Toner_Low

Clearly, Gore is no match for the brilliant scientific intellect of John Stossel. Or is he? First of all, Stossel once made up a report about organic foods that required ABC to issue a retraction. Stossel also relies on the hilarious OISM petition; the "scientists" whose signatures appear on the first edition include Drs. B. J. Honeycut and Benjamin Franklin Pierce, and a biologist named Geraldine Halliwell (Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls). Fair is fair; the Christian Science Monitor asked him what he thought of Gore's movie, and he admitted that he would have to see it before commenting on it. I'm perfectly willing to listen to debates about global warming, especially from the (apparently) hundreds of qualified climatologists who either don't believe it's happening or don't believe it will lead to global disasters; but sorry attacks from 3rd-rate dubious journalists move me to support Gore that much more.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Supporting Gore because of the dubiousness of *an* individual who disagrees with him is fuzzy thinking.

It's essentially saying...

1. Al Gore makes an assertion.
2. One of the people who is critical of Gore's assertions has made poor decisions in the past. (I was unaware of Stoessel's TAMPERING WITH NATURE flubs when I recommeded his new book, so forgive me.)
3. Ergo, I am moved to support Gore even more.

Solid reasoning?

That's analogous to this:

1. Bush makes a questionable assertion about the middle east.
2. Bush's assertion is countered by Michael Moore.
3. Because Moore is a hateful, hypocritical, manipulative, Orwellian, opportunistic liar, I must therefore be inclined to "support" Bush "more and more."

If Gore's ideas and data are solid, the film will sell itself.

I'm not sure if the film has opened down here, and I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't see it. I am convinced that putting weird gasses into the atmos is a bad idea, already. I will be happy to drive a hybrid when they are priced within my budget. I am most interested in alternative fuels because I am eager to remove the economic base of certain terrorists.

So, basically, I'll sign whatever petition Al Gore wants. I was disgusted enough with Bush's inanity to give him the finger *without* seeing Moore's last movie. I sort of felt like, "Look, Michael, what do you want me to do by seeing your movie? Hate Bush? Done. Now, do I still have to see your movie? If so, for what?"
 

Hey, you're the one who brought John Stossel up.

And I think I'm going to stick to my arguments anyway. Stossel seems pretty representative of the "These tree-huggers are crazy!" group of non-experts presenting proof, irrefutable proof, that the whole global warming thing is a hoax, then when their proof goes up in smoke they cling to their argument and try some different evidence. Check out how many pundits cite the OISM petition, as if there's no arguing with it.

But here's the thing; as I've said, there are real scientists out there who don't agree with Gore & Co., and these non-chicken-non-littles pop up every now and then to wag a finger and claim that we're all being misled. But these individuals don't seem to be as numerous or as unified as the organizations declaring that (part 1) global warming is real, and (part 2) it's dangerous. The thing for the nay-sayers to do if they have a case if form a cohesive scientific group; however, given recent events, they will inevitably be compared with Creationists.

I confess to siding with Gore for fuzzy reasons as well as verifiable ones; I dunno, maybe I just like his choice in neckties or something. It gives me some sympathy for the many people who say that hey, they just like Bush. He seems likeable. They'd rather have a beer with Bush than with Gore. I can't argue with that--there's nothing wrong with just generally liking someone. Politicians need work. I honestly have no desire to have a drink with Bush, unless of course roofies are involved.

And yeah, Moore's films are rallying points for those loyal to his cause, and they basically work the same way as movements to ban flag burning and gay marriage. Manipulative ploys to electrify the rabble. Moore is at least slightly more entertaining that Rush Limbaugh (though not lately). Can't say I'm a big fan of Moore's books, though.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Yes, I did bring Stoessel up. I had no idea he'd fallen into such disrepute.

A THOUSAND APOLOGIES, WORLD!!!! DO YOU HEAR ME, INTERNET-LAND???????

So, I'll stick with Penn and Teller. I would rather have a drink with them over Bush, Gore, or Stoessel. Although, with Stoessel, Gore, and Moore, I keep thinking of both V in V FOR VENDETTA ("An artist uses lies to tell the truth.") and the Ray Bradbury masterpiece, "The Toynbee Convector."

Ironically, though, Penn and Teller claim not to drink.

There may be three reasons you don't see scientists attacking environmentalism.

1. The environmentalists may be right. It could be that simple. Occam's Razor suggests this.

2. There's a lot of ground to cover in science. People who might bring forward data that conflicts with Gore's assertions may simply be working on other stuff.

3. There's more money in the panic business than in the rational reassurance business. Scaring the shit out of people makes money. If you tell people there is no problem, you're too easily accused of being a corporate stooge or of being a Dr. Pangloss. Yes, there are grants, foundations, and underwriting to reassure people, but people who start panics always seem to make more money. People are paranoid, and they pay through the nose to remain so.

It's like Anton LaVey said (and I quote fuzzily, from a vague memory), "Satan is the best friend the church has had, because he's kept it in business all of these years."

I dunno know what it's like up there, but being below the Bible Belt, I can tell you that for many people, religion is about fear. A shocking number of the people I deal with believe in a literal Hell and a literal Satan. They go to sleep every night amazed that the Rapture still hasn't happened. Every time someone in the Middle East orders hummus instead of falafel, it somehow lines up with Prophecy. They ask you if you want to see the Mark of the Beast and then hold up a Euro. I am not making this up.

I know plenty of newagy Christians who will tell you that their religion is about love, not wrath, but they're in the minority Down Here and they're not making the money that others are. Now, they're not in it to make money, which is also in their favor.

It's PT Barnum 101. Create the illusion of a disease and then market a cure. This is a surefire moneymaker that almost every philosophy has used and abused. The Red Scare. Heaven and Hell. Marijuana fears. Racial taboos.

And remember I said that Gore may be right. But I also seem to recall that every few years, some environmentalist tells us that "we only have a few years left." Well, a few years later, and we're still here. This has been going on since Malthus. That doesn't disqualify environmentalists, but it does make me feel a bit like a villager who had that boy crying wolf. I'm afraid to *not* believe them, and I don't want to be played for a sucker.

I had no idea that Rush Limbaugh was still on the air. Honestly.

In a related note, I think I may be accidentally headed toward vegetarianism, very reluctantly. I love meat. But I taught an ethics class for several years that made me evaluate my definition of "rights." I'll be damned, but I'm not sure I can come up with a rational, consistent definition that allows me to take the lives of animals. This is very disturbing to me. I love meat. But we're basically killing animals because they're too dumb to complain. So, if a vastly superior alien race came to earth to eat us, and cited all of the ways they're smarter and more perceptive than we are, would we have a "right" to not be eaten? I dunno.

The nice thing is that the probability of a vastly superior alien race visiting us is pretty remote. If they do, and they want to eat us, we're screwed, high-hatted ethics or not. So I might as well have a steak.

I think the big problem that environmentalists always face is that they seem to frequently be invested in getting other people to stop doing things that they, themselves, don't do, anyway.

I have a few truths that I confidently teach my students...

1. No cell phone is ever truly on 'mute.'
2. People love telling other people to do stuff.
3. People love getting others to stop enjoying and doing things they, personally, don't enjoy and/or do.

Scaring people will help Gore's pals, but it won't seal the deal. Winning an argument means convincing the undecided that their lives will be immediately improved by siding with you.

*That's* an inconvenient truth, but a truth, anyway.

Give me a cheaper car, or a good mass-transit system. Give me a way to make a bio-diesel that will stick it to those who support terrorists. Give me a veggie-burger that tastes better than meat. Give me a hemp garment that feels great. Give me an environmentalist woman who shaves under her arms.

I'm up for it!
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWYfGe89SX8&eurl=

Scarborough Country 9/26

John Stossell is a tool.