Olbermann - Setting The Record Straight On Gore's Energy Use

[Hissyspit]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/28/olbermann-on-gores-energy-use-setting-the-record-straight/

Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight
By: SilentPatriot on Wednesday, February 28th, 2007 at 5:05 AM - PST
You knew after his big night at the Oscars Sunday, the far right would come out in full force against former Vice President Gore. Since these single-minded sensationalists never let those pesky "facts" get in the way, Keith breaks down the utility bill.



Download (2296) | Play (2287) Download (867) | Play (1338)

I have no problem with "think-tanks" scrutinizing Al Gore, but (a) for The Tennessee Center for Policy Research to call itself an independent and nonpartisan organization is laughable and (b) if they want to maintain that facade, try getting the full story at least.

(Nicole: Do you suppose that they are equally up in arms by the fact that taxpayers are paying Dick Cheney's electric bill at the Vice President's mansion? You know, the one that had an $186,000 electric bill in 2001? Nah, that probably doesn't bother them in the least.)

Breaking news from Will Bunch: Al Gore uses electricity…

GO TO LINK FOR VIDEO

[jarnocan]

1. thanks- this bu**sh** is inending-Thanks KEITH! nt

[percussivemadness]

2. go keith

however, without wishing to get slammed, until Global Warming takes account of sun activity in its computer models, I`m going to be a bit skeptical to the doom and gloom claims of the Global Warming posse....

notwithstanding, KO again does a splendid job...

[kestrel91316]

3. I think the climatologists are aware of the existence of the sun,

and have taken it's well-known activity into account already.

If they had failed to do so, I suspect none of their thousands of research articles would be accepted for publication, as they have been. A glaring omission of that magnitude would not be given a pass.

Sorry. Try again.

And enjoy your stay.

[moez]

4. Uh oh....

Don't question religious doctrine around here..... you'll quickly be labeled, tarred and feathered.

[FlaGranny]

7. Religious doctrine?

Interesting. Scientific studies are religious doctrine? Okay. Whatever makes you happy, I guess.

[moez]

8. Ooops... looks like I've stepped into it now myself...

First, try and take a deep breath - everything will be OK.

I'm not questioning global warming. I'm just not convinced of the causes yet.

If you are, that's nice.

[PaulaFarrell]

9. What do you base your skepticism on? n/t

[Auntie Bush]

11. Maybe it's based on freeper like mentality.

[moez]

15. I'll reply to you

Since you were the only one that seemed to be able to ask a valid question without implying that either I am: a) a freeper; b) not a scientist, therefore unfit to have an opinion; or c) some other absurd ad hominem attack because I dare not agree with you.... Anyway, thanks for that.

In reading articles such as http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?ex=1320555600&en=803028cb05066921&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss or http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/02/14/News/Inconvenient.Truth.With.A.political.Slant-2718689.shtml by what appear to be learned researchers on the topic, it appears that there is room for honest disagreement by non-partisan experts on the issue.

The fact that a majority think one way or another is not really relevant to me. All you have to do is look back in time for countless examples of occasions when the majority thought one way and a few lone voices questioned the conventional wisdom.

I think the smack-down that I've received because of my questioning of this pretty much displays why I view this as a religion around here. Daring to think against the group labels me a heretic (i.e. a freeper), an anti-intellectual ("are you a scientist", "have you read the report", etc.) or some other such nonsense. Any debate or questioning of the issue is completely shut down.

I think there are good, honest, and intelligent people on both sides of the discussion. Given that, I am not willing to completely say that one view or the other is the absolute truth (because no, I am not a scientist....)

[Shakespeare]

18. "both sides of the discussion"

The skeptic side of the discussion is a very lonely place these days. Perhaps you should step back and take a good, hard look at the overwhelming concensus on climate change.

[PaulaFarrell]

20. and I'll reply to you

It's important to understand that climate change due to human activity is not 'conventional wisdom'; it's a theory which was first postulated decades ago, and which has pretty much been ignored, until it could no longer be. It is only because of the mountain of accumulating evidence of warming that it has become the issue that it is today, as it was definitely a fringe issue until just a few years ago.

I have read the articles you cited, and both rely principally on one person, Geiegengack, who is a recognised 'skeptic'. His views may be genuine but the fact that he is in such a minority is shown by the fact that he is cited so often (and with so many different titles - geologist, paleoclimatoligist, hydrologist - it seems to vary by the content of the article). The research he cited is inconclusive, and most importantly (to me) is that he is primarily a geologist, studying rocks that were formed millions of years ago, and not a climatologist by trade. It's not that I doubt his intelligence or integrity, but geologists tend to think in different terms than climatologists.

The other study cited (the 'cosmic ray' theory) was challenged by many others: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2004/2004012216419.html

and Jan Veizer is also a recognised 'skeptic'.

The problem with newspaper articles is that they tend to present two sides as if they were of equal weight. By rights, the views of these two people should only be footnotes at the end of the article, but then there wouldn't be an article if the journalists weren't trying to create controversy where none really exists.

You say you don't mind about the number of people who have an opinion, that you are willing to be convinced by the minority. But scratch any subject and you will find dissenters, and pretty convincing they sound too. There are, after all, people who can tell you exactly how it can be proven that the Holocaust never happened. For myself, I will always go with what appears to be thorough meticulous research which is backed up by 99% of the scientific community. Even if it's something I really wish was not true.

[moez]

22. Thank you for your reasoned, logical response.

I'll consider what you've said as I peruse further.

I must say though that I find Geiegengack's (a self-described liberal) discussions regarding the politicization of this subject to be compelling and something that I see endlessly around here. I cannot understand why my reluctance to fully embrace this theory stirs up such animosity.

Regardless, thanks again.

Moez

[Tyrone Slothrop]

10. Are you a scientist?

[NickB79]

13. Have you read the latest IPCC report

It pretty clearly states what the cause of global warming is.

[endarkenment]

14. You do understand the difference between religion and science

RIGHT?

Because the evidence has caused virtual unanimity within the scientific community that the cause of this particular warming trend is human activity.

Do you have reasons for your scepticism, or is it just based on faith?

[Alexander]

17. Hurricane Katrina wasn't enough evidence for you?

I mean, jeez, do you need someone to hit you over the head and spell it out for you?

[NickB79]

12. They already have, in the latest IPCC report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Factors_that_warm_or_cool_the_planet

"AR4 describes warming and cooling effects on the planet in terms of radiative forcing - the amount of energy being added to the system, measured in W/m². The report shows in detail the individual warming contributions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, other human warming factors and the warming effects of changes in solar activity. Also shown are the cooling effects of aerosols, land-use changes, and other human activities. All values are shown as a change from pre-industrial conditions.

* Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is a warming force of about +1.6 watts/m2
* Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m2
* Radiative forcing from carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide combined is very likely (>90%) increasing more quickly during the current era (1750-present) than at any other time in the last 10,000 years."

You'll notice that human activity (+1.6 W/m2) is 13 times as much as the increase in solar intensity. So, even taking into consideration the increased solar intensity since 1750, they still concluded that humans were responsible for almost all of the warming we've seen in the past century.

[kysrsoze]

19. You'll have to explain "sun activity." I've never heard of this factor - anywhere

I've heard of solar storms in which high levels of radiation are released, but they don't have any impact on warmth of our planet. Even Exxon is acknowledging global warming. My neighbor is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. During the last national gathering, they voted UNANIMOUSLY that global warming does indeed exist and the evidence supporting it is irrefutable.

Please elaborate on your theory of "sun activity."

[Sapere aude]

24. I'll go you one better. Until we all face dire consequences of global warming let's don't

do anything. I mean why waste time and money on something that might happen. If we do nothing and there is no global warming caused by man we are just sitting pretty. If we do nothing and global warming caused by man causes us to face some dire consequences we are screwed. It is a 50/50 gamble. Wouldn't we all be willing to take those odds?

[jpak]

25. The potential effect of solar variability has been examined time and again - and rejected

as a significant influence on recent climate change.

It's been done already - why do people continually hold up this jaded canard to "debunk" climate science???

Get over it...

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. KNR for KO and truth! ....n/t

[underpants]

6. Recommended

[Hissyspit]

16. .

[Kurovski]

21. Kick.(nt)

[Poiuyt]

23. Thank you for that