James Taylor writes in Forbes about ‘Fibber McGore’ and his webcast numbers game.
‘This leaves us with either of two possibilities; they are completely ignorant of basic meteorological data or they are deliberately misrepresenting the truth because they believe the ends justify the means.
Either way, they are tying their credibility to Al Gore. That is a losing proposition.
Full story here
The comparison is a bit unfair to the original Fibber. McGee was a much deeper and more complex character than Algore. Fibber often confessed, in an aside to the audience, that he didn’t know why Molly continued to tolerate his bloviations and tall tales. Most of the other characters (except for the Mayor, who was a real self-important humorless insightless blowhard) understood Fibber’s inner solidity and liked him
Algore is much more like Mayor LaTrivia.
Completely random, no good reason to post this anywhere on WUWT, except it’s deceptive, ultimately maddening, and fooled me for a bit, thus it’s somewhat similar to Al and his message.
Besides, some people might want a laugh before the Thanksgiving Madness fully descends.
Just found this as a “sig” on a message board, thought it worth sharing. I wonder if there’s a clear “free to copy and use” version around somewhere.
Click this Photobucket link!
Other than that Mrs. Gore, how was the play?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/11/20/2-ipcc-announcements/
Truthseeker: MattS and the other pendants
No need to hang them : > )
James Taylor,
Lets consider the implications for the Gore philosophy if he does think the ends justify the means. The rational treatment of consistency between actions and values to be achieved by those actions is frequently found in Ancient Greek period of philosophy.
For the rational tradition in philosophy one should have consistency between means and ends; metaphorically, epistemologically and morally.
For the subjective tradition in philosophy there is nothing to be consistent about in reality.
Is the philosophy of Gore from the subjective tradition which would see no problem of in consistency between means and ends? It seems so. It appears to me that he thinks he can subjectively make things up as reality.
John
Correction to my comment @ur momisugly John Whitman on November 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Change this original paragraph:
To the following revised paragraph:
John
Ya know, with all of your good comments above, it always just frightens the heck out of me, that this man came within a handful of votes of being president.
“The ends justify the means.”
Sorry, that isn’t even Machiavelli. He wrote something more like, “When judging men, especially Princes, and there are no disinterested observers, the people will take the results into account”. Every translation is a bit different.
The most effective modern use is the “politics of personal destruction” that the Clintons were so good at. You see, whenever an disinterested observer actually bubbled up to the top the machine would go into overdrive, assuring the observer would be transformed, labeled a crooked political hack and ignored. Problem solved.
john robertson says:
November 21, 2012 at 10:04 am
Credibility and Gore?
—————————–
John, correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t those two mutually exclusive?
[snip. Fact-free pejoratives are not welcome. — mod.]
James Taylor has no credibility whatsoever. He has a track record of deliberately misrepresenting the truth.
And for the record, it’s a joke that my initial comment was “snipped” with the remark that “fact-free pejoratives are not welcome” when this comment thread as well as James Taylor’s linked op/ed are filled with “fact-free pejoratives.” It would be nice to see consistency from the moderators.
Y’all should come on over, Russell Seitz is attempting to defend the 16M figure.
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/
BTW, if the name Russell Seitz isn’t familiar, he’s the genius behind a “parody” website, http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/ (notice the clever “double-v” there).
His blog (which doesn’t allow comments), started on Wednesday, February 8, 2012. Guess it’s because he didn’t like the coverage he got here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/27/foaming-climate-change/
The crucial term, often ignored, in Hanlon’s Razor is “adequately”. Lukewarmists would have it that lack of understanding or intelligence is sufficient to explain massive misrepresentation and posting of a claim on total power over the economics of the planet.
Despite the fact that history uniformly refutes that possibility.
Sheer stupidity?? Or …