Wow!This is classic prdgapanoa brought to you from the folks who work for Al Gore. It's flotsam left over from his dismal 24 hours of boredom that nobody cared about.There's not a single damn scientific argument in the film. It's just a smear campaign designed to paint anyone who disagrees with Mr. Gore as a tobacco lobbyist. This is little better than painting someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi.There really should be a Godwin's law corollary for tobacco companies.This is really disappointing in fact, it's an embarrassment.If anyone is interested in hearing a real discussion about the science surrounding climate issues (rather than cheap prdgapanoa), I recommend that you visit Dr. Judith Curry's blog, where she is unafraid to critically examine all sides of the issues and often limits the conversation to strictly technical comments, thus keeping the quality of discussion rather high. Reply, 2012-12-03
Wow!This is classic prdgapanoa brought to you from the folks who work for Al Gore. It's flotsam left over from his dismal 24 hours of boredom that nobody cared about.There's not a single damn scientific argument in the film. It's just a smear campaign designed to paint anyone who disagrees with Mr. Gore as a tobacco lobbyist. This is little better than painting someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi.There really should be a Godwin's law corollary for tobacco companies.This is really disappointing in fact, it's an embarrassment.If anyone is interested in hearing a real discussion about the science surrounding climate issues (rather than cheap prdgapanoa), I recommend that you visit Dr. Judith Curry's blog, where she is unafraid to critically examine all sides of the issues and often limits the conversation to strictly technical comments, thus keeping the quality of discussion rather high. Reply
Rod I admit that you have an interesting terohy. However, please allow me to propose an alternative hypothesis that better satisfies Occam's razor.The increased public interest in the issues surrounding global warming after the early 2000s was due to a movie released in 2006 called An Inconvenient Truth. You might have seen it, perhaps?The immediate public attention and ideological polarization that resulted from this (you must admit) overly political film certainly vaulted this issue to the top of the list of concerns in the public's mind. If the film itself didn't do the work then the Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award that followed left no doubt that this was not an issue to be ignored.The instant boost in publicity is obvious, but you've got a hard argument to make if you want to claim that the fossil-fuel companies were behind all of this., 2012-12-03
Rod I admit that you have an interesting terohy. However, please allow me to propose an alternative hypothesis that better satisfies Occam's razor.The increased public interest in the issues surrounding global warming after the early 2000s was due to a movie released in 2006 called An Inconvenient Truth. You might have seen it, perhaps?The immediate public attention and ideological polarization that resulted from this (you must admit) overly political film certainly vaulted this issue to the top of the list of concerns in the public's mind. If the film itself didn't do the work then the Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award that followed left no doubt that this was not an issue to be ignored.The instant boost in publicity is obvious, but you've got a hard argument to make if you want to claim that the fossil-fuel companies were behind all of this.