So Is Breathing.

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING ‘SIGNIFICANT’ CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a “significant contributor to global warming!”

Gore is quickly sinking into self-parody. Who’re his handlers, the South Park guys?

Did he start going on about “Manbearpig” as well?

16 thoughts on “So Is Breathing.

  1. Don’t let me stop your enjoyment this obviously ridiculous claim, but it looks like a fabrication.

    It’s quite possible that Gore said that the tobacco lobby was a significant contributor of money to the global warming denial industry. This has been proven and reported heavily in the past few weeks. The point was to create a decoy while they also proclaimed that smoking did not cause cancer — also a lie.

    It’s all about the truth in the end and the way it sometimes interferes with making money. But if you can’t handle the truth, just make something else up, right?

  2. It’s also “possible” that Al was under mind control by Ming the Merciless of Mars, though I’m not sure exactly how you would tell.

    But he’ll keep jet-setting around the world to warn the rest of us the we’re using too much energy.

    I’m doing my part, I have restricted myself to the same standard of living as Al. I anticipate some problems with that since I don’t have the income that Al has, but I’ll try to keep up. I’m short several hundred thousand dollars a year to having enough money to live the same frugal standard of living that Al does. But the Environmental Lobby has enough to pay Al the big bucks, so they should be able to help me out.

  3. We can both generate possible hypotheses for what was actually said based on what it is usually discussed in these lectures. Why are you mentioning the Martians? Are you a conspiracy theorist?

    Do you actually believe there is a distinction between fiction and fact, and that it might actually matter? You ought to be aware that the consequences of not knowing the difference was what enabled the war in Iraq and all the real bad stuff that has followed.

    As to your logic that Al Gore’s lecture tour gives everyone the excuse to pollute the atmosphere as much as they can, does this mean that Rep. Mark Foley’s activities gives people the right to mess with little children?

  4. Why mention Martians? Because it’s just as good an explanation as yours. And no, I’m not a conspiracy nut. I don’t believe in little green men or that the people who preach global warming are in any way more virtuous than anyone else. The Global Warming Lobby consists of people who see a way to increase their income and standard of living at the expense of the rest of us. Nothing more.

    Al, like most of the Environmental Lobby likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. I see no reason to listen to him.

    H.L. Mencken said “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    I think Al is practicing practical politics. You might notice that in order to combat global warming all we have to do is to turn over our lives to him and his followers.

    No thanks, I’m not into New Age religions either.

    I’m not sure what Mark Foley has to do with anything? It seems a non sequitur, but I suppose you just seized on something from the headlines that is perceived as bad and threw it in.

  5. So, restating it again, are you telling me you believe that the hypothesis that Al Gore is controlled by Martians is “as good an explanation” as mine, which is that your news source has wildly misrepresented something he would have been likely to say, and which no one else reports hearing?

    Perhaps the Mark Foley stuff is too tenuous. Here’s an example that’s easier to understand:

    Man on TV: Iraq is building nuclear weapons. They’re going to send over their missiles and bomb us tomorrow. We’re all going to die. We need to deploy a massive invasion force right now and occupy the country for the next five years to make it safe.

    You: Why don’t you just go and join the army then? I hear they are short of a few men. If you won’t walk the walk, I see no reason to listen. Are you just trying to alarm me about something that doesn’t exist?

    To me, the logic looks pretty similar. Doesn’t it to you? How is it different?

    And finally, you say you’re not a conspiracy nut. But are all the scientists reporting the changes in the Arctic and making the predictions that are consistent with what some politicians are saying, part of a conspiracy? It would be pretty nutty to believe that on the basis of a science fiction book. Got any other evidence?

  6. “[W]ildly misrepresented something”? What was misrepresented? I’ve seen no transcript of what was said, so I have no reason to believe he was “misrepresented”.

    Man on TV:

    “You know, back in November, when we were on the brink of military action then, Saddam Hussein suddenly waved the white flag and said, ‘I give in, I’ll do whatever you want.’ And we left our forces in the region. We can’t leave them there indefinitely. We left our forces in the region and told him, ‘OK, look, we’ll give you one more chance. If you show a sign that you’re not going to cooperate, then we’re going to take military action, and there won’t be any intervening diplomacy either.’. . . Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He’s trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen. We are going to win this confrontation.” (ABC News’ “Special Report,” December 16, 1998)

    That man on TV was then Vice-President Al Gore. We now know that he was lying and their were no WMD. So now he goes on TV to say ‘It’s Global Warming; We’re All Gonna Die!!’ and we’re supposed to believe him? As you say, “How is it different”?

    “All the scientists” don’t agree. There are many who do not. But those that say so are subject to personal attacks because they don’t support the one true church of global warming. There is no attempt to engage them using scientific facts. All the argument consists of claims of “consensus” and attacks on those asking questions. Those are not the actions of ‘science’ those are the actions of a religion, and a pretty medieval one at that.

    As for joining the Army? I guess your keen powers of observation, which you use to predict the climate in 10 or 20 years, failed you. There’s a medallion on the left side of my main page that would let you know that I’ve been there, done that and have the T-shirt.

    I’m not even clear exactly what it is Al wants us to do or how long it’s going to take. It would seem that five years is about the limit. He complains about the Iraq War taking too long, so I would suppose that that would make a good benchmark. He talks about using florescent light bulbs, driving hybrids and funneling billions of dollars to scientists who say what the environmental lobby wants to hear, but he never seems to say how long it’s going to take to stop and reverse Global Warming. That is the goal, isn’t it? Else why bother?

    There’s talk about having to make sacrifices to combat global warming. I’m all for that, I just think the sacrifice should fall on the shoulders of the true believers. They’re the ones who should suffer the decreases in standards of living, the job losses and the increased costs. After all, they’re saving the world, aren’t they?

    If Al is serious, he should be donating his millions to research and traveling by Greyhound bus instead of private jets. All the true believers should be sending all their extra money to scientists studying global warming, why save for your children’s education if the world is going to end first? Where’s your priorities?

  7. So, coming back to the point, you believe that Gore actually said that “Cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming.”

    You know this is a ridiculous statement, which is why you liked it enough to post it. There is no record of him saying such a statement anywhere else, in the volumes of speeches he has given everywhere repeatedly. Yet there is no doubt in your mind that your esteemed news source may have got this one incident wrong. Right?

    As to the Iraq war, would you also favour the burden of the cost falling entirely on the shoulders of those who believed that Iraq possessed WMD? Why can’t the true believers send their own money and kids out to invade that country if they thought it was going to save the world from nuclear attack? Shouldn’t it work like that?

    One final question: Is there any level of evidence that would convince you that global warming is real? For example, someone could convince me that the Caspian sea was not salty by taking me there and getting me to taste it. What it theory would work for you? Would you believe it if the Drudge Report said so? Just wondering.

    One final point: There really is no connection between the existence of global warming, and the lifestyle changes that would be necessary to mitigate it. It’s like having cancer, which some people have for years before noticing it, and the treatment is absolutely horrible. But whether or not you like the treatment has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have the disease. See?

  8. So, coming back to the point, you believe that Gore actually said that “Cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming.”

    Well, you haven’t provided any alternate explanation, other he might have “possibly” said something else. You provide no link to what was actually said but expect me to believe you because you say so. Why should I? I’ve read the Drudge Report for a long time. Sometimes he’s wrong, but you haven’t provided any evidence that he is.

    What’s with the Iraq thing? All our soldiers, and yours, are volunteers. They’re where they are because they want to be. But it is a total non sequitur to global warming. But I guess it’s just one of the stations of the cross for the green religion.

    Since the earth has warmed and cooled, the oceans have risen and sank and the glaciers have advanced and retreated several times since the formation of the planet, I would be hard pressed to be convinced that what is happening, if it is happening, is something that we can stop. Are you claiming that if only we give ourselves over to the global warming cause that the climate, that has changed innumerable times, is suddenly going to stop? Are we going to have the perfect average temperature, rainfall and wind velocity every day? That’s ridiculous.

    You say that we have a disease and that we are going to have to have the treatment. but you have not, nor has any of your heroes, told us what that treatment is, how it is to be done and how long it will take. Just telling us that we have to give all our money to you and agree to do whatever you tell us does not seem to be much of a treatment plan.

    Especially since so many of those who preach the gospel of global warming don’t seem to be inclined to take the steps that they urge the rest of us to take.

    A green snag they emitted to mention… – Sunday Times – Times Online

    THEY are the green jetsetters — environmental campaigners who are leading the fight to restrict aviation and cut greenhouse gas emissions, but who also clock up hundreds of thousands of miles flying around the world on business and pleasure.

    In the past year the directors and chief executives of groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association have crisscrossed the globe, visiting the Falklands, Japan, Africa and Brazil.

    All are running high-profile campaigns to persuade people to change their lifestyles and cut emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Do as I say and not as I do is not a very effective persuasion technique. Neither is trying to sell a pig in a poke. Tell us what you propose doing, who will be affected and how long it will take. I’m certainly not going to submit to drastic surgery without knowing anything about it.

    And, back on Al Gore, another reason I find it easy to believe that he said that is that he has a history of saying stupid things

  9. I’ve already seen that list of stupid Gore quotes. They reflect worse on the person who put them together than they do on Gore. Take the second one in the list.

    ‘Equal – if not more so? More so what? More “equal”? Who is more so? If two things are equal, what is the “more so” for?

    Gore is paraphrasing from Orwell’s Animal Farm, a novel about the failure of communism. There is a very famous sentence, which sums up the entire book, used by the pigs to explain why they are now the bosses of the farm, even though everyone is supposedly equal: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    Not to hard to understand, unless you don’t want to.

    I can’t provide a link to prove that he didn’t say “cigarettes cause global warming” on that night that Mr Drudge thinks he heard it. I don’t think you’d care if I could. You’d just say he must has said something just as silly at some other time, wouldn’t you? Well, he hasn’t. Before or after that alleged incident. That’s the problem. It’s not the same league as Rumsfeld saying ridiculous things about Iraq repeatedly, on camera.

    Since it doesn’t fit any known facts, and because it’s not part of any pattern, it probably is misreporting. It’s not like there are any other actually silly statements on the subject floating around. Just that one, repeated ad nauseam. No one accepts that that is his opinion. If I was talking to you in a room verbally about this, I wouldn’t say it was unlikely if you misheard something I said, because people tend to hear what they want to hear. We could always send him a letter and ask him if that’s what he believes. Would you accept it if his said “No”?

    I’m intrigued at how you’ve taken no moral stance about the Iraq war. Side-stepped. Astonishing. Let’s take a different hypothetical example:

    Your doctor gets the tests back from the lab and tells you that you have lung cancer. You discover that your doctor is a smoker.

    So, does that mean you should disbelieve him? People do die of cancer all the time, in past ages and in the future, just like the climate changes; you just don’t want it to happen to you just yet.

    Does it matter that your doctor is giving himself cancer too, because of his smoking? No. It’s the lab results that matter, which he’s simply reporting, and you expect the scientists there to know what cancer looks like, having cut open the lungs of many dead people before. Does the treatment make a difference to the diagnosis? Not at all. The disease might even be incurable. That has nothing to do with whether or not you have cancer.

    You seem to understand the claims pretty well. The climate is changing, the causes are known and don’t need to be disputed because they happened in the past and no one needs to blame anybody. The predictions are also pretty clear for the coming decades and have proven to be pretty sound. You’ve got some other scientific results that dispute this, or are you limited solely to attacking the people who publish those scientific results in the public culture? Most of us don’t read scientific papers, so someone’s got to do it. Doesn’t matter who?

    What’s your position? Is the climate changing according to the predictions, or not?

  10. Oh come on Julian. You’re grasping at straws and arguing in circles.

    it doesn’t fit any known facts, and because it’s not part of any pattern, it probably is misreporting

    I just provided you with a link to an entire listing of stupid things Gore has said and you’re going to tell me that it doesn’t fit facts and is not part of a pattern?

    As for paraphrasing Orwell, that’s just ridiculous. Read the context. Paraphrasing Orwell while talking about differences between men and women doesn’t make any sense at all. If that’s what he was doing then he’s farther off the deep end than even I thought.

    A moral stance on the Iraq War, in a discussion of global warming? Why not include cake recipes? They would have as much relevance.

    I did not say that climate is not changing. Of course it is. The climate has been changing since the creation of the planet. What’s new?

    I just don’t think that it is changing primarily because of what we do and I don’t think we can stop it. We can adapt to it the same we that humans have always adapted. Some species might disappear, but isn’t that the whole theory of evolution? The dinosaurs didn’t die out because they drove SUV’s.

    Most of the scientists pushing this global warming theory are not Climatologists. Scientists who are theorizing outside of their specialty are no more reliable than the drive thru clerk at McDonald’s. I’ve worked with them, I know.

    But scientists, like everyone else, want approval and more money. Most of the scientist are proposing that, surprise, their area of study receive increased funding. There’s absolutely no reason to think that just because someone works as a “scientist” they’re any more honest and reliable than anyone else. If you recall we had some “scientists” try to pass off Lynx hair as being found in a certain area that was being proposed for protections, but the hair came from the zoo. Scientists are not Saints, nor are they all that reliable. I have a science book that was published back in the 1920s that claims rockets can’t work in space because there’s nothing to push against. Wildlife scientists were amazed that plant life and elk herds returned to Mt. St. Helens so soon after the eruption in 1980. Every day we read new discoveries that show something we previously thought as being false. But the global warming “scientists” are infallible prophets?

    If you want to follow their prescription. Whatever it is, (as I’ve noted, they never seem to explain exactly what it is, how it will work or how long it will take) go right ahead. Just don’t expect me to buy into your religion.

    An Al Gore is nothing but a skilled politician. He’ll say whatever he needs to to get the ignorant and gullible to follow him. That’s how his family got so rich.

  11. So you think you’ve got this list of stupid sayings by Gore, but you haven’t.

    The first in the list is a transcript of someone not getting to a word fast enough. No one thinks that’s stupid. You might as well criticize him for having a coughing fit at the microphone.

    The second is the use of an idiom: “Equal, if more so”. The guy who put that page together is, like you, unfamiliar with this idiom, so it doesn’t make seem sense. He might as well be ranting: “But Gore said his great granddad kicked the bucket. But there wasn’t any bucket involved. He just died in his sleep. Isn’t that silly?”

    I could go on, but what’s the point? They are all seem pretty darn weak. But you seem quite happy with them. There is no pattern that leads one to believe that he would say something so ridiculous as “cigarette smoking causes global warming”, except the say-so of someone who hates him. Anyway, why don’t I see this quote going up on that page?

  12. The Iraq war and the smoking doctor were clarifying examples of your challengable logic which claimed that:
    (a) the changes in lifestyle required to mitigate climate change are relevant to whether or not it is happening.
    (b) the lifestyle of those who communicate the message is relevant to the facts it expresses.

    There are lots of other points and examples to add, but I haven’t got any cake recipes, I’m afraid.

    No, I don’t think any particular scientist is a saint or totally reliable. However, the process of scientific review fundamentally is. Scientific study, unlike policework or military-political strategy, takes place in the open. You can see all the work a scientist does, and anyone outside, especially their scientific rivals, can check it out and find bias, lies, falsehoods, and mistakes. These errors, when they are discovered, get reported publically for maximum humiliation, like your lynx hair.

    This is not happening in the science of climate change. Everyone is independently coming to conclusions are consistent with the data. Here’s the secret: No one likes the conclusions. They’re horrible.

    It’s like if the astronomers said there was a comet coming in to strike the earth in a hundred years time. No one wins. Might be a bit of notoriety for the astronomers who discover it and tell the world. But you think that’s worth it?

    Dinosaurs… climate always changing… Sure, that’s a fact which carries no information. The question is “How far and fast is it changing?” Is your house falling down over a period of a hundred years, or will it be collapsing throughout next week? The amount and rate matter.

    So, direct question. Like me, you’re not a climate scientist. You’re taking it from other sources. I look at the IPCC report. Where are you getting your information on climate change? The information is: how much and at what is it happening? Do you have estimates of this? It’s not important why it is happening.

  13. Julian, have you ever heard of George Taylor? Probably not. He’s a scientist. He’s also a Climatologist. In fact, he is the Oregon State Climatologist. He’s not a global warming believer.

    If you google him , you will find all kinds of criticisms of him. But none of them are on his scientific ability. No, they’re all personal attacks for doubting the truth of global warming. He’s a heretic and many would like to burn him at the stake just as they did with unbelievers in medieval times.

    He talks science and they make personal attacks. Why would that be? Maybe because don’t have the scientific findings to attack him from that direction? It was the same thing with Bjorn Lomborg the Swedish political science professor that set out to prove that the environment was getting worse and found just the opposite.

    This, along with the fact that the people calling for sacrifice to combat global warming do not take it seriously enough to change their own lifestyles, tells me that it is a giant con game.

    However, if you are convinced that it is real and that drastic measures must be taken, go right ahead. No one is going to stop you from cutting your greenhouse gases as much as you want. Just don’t expect me to play along.

  14. Julian, have you ever heard of George Taylor? Probably not. He’s a scientist. He’s also a Climatologist. In fact, he is the Oregon State Climatologist. He’s not a global warming believer.

    If you google him , you will find all kinds of criticisms of him. But none of them are on his scientific ability. No, they’re all personal attacks for doubting the truth of global warming. He’s a heretic and many would like to burn him at the stake just as they did with unbelievers in medieval times.

    He talks science and they make personal attacks. Why would that be? Maybe because don’t have the scientific findings to attack him from that direction? It was the same thing with Bjorn Lomborg the Swedish political science professor that set out to prove that the environment was getting worse and found just the opposite.

    This, along with the fact that the people calling for sacrifice to combat global warming do not take it seriously enough to change their own lifestyles, tells me that it is a giant con game.

    However, if you are convinced that it is real and that drastic measures must be taken, go right ahead. No one is going to stop you from cutting your greenhouse gases as much as you want. Just don’t expect me to play along.

  15. By the way, not one of the “hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff” that were at the gathering where Al was reported to have claimed that “Cigarette smoking is a “significant contributor to global warming!” has come forward to say that he was misquoted.

    I wonder why?

  16. Okay, let’s see where we are now.

    You have your nameless news source, and all I have is my common sense. You’ve not found any recorded evidence that Al Gore has ever said something as ridiculous as “cigarette smoking causes global warming” any time before — certainly not on that list. Your post suggested that he might have gotten out of control of his handlers. Do you know if he has any handlers writing his speeches and coaching him on what to say, or is this something you’ve simply made up as part of a conspiracy theory?

    I think the UN diplomats in the audience probably have better things to do than talk to us about this incident. It’s been reported nowhere except by bloggers such as ourselves, sourced all pretty much from the same report. It hasn’t made it further, so they probably don’t even notice a controversy.

    If one of them did come forward and say Gore was misquoted, would you believe it? Just a hypothetical question.

    My point still stands that neither Al Gore’s lifestyle, nor the measures we would have to take to mitigate the causes of Global Warming, have anything to do with the science. There is no purpose in talking about it if in the first place you still deny that rapid climate change is occurring now and will do in the future.

    You give two names of people who are the sources of your point of view.

    George Taylor is employed by Oregon State. He doesn’t write any scientific papers or conduct research based on weather measurements outside of the state of Oregon. Maybe if his state was Alaska he’d find it a little harder to claim that nothing is changing.

    You gave me a link which reported an after-dinner speech he gave, rather than anything relating to actual scientific studies. It’s like calling yourself a scientist is bit like calling yourself a musician; someone is liable to ask: “So, where are your songs? Can you sell me some of your CDs? I’d like to hear them.” Of course I have never heard of him George Taylor. How did you hear of him? Is he a friend from somewhere?

    Bjorn Lomborg is, at best, an economist. He is not a climate scientist, so he must have either been getting all of his information from the published work of other climate scientists, or he made it up. The odd thing is he says he draws different conclusions from the scientists’ reports than the scientists who wrote those reports, however he can’t seem to get any of his criticisms to stand up enough to feed back into the science — he’s never been able to point to anything wrong with the numbers — so he says he’s right and everyone else is wrong in a book, and sells it. What reason is there to trust it?

    So, here’s a follow-up question. You’ve picked two sources for your information about climate change. Why did you pick them? Why not trust the reports by, say, Dr Michael E. Mann, Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, Prof Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Dr James E. Hansen, Dr David Archer, and so on and so forth, all of whom actually go out and measure things like the CO2 concentrations at different depths of the oceans, and put the numbers together.

    Is it true that you picked your conclusion, and then hunted for people who looked like scientists who said what you want to hear? Is that how you came up with those two names?

    One’s got to be clear; if you look hard enough you can always find someone to say anything. Heck, you can even pay people to say you’re good looking. But is this not a way of fooling yourself? Surely you know better than to pretend the message that is coming out is not actually happening. Or is it a big conspiracy?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.