Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Brits Taking on Algore's "Truth"

Pretty interesting that Algore's forces finally responded to the British Judge who pointed out some inconvenient factual errors in Algore's movie. The best item is where they start:
The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past.
Unfortunately, Algore's spokeman is wrong. As pointed out by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
NewsBusters is the title link that leads to all this fascinating discussions on truth. Monckton is an interesting character from what I've read so far, though he comes across as a British Ross Perot. He makes sense, and then says things that are a touch whacky.
Mr Monckton, 55, said yesterday he had expressed his concerns that the official views on climate change were going unchallenged and felt it right to circulate his presentation to every school in Britain so that, if head teachers saw fit, pupils could be allowed to see some of the scientific material the government was "rather anxious" that they should not see.

He said those preaching about climate change were acting from the same motives as those who got DDT banned, resulting, he said, in between 30 million and 50 million deaths from malaria.

"They are the same suspects - people who hate western values. Some of them are communists."

Umm, yeah. He started out ok, but that "communist" thing is probably a bit over board. But that should be counter balanced by Al-I-invented-the-internet-gore's statement. Sadly, it won't be. Reading the piece by Kalee Kreider you definitely come out with a bad taste as well. Especially at the start when she runs through the character assassination attempt by pointing out that Monckton is associated with a mining industry. Which we all know immediately disqualifies one from understanding scientific facts when they are presented without evidence.

It's also interesting to read the British papers who define him and the parties he associates with as "right-wing" but then they fail to do the same characterization of Algore's minions as being left-wing.
Monckton was one of the backers of Stewart Dimmock, the Kent lorry driver and school governor who took the government to court for sending copies of Gore’s film to schools.

The two are connected through the New party, a right-wing group whose manifesto was written by Monckton and of which Dimmock is a member.

Not that they have an issue with distorted reporting. Not any more so than we do here.

Algore's mouth piece doesn't provide anything new to the discussion. Just revamping previously trodden paths of "consensus" and the cherry-picked findings of the IPCC. None of which adds anything to the debate. Monckton's view is at least informative in that it takes you to the places that no one seems to want to go who is among the "consensus." Honest debate requires that both sides at least listen and consider the point of the other. Algore's movie and his climate change minions have come to the point of cramming their point of view down everyone's throat as truth, when it is only theory and is a contested theory at that.

Sadly they still don't get that this is a much easier sell if you show people all the reasons to get off of fossil fuels.

You'd think Algore would be better at the selling thing than he is.


Ed Darrell said...

You may want to check it out more deeply, such as here:

And here:

It's just my opinion, of course, but I think Monckton's other shenanigans paint him as a crank. Is he the best the GDS* sufferers have?

*Gore Derangement Syndrome

Nylarthotep said...

The level of parsing that goes on in both of those links is interesting. They really come down to trying to figure out what Gore meant. They also attempt to parse "error" from "exaggeration" which I find a bit distasteful. At some point exaggeration becomes error. Frankly I find that unworthy of a scientific discussion.

Gore is a politician and not a scientist. He proves that every time he opens his mouth. His book and movie are propaganda pieces. They have sufficient factual evidence to support their argument while allowing forgiveness of their exaggerations. Unfortunately, what was formerly known as a documentary has fallen by the wayside with Michael Moore and Gore's standards of presenting the evidence. Formerly documentaries would provide the facts and let you decide, now they provide their side of the argument and demand you believe.

I have no doubt Gore has good intentions. I think he's a horrible salesman. That is why this whole discussion was brought to court in the first place. If Gore had avoided politicizing the argument it would have been simpler to pass to the world. Unfortunately he decided to present extreme views on some theories as being truth. That is where the errors really show.

Unfortunately, this all becomes a distraction from the topic. And the fact that Gore's supporters now denigrate anyone that disagrees with their "consensus" is shameful. If this were a truly honest discussion those with alternative views would at least be heard and work accounting for multiple variables would be worked on. Instead there is just a lot of shouting about what idiots both sides are. But, no doubt, the MSM is trying to give a reasonable report of the reality of the situation.

Ed Darrell said...

The movie's a hit, millions of people saw it, it's selling well, and it's prompting action. When people buy what one is selling, doesn't that usually mean the salesman is a good salesman instead of a bad one?

It's a quick and dirty observation that Gore is a politician and not a scientist. But on those occasions I've worked with him, he's held his own with scientists, and earned their respect. He understands the science better than 99.9% of other government and political leaders. He's very valuable to scientists as a result. Scientists have been happy to let him carry their water on key issues over the last 30 years or so, on toxic waste cleanup, on organ transplants, on expansion of computer networks, and now on climate change. I'm not sure it's accurate to term Gore's views as "extreme" when they are so middle of the road on the issue, and endorsed by way more than 95% of the scientists working in the area. It's difficult to get more unextreme than that.

It ain't the Gore fans who started this little war of urination. The man spent four or five years talking up the need to do something about global warming. He made a hit movie, won an Oscar, a Grammy, and the Nobel Peace Prize. He's telling the story that almost every climate specialist on Earth wants the public to know.

How can you fail to notice that your complaints are just sour grapes?

Nylarthotep said...

Sour Grapes? How's that? I'm merely stating he could have done a better job at selling this worthy concept and that some of the positions he's taken are far from any consensus view as is clearly indicated by your own links. Frankly I find it sad that he hasn't done a better job.

As for the observation that Gore is a politician, that is neither dirty nor quick. Gore's run for president, been the vice president, and a senator. What isn't obvious about that. Dirty, I think not, just honest.

And as for selling a movie, it is far from selling the concept of global warming. You'd note that very little action has occurred on that front in the US and many of the actions along the line of the Kyoto protocols are a joke.

As for the pissing contest, it takes two to play. Just because they didn't start it doesn't mean they are right either. You want to have a debate on the topic you have to listen to the other side and not just call them names and yell for their removal from the debate.

But, as my point has been that this is a worthy topic and that he hasn't been doing the best job in selling the topic, you are truly showing your stripes as being a fanatic on the topic rather than anyone trying to actually find the truth.

Next you'll be telling me that every exaggeration made by Gore is allowable since it's false but accurate.

Ed Darrell said...

What exaggeration by Gore? What evidence can you show that you think it's a worthy topic, especially when you repeat the old canard about Gore not representing the mainstream view on the science?

Your denialism is smoked out. You think Gore's done a lousy job because you wish he were not right, because for some odd reason you don't like Gore. This has nothing to do with global warming, and really, not much to do with Gore either.

You're unhappy you can't experience schadenfreude of Gore losing, because he keeps winning. I wonder what the word for that is?

Nylarthotep said...

Exaggerations by Gore? Haven't you read the links that you yourself posted in the original comments? I'm reiterating what the scientists polled in that blog stated themselves. This isn't my original idea.

As for denialism, I have stated several times that I think his cause is a worthy one and that something needs to be done. Gore has in fact done more to divide people on this topic than to bring them together,which clearly is why he's done a poor job. There is very likely a lot of Gore Derangement Syndrome involved in this, but that doesn't change the facts that he's only aggravated the issue rather than moving the debate closer to consensus.

You're unhappy you can't experience schadenfreude of Gore losing, because he keeps winning. I wonder what the word for that is?

You certainly have twisted your little mind into a knot trying to make a point that doesn't exist. Maybe you should actually work a little toward reading for comprehension rather than flipping out on what you feel I want things to be.

geekwife said...

I think Ed is proving what we frequently say about the left quite wonderfully - they can't argue logically and instead engage in ad hominem attacks.

Rather than respond to your point that the links he himself provided show that Gore exaggerated, he essentially calls you names. Because you don't agree with him 100%, he responds as if you completely disagree (if you're not with us, you're against us!) and psychoanalyzes your reasons for being an "unbeliever."

None of which addresses the point, or is particularly civil or adult. And it certainly isn't logic.

Ed Darrell said...

It's a question of evidence. Instead of paying attention to what is known, and what we can measure, you're making claims that are not only unsupported, but contradicted by almost all of the evidence we have.

"As for denialism, I have stated several times that I think his cause is a worthy one and that something needs to be done."

Perhaps so. Nothing in evidence here. It reminds me of a discussion I had recently with a Holocaust denier. He kept saying that he wasn't a holocaust denier, but he questioned absolutely every claim about its well-established history -- number of people killed, places they were killed, methods of killing, consequences, and so on. And it reminds me of a recent discussion with a creationist who claimed not to be one who denies evolution, but had a great distaste for "Darwin's many errors" and the complete failure of evolution theory.

Are you an advocate of action on climate change? Good. I don't see it. Maybe you could provide links.

But then you say: "Gore has in fact done more to divide people on this topic than to bring them together,which clearly is why he's done a poor job. There is very likely a lot of Gore Derangement Syndrome involved in this, but that doesn't change the facts that he's only aggravated the issue rather than moving the debate closer to consensus."

Since Gore began his campaign of informing people, public awareness has doubled, public perceptions of dangers of global warming are way up, and there is firm public consensus in the U.S. to act, and act soon. Several states and cities have chosen to proceed with actions to reduce warming and other pollution despite no support from the Bush administration.

What evidence is there of Gore failure? Well, of course, there's the financial success of the movie, his packed lectures worldwide, the Oscar, the Grammy, and the Nobel.

How could I possibly miss that? ;-)