Al Gore - a survivor

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I think both parties stink at this point in time. I like to think that I look at facts in arriving at a conclusion. And when it comes to anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, I just don't see any evidence. Specifically with Al Gore, the way he argues is intellectually dishonest. Let me explain.

My wife and I watched the 60 minutes interview with Al Gore in the of 2008spring. His wife Tipper said in that interview that "Al's survival after his defeat in 2000 depended on his immersing himself in the climate cause". So it seems that Al's global warming crusade was about finding something for Al to do. His wife says it was about his survival.

In the same interview, Gore says "are we destined to destroy this place that we call home, planet earth? I can't believe that that's our destiny. It is not our destiny. But we have to awaken to the moral duty that we have to do the right thing and get out of this silly political game-playing about it. This is about survival". Mr. and Mrs. Gore seem a pretty anxious couple, constantly concerned about survival ....

But this is what really got my attention: towards the end of the interview, Lesley Stahl asked about skeptics. Those who say about global warming / climate change that "we don't know what causes it and why spend all this money till we really know" (Stahl's words). Before Gore answered, I said to my wife: he will not address their scientific arguments, he will attack them. My wife said "of course he will, he is a politician". Here is what Gore had to say about those who question the assertion of anthropogenic climate change: "I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off".

So Al Gore's strategy is to squelch legitimate scientific discourse with insults. He is also saying that if enough people believe something (as opposed to proving it out), then they are right.

However, we can take comfort in this exchange from the interview:

"You have said, and I'm going to quote you, 'If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis,'" Stahl said. "I can't think of a time I've heard the candidates talk about it."

"Right. Well, I'm not finished yet," Gore said.

Right. Well, the campaign is well over, so you must not have done your job right, Al.

----------

To those who believe that we need "stop global warming", or have similar beliefs: when discussing this issue, or any other issue, we must discuss facts. Otherwise, we will get nowhere. If we try to shout down the other side, or badger them, you are not likely to convince anybody of anything.

Look up "climate change" on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change). Look at the first graph, the ones that shows temperature variation over the last 500,000 years. Can you at least see why people like me are not getting all that excited about a supposed 0.5 C increase in temperature over the past 100 years? Can you see how this is insignificant this 0.5 C is in comparison to the 8-10 C decrease we soon be facing if we indeed are the end of an interglacial period?

Also read what Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, has had to say on this issue. He is hardly a shill for big oil.

If you can at least entertain the possibility that the issue climate change is not settled, then I will admit to you the possibility that I might be wrong. Yes, you heard it right: the other side might be right, and I might be wrong. I would just need a whole lot more evidence before I am going to join the camp of those who believe that global warming in caused by humans and that this warming is a problem.