Al Gore and the Mouth Breathers at Western CPAC

27 Comments

1. Ah yes, nice way to bolster your logical case, calling a State Senator who represents almost a million people “a mouth breather.” Nice. Fine. Very dignified. So uplifting in making a rational argument.

   Frankly, the Nobel Prize committee often makes me ashamed of my one-quarter Norwegian heritage.

   In case you’ve forgotten about some of the past honorees, let me remind you:
   2005: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (they’ve done a great job in Iran, eh?).

   2002: Jimmy Carter, Jr. (he really loves Jewish people, doesn’t he, especially in Israel).

   2001: UNITED NATIONS and KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General (oil for food scandal corruption, anyone?)

   1992: YASSER ARAFAT (great humanitarian and lover of boys).

   1990: MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV , President of the USSR, helped to bring the Cold War to an end (by giving up because Reagan didn’t give in).

   1985: INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR (on the wrong side of the Cold War – if they had their way, there’d still be a Soviet Union and 1990’s prize winner, GORBACHEV, would have had no prize for surrendering).

   1973: LE DUC THO , Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. (At least he had the integrity to decline the prize as he knew that his nation would overrun South Vietnam in only two years, setting off the deaths of about 2.4 million people and making refugees of hundreds of thousands of others.)

   Yep, the Nobel Prize committee really knows how to pick ‘em. But, what the hell do I know? I’m just a “Mouth Breather” who graduated cum laude from Claremont McKenna College, one of the top 20 colleges in the nation, made it to lieutenant colonel in the Army, and worked in the aerospace industry for 13 years. Nope, dumb as a sack of rocks… That’s me…

   All the best,

   Chuck DeVore
   State Assemblyman, 70th District

2. You’ll enjoy this Boston Globe piece today by Dane, Bjorn Lomborg entitled, “An inconvenient Peace Prize.” (Thank goodness I’m Danish too.)

   http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/13/an_inconvenient_peace_prize/

   Excerpts:

   …the IPCC’s estimates and conclusions are grounded in careful study, Gore doesn’t seem to be similarly restrained.

   Gore told the world in his Academy Award-winning movie to expect 20-foot sea-level rises over this century. He ignores the findings of his Nobel co-winners, who conclude that sea levels will rise between only a half-foot and two feet over this century, with their best expectation being about one foot. That’s similar to what the world experienced over the past 150 years.

   Likewise, Gore agonizes over the accelerated melting of ice in Greenland and what it means for the planet, but overlooks the IPCC’s conclusion that, if sustained, the current rate of melting would add just 3 inches to the sea-level rise by the end of the century. Gore also takes no notice of research showing that Greenland’s temperatures were higher in 1941 than they are today.

   The politician-turned-moviemaker loses sleep over a predicted rise in heat-related deaths. There’s another side of the story that’s inconvenient to mention: rising temperatures will reduce the number of cold spells, which are a much bigger killer than heat. The best study shows that by 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold. Indeed, according to the first complete survey of the economic effects of climate change for the world, global warming will actually save lives.

   Gore has helped the world to worry. Unfortunately, our attention is diverted from where it matters. Climate change is not the only problem facing the globe.

   I highly commend the remainder of the article.

   Good night, my liberal citizens.

   All the best,

   Chuck DeVore
   State Assemblyman, 70th District

3. Chuck — I’m merely pointing out that Senator McClintock pointed to exhaling as a leading cause of CO2 emissions. And I could care less how many people he represents now because the people of California have rejected him twice for statewide office; normally, I’m against term limits because I think elections serve the purpose of getting rid of bad politicians; but I’ll make an exception for McClintock.

   Why are you guys so afraid of Al Gore?

   And you really Cherry Picked the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners didn’t you? Any snarky comments for these winners?:
   Mother Theresa
   Bishop Desmond Tutu
   Lech Walesa
   Elie Wiesel
   The Dalai Lama
   Nelson Mandela
   And when listing Yassar Arafat, you forgot his co-winners Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.
   Andrei Sakharov
   Amnesty International
   Linus Pauling (a two time winner in different categories and a great Trivial Pursuit answer)
   oh, and someone named Dr. Martin Luther King.

   To comment on your jab at Jimmy Carter, ask Ann Coulter how much she loves Jews; I believe she called for them all to be purified? Since she’s a leading conservative commentator and author, perhaps you can explain what she means?

   Congrats on your fine resume. You’ll be happy to know your Alma Mater is 11th on the 2008 US News and World Reports list of “Top Liberal Arts Colleges.”

   My Syracuse University degree places me as a grad of a top 50 national university on the same list; tough to break into the top ten with all those Ivys there. I’ve also worked in high technology for 22 years.

   And all that and five bucks will get us both a venti latte at Starbucks with change for the tip jar; so what?

   So do we start breaking out rulers now?

4. Since we’re posting articles; here’s a blogpost review of Gore’s documentary from RealClimate, a blog about Climate Science from Climate Scientists. It reports that Gore does, in fact, make small errors in the film. But the key quote: “For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance.”

   10 May 2006
   Al Gore’s movie
   Filed under: Reviews Reporting on climate Extras Climate Science— eric @ 3:21 PM
   by Eric Steig

   Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore’s efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration’s lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

   Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

   Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father’s tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore’s sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn’t the “wooden” Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.

   How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn’t highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).

   There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change “in just two years”, due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can’t see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I’m skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he’ll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to “global warming”. Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

   Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore’s use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). However, I don’t really agree with my colleagues’ criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate.

   For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue — indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue — but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow’s recent work to show that the technology is there (see Science 305, p. 968 Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies).

   I’ll admit that I have been a bit of a skeptic about our ability to take any substantive action, especially here in the U.S.
   Gore’s aim is to change that viewpoint, and the colleagues I saw the movie with all seem to agree that he is successful.

   In short: this film is worth seeing. It opens in early June.

5. Hey Chuck. Why didn’t your list include Henry Kissinger? He won the prize after authorizing the bombing of non-combatants? Dan is right on the mark when he states you cherry pick your winners.

   You know how I know Al Gore is on the right track? By the amount of vitriol coming out of the right wing noise machine. If his arguments and issue was as weak as we are led to believe they would have fallen on their face by now. But the fact that a significant segment of both the scientific community and now even Exxon are willing to address the issue tells me there might be something at least studying. Something folks like Mark Landsbaum scoff at in a condescending manner. Chuck, thousands of individuals who study this issue from renowned institutions believe it is an issue. Do you believe it should just be ignored?

   Chuck, you lay out your academic and professional credentials. What is your point? Are there none with similar credentials who disagree with you? Who should we believe? The only thing conservatives have done is try to confuse the issue or pay for studies to deny its existence.

   Dan. To politely bring you up to date. McClintock has lost four statewide races. Plus a disastrous bid for congress back in the 90’s. While he continues to enjoy significant success in his home district it hasn’t (won’t ever) translate into higher office. I can only pray he is the GOP nod in ’10. Any Dem with a heartbeat will win that race. While McClintock has continually portrayed himself as a staunch opponent of government he has done nothing to earn a living other than also feed at the public trough. He has been an elected official most of his adult life. I got a hoot out of the blog and press accounts at how the GOP’s who attended the recent CRP convention scoffed at Arnold’s comments (whose won all of his elections), and cheered vociferously for McClintock (whose lost all of his). Tell me that isn’t some kind of schizophrenia or detachment from reality.

   Chuck. Lastly you bring up your professional resume in the aerospace industry. I believe everyone has a right to earn a living in the profession they seek. But as an ardent opponent of big government I ask that you take a look in the mirror. The DoD and the numerous major and cottage industries it spawns (via contractors and subcontractors) is BIG government. You are very good at pointing out what you perceive as waste in government programs. Is there no waste in the DoD? I as a taxpayer am continually required to pay taxes for any number of DoD programs that have either been exposed as wasteful, fraudulent, or just plain unnecessary due to a powerful congressional representative being able to demand a budget item that directly benefits their district. Nor can you deny there are very large corporations whose primary or even sole source of revenue is contract where the US government (aka the taxpayer) is the customer. If I read my conservative icon Ayn Rand’s definition correctly, she would have considered the defense industy, “looters” just like any other entity that lives off the labor of others with taxes that are taken by force.

6. Geez Chuck — you ought to read the Boston Globe more carefully. A hotlink from the opinion piece you attached had this editorial; same edition of the paper. I’m shocked you missed it.

   GLOBE EDITORIAL
   A Nobel for truth
   October 13, 2007

   IF THE Academy Award didn’t get the world to heed Al Gore on the threat of global warming, maybe the Nobel Prize will. The decision of the Nobel committee to award the 2007 peace prize jointly to Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gives the former vice president his most exalted platform yet from which to speak the truth about how dangerously mankind is degrading the environment.

   In recent years, the Nobel committee has expanded its vision of peacemakers beyond traditional heads of state to include citizen activists in various fields, such as the current Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh, who promotes microlending, and the Kenyan Wangari Maathai, founder of the greenbelt movement, which combats desertification. Gore’s award is firmly in this vein. But no one should doubt that global warming can affect world peace.

   First, the dire effects of climate change are felt most severely in the poorest, least stable nations. Droughts, floods, desertification, and crop failures upend whole societies, creating refugee crises and resource wars. The horror of Darfur, in many ways a struggle over water and arable land, is just one example. In Haiti, degradation of the land also has contributed to violent strife.

   If the problems of climate change cause civil conflict, its solutions often promote democracy and peace. From the grass roots to the corridors of power, reversing global warming demands cross-border cooperation and more equitable distribution of scarce resources.

   Gore shares the prize with the UN panel, a group of 2,500 eminent scientists from 130 countries who for the last 20 years have defied skeptics and, in the committee’s words, created “an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.” The world’s 6 billion people must be made to accept global warming’s hard truth and its even harder consequences, because serious behavioral changes will be required. “Action is necessary now,” the committee warns, “before climate change moves beyond man’s control.”

   The Nobel committee has seen the future of global conflict, and the environment is at the center of the effort to prevent war and promote peace. Gore yesterday called solving the climate crisis “a moral and spiritual challenge.” It must now also be seen as a security imperative for the world.

7. RHackett — Thanks for the update on Tom; anything pre-1997 is murkey for me since I loved here frm Bostn then. But I do remember the Romney-Kennedy Senate race in 1994, so should Mitt be the nominee, I will have some observations that I think even Chuck would have a hard time refutting.

8. There was a great book, “The Pentagon Undergroun” that chronicled all sorts fo wase and overcharges from Defense Contracors during the Reagan administration; seems like we’re long overdue for another such investigation.

9. Dan. Sorry about some of the grammar errors. At least I recognize they are there, but I believe my point is made.

10. All: my point about the Nobel Prize winners of the past was to show how many of them didn’t deserve the prize.

    Gore said in his propaganda/fear film that the seas would rise 20 feet in 100 years. The UN climate panel says 6 inches to 2 feet — which is it? That’s a huge delta.

    As for your “mouth breathers” comment, give me a break, everyone knows a non-debate advancing ad hominem when they see one:

    mouth-breather n. a stupid person; a moron, dolt, imbecile.

    Hence, my mention of my academic credentials to blow your poorly-made personal attack away.

    So, as I said before, go ahead and call an entire conference full of people, including me, “mouth breathers” — it only helps advance my own philosophy when you resort to weak personal attacks. Frankly, I love it! Keep it up. Insult me some more! Bring it on!

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District
    A stupid person, a moron, a dolt, and an imbecile because Dan says so!

11. Oh, and Dan, regarding Ann Coulter, she’s not a Nobel Prize recipient. So, your dragging her into the argument is, what our Latin freinds would have said, a non sequitur.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

12. I believe Melanie Morgan, SF conservative radio host, was a featured CPAC attendee; and through the grace of satellite radio, I’ve heard Michael Reagan’s show on more than one occassion. I don’t know if you listen to them at all, but the term non-debate advancing ad hominem fits both of them to a T and since this is the caliber of speaker you wish to be associated with, its a pot calling the kettle black arguement.

    And with the posible exception of the “Mothers marying sons and Fathers marrying daughters to avoid death tax” argument on why you’re against gay marriage, I don’t think you’re stupid; just wrong on many things. So don’t but words in my mouth Chuck. .

    And no, I don’t view your lack of criticism on Ann Coulter to be a non-sequitur; merely another way to avoid criticizing another conservative. What’s the title of her new book? “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.” Sounds like a non-debate advancing ad hominem to me.

13. I’m sorry that Chuck couldn’t get in to a real Ivy League school. Or at least Stanford. And now the residents of California are paying for it. He keeps trying to prove that he’s right. About everything.
    Claremont must be proud.

14. Whatever. Not thought of applying to an Ivy League school such as Harvard, where grade inflation means that 90 percent of all students get A’s — meaning, of course, that grades are worthless there. At least at CMC, by definition, only 1/3 of the graduating class can earn honors.

    As for Coulter, can’t say I’ve ever read one of her books. I prefer the classics myself.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

15. “Mouth breathers”?

    Dan, you usually swoon with indignation anytime when conservatives aim a perjorative at liberals, and yet here you are.

    That said, according to Wikipedia, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison were mouth breathers.

    http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:9DyOhG37UBEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouth_breathing+%22mouth+breathers%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

16. Chuck. I find it remarkable you don’t address my claim that defense contractors are by Ayn Rand’s definition “looters” since they are primarily supported by forcibly taken tax dollars.

    Thanks for the lack of commentary.

17. Oh dear God doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor anymore. Matt, I attempted to connect McClintock’s comments on exhaling being a leading cause of CO2 emissions with the gathering of much hot air at Western CPAC (with Melanie Morgram and Michael Reagan there, yes, considerable hot air). Chuck, naturally, thinks it’s all about him.

    I do find it amusing that Chuck parroted the Fox News talking points on Gore’s selection for the Nobel Peace Prize by taking apart Gore’s scientific arguement; McClintock is also not a climatoligist, but it doesn’t stop Chuck from believing what Tom has to say on the matter. And Chuck and I can produce any number of third party articles on the matter at hand.

    Chuck; I’ve already emailed a few of my pals from Harvard your comments on their inflated grades; I will have to wait for tomorrow for the response.

    I really don’t think Republicans can claim any mantle on science when at least two remaining candidates for president don’t believe in evolution and that Teri Schaivo could come out of her coma.

18. Krugman has a nice piece this morning on Gore Derangement Syndrome.

    The wingnuts keep moving into a cultish form of cognitive dissonance, as it beccomes apparent that Gore has been right about everything, and is gaining international acclaim, while Bush will sail into the sunset despised by the world and history as the Worst President Ever.

19. Not thought of applying to an Ivy League school such as Harvard, where grade inflation means that 90 percent of all students get A’s — meaning, of course, that grades are worthless there.

    This explains Bush’s Yale degree in history and Harvard MBA and the attending lack of intelligent action.

    Thanks Chuck.

20. I know I’m late to this party, but regarding Bjorn Lomborg: You know he’s a Holocaust denier, right? It kind of makes anything that comes out of his mouth suspect, up to and including “I love my mother.”

21. Rebecca, what an terribly irresponsible ad hominem smear you’ve directed at Bjorn Lomborg. He is not a Holocaust denier. He has been compared to one by the environmental left. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    You folks are losing all credibility on this.

    Regarding RHackett’s comment: grade inflation at Harvard is said to be a fairly new problem. Wasn’t likely happening yet when Bush was there. Oh, and, regarding Rand’s accusation, I’m not a Randian, and neither are most conservatives. The Randian’s lost the philosophical debate in the late 50s.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

22. Chuck — I believe the Lion’s share of research still supports Gore on climate change. And you won’t buy Gore’s arguement becuase he’s not a scientist but will buy McClintock’s, who isn’t a scientist but tows the line you want to hear.

    But an honest question of you. Do you believe climate change is a problem? Its a yes or no question.

    Given that you have compared Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary (a top 5 all time grossing film) as a scare/fear film, I’d say no. And if that’s the case, it lets the winds out of your sails for the pro-nuclear power push.

    And if grade inflation is a reletively new argument (actually Princeton only awards 35 percent As across the board and other Ivys are following the model), doesn’t that screw your argument for attending CMC instead of an Ivy?

23. Dan, my apologies.

    😉

24. Oh Matt; do you need a hug. 😉

    Its a give and take debate and you and Chuck debate as well as anyone.

25. Regarding RHackett’s comment: grade inflation at Harvard is said to be a fairly new problem. Wasn’t likely happening yet when Bush was there. Oh, and, regarding Rand’s accusation, I’m not a Randian, and neither are most conservatives. The Randian’s lost the philosophical debate in the late 50s.

    Chuck. Thanks for the clarification on Ivy League gradeflation. I bet the English department at Yale is very proud of Bush’s extemporaneous speaking ability.

    And it is obvious that most conservatives don’t buy into the “taxes taken by force for looters” argument as put forth by Randians. Otherwise how would all those GOP friends get the funding for the no-bid contracts they give to their friends at Boeing, Bechtel, Halliburton, and Blackwater?

26. Chuck has failed to point to any evidence that supports his claim that
    90% or all students get A’s” at Harvard.
    Once again he throws around numbers as fact, but is not able to support them. I suppose unsupported claims pass as intellectual discourse at schools like Claremont.
    All the best.

27. At Harvard, grades have gone up, but my friends in Boston actually laughed out loud at the suggestion grades were deliberately inflated. When Harvard’s football team is getting creamed on a Saturday, the cheer from the student section is:
    “That’s alright
    That’s OK
    You’ll Go to Work for Us Someday.”

    And a small confession; I had never heard of CMC until I moved here a few years ago. It’s an East Coast thing.