power and tax hungry politicians.
    The war can be won on the scientific front and still lost on the perception of moral issues fabricated by the left much as the media during the Vietnam War reported to the detriment of the US military by denigrating US military operations and in particular the US Soldier, Marine and Airmen. The result was loss of a war by the congress that had been won by the military.

  64. Skeptics are more of a disorganized guerrilla force of sharp-shooters…
    However we have the next “Landscheidt Minimum on our side, then it is only a matter of waiting…

  65. To focus on the “Gore Climate Reality Event” gives it standing, credence that It does not deserve. Only the scientific questions do. Only the scientific truths, constantly challenged by skepticism based on “real” data, that all the algores of the world are trying to bugger for their financial and political advantage, deserve the primary attention of scientific “warriors”. If this is to be an orderly project, then I suggest the following. The science, the scientists, then all those giving false witness, in order of potential influence on a wide audience.
    ““Find every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years.”
    1) Begin with the truth, not with algore, with the science, sub-research area, by sub-research area, Summarize the data, and possible interpretations. After this, list the “deniers” of “scientific reality” along with their stupidities. I would turn the “epithet” “denier” back on them. They are denying (or altering, even more serious) the scientific data or possibilities. “Skeptic” is a useful term for all scientists, as is “Realist”, so long as it is not reified.
    2) Next the scientists by their stature in their discipline (what do they claim? how do they know — or do they — the science they are professing? what evidence, authorities do they use? in what ways are these claims false? who pays their salaries and who gives them the grants on which their claims are based?)
    2) Next amateurs, “lay” scientists – algore thinks he qualifies, as do most of those on IPCC reports — who profess scientific credentials (what do they claim? what is false? where do they get their evidence? what is their source of remuneration? does it come from “green” activities?)
    3) next owners of “mass media”, the “mass” to be defined by some basic circulation, readership numbers (who are they? how is their publication, and their financial empire, tied to green money? what do their publications claim? (I think it is important to notice whether or not their viewer-, reader-ship is declining or increasing, as also their profits. In other words, does giving “false witness” lead to their downfall? Then let them be hoist themselves on their own petard. WUWT readers only need to go to war when there is necessary. Otherwise, let them sink into their own slime.)
    4) NGOs, including all those once-upon-a-time-in-a-land-far-far-away wonderful “environmental” groups. Similar questions
    5) Heads of regulatory agencies in the relevant countries. Similar questions
    6) Political leaders (I put heads of regulatory agencies ahead of political leaders because it seems that in the U.S. the EPA is a government unto itself with the ability and freedom to wreck state economies and individual businesses.)
    8) Heads of crony corporations
    9) Science advisors for elementary and secondary education on the federal and state levels. Approvers of basic text books.
    10) Science reporters including website owners. (This last category, website owner, should find an appropriate level according to audience and influence, e.g., WUWT)
    11) All others

  66. Global Warming was a proposed business which failed in achieving “global governance” after Climate Gate, so it has been complemented with a variety of new ideologies having the same goal: From the fight against obesity to marriage as an “obsolete institution”; all deeply affecting individual freedom.
    However, I prefer considering God as the “ultimate conspirer” , who inevitably will succeed in the end, and not clowns who think themselves the saviors of humanity. The best we can do is just to ignore them; they do not worth our attention.

  67. This public approach of collating statements seems to smack of research by consensus and reminds me of the very public search for communists which resulted in a black list.
    Rather, the research group should agree on a null hypothesis and then proceed to test it. A very public survey (what have you read about predicted ice free Arctic conditions?) was sent to us, and we provided our input. Bad form. Private emailed correspondence instead of a public posting should have been used. The data should then be examined by the research group in a private setting (no public list of names please), publish the results, and then make the raw data and code available.
    One further comment. No statement based on a gray paper should be used. Else we are no better than the last IPCC report. Statements of predicted ice free conditions should only be lifted from published, peer reviewed research (with the warning that climate scientists seem to be okay with quoting gray papers and personal correspondances in their published articles). A reference to gray paper statements can certainly be made in the opening segments of the final paper. That statement should also include why such quotes were NOT used in a gold standard article.
    On the other hand, if the purpose of an article is to collate gray paper and media statements, you should exclude peer reviewed research articles where such statements are made. Indeed, by separating the subjects thusly (gray/media papers from research papers), you open the door for two substantial and corroborating papers that have both teeth and muscle.
    But let’s do this privately via email or snail mail.

  68. GaryP says:
    July 17, 2011 at 7:19 am
    Video of some idiot saying, “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
    I believe this is the correct analysis. Science can be debated endlessly. Paying your bills at the end of the month cannot.
    The USA and the EU are having serious economic problems with unemployment and debt. You cannot hope to solve tomorrows problems if you cannot solve today’s problems. How can anyone have faith that politicians can fix the climate 100 years in the future when they cannot fix the economy today?
    Fix unemployment. Fix the debt. So long as the government is mortgaging our children’s futures under a mountain of debt, the children are effectively being sold as economic slaves. What is going on in Washington right now is simply a debate over the price, how much money will the government get to spend in return for selling our children’s futures.
    Isn’t this Al Gore’s real message? That we should save the planet at all cost, even if it means Slavery for our children and their children after them. That nothing, even Slavery is more important than Climate.

  69. The green energy carpetbaggers are already among us.

    Wrong metaphor, if Gore is Lee. Foragers or even slave hunters would fit better.

  70. Gore is his own most dangerous adversary. Even the green hornets have been moving away from him in recent years. What can a scientific illiterate amass together that could lead us into enslavement. A bigger and better Inconvenient Truth (this has turned out to be inconvenient mainly to himself)? What does he have that can sway billions? He thinks when making gingerbread a lot of money can substitute for the ginger. I think a database that connects AGWers who schmoozed with Gore in the past says all you need to say.

  71. My personal strategy in real life is to just drop remarks like “It’s not warming” when someone brings up the Global Warming scare story. Or “The Sahel zone is greening” when someone goes into a dystopian breakdown about desertification. People will look at me frustrated because i just interrupted their downfall fantasies but i will provide links if asked; and they usually have never before seen the actual data, satellite pictures or statistics as all they usually get is lies by the MSM. And normal people are actually thankful for such information; they are not the indoctrinated KoolAid drinkers you would expect, say at GISS.
    And that’s all you need to do. Tip: When looking for a source of data to bolster your argument, go to images.google.com (their search parsing is better than Bing when you use longer phrases) and enter the coordinate descriptions of your desired graph, like “olr versus co2” or the likes. You get a whole lot of charts this way. Use the images as the key for your search. It’s quicker than wading through mountains of websites.
    As for Gore’s offensive, i don’t think he can even rally much of the MSM around him these days, they’re busy with the various currency crises.

  72. @ Dave Brittania says: July 17, 2011 at 6:35 am
    “I know it is counter intuative to us reasonable folk but maybe we should take a leaf out of the oppositions book. Noisy demo’s,shrill headline grabbing soundbites and the boycotting of firms who pander to this eco-bullcrap.”
    This is exactly the wrong approach. This approach is begging for the skeptics to get labelled and smeared as irrational, unscientific political actors.
    But then that’s just what many skeptics are … irrational, biased, ignorant and politically motivated.
    The true enemy of the US people is the State involvement in regulating the lives and businesses of people. This fight is not about science – but about control of other human beings. If you play the political game, go for the jugular – abolish the EPA, restore the Constitution, Nullify federal laws, restore sound money, etc.

  73. John F. Hultquist says:@ July 17, 2011 at 12:34 am
    “I suggest each person prepare a short and well stated letter to you local and state officials . . .”
    We tried that already. Here in Solano County I went beyond the letter writing and spoke at the county supervisors meeting the day they voted on the “Climate Action Plan” and sea level rise mitigation program. Of the five supervisors, three were already skeptical, one was swayed by my presentation on sea level rise (that it was unlikely it would rise 10″ in the next 90 years, let alone the “conservative” 55″ rise expected in the report). The fifth supervisor was already in the AGW tank and stupidly so — so much that she was laughed at openly in chambers, even by fellow supervisors! But they passed the Climate Action Plan unanimously anyway. Why? —under threat of litigation by Jerry Brown’s minions (the Brown Shirts), like they did to Stockton, CA, in 2008.
    We must realize (and quickly) that it is not a battle between good science and bad science. Rather it is a global Progressive Collectivist movement committed to Social Justice/Environmental Justice and all the nefarious meanings those code words represent. The PC’s are simply using AGW as a scare tactic in their political dogma. They are effectively using the principles of Group Think, crowd psychology, and propaganda. Those techniques are quite effective. Glittering generalities, universal appeal, ad hominem attacks, and logical fallacies are all tools used effectively by the likes of Algore. Yes, we know he is wrong in truth and rotten to the core, but he is effective in convincing the masses and leading the cult. Try talking with the cult members and supporters of AGW. They parrot the talking points, but once you engage them and they discover you understand the science better than they do, their eyes glaze over and they terminate the conversation with a parting shot that we just don’t understand.
    Ansel Adams once told me that “contrast is the fundamental element of perception.” We skeptics need to put good science, observation, and reason next to the many absurd notions of AGW and through that contrast, reveal how the entire movement is simply a Progressive agenda to redistribute the world’s resources though climate policy.

  74. rbateman says:
    July 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm
    “Al might find himself pre-empted by events that are actually important.
    Besides, you know what effect he has on our weather. We certainly don’t need that.”
    Look at the SOI. It will stay cold until maybe Christmas. Then it will become milder. (Assuming that as usual the inverted SOI is a leading indicator by 7 months for global temperatures)
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/leyland/soi-global-temps-jan2011.pdf
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png

  75. Gettysburg. A good analogy I suppose. But like all analogies, its not the full story.
    I have spent the last 15 years deploring the warmistas use of politics, spin and systematic character assassination. I still deplore it. I wish you well but I wont take part
    dont fight fire with fire
    we must fight fire with water. trust in the scientific method
    EO

  76. Pamela Gray,
    I don’t get where you’re coming from. This isn’t a hunt for people with warmist views, it’s an attempt to show that self-advertised warmists often talk nonsense. The comparison with the “search for communists ” seems bogus to me.
    And I have no idea why this project should be done in private. This is the internet age. Why we should shy away from openness in this instance is a mystery to me.
    I also don’t get why we should make a distinction between blatant nonsense in peer-reviewed papers, or blatant nonsense spoken in a press interview. The idea is to allow us to easily point to the nonsense – whether the nonsense was finely etched on gold tablets, or scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet isn’t the issue.

  77. Dear Stephen –
    May I suggest you are confusing the scientific and political battlefields. The tide in the scientific war has turned against the Warmists, the rest being only a matter of time. On the political battlefield, the Warmists have tacitly admitted defeat, and are only fighting for scraps on a few domestic fronts (having clearly lost the international war). The main danger, as I see it, is that the Global Warming movement has been so successful over a period of decades, that it is sure to be repeated in spades, in other fields.

  78. You missed our biggest weapon – reality. First off, the science of AWG is busted. What you need is a complete list of all the ways it is busted, from faulty or missing error budgets, to faulty statistics to 3 decades of satellite data showing nothing.
    Whenever a model output is presented as fact, have the real data there in hand to show the fallacy.
    I have yet to see any argument or new study requiring more than a days effort to collate the existing contrary real world measurements.
    Now if Anthony or others which to collate the existing studies and arguments into a DB that can be queried to pull those which debunk a certain dimension or claim (e.g., those that debunk tree rings with regard to paleoclimate, or those ice core data which debunk the claim CO2 drives temperature as opposed to the other way around) that would be a great idea. A simple idea.
    All you need is the 10 core claims of AWG, and then create a link between any given contrary study and the claims it debunks.
    The problem on both sides is we don’t have a complete view of the argument. We need:
    (1) The 10 or so core unproven assumption AWG relies on.
    (2) The 3-5 top competitive theories to AWG
    (3) And then the data base of studies and how they prove or disprove AWG or the 3-5 competitive theories
    When compiled into a single resource, this will dispel the mythology of ‘settled’ science and expose (and educate) everyone to the wondrous complexity of the problem space, as well as the realistic time it will take to unravel this.
    I would truly enjoy setting up such a resource. It is very similar to what we do for NASA and its science all the time. Collect the information and make it available. There is no more powerful tool against misinformation and mistake.

  79. I’m reading a book review written by Andrew Revkin this morning, in which he makes the tired old claim that an “overwhelming majority of scientists agree that….humans are exerting a growing and potentially calamitous influence on climate.”
    This it seems to me is emblematic of the kind of thing we’re up against. Revkin’s a smart guy. I also presume he’s honest. So how can he make such an unequivocal statement? Where is his data? It just strikes me as at the very least, unfounded.
    I just don’t get this kind of stuff.
    Anyone?

  80. I thing a different approach would be for a well healed individual to retain a team of lawyers and scientist to prepare a libel defense for publishing the following full page statement in all of the nations major newspapers on the same day.
    “Albert Arnold Gore Jr. has lied and perpetuated lies about Global Warming and Climate Change.
    Albert Arnold Gore Jr. if you think that the above statement is libelous then sue me, otherwise shut up and stop lying about Global Warming and Climate Change”
    Then wait.

  81. A good start would be a referenced list of AlGorisms circulating around blogsville. Such as his statement about the temp of inner earth being millions of degrees. Public ridicule is the only way to beat this guy.

  82. Don’t fool yourself. This has been in the works for at least a year. Two months ago I learned that my former company, which has a Gore minion leading it’s sustainability/social responsibility department, has a video coming about saving the planet. Coincidence? I don’t think so. The rolling stone article was the first salvo, which fortunately did not go over well. But the article’s content and tone are indicative of what to expect. I agree with the comment to fight fire with water or at least high density foam, to smother the false claims and hyperbole to come.

  83. I think Al Gore’s ‘Choose Reality’ will turn out to be a non-event. The MSM in my neck of the woods (Denmark/Germany) haven’t even bothered to mention it.

  84. Folks,
    I don’t see Stephen Rasey’s idea as being an attack on Al Gore, or making a “list” of warmists. The idea is certainly prompted by Al Gore, but the idea is to have an easy way to document and respond to scare tactics and discredited science dressed up as being factual. Who said what and when is tangential to that, and the information base that would result would be highly usefull to dealing with lots of warmist propoganda, not just Al Gore’s.

  85. Most of the public are unaware the basic facts concerning CO2. CO2 is essential for life on this planet. In the geological deep past the planet has been cold when CO2 levels were high and warm when the CO2 levels where comparatively low. In the deep geological past CO2 does not correlate with CO2 levels. The paleoclimatic data does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis. (See figure 4 that shows past ice epochs compared to atmospheric CO2 levels.)
    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf+html
    Atmospheric CO2 was prior to anthropological increases at the lowest level in 500 million years. See figure 4.
    All of the data indicates planetary cloud increase or decrease to resist a forcing change. CO2 only absorbs specific frequencies overlapping with water. The CO2 greenhouse affect saturates. Higher and higher levels of CO2 has less and less warming effects.
    If additional CO2 atmospheric cause minor rather than extreme warming one of the three legs is removed from the extreme AGW stool.
    Increased atmospheric CO2 is definitely beneficial to biosphere.
    Plants eat CO2. C3 type plants respond to increased CO2 by reducing the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces water loss due to transpiration. An optimum atmospheric CO2 level for plants is around 1200 ppm to 1500 ppm.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm
    Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.
    The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertilizer.
    African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php
    Transpiration
    Transpiration – Summary Most plants respond to increases in the air’s CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. This water savings often results in greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which positively feeds back to increase plant growth. In this summary, we review a few papers that treat various aspects of this phenomenon.
    In a review of studies conducted over the prior decade, Pospisilova and Catsky (1999) compiled over 150 individual plant water use responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. They found that elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis in about 85% of the reported studies, while reducing stomatal conductances and rates of transpiration in approximately 75% of the cases analyzed. Consequently, atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased plant water-use efficiency in more than 90% of the experiments that were conducted; and it reduced total water uptake in more than 50% of the studies, while slowing the development of water stress as indicated by plant water potential data. As a result Pospisilova and Catsky concluded that plants growing in future atmospheres of higher CO2 concentration “will probably survive eventual higher drought stress and some species may even be able to extend their biotope into less favourable sites.”
    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1
    For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61
    Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
    But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.
    http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
    Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.
    Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!
    Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf+html
    Atmospheric CO2 was prior to anthropological increases at the lowest level in 500 million years. See figure 3. Plants eat CO2. C3 type plants respond to increased CO2 by reducing the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces water loss due to transpiration. An optimum atmospheric CO2 level for plants is around 1200 ppm to 1500 ppm.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm
    Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.
    The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser.
    African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php
    Transpiration
    Transpiration – Summary Most plants respond to increases in the air’s CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. This water savings often results in greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which positively feeds back to increase plant growth. In this summary, we review a few papers that treat various aspects of this phenomenon.
    In a review of studies conducted over the prior decade, Pospisilova and Catsky (1999) compiled over 150 individual plant water use responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. They found that elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis in about 85% of the reported studies, while reducing stomatal conductances and rates of transpiration in approximately 75% of the cases analyzed. Consequently, atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased plant water-use efficiency in more than 90% of the experiments that were conducted; and it reduced total water uptake in more than 50% of the studies, while slowing the development of water stress as indicated by plant water potential data. As a result Pospisilova and Catsky concluded that plants growing in future atmospheres of higher CO2 concentration “will probably survive eventual higher drought stress and some species may even be able to extend their biotope into less favourable sites.”
    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1
    For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61
    Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
    But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.
    http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
    Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.
    Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!
    Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.

  86. Andrew30 says:
    July 17, 2011 at 9:14 am
    “Albert Arnold Gore Jr. has lied and perpetuated lies about Global Warming and Climate Change.
    Albert Arnold Gore Jr. if you think that the above statement is libelous then sue me, otherwise shut up and stop lying about Global Warming and Climate Change”
    Oh, that’s good. Koch brothers anyone?

  87. Stephen Rasey
    I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what you are trying to do. At day’s end, you are looking for a way to make crowd sourcing of rebuttals to warmist propoganda efficient to gather, search, index, and be made available to others easy, efficient, and effective. I think you have a number of challenges to consider:
    o standard formats for something like this will likely be cumbersome as there will be a tremendous number of situations in which the standard just doesn’t allow for the unique needs of the specific topic at hand.
    o horespower; you’ll need lots of it. gathering the data is one thing, making it available to millions of people to search and cross reference quite another thing.
    o keeping it current; corporations fall into this trap all the time. They embark on a grand plan to document (for example) everything there is to know about their customers (in order to serve them better). The data becomes stale faster than it can be gathered. AGW arguments evolve daily, and rebutting any given one is frequently more complex that can be captured in a few sentences, and so the rebuttals ALSO have to evolve and be kept current.
    o context, context, context!; the same arguments mean different things to different people. CO2 is logarithmic for example. That means one thing to physicists and engineers, another thing to warmists, and another thing to high school students.
    For what it is worth, I suggested this same sort of idea a long time ago, hence my support for it. Also, I think writing custom code or spread sheets won’t get you to where you want to be. I think leveraging infrastructure that already exists and is low cost makes more sense. In other words, why create something when you already have a great tool that can be used instead? Its called WordPress.
    I’m time limited right now as I have some RFP deadlines staring me in the face, but if you’ll drop an email my way it might be easier to discuss that way. david.hoffer AT mts.net

  88. My current view is that good science and the truth will not be enough to shut down the likes of Al Gore and all of his sycophants. They have bundled “global warming” along with other popular causes into a religious belief system. They believe by faith and probably will take this faith with them to the grave. The way I think we combat this dangerous religious fad is to volunteer in the local schools and help with the science programs. Either give after school science classes and/or just help out existing programs. You’ll likely discover that “science” in the public schools is being taught by people with degrees in literature, english, etc. The obligatory posters of polar bears and seals grace the science buildings and algores “An Inconvenient Truth” is considered one of the building blocks of the curriculum. We need to be in that world to help ensure that bad science is removed and good science and good scientific practice is the basis upon which curriculum is built.
    It ‘s critical that school children are taught what science is and the way that good science is done. This gives us a win – win, especially here in the US where we urgently need to upgrade our public school systems and do a better job teaching science and math. A educated citizen is less likely to be taken in by religious fads and bad science. The battle now is for our children and grand children and their success in competing with better educated children from other parts of the world.

  89. R.Gates MUST be a comedy writer. I have NEVER read anything that made me laugh SO hard. It brought up so many memories of things like Gore buying ocean front property, leaving his lights ON during “earth hour”, family money from oil AND tobacco, leaving the limo running during his “save the planet” vomitting. I mean the list of hypocrisy is incredible. Gates just HAS to be on our side, …….

  90. It may be his Gettysburg, but he also may be followed by the Gore Effect. With a looming La Nina and the roughly3 month delay it has in temperature effects up here, it may be pretty cool by September!
    This will be fun to watch.

  91. It would also be a nice touch to include sceptics who got it wrong, too. Let’s let chips fall where they may – makes your truths invincible.

  92. Formulaic, narrowly targeted, unemotional and unimpeachable research will win the day.
    The hallmark of good research is a narrowly defined topic. The process of gathering data needs to be purposeful and narrowly defined before the search begins. Else the answer is just as fuzzy and useless as the data. One of the warning flags would be the need for some kind of grand organization. If you need a complicated structure to organize the data, you have not narrowly defined and refined your purpose. Fuzzy in, fuzzy out.

  93. R. Gates said:
    July 17, 2011 at 5:49 am
    [Gore], to the very core of his being, truly believes in what he says and does related to climate change. To not understand this, is to not get a fundamental truth about those you would oppose.
    ==============================
    Yeah, that’s why he bought ~$4M beachfront property in San Francisco; a place he claims will soon be awash in CAGW rising seawater. And that’s why he uses more energy in one month at one of his five domiciles than the average American does in a year.
    Fundamental truth about Gore: snake oil peddler.

  94. Koch Brothers? Heh. Not even close.
    ===============
    GaryP says:
    July 17, 2011 at 7:19 am
    I am reading Ann Coulter’s new book, “Demonic” and it has good lessons about dealing with a mob and the warmists do fit that description. This post recommends reasoned arguments. Mobs do not respond to reasoned arguments. You need to provide them with mental pictures based on good arguments such as:
    Headline: “Electricity prices to double.” followed by a picture of the sweltering poor unable to afford air conditioning.
    Headline: “Greens stop coal plant in Africa.” followed by a picture of a hut where burning dung has to be used to cook food.
    Video of some idiot saying, “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
    Video of the unemployed in Montana where an aluminum plant was shut down because the greens in California will not allow power plants to be built.
    Get the picture? Every time the warmists show a picture of a polar bear, show a picture from Detroit.
    =====================
    I think this is one of the very best suggestions in the whole thread. It’s not Gore’s beliefs which are destructive, and I do think he believes some of them, it’s the policy changes that he and his ilk wish to inflict upon us.
    So let’s show the consequences of those policies.
    How about a video of people tring to manage with their 6 hour a day electrical allotment, then the camera pulls back to show that it’s us, under Gore’s policies.
    People freezing in the UK because the windmills are frozen/broken and not generating anything. The video can open with the green elites (eg: Gore, UK/EU pols) living high in their heated mansions with all the lights on.
    Show the Gov types adding up their new tax revenues while the sidebar to the video shows unemployment climbing.
    Make it sexy enough and you might get some media outlet to run with it, since they do love scandals and scare stories.
    CAGW isn’t about facts, it’s about emotion, power (control,) and money. So we need to show who’s profiting and who’s paying.

  95. Stephen Rasey
    Interesting analogy, thanks for the post.
    “Today we are engaged in a great Civil War of testing whether our nation, or any nation, conceived in liberty and individual freedom, can long endure the calls to “save the planet” through strong government and world government to better control the use of energy, land, and air by constraining the freedom of its subjects.”
    This statement rang a bell concerning something I read at http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/
    Report # 12- Climate Change, the Indoor environment, and Health. It’s a free read, 300+ pages.
    The goals they state are so pervasive that, well, make up your own mind.

  96. Anon says:
    “If you play the political game, go for the jugular – abolish the EPA, restore the Constitution, Nullify federal laws, restore sound money, etc”
    ___
    So you believe a country run by the Corporate elite would have your best interests at heart? Nullifying federal laws and abolishing the EPA would only assist large companies in their complete disregard for the environment. You think the companies that are doing natural gas fracking really care that much about what it might do to water supplies? (http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jun/30/cuomo-administration-outlines-plan-regulate-fracking/) In an age where multi-national corporations already control much of what goes on in Washington and other political centers of the world, I find your appeal to “restore the Constitution” rather charming, but equally naive. I certainly believe in the Constitution, but the age of “we the people” controlling our fate is sadly long gone. The political landscape of America is simply a battle for WHICH corporations control Washington and therefore get to write the laws (or abolish them) tol favor their industries. Most corporations now simply do what in the investing world is called a “straddle”, by contributing heavily to both parties, they know they’ll win either way.
    Maybe you’d like a government that pretty much let’s companies do whatever they’d like to so long as it “grows” the economy? This has been the case in China for the past 20 years, and the consequences to China’s environment have been severe. (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/31/archive/main178697.shtml, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/24/idUSPEK169088)
    Corporations exist for one reason: to make money. Protection of the environment is only done when that “horrible” EPA makes them do it. If you think companies will voluntarily spend billions to keep our environment clean and healthy, you simply don’t know what the term “maximize profits” means.The Corporate control of our political process goes back to the fact that to get elected takes millions of dollars, and the only way to pay for that is to take money from corporations, and they don’t give up their money without wanting a little something in return. So, until there is true campaign finance reform, where you don’t have to spend millions to get elected, there will be no changes in the control of our Democracy by the corporate elite. Until Mr. Smith can truly go to Washington, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/) and truly represent “we the people” and not ‘we the corporations”, it is an uphill battle.
    .

  97. Rather than tackle gore on science, how about on behavior. how a person acts tells you much more about what they truly believe, as compared to what they say.
    For example:
    1. gore lives in a big house and creates lots more co2 than the average person. does he want us all to live like he does? if not, then why does he live like this?
    2. gore has 4 children yet is going around telling women to have less children. apparently at the same time he was going around trying to spread his own seed, if events with tipper are any indication.
    3. gore in the past made his money selling tobacco. an addictive substance that causes great harm. reportedly his sister died of lung cancer. gore is a rich man. he says he regrets selling tobacco. has he set up a substantial trust fund with his wealth to pay victims of tobacco?
    4. gore was heavily invested in co2 tracing before ccx was sold. has he simply moved his investments into another co2 vehicle such as redd? has he filed a conflict of interest statement?
    5. gore says sea levels are rising dangerously but bought a property vulnerable to sea level rise. does this make sense if sea levels are rising dangerously?
    6. gore in his movie misrepresented the connection between temperature and co2 in the ice cores. he used a clever wording to overcome the causation problem with temperature leading co2, to imply that temperature was caused by co2.
    7. etc. etc.
    These points would seem to be the sorts of things that the average person would use to evaluate whether gore can be trusted. most people would skip the science because it isn’t their specialty. what most people look at is behavior to judge if the person is truthful or not. most people recognize that folks don’t always tell the truth, even to themselves.

  98. @davidmhoffer: horsepower is a non-issue.
    We are talking about a few thousand records and very simple query structure.
    Example
    What did [Hansen] say about [coal trains]? Output: Standard List:
    SourceRank, Date, SourceType, Source,
    __Quote,
    __Link to source,
    __Link to rebuttals.
    3-Original, 2009.02.15, Op.Ed., guardian.co.uk
    __ Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them (Op. Ed Title)
    __ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
    __rebut: http://junksciencearchive.com/ByTheJunkman/20090302.html
    __rebut: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/hansen-on-death-trains-and-coal-and-co2/
    End_example
    The key functionality sought is a simple way to collect from 100 volunteers, the hypertext quotation and supporting categorical data, via an open internet. Then reduce as much as possible the loading and cleaning to a small data structure. This is the kind of “database” that 50 years ago was done with index cards.
    Several people have asked, who is this for?
    It is for anyone skeptical of any claim.
    What is an easy way to quickly research a quote and learn who has already covered the ground with a documented rebuttal? Google can get you close, but there is an extra step to distill it and evaluate it. Saving the results of this distillation is worth doing.
    David, if a solution is a clever way to use WordPress, I’m all ears.

  99. David Ball says:
    July 17, 2011 at 10:46 am
    R.Gates MUST be a comedy writer.
    _____
    The first person to even come close to what I do for a living!
    But more to your point, the first rule of war is to know your enemy, and if you want to misunderstand what Mr. Gore is really all about, then go on believing that he is simply in this for some kind of power or money play. He, and millions of so called “greens” truly believe this is a cause to save mankind (and the majority of currently existing species) from a climate that will change so severely, that the majority of species could go extinct. If you want to “do battle” against them, you need to convince them that there is no threat of this happening. And this perceived threat comes not just from warming or climate change, but from a general breakdown of the systems that support life on this planet as we’ve come to enjoy it during the Holocene.
    If you want to do battle against Gore and the Greens, you will fail if you think they are not true believers that the earth’s life support systems are in peril. This is one of their core beliefs.

  100. The second part is to show what happens to countries that follow gores advice. Spain is the leading example of a country that tried to go green. they are in serious financial trouble with high unemployment.
    If you read the EU report on Spain you discover the problem. Spain has installed green energy with huge subsidies that now must be paid. These subsidies are driving up the cost of energy in Spain making it uncompetitive. This has led to plant closures and high unemployment, with falling tax revenues which cannot meet the cost of subsidies.
    The advice of the EU to Spain? Continue to install green energy, but don’t install the green energy that needs subsidies. Instead, install the green energy that costs the same as fossil energy and use that to replace your fossil fuel power plants. And do it quickly as you need to shut down the fossil fuel plants.
    The UK is now well on the way to following Spain. This is interesting because the French are finally getting their revenge on their historical enemy. Having installed windmills to meet EU regulations, the UK is now discovering that they are poor at making energy when it is needed.
    Thus, the UK now has to buy its power from France, which has made France the largest exporter of electricity in the world. In effect the UK has been forced by EU regulations to buy French electricity. The English are paying to build both English windmills and French nuclear plants, to the delight of the French. And of course the other EU countries that are supplying the windmills, knowing full well their limitations.

  101. See if we can get the manbearpig episode of SouthPark to air the night before to get the young ‘uns tuned up and at the same time Penn and Teller to get the old ‘uns primed.

  102. It’s really more like Napoleon after Borodino, when he enters the emptied Moscow trap. The long retreat is just ahead aided by General Winter.

  103. Here is a potential WordPress solution to continue the thinking toward the simple and flexible.
    In the Climate Fail category (or some other):
    Create an index page of Names, leaders of the climate change scientific and political realm.
    For each name, Link it to one or more pages. For instance there could be a Hansen-1980s, Hanson-1990s, etc.
    On each page, Commenters can post information about quotes in a simple text template format, such as
    Quote:
    Link:
    Source:
    Date:
    Topics:
    Other Authors:
    Rebuttal Tag:
    RebuttalLink:
    Rebuttal Tag:
    RebuttalLink:
    This is only to be a medium level index.
    Put no discussion here. Put that in the linked rebuttal docs or bookmarks.
    Limit the Rebuttal Tag to a short phrase. XML could be used, but I would rather keep it humanly friendly. Contributors keep to the format or the moderators will hose the contribution regardless of content. Can we handle errors and graffiti?
    With standardized tags, it would be fairly easy for data to be normalized and load later for better database search, but this first order organization could be an 80/20 solution, at least to get started with the first 1000 quotes.
    This structure allows for volunteers to take a page and publish a new one page with a sorted by importance and consolidated by topic and moderators can add the new page to the highest index.

  104. There is such a bad economic time coming to the Western world that no one will give the slightest bit of a d%#n about “global warming”.

  105. R. Gates says on July 17, 2011 at 11:53 am
    So you believe a country run by the Corporate elite would have your best interests at heart?

    Simpleton, NOBODY wants dirty air or dirty water. Those ‘corporate elites’ have to breathe, bathe and drink water too.
    Extrapolating the past into the future belies your narrow perspective; we are no longer using tube-powered IBM mainframs to perform payroll calculations …
    .

  106. R. Gates says:
    July 17, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    David Ball says:July 17, 2011 at 10:46 am
    R.Gates MUST be a comedy writer.
    “The first person to even come close to what I do for a living! ”
    Perhaps writer for Al Gore presentations?

  107. The overriding problem isn’t lack of proof of the mendacity, stupidity, self-deception or carelessness of “scientists” and their lackeys, but treasonous abandonment of MSM’s investigative journalism in favor of propaganda spewing.

  108. It would seem that the problem isn’t on the ‘hard science’ side, but rather in the political arena- where the news media has been working to create an atmosphere of Preference Falsification: anyone who casts doubt on our ability to *measure* human contribution to global climate change is tarred as a ‘denier’ and a tool of nefarious corporate interests.

  109. “The overriding problem isn’t lack of proof of the mendacity, stupidity, self-deception or carelessness of “scientists” and their lackeys, but treasonous abandonment of MSM’s investigative journalism in favor of propaganda spewing.”
    I’d not use the inflammatory language, but in essence I agree. If there were a list of villains in this mess, I’d put the NYT’s right up with Al Gore. Their abandonment of anything that even remotely smacks of journalistic integrity has been stunning.

  110. R Gates wants to argue that large corporations already control almost everything that goes on in Washington and in the next breath asserts that the only reason those same corporations aren’t running rampant over the environment in the pursuit of their one and only goal (profits) is the strict control the government has over them. Oddly, they have all that control yet can’t use it to achieve their only goal. Do you even listen to yourself R Gates?

  111. Is anyone else having a problem with A Lovell’s link (July 17, 2011 at 1:25 am) to the numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm site?
    I’ve tried from a search engine and get the same problem.

  112. I would suggest that the Google+ service would be an excellent platform in which to host private, in-group organizing. It can also be used to make public “blog posts,” provided they aren’t too long or complicated. It provides precise control over the visibility of posts: They can be made visible to a single person, to a small, ad-hoc group, or to large persistent, named groups whose membership changes continuously. Instant messaging, voice calls and group video conferences are also supported well.
    Large and/or complex documents not yet ready for publication could be shared and edited collaboratively using Google Docs, which will be ever more fully integrated with Google+ over time.
    Complex documents would still need to be hosted on a conventional web site, which could be organized thematically by topic and subject domain so as to present a coherent message as a whole. It could be an existing site, or a new one. Discussion of the site as a whole, and of the individual documents, would probably best happen on Google+. Requests to join the non-public discussions could be made by e-mail, or simply by using Google+ to send a message to one of the gatekeepers.

  113. Stephen Stasey;
    your wordpress description is sort of what I had in mind. At days end though, regardless of how small the database is, the question becomes how many people have access to it? If the input is crowd sourced, lots and lots. If the use of it is opened up to crowd source for assembly of rebuttals, other web pages, lots and lots. If only a handfull of people interact directly with the database, nope, you don’t need much horsepower. If thousands do….different story. If you set it up so that web pages can link to it…now we’re talking millions of threads.
    Keep in mind also the first rule of application development. Upon presentation of the final application to the end user, the invevitable comment is “that’s exactly what I asked for, but its not what I meant”. The second rule is that when you get the thing running, the avalanche of requests for tiny changes to make it “actually useful” will exceed the work that went into the initial project by several orders of magnitude. The third rule is that any attempt to make the application to straight forward so as to be fool proof, will instantly yield the evidence required to show just how clever fools are.
    What I had in mind was more like no database at all. By using crowdsourcing to gather content, you can also use crowd sourcing to keep it updated and current. You don’t need a searchable database (in my opinion) you need a list topics with a summary of the relative issues and CURRENT facts at the top, and the crowd sourced information to debate and justify them below. So…
    Wordpress already provides for that type of functionality. you can have categories and pages and comments below each page. So set up the issues, arguments, science, stories, etc how you would like, one to a page. Crowdsource the material (comments just like Anthony got will appear in droves, and some people will post in the standard you ask for and some people…most people…won’t). The moderator for THAT page keeps the top updated with an accurate summary of the issue, the claims, and based on the crowdsourced material documented in the comments below, a summary rebuttal with links to relative sources, web sites and cross topics. If you can get sufficient attention for the crowd sourcing, and sufficient number of moderators, there’s no need for an application at all. WordPress already has search tools, and the “database” will grow itself as commenters post links and present facts, and the moderator keeps the most important of these summarized at the top.
    Those who need only the summary and current state of affairs have it right there for easy reference, and those who want to dispute the summary, or provide additional information, or debate the fine points are free to do so in the comments. Warmists can comment just as freely as skeptics, just like on Anthony’s blog, but on that specific issue only. If you want to have an Al Gore page, you could even have an open invitation to Al Gore to set the record straight on any misinformation and so on.
    You could easily break things up into categories. One for people, the claims they make, and the facts like you have in mind for Al Gore. Another for favourite talking points like the plight of polar bears and the actual facts, or another might be the “big oil funding” rhetoric which would include lists a various research groups, including skeptic ones, and who their known funding sources are.. with an invitation to those groups and anyone else to post comments showing otherwise.
    Crowdsourced articles on Al Gore’s bullarky for example, might link to both public documentation, but part of the rebuttal might also be a more detailed explanation of a particular issue. For example, Al Gore’s public retraction of his stance on ethanol might include links to external sources where he was quoted to that effect, but also a link to a science page focused on the current known science on the net benefit of ethanol.
    No need for a database app in my mind, just some up front work settting up the categories and topics and recruiting enough moderators to keep the discussions under control and the summaries up to date.
    I hereby volunteer to moderate the “CO2 is Logarithmic” page.

  114. P.F. says:
    July 17, 2011 at 8:48 am
    We skeptics need to put good science, observation, and reason next to the many absurd notions of AGW and through that contrast, reveal how the entire movement is simply a Progressive agenda to redistribute the world’s resources through climate policy.”
    I keep hearing this – where does it come from? The object as I see it is to take wealth from every oik that has it to any degree, up to and including the ‘middle class’ and reduce everyone to practical slavery under ever more burdensome taxes
    and with drastic reductions in basic amenities, together with preventing the poorest nations such as in Africa from even rising out of poverty, meanwhile also exploiting their resources to the benefit of the few.

  115. _Jim says:
    July 17, 2011 at 1:37 pm
    R. Gates says on July 17, 2011 at 11:53 am
    So you believe a country run by the Corporate elite would have your best interests at heart?
    Simpleton, NOBODY wants dirty air or dirty water. Those ‘corporate elites’ have to breathe, bathe and drink water too.
    Extrapolating the past into the future belies your narrow perspective; we are no longer using tube-powered IBM mainframs to perform payroll calculations …
    ___
    Thanks for the personal attack. But keeping to the issue: If nobody wants them, then why is the environment so destroyed when there aren’t any government controls?
    It is you, I fear who are simplifying the way the world is. With the age of large multi-national corporations with lots of foreign ownership, many of the corporate owners don’t even live in this country, as foreign ownership has expanded greatly over the years (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/27/us-companies-ownership-usa-idUSN2744743020080827) . If they can find a place to build with less government regulation on their potential pollution causing activities, they’ll do it. Anything for profits. Or, if corporate owner are American citizens, they’ll live far from where their potential pollution causing activities are…most likely behind their walled communities, in their nicely manicured, and separate little utopias.
    You give far too much credit to the powerful and primary need of companies to make profits, with concern for the environment among most (but certainly not all) companies not high on the list of priorities. China, and all its pollution woes is a perfect example of what happens when all government control is taken away and profits and growth become the only imperative. Do you not think the Chinese would want to breathe clean air and have clean water to drink? Sorry, but the demand for profits trumps all in the world of complete unrestricted capitalism with no government controls.

  116. A database of all the exaggerations, errors and false prophesies on its own will do no good. No matter how extensive and thorough and rigorous, it will be dismissed as having been compiled by serial deniers funded by big oil. Getting a fair hearing in the MSM will be impossible. It the coming battle the alarmists have decided the field of battle and have impenetrable armour.
    To be brief, there needs to be two analogies brought to the fore.
    First is the legal analogy. If there is a case for CAGW, it must be demonstrated by primary, empirical evidence. That evidence must be tested by opponents. It is not the bits, that may be true – like lots more CO2 will cause some warming. But that there is sufficient CO2 to cause some warming, which will be magnified by positive feedbacks to cause even greater warming, and this substantive warming will destabilize the planet weather systems in a highly negative way. The counter-argument is two-fold – that many of dire, immediate, forecasts have been highly exaggerated and more importantly, the compound uncertainties that have been vastly underestimated. That the case is weak is shown by the prominence given to what is hearsay evidence, such as the consensus, or the proclamations of groups of scientists, or to the image of the hockey stick. In some cases, it has been tantamount to jury-tampering.
    Second is the medical analogy. A medical doctor, in proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, should at last have a strong professionally-based expectation that post treatment the patient will be better off than if nothing was done. The very qualities that make politicians electable – of being able to make build coalitions by fudging, projecting an image, and undermining the opponents by polarizing views – make them patently unfit for driving through and micro-managing effective policy to reduce CO2. They will of necessity overstate the benefits and massively understate the costs, whether financial or in human suffering. They will not admit that the problem is beyond their capabilities, nor that errors had been made. The problem is even worse in powerful dictatorships than democracies.
    I have tried to suggest a method (for those who are familiar with microeconomics) the IPCC/Stern case for containing CO2 here.
    http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/climate-change-policy-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-1-of-4/
    Also, why there is no effective, global political solution possible.
    http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/climate-change-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-2-of-4-the-mitigation-curve/
    What is missing is why the costs of global warming have been grossly exaggerated.

  117. If you want to stop a professional army with a disorganized band of sharpshooters, then perhaps Saratoga is a better model than Gettysburg.

  118. davidmhoffer says:
    July 17, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    R Gates wants to argue that large corporations already control almost everything that goes on in Washington and in the next breath asserts that the only reason those same corporations aren’t running rampant over the environment in the pursuit of their one and only goal (profits) is the strict control the government has over them. Oddly, they have all that control yet can’t use it to achieve their only goal. Do you even listen to yourself R Gates?
    _____
    Do you understand the battles that are constantly going on in Washington? Multiple groups with multiple agendas are constantly battling for control? These battles rarely have anything to do with what the “people” want or need, but more to do with the control of money and power. Some of these groups are corporations, whose goal is to create a legislative environment that favors maximizing their profits. They represent a huge cross-section of the business sectors, from corporate farming and telecommunications, to big pharmaceuticals to oil and military contractors. They pay lobbyists (many of whom were former senators and members of congress) big money to push their legislative agendas. There are about 10 lobbyists for every senator and congress person in Washington, and, in a very real sense, the majority of our laws are crafted by these lobbyists to position their companies or industries.
    It was during those “radical” 1960’s that a popular movement arose to do something about the dirty water and air that America was breathing, and drinking, and bathing in. 1060’s Books like “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson, in which she outlined the dangers of chemical such as DDT, created public awareness that all was not well with the environment in America. Industry groups of course opposed any sort of new regulatory agency to oversee pollution control, but under a lot of public pressure, and not wanting yet another reason for social unrest (he had the Vietnam war on his hands after all) Richard Nixon reluctantly signed into the law the creation of the EPA in 1970.
    But let’s be clear here, many companies despise the EPA and would love to see it abolished, and it seems they can get thousands of unwitting minions to spread this message around under the pretense of “Big Government hurts business”. What they are really meaning of course is that those pesky environment regulations cut into our profits.
    So yes, there is still some areas that big business has not been able to completely control in Washington, with the EPA being one of the last big ones, as there are honest government employees who continue to carry out the protection of our air, water, and soil. It is not surprising then that the EPA has become the focus and symbol of “big government red tape” among those who wittingly or unwittingly carry out the agendas of big business. So you can be sure that it is not for a lack of trying to get rid of these laws by big corporations, and you can be sure that in some areas of regulation, it is a matter of tolerating these regulations, and allowing this little victory for the common folk and the environment, so long as they can win big and control the larger financial picture.

  119. There already is a backlash against the AGW crowd like Al Gore. It’s incorporated in the TEA Party movement. No new taxes and shrinking government are their goal, a goal, which if accomplished, will go a long way towards thwarting the warmists.

  120. “Climate Reality” should read “Climate Unreality” or better “Climate Surrealism” I think.

  121. I’ll not comment any further than to observe (to continue the original analogy) that the bugle has sounded and the troops have rallied round the Colours. Each eager member of the Force of Opposition has a different idea as to how the forthcoming battle should be fought.
    What is needed now is a Leader able to synthesise from this mass of good ideas the strategy of defence and to appoint Lieutenants capable of taking this strategy and applying it in tactical situations without over-stepping the bounds of the original strategy. The next requirement is a body of troops willing, capable and able to take those tactical plans formulated within the agreed strategic parameters, and to put them into concrete action.
    This scheme has worked military wonders, it should give the same benefits to those opposing the Gorean onslaught.
    Might I nominate Citizen A. Watts as our General, his tried and trusted Moderators as his Lieutenants and, on behalf of the global band of WUWTers, volunteer our services in this Cause?
    Ask what you will and we will strive to fulfil.

  122. R. Gates @3:55PM
    I’m not going to bother responding to your diatribe. You’re original statement was a complete contradiction of itself, and you can go into as much detail as you want, but you can’t suck and blow at the same time no matter how many words you use.
    As for your attempt to use China as some sort of example of the evils of large corporations, please, just stop. China is a dictatorship, their entire government system is corrupt from top to bottom, and the environmental problems they have are a direct result of government mandated economic growth at all costs. Drawing a parallel to democracy and free markets is ridiculous.
    If you don’t like being accused of being a simpleton, then stop behaving like one.

  123. Quoted by Girma on July 17, 2011 at 5:22 am:

    Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men.

    Then it’s about marketing and clever repackaging. I am one of many men who have been sent out to purchase “feminine hygiene products.” Sell the product to the direct buyer. How many men wouldn’t be willing to pay a mere dollar more to head to the First Aid aisle instead and buy a plain-looking box of “insertable sterile absorbent periodic hemorrhaging control devices”? (Don’t worry about complaints from the “eventual consumer” as under the concealing overwrap is a normal box of a brand-name product. Guys, don’t forget to unwrap before bringing them in the house.)

  124. The problem with the musings of “R. Gates” is that he only looks at one side of a coin. Yes, corporations will do whatever they can to protect their profits, and Yes, there is less noticable pollution than in the past, but this has not been without cost. Even the benefits are questionable. As AW pointed out elsewhere, the rate of asthma has actually INcreased. Many Americans can afford fewer products manufactured in the U.S., partly because the environmental laws have put domestic manufacturers at a competetive disadvantage to foreign firms. The environmentalists’ solution to this would, of course, be one-world government, but there is no guarantee that “our” standards would be elected by such a government. Many African countries would probably like access to DDT.
    “R’s” alignment of “Big Government hurts business,” and “pesky regulations cut into profits,” actually addresses two separate problems. “Big Government” hurts business (of any size) because it sucks wind out of economic sails, through inflation, deflation, and/or the cost of paying interest on the public debt. “Pesky regulations” is another matter. Government can favor small, growing companies, or large companies looking to protect what they have. It cannot do both. If it chooses the latter, then the small companies which create most new jobs choke, economic growth declines, and a self-defeating pattern sets in.

  125. Comparison of miliary confrontation (Gettysburg) to climate related intellectual/scientic confrontation has limited use, but I appreciate Stephen Rasey’s caution about not underestimating the September Gore media blitz.
    I think the Gore event will be conducted with the help of expensive PR consultants (covert).
    Some independent/skeptical efforts to out think their protagonists could be useful irrespective of the September Gore events.
    John

  126. davidmhoffer says:
    July 17, 2011 at 6:02 pm
    R. Gates @3:55PM
    I’m not going to bother responding to your diatribe. You’re original statement was a complete contradiction of itself, and you can go into as much detail as you want, but you can’t suck and blow at the same time no matter how many words you use.
    As for your attempt to use China as some sort of example of the evils of large corporations, please, just stop. China is a dictatorship, their entire government system is corrupt from top to bottom, and the environmental problems they have are a direct result of government mandated economic growth at all costs. Drawing a parallel to democracy and free markets is ridiculous.
    If you don’t like being accused of being a simpleton, then stop behaving like one.
    ——–
    You apparently would rather issue personal attacks on me rather than address real issues. China’s embrace of capitalism is nothing short of amazing, and this “dictatorship” as you call their central government, has a very hands-off approach to many facets of how businesses go about being profitable. In doing so they’ve created a middle class that is larger than the entire population of the U.S. The downside has been the destruction of their environment. Before you call me more names, you might want to take some time getting educated about issues of which you speak.

  127. R Gates, re: China
    I’m sure my brother who lives in Shanghai would love to chime in here, but it seems that the government controls his Internet service and restricts some of the things he’d like to say… Or watch… Or read…

  128. “If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then extensive-but-incomplete knowledge is a constant torment.”
    R. Gates, you’re probably somewhere in-between. It will be some kind of miracle if you ever approach any level of correct data analysis in your lifetime.
    So, generously, I’m gonna go with “pretend left wing, expert scientist dinner party raconteur”, but “simpleton” works, too.

  129. Haven’t had time to read all the Comments, but one point:
    The AGW catastrophists will be defeated when a few prominent scientists and political leaders, those with enough celebrity to demand media attention, stand up and denounce the ‘global warming’ conjecture and the policies advanced to deal with it as an out-and-out fraud.
    /Mr Lynn

  130. R. Gates said:

    If you want to do battle against Gore and the Greens, you will fail if you think they are not true believers that the earth’s life support systems are in peril. This is one of their core beliefs.

    This is true, and ignore it at your peril. Because I believe Al Gore is an idiot, I have little doubt that he’s just not smart enough to be doing what he is doing purely for financial gain. He’s just not. He is, however, apparently a true believer in relieving people of their money so they can’t spend it to pollute. If a bit of it comes his way, well, that’s just fine, since he’s doing what he does for a NOBLE PURPOSE.
    I just got back from a week in Vancouver, British Columbia, the Canadian equivalent to California. I was amazed at some of what I saw. Now I know why I see so few “hybrids” or Prius type vehicles in Alberta… they’re next door in B.C. You can’t idle your car for very long. They have banks of “eco-friendly vehicle” parking spots tying up the spaces beside the handicap spots (interestingly, I never saw a car parked in any of those spaces). Now, if they really wanted to reduce fuel consumption, they’d be better off fixing their insane roads in Vancouver. These people truly believe they are saving the planet. One slow-moving tying-up-the-freeway vehicle at a time. They put a carpool lane all through the main road in Kelowna.. a fairly small town that has absolutely no need for such a thing. Everywhere I looked I saw overt and subtle “green” messages. Billboards. Ads on the radio. It’s a continuous onslaught that I’m sure residents of the province are almost unaware of.
    These are the dimwits that voluntarily enacted a carbon tax.
    After a week there, I began to believe that the B.C. license plate was almost equivalent to a warning to others of diminished IQ.

  131. Jeff says:
    “Government can favor small, growing companies, or large companies looking to protect what they have. It cannot do both.”
    ____
    Completely erroneous. There is no logical reason that federal, state, and local governments can’t be pro-business without prejudice as to the size of the businesses they encourage while at the same time still protecting the environment from exploitative practices that degrade ecosystems. It simply takes wise and dedicated leaders who have the best interests of the community in mind as opposed to being beholden to those who may have paid for their outrageously expensive election campaigns.
    As it turns out, those who complain that government is “in the way” of allowing businesses to be profitable are simply playing into the hands of businesses who’d like to get this notion instilled in the minds of simple-minded voters. It seems to be working with a certain segment of the voting population.

  132. Sean Peake says:
    July 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm
    R Gates, re: China
    I’m sure my brother who lives in Shanghai would love to chime in here, but it seems that the government controls his Internet service and restricts some of the things he’d like to say… Or watch… Or read…
    _____
    Personal freedoms are entirely separate issue from China’s embrace of capitalism. You are confusing political systems with economic ones. There are many private individuals in China who’ve gotten tremendously wealthy from China’s embrace of capitalism. The fact that they have a much more restrictive society in terms of political and personal freedoms hasn’t prevented many millions of Chinese from working hard to better their lot in life by riding on the back of the capitalistic wave. Working hard to better your lot in life is the hallmark of capitalism and is a fundamental human desire…something of course even Ayn Rand could appreciate.
    We in the U.S. should appreciate the growing wealth of China. Without them loaning us money by buying our debt, we couldn’t have funded our excessively large military establishment. Now of course, it’s time to pay the piper.

  133. R.Gates, kudos for your tenacity around here. Straight up. Do you not see the hypocrisy in Mr. Gore’s “do as I say, not as I do” approach, especially considering he stands to benefit financially if people believe him? Same for government. Aren’t you concerned that big brother is drooling over this, too? With ZERO benefit to the environment. From where I sit, none of these factions ( IPCC included) are interested in anything to do with “saving the environment”.

  134. R. Gates;
    You apparently would rather issue personal attacks on me rather than address real issues. China’s embrace of capitalism is nothing short of amazing, and this “dictatorship” as you call their central government, has a very hands-off approach to many facets of how businesses go about being profitable.>>>
    No, I’d rather not issue personal attacks. I’d much rather have a frank discussion of the facts with someone who doesn’t suck and blow at the same time and shoots off his mouth about things he suggests are true that just a few minutes of research shows are bullsh*t. What do you know about business is China? Ever done any? I provisioned all the hardware for the very first stock exchange in China including getting the US Government exemptions required to ship high technology to Denied Parties List countries, and explicit instructions from “officials” that under no circumstances would any bribing of customs officials or other officials to get the equipment across their borders be permitted. Then they wired an extra $100,000 over the purchase price along with instructions about who “not” to bribe and “how much not to bribe them”.
    You think they’re “hands off”? Tell that to the millions of peasant farmers who have been forced from their ancestral homes BY GOVERNMENT TROOPS and forced into cities built by “hands off” corporations while their land is turned over to “hands off” corporations for other development. Tell that to the Fallon Gong, provided there’s any of them left after being slaughtered to make way for “hands off” corporations. Tell that to the poor SOB that Google ratted on to the Chinese government in return for being allowed to do business in China. In fact, why don’t you drop into China, grab yourself a seat in an internet cafe, and start blogging about all the harm to the environment that specific Chinese “hands off” corporations are doing.
    your blogging will be short lived, and you’ll not likely meet anyone from any of those corporations you are criticizing. you’ll get to meet some very nice policemen from that very nice “hands off” government, and should you be lucky enough to survive their very nice interrogation, you might get to meet the guy who Google screwed over in the cell next to yours.
    Now grow up and stop spouting infantile nonsense, or stop complaining when you get called on it.

  135. Pascvaks says:
    July 17, 2011 at 6:25 am
    How about instead of Gettysburg we substitute Custer’s Last Stand, with Gore as Custer of course. Yeah, I know it shows great disrespect to Custer but the situation reflects Gore’s situation rather well. Everyone should know that Custer foolishly charged into his Last Stand, so it could have been called Custer’s Last Charge.

  136. philincalifornia says:
    July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    “If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then extensive-but-incomplete knowledge is a constant torment.”
    R. Gates, you’re probably somewhere in-between. It will be some kind of miracle if you ever approach any level of correct data analysis in your lifetime.
    ______
    Then I must be experiencing daily “miracles”.
    My ability to synthesize large amounts of information,draw accurate and clear analysis from it, and recommend effective courses of action, have served me quite well, thank you.

  137. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm
    Pascvaks says:
    July 17, 2011 at 6:25 am
    How about instead of Gettysburg we substitute Custer’s Last Stand, with Gore as Custer of course. Yeah, I know it shows great disrespect to Custer but the situation reflects Gore’s situation rather well. Everyone should know that Custer foolishly charged into his Last Stand, so it could have been called Custer’s Last Charge.
    ____
    Actually, it shows great disrespect to Native Americans to equate them with skeptics, especially considering their strong environmental roots.

  138. davidmhoffer:
    You continue to miss the entire point of me mentioning China in the first place…conveniently so I suppose. It is their ultra laissez faire system of capitalism WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, that has allowed them the screw up their environment so nicely. It seems those calling for an end to our EPA would like to take us back to a time we had such disasters as Love Canal and Times Beach? Or maybe we ought to do as some have suggested and trust that corporations, many with strong foreign ownership, are going to willingly do the right thing when it comes to the environment? Really, do you think they hold America sacred? It would suggest my friend that is you who might want to check your infantile fantasy level.

  139. This has to be extremely well organized. My suggestion is to take all comments that Al Gore makes and label each with a number and two or three words, such as “#4 tornadoes increasing” Now let us suppose he raises 30 points. Then we would have 30 numbers and 30 sets of responses. For anyone working full time and deciding to spend an hour or two reading WUWT, it is extremely daunting to see that there are 1000 responses and you may feel you have a good idea or good web site, but you need to look at each one to see nothing is repeated. So let us assume someone has a good graphic or other website or a good rebuttal for points 4 and 16, that person would just have to look at the entries for points 4 and 16 to see if something has been said already. Alternatively, if #4 has 50 comments and #16 only has 2 comments, that would be a good and fast indication where the rebuttals are weakest and are most needed.
    This also has the advantage that others can key in on their area of expertise very easily and augment or rebut comments without reading hundreds of comments they have no real interest in.
    Others have offered to help in some way. I have an engineering degree from 40 years ago and will be retired by September. So I am strong in chemistry and physics but weak in biology and computers. If you think you can use me somehow, please let me know.

  140. R Gates;
    Really, do you think they hold America sacred? It would suggest my friend that is you who might want to check your infantile fantasy level.>>>
    I never said a single word about what I thought the EPA should or should not do, nor did I say a single word about how corporations should or should not be regulated, or what they might or might not do in any given circumstance. You presented arguments that contradicted themselvesand/or were based on evidence that bordered on drivel.
    Now you resort to “oh yeah? well do you think blah blah blah too?” How pathetic is that? Unable to defend your own drivel, you instead attack what you accuse me of thinking. In order to win an argument with me you’ve resorted to pretending to know what I think and attacking that. How old are you? Twelve?
    You can’t defend your own assertions. You haven’t countered a single assertion I’ve made. All you can come up with is to put words in my mouth to belittle.
    My apologies to any twelve year olds reading this, I’m sure most of you could do better.

  141. The R Gates approach to science.
    R. Gates; I can prove that man has never been to the moon, it is all a scam. The big corporations took all the money and hid it for themselves and faked the whole thing.
    Sane Individual; Really? What evidence do you have?
    R. Gates; Mosquitos.
    Sane Individual; Huh? What do mosquitos have to do with it?
    R. Gates; If they can’t even get rid of tiny little things like mosquitos, how could they possibly send a man to the moon?
    Sane Individual; I see the issue here, yes it is clear to me.
    R. Gates; It is? So you agree with the obvious then?
    Sane Individual; No… I said I see what the issue is.
    R. Gates; And? You can’t refute it, you’re not dumb enough to claim that they CAN get rid of mosquitose are you? Because that would show how stupid you are.
    Sane Individual; No…that’s not it. The issue is that I am a Sane Individual. And you are not.

  142. R. Gates says:

    Actually, it shows great disrespect to Native Americans to equate them with skeptics, especially considering their strong environmental roots.

    I usually ignore your yapping, Robot gates, but did you read what you just wrote there? Really? I’m pretty sure that rates high on the stupid scale. With all due respect. ALL. Due.

  143. A recent paper on perceptions found that head to head exchanges of facts are not productive, and only cement the views of the proponents. Exemplified by the exchanges with R.Gates, it does nothing but encourage him.
    I fall for the same trap because it is fun, but does it convince anyone?
    My present strategy is to comment on an article on global warming in newspapers to refute or agree, quoting or pointing out a relevant fact, and then where it is possible to rate a comment, go through the whole lot even if it is in the hundreds and rate them all according to your point of view.
    It may seem tedious, but recently there seem to be far more ratings by those critical of AGW than by those sympathetic. People do listen to majorities, however unscientific.

  144. Why not have a wiki? We just need to do it a little different than Wikipedia. Instead of allowing just anyone to sign up and edit, how about a wiki that has moderated inclusion and moderated topics? By moderated inclusion, I mean anyone can request access, but only those known to be “non-CAGWists” will be given access to modify entries.
    A moderated wiki sounds easier than having someone create a monster database.
    Just my 2 cents,
    wermet

  145. R. Gates says:
    July 17, 2011 at 11:53 amMaybe you’d like a government that pretty much let’s companies do whatever they’d like to so long as it “grows” the economy? This has been the case in China for the past 20 years, and the consequences to China’s environment have been severe. ))
    Utter rubbish. Have you ever been there RGates?? Me thinks you are another textbook traveller like a lot of your Watermelon brethren.
    The Chinese have not just discovered mass production, industrialisation, overcrowding etc. They have been modifying their landscape for thousands of years. Go there, have a look, then stop your ignorant waffling.
    And while your ‘touring’ check out Al Gore & Elk hills. Those native Americans love him.
    regards

  146. Ref – Theo Goodwin says, July 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm
    Yes! That’s perfect! Gore as Custer. Custer as Gore. That IS a real fit. Arrogant, pompous, psychotic, conniving, deceitful, selfish, manipulative, gold digging, fickle, and disingenuous, it works! Little Big Horn and Climate Reality-AGW, yes indeed, perfect match once again. I know there’s probably one or two who will think the analogy doesn’t fit because a lot of Indians (American Indians not Indias from India) support some of Gore’s Pulpit Pandering. He does use a lot of their material for his own sleezy private gain; what a con-man. Can’t find anything in it that any sane, red-blooded, real, true American (native, native born, or not) would ever object to. Thanks again!

  147. I have managed to Google up something that echoes mightily many of R. Gates themes as espoused here and elsewhere. It may prove to be very informative.

    http://en.internationalism.org/wr/2010/332/new-green
    Understanding capitalism’s drive to destroy the environment
    Submitted by WorldRevolution on March 9, 2010 – 18:50

    Book Review:- A new green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of great civilizations
    In the light of the recent concerted propaganda campaigns undertaken by large industrial concerns, some politicians, Christian fundamentalists and various capitalist apologists against the science of global warming, and given Conoco Phillips, Caterpillar and BP’s recent defection from Obama’s token US Climate Action Partnership, Clive Ponting’s book, which underlines the threats to our very existence, provides a welcome antidote.
    This is a revised edition of a book of Ponting from 1991. Why has the author felt the need for a new edition in which every chapter, apart from the first, has been revised, rewritten and expanded? The answer lies in the deterioration and increasing destruction of the planet and capitalism’s inability to even begin to deal with it. (…) Indeed, the major concern of the USA to maintain and develop its military capacities against all rivals leaves it not only incapable of focussing on the dangers but actively contributing to them. Ponting also notes the question of ‘positive feedback’ and irreversible changes, where global warming affects the elements that further exacerbate global warming and threaten to spiral out of control. Though most of these effects are, they do not necessarily have to be man-made. Take the example of the release of methane from under the Siberian tundra, a natural phenomenon far more dangerous for global warming than CO2, but one that capitalism will do nothing about. This second edition is much more pessimistic about capitalism’s ability to solve any of the problems facing the global environment.

    It then discusses the many ancient pre-capitalism civilizations that eventually collapsed due to lack of sufficient environmental concern leading to ongoing catastrophic environmental destruction, starting after humanity got away from hunter-gatherer societies. Then came capitalism, influenced and shaped by religion, which has lead to ongoing catastrophic environmental destruction.

    Christianity decreed the superiority of man over flora and fauna and, though there was some dissent from this within Christianity and Judaism, this was God-given, eternal and part of the Divine Plan. Even in the eastern religions, where man was more at one with nature, unlike the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic religions, the economic and political forces in these areas also plundered the earth. The classical civilised idea in rising capitalism was that everything in nature is there for the provision of man and, though this idea was strongly undermined by Darwinism, it remains the blind ideology and driving force of capitalism today in its rapacious destruction of the planet and its unquenchable thirst for profits.

    Ponting clearly details the horrors of the rise of capitalism and its destruction of life through work, disease, pollution, urban sprawls, short-termism, poverty and its wanton destruction of the structure of the planet. He also points out that, contrary to previous societies, under capitalism it’s not the shortage of food itself but the shortage of money to buy food that causes starvation and malnutrition. He details the massive wastages of shipping commodities around the world, built-in obsolescence and advertising. One telling example that he gives in relation to capitalism’s ability to deal with global warming (for which he underlines the evidence) is the way it dealt with the depletion of the ozone layer. This is a relatively easy problem to deal with involving scrapping one cheap, easy to produce chemical and replacing it with another, safer one. Capitalism fought against this tooth and nail because profits were at risk and, to date, at least a million people have died from cancers due to this problem. It took years of denial and years of endless meetings until the problem was addressed, and then only when profits were assured. Ozone levels will be back to 1974 levels by 2065 at the earliest, so many more will still die. Global warming is a much more extensive and complex problem that goes to the heart and soul of capitalism and its necessity for profits. We can have no illusions that capitalism will seriously address this question.

    They did find a significant problem with the book, the rejection of Marxism.

    (…) But Ponting sees communism as a particular part of capitalism, a totalitarian expression of it where there is a direct line: Marx and Engels, Lenin, Stalin, the abomination of the Soviet Union. In this respect, he’s a straight purveyor of bourgeois ideology.

    Indeed, going by the work of John Bellamy Foster it is seen how capitalism cannot fix the environment, but Marxism can:

    (…) Capitalism is incapable of working with nature and its very operation violates nature as the drive to accumulate profits intensifies its destructiveness.
    A last word from Marx (Capital, volume 3, chapter 46): “From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of individuals on the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, it beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias” (‘good heads of the household’ in terms of working for future generations).

    Thus in this learned obviously-well-researched book lies broad agreement with the many concerns espoused by R. Gates, mainly how capitalism given free rein will inexorably lead to environmental destruction. I will take issue with the view about religion’s ties to environmental destruction due to long being taught in church about the call to be “good stewards of the land” as mankind does not own the Earth, it is the Lord’s and we as stewards should seek to improve it, leave it better than we found it, not despoil it. Indeed, the language used, including leaving it in an improved state for future generations, directly mirrors the quoted section from Marx.
    But that is but a minor quibble. I’m certain reading this enlightened tome would give me further insight into and provide evidential confirmation of R. Gates many well-reasoned viewpoints. I’m adding it to my one bucket list, the one to be followed when I need to be absolutely convinced there’s no reason to keep living at all and it’s time to move on.

  148. R. Gates:
    “There is no logical reason that federal, state, and local governments can’t be pro-business without prejudice as to the size of the businesses they encourage while at the same time still protecting the environment from exploitative practices that degrade ecosystems.”
    – Your position is interesting given that you complain at length regarding lobbyists, who naturally tend to over-represent the interests of large, mature firms. But, even assuming such “protection” succeeded in being non-prejudicial domestically, you have failed to address the fact that unless all foreign governments undertake equally costly protections, U.S. firms are placed at a competitive disadvantage by such regulation.
    “It simply takes wise and dedicated leaders who have the best interests of the community in mind as opposed to being beholden to those who may have paid for their outrageously expensive election campaigns.”
    – Yes, and it would be great if environmental NGO’s were not beholden to the corporate interests they sold themselves to in return for their use as proxies, but some of us live in the real world.
    “As it turns out, those who complain that government is “in the way” of allowing businesses to be profitable are simply playing into the hands of businesses who’d like to get this notion instilled in the minds of simple-minded voters.”
    – The question is WHICH business, and the issue is jobs. In order to grow, the economy must create jobs in excess of workers entering the market. Unemployed can be supported, but cannot generate economic growth. Most new jobs are created by small, growing firms. Create a situation where large firms with influence (lobbyists) protect their profits, but small firms cannot create enough new jobs, and the inevitable mathematics set in.

Comments are closed.