True, by why the fuck did he wait until he was out of office before he brought up this “inconvenient truth?”

That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

The tide of Presidential leadership is receeding.

Uh, he did…starting in the 1980′s. He held the first Congressional hearing on the issue, as a matter of fact. It’s not his fault that the US has been stupid on this issue from the very start.

Gore spoke about the threat of the greenhouse effect as a Senator in the 1980s, when it was just emerging from the thicket of scientific literature, and after losing the presidency in 2000 he crisscrossed the globe, laptop in hand, to bring a warning to tycoons, politicians and ordinary citizens alike. The Nobel citation from the Norwegian committee says it all: “He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.”

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670871,00.html

Now he should be chided for his embrace of neo-liberalism to answer these problems, but he is the reason we even started talking about it in Congress at all.

The ‘rhetorical’ question is a result of the campaign in 1999 that used accusations of Gore for being just like his opponent, nothing but a tool of the corporate welfare crowd. that kept folks home from the polls, so that a real tool could sell the country to its enemies. The line was very successful, so much so that it’s being revived to keep us home again.

He did bring it up when he was a Senator. Then he became Vice President and, frankly, his ego got in the way (though he was still talking climate change issues).

(Btw, when you boil it all down, Al Gore’s massive ego (unwillingness to run for Clinton’s 3rd term and decision to use a nonsense scandal as an excuse to stupidly call for change in 2000) is the reason we got stuck with Bush. As Gore would have destroyed Bush had he run for Clinton’s 3rd term, you can’t even blame SCOTUS or a third party candidate for Gore not becoming president. Gore’s massive ego is to blame.)

YouTube: “I’m a Climate Scientist”

Good morning, pups. It’s Coates and Kristof today. The Times has hired Ta-Nehsi Coates as a guest columnist, I guess while they’re looking for a permanent replacement for Bob Herbert. The only thing I know about him is that he’s a senior editor at The Atlantic, which fills me with dread since The Atlantic has creatures like The Pasty Little Putz and McMegan McCurdle. But I’ll withhold final judgment until I know more… This morning, in “The Haunting of Rick Perry,” he says should Gov. Rick Perry of Texas enter the 2012 presidential race, he would enjoy a strange and remarkable escort — the irrepressible ghost of Cameron Todd Willingham. Mr. Kristof is in Dogon Doutchi, Niger and, in “The Breast Milk Cure,” he says a miracle cure for childhood malnutrition is free and easily accessible, even in remote towns in Africa. Why is it rarely used?

Here they are.

The coffee and tea are ready, the cold drinks are in the fridge, and I’ve got blueberry pancakes today. The rain that had been forecast for today is now being forecast for tomorrow. We’ll see… Have a great day.

The media complicity is at it’s worst when they treat opinion and science with the same relevance. Science, is in fact, the opposite of opinion. Equating the two is no different than saying that Evolution and Creationism are equally valid. No different.

thanks, Marion, from your post;
‘in 2009, Perry, anticipating a primary fight, subverted the commission by replacing its chair in the midst of the Willingham investigation. The new panel chair promptly canceled the hearing and declined to hold more for the rest of the year. The Willingham case did not appear in the commission minutes until April, a month after Perry had won the Republican primary.’

doesn’t just sell the state’s belongings, throws in its soul for good measure.

Subordinating fact to opinion is the only way the right wing can promote itself.

Al may be trying to light a fire under Obama as the campaign begins.

I fear his efforts are in vain. A quick vetting of Obama’s early career makes it clear he is The Compleat Neocon when it comes to the environment. Senator Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill. That’s a whopping big clue.

Memos from Osama

Morning,

whose business plans depend on their continued use of the atmospheric commons as a place to dump their gaseous, heat-trapping waste without limit or constraint, free of charge.

Free of charge is another word for “profit”.

He didn’t. He attended COP3 as VP and negotiated an agreement. When he brought it home, Clinton threw it away without ever discussing it.

Clinton threw it away without ever discussing it.

Of course. That would have gotten in the way of his DLC approved trade deals.

Gore would have destroyed Bush had he run for Clinton’s 3rd term

Does that include blowjobs in the WH? (Rhetorical and snarky question)

Science, is in fact, the opposite of opinion.

Science is exactly and entirely opinion – the opinion of one group of people about how to view and interpret the world.

In this way it’s exactly the same as faith, except in the case of Science some external God has been replaced by the mind of Man.

And we can see that Science is just another form of fundamentalist faith by the reactions of devout Scientists when they’re confronted with the suggestion their own God might not be all-powerful and their own dogma not Holy and True.

Not a lot of application of the null hypothesis to Science itself when that happens.

Al Gore, the man who has been pounding the table telling us to trust his preferred scientists on this issue, said in his commemorative introduction to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,”

“Today, because Carson’s work led to the ban on DDT…it may be that the human species, too, or at least countless human lives, will be saved because of the words she wrote.”

The scientists of the world award the 1948 Nobel Prize for Medicine to…the discoverer of DDT.

From the presentation speech:

“The story of DDT illustrates the often wondrous ways of science when a major discovery has been made.”

It most certainly does.

“Maybe it’s just easier, psychologically, to swallow the lie that these scientists who devote their lives to their work are actually greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists…”

So where all those scientists including medical professionals warning Americans that smoking cigarettes would have long term detrimental effects, cancer emphysema, COPD, left wing whack jobs? Most certainly not. America has a get example of how misinformation originating from corporate scum ad campaigns has immediate and long term effects which kill, while corporations profit at the expense of life. Then we get to pay for their fucking messes in the form of healthcare costs for older Americans duped by ad campaigns. For all those “yuckheads” out there here is some more fat to chew on. The earth is not in center of our solar system , nor is it flat. This is a repeat of bullshit, perpetrated on Americans by corporations, protecting their cash cows at a nations expense. No different from an East India Tea Corporation, which had a Kings backing to mecantile the seeds of a nation! Deja Vu! Wake up America! What the fuck is wrong with you?

The reason Al Gore has so little credibility on the issue of climate change is that his proposed “solutions” are so lame. “Cap and Trade” is barely more than a revival of the medieval indulgences that triggered the Protestant Reformation. The pathetic list of what we can do at address climate change at the end of Inconvenient Truth was beneath childish. And when Gore decided to build a hideous energy-pig of a mansion with the money he made from the movie business, he utterly discredited himself as a spokesman for climate change.

Even so, he is STILL better than Obama. We are so doomed!

Needs instilled by corporate design. Needs that where not real at all! Just conditioned minds. Misinformation!

If the Times was looking for a replacement for Bob Herbert, they made a great choice.

Texas is being punished for its sins, so the rest of the weather just has to get out of the way. We’ve had a rolling washing machine of fronts moving through and around Chicago all week. This is one of the wettest Junes on record. I’m considering giving up on the sump pumps, and just turning the basement into an aquarium.

Have a great day.

Even so, he is STILL better than Obama. We are so doomed!

Yes, he is. Yes, we are.

Sucks…

Gore/Leiberman won the 2000 election without me. I never vote for neo-liberals. But a partisan court reached wayyyyyyyyy out of it’s jurisdiction to appoint Dick Cheney’s side kick dummy to the office.

Gore is right about the functional insanity. Although I view it more like a birth defect. Humans are exceptional tool makers. But they are greedy and bloodthirsty and they like to think of themselves as God’s highest creation. A fatally flawed species, toxic to its own environment.

Science is exactly and entirely opinion – the opinion of one group of people about how to view and interpret the world.

Utter bullshit! One definition of science is: Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Science is predictable, testable and reproducible unlike opinion, which doesn’t have to be any of those three. If it doesn’t meet any one of the criteria, it isn’t science. Your argument is based on your opinion of what science is, not what it actually is. I can say that the Earth is shaped like a burrito but that doesn’t make it so. Come back when you’re sober.

Sorry, but we’d trade you drought for soggy. Aquarium sounds good, several species could use the place to make their homes.

Science cannot be defined to include every way its results are used. Science is a tool — much like a knife — that can be wielded by good men and bad men — for both good and evil purposes. The central difference between science and opinion is that the former is subject to verification or disproof, the latter is not.

Good morning, and sorry for your troubles, Ruth. I shouldn’t be joking about the suffering, but Governor Goodhair and his bosses make it too tempting.

He’s the Ghaddafey of the stateside gov’s.

Always get a kick out of folks denying science when they are quite likely to use AC and refrigerators, and forget it’s science they rely on.

The truth is this: What we are doing is functionally insane.

and so, i think, is cap and trade.

i only read part of gore’s article? did he write anything about supporting hansen’s carbon tax and 100% dividend? has he followed his own advice to students — that they have to be willing to get arrested and go to jail?

seriously, i doubt if anyone here cares if gore is fat. a fracking hypocrite, maybe. a poser for the banksters, probably.

but who cares about gore?

if we can’t be bothered to support real initiatives for change unless gore tells us what to do, i think that says something important (and not so pleasant) about us.

thanks.

al gore

possibly the greatest president ever elected in this country

yet never to serve

I wonder if he might consider a primary challenge, he should realize obama is another bush

Science is exactly and entirely opinion – the opinion of one group of people about how to view and interpret the world.

Utter bullshit!

That’s every fundamentalist’s reaction to the questioning of their dogma.

As your “proof” you merely quote Science’s fiat lux beliefs about itself – which is no different than fundamentalist Christians quoting their Bible about their worldview. All fundamentalist faiths have a glowing definition of and opinion about their own Rightness. And the first defense of the followers is rejection of any questioning and attacking any disbelievers.

Not surprisingly, the definition of Science you’ve quoted entirely misses where Science is faith – because that’s the very point to which Science is blind.

All you’ve said is essentially “Utter bullshit! My Bible of Science says Science is Good and Right! If you don’t agree with me you simply don’t understand why I’m right. You must be mentally incapable.”

Just like all the other religious zealots, none of whom think they’re wrong either.

To paraphrase something I recently read, “I can say Science isn’t a faith, but that doesn’t make it so.”

If you want to do “Science,” apply it to Science itself.

Science is exactly and entirely opinion – the opinion of one group of people about how to view and interpret the world.

uh, no.

science is not what scientists think. it’s not what scientists say.

it’s hopefully what scientists (and others) DO. it’s a way to attempt to understand the world. one that includes the requirement of attempting to disprove what we think we know.

it’s not the only way to learn about the world. and some questions — many questions — are beyond its scope.

there are already way too many people who don’t understand this. please don’t help make the situation worse.

You are so correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis#Electrolysis_of_water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

“Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (also Antoine Lavoisier after the French Revolution); (26 August 1743 – 8 May 1794); (French pronunciation: [ɑ̃twan lɔʁɑ̃ də lavwazje]), the “father of modern chemistry”,[1] was a French nobleman prominent in the histories of chemistry and biology.[2] He found and termed both oxygen (1778) and hydrogen (1783), helped construct the metric system, put together the first extensive list of elements, and helped to reform chemical nomenclature. He was also the first to establish that sulfur was an element (1777) rather than a compound.[3] He discovered that, although matter may change its form or shape, its mass always remains the same.
He was an administrator of the “Ferme Générale” and a powerful member of a number of other aristocratic councils. All of these political and economic activities enabled him to fund his scientific research. At the height of the French Revolution he was accused by Jean-Paul Marat of selling watered-down tobacco, and of other crimes, and was guillotined.[4][5]“

This is how dysfunctional humans deal with thinking people who are proven correct, with time. From Di Vinci to Martin Luther King, those that “think” and challenge ignorance are put under house arrest or killed, being a threat to to powerful interests.

The central difference between science and opinion is that the former is subject to verification or disproof, the latter is not.

An opinion which we must never subject to verification or disproof, it seems.

And the first defense of the followers is rejection of any questioning and attacking any disbelievers.

your comment wasn’t questioning.

or didn’t you notice?

‘disproof’ involves actual proof, not ad hominem attacks because you disagree with another commenter.

i will say that gore doesn’t help re science:

Maybe it’s just easier, psychologically, to swallow the lie that these scientists who devote their lives to their work are actually greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists — and that we should instead put our faith in the pseudoscientists financed by large carbon polluters

gore’s rhetoric attempts to encourage us to put our FAITH in one group of people, rather than another. that’s not science, that’s an appeal to authority.

It’s not a matter of believing in climate change. That’s the easy part.

Doing something about it is the part no one is willing to do.

science is not what scientists think. it’s not what scientists say. it’s hopefully what scientists (and others) DO.

Ah, indeed that’s the seductive hope, but what scientists (or anyone else) does is utterly constrained by what they think – which is itself constrained by what they believe.

As I said earlier, this is Science’s fundamental blind spot – so of course when Science attempts to see what might be a problem with itself it sees nothing wrong. (That in itself should be a big clue.)

One simply has to look at the history of science to see the staggering degree of flat-out wrongness that defines it.

The history of science essentially “that earlier science is stupid and wrong – but don’t worry, our science today is provably right!”

But understandably few are brave enough to contemplate how what they hold most dear might be held up by future generations as wrong, or worse, laughable.

Action is constrained by thought is constrained by belief. And belief is faith.

“Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?” – Monty Python and the Holy Grail

‘disproof’ involves actual proof, not ad hominem attacks because you disagree with another commenter.

I totally agree. Thanks for the support.

Though I think your point might have been made more clearly if you’d replied directly to “Come back when you’re sober” Margaret.

Opinion: Masturbation causes blindness.
Fact: Masturbation does not cause blindness.

Opinion: Negros are inferior (SJC Taney)
Fact: Negros are not inferior.

Opinion: Tobacco use is safe and does not cause cancer. (TI)
Fact: Tobacco use is not safe and results in premature death.

Opinion: Dark skinned people are are different.
Fact: We all bleed! We all die!

Who would you choose to believe given the history of “opinions,” predicated on deliberate misinformation presented as fact, in America?

Anybody eating yellow cake?

gore’s rhetoric attempts to encourage us to put our FAITH in one group of people, rather than another. that’s not science, that’s an appeal to authority.

Fucking bingo.

Thanks for being willing to look for it.

And the first defense of the followers is rejection of any questioning and attacking any disbelievers.

your comment wasn’t questioning.

or didn’t you notice?

Questioning is premature until the other party is also willing to question. :-)

So my comments have really been me doing science, right here right now: I have a hypothesis – not just about Science, but also about the way its adherents might respond – and so I test it.

And the experiment is to provide a stimulus and see into which categories (self-questioning or fervently devout) any respondents place themselves.

The subjects are rewarded with a tasty pellet of self-satisfaction.

The best part: the results are self-publishing!

but what scientists (or anyone else) does is utterly constrained by what they think – which is itself constrained by what they believe.

of course it is. so what? what we think and what we believe are not, necessarily static things.

science is also a method for changing what we think and believe.

geeze. what a load of crap.

Thanks for being willing to look for it.

you are so confused about what science is and what it is not…

i’ve done my time DOING science. part of attempting to do it well means being willing to look for it.

and that is NOTHING new.

and just for a quick bit of evidence in support of my claim, here’s a comment of mine — on this site — from almost three years ago:

but imo, digby isn’t helping matters when she used the phrase “believe in science.” i have no idea what she means by that, but it sounds to me like she’s saying people have to choose who to believe: the priests of religion or the “priests” of medicine. imo both choices are profoundly anti-thought and are appeals to authority. i think of science as a way to try to understand / make sense of the natural world. it’s a method, it’s not the conventional wisdom of scientists.

now i’m going to go get some advil…. i really didn’t want to start the day with a headache… which i now have thanks to this thread.

Excellent discussion. But let me throw this out, as well.

Opinion (or faith or belief) seeks to provide an answer. Its sole purpose is to end discussion and debate. Science, on the other hand, seeks new questions. I would also argue that the “best” scientists fully acknowledge the role of faith in their pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, how can anyone study the universe, and its myriad pieces, without being awed by the complexity and beauty?

First things first folks. Ignore right wing religious idiots like EternalVigilance. They are here not to debate but to distract and they are doing it very deliberately IMHO. Why else would they come here?

So just ignore them. Do not play into them.

Actually
I would call both Al Gore and John Kerry the two very worst presidents in our history. Both allowed the integrity of the voting process itself to be hijacked without a fight.

I will never forgive Al Gore, John Kerry or the Democratic Party establishment for that.

For the record, I live in Minnesota but was one of the Official Election Re-Count Observers in Ohio 2004. I served in Eire and Seneca County in northern Ohio.

So now that that is out of the way.. My post from another thread obviously bears repeating.

Folks

Al Gore? Seriously? Have you learned nothing from the Madison Ave inspired hype of hope that was Obama? Do not listen to what ANY politician says but listen instead to their ACTIONS.

Vice president Al Gore was directly responsible for NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the IMF, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, massive give a ways of large tracts of OUR land in the northwest to the lumber industries, large tracts of land in the central plains to the mining interests etc etc etc etc. The list of betrayals of the Clinton/GORE Administration is well know.

Then we have the actions of president Al Gore. Remember the Michael Moore movie? Where Al Gore actually gavelled the Congressional Black Caucus and told them to “sit down and be quiet” when they were BEGGING ONE US Senator to challenge what happened in Florida 2000 with the 90,000 mainly blacks who were ILLEGALLY denied their right to vote or have it counted.

Then we Al Gore and his cute little movie. An Inconvenient Truth.. Whose central position was that we little people can end global warming. By joining together and buying environmental light bulbs (made perhaps by Nuclear power and war manufacturers General Electric) and other such little people together ideas.

Not a God damned mention of GE, Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, Occidental Oil, Shell Oil, BP or any other corporate responsibility for the disaster we all face.

Al Gore is simply a corporate shill. A “green-washed one” to be sure. That is why he was “allowed” to be VP.

Or did I miss the Battle Of Seattle in 2009 that was fighting the policies of the Clinton/GORE administration.

Tell me I am wrong someone. Please.

Now you understand why I have been banned from so many “progressive” blogs like Op Ed News, Common Dreams, Truthout, Daily KOS and refuse to cross the cyber picket line of Huff Post.

Because I have the facts and state them unafraid.

Oh and remember the 1996 Telecommunications Act when we complain about the corporate media and why it does not cover global warming/climate change with the seriousness it deserves.

America’s corporate sodomy…….

Yes, because everyone knows (or should know) that science should be an inherently anarchic enterprise with no ultimate source of authority and in which no one should be recognized as having any answers.

Take a look at Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It explains what scientists do, how consensus is reached, and how that consensus regarding any paradigm can eventually shift.

(Some arguments just aren’t worth having.)

Thank you. Good point.

You obviously are ignorant of all aspects of the discipline of science. It is simply the practice of the human trait, reality testing, which seems to have bypassed you.

when you boil it all down, Al Gore’s massive ego (unwillingness to run for Clinton’s 3rd term and decision to use a nonsense scandal as an excuse to stupidly call for change in 2000) is the reason we got stuck with Bush.

Yeah, uh that and, oh, they STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION, with a little help from the supremes, and then did it again and again in 2002, 2004, somewhat in 2006 and 2008. That might have something to do with it. Hmmm.

It’s all part of the multi-decade plan started back in the 70s to push the CONservative agenda down We the Peoples’ throats. So, stat up the think tanks to twist reality and seed the lies, Chamber of Commerce on the long term attack, and Nixon’s appointment of Powell to the Supine Court and Reagan’s “October Suprise”; a foul act fo Treason which landed him and his backers in the drivers seat. So, yeah, Gore wasn’t perfect, etc. but there were other factors…

it is really an indictment of not just our politics but our media’s coverage of climate change.

Ummmm, yup.

EV, you have a feeling about what science is but you are missing some basic understanding. I get that you are passionate about that opinion and even have some points to make in support of your argument, but it’s fundamentally flawed. I am not going to argue with you about it because I can clearly see you will only deeper entrench.

Michael Cavlan, I responded and told you that you were wrong in the last discussion about this very Gore article. What was your response? – crickets, that’s ok, the discussion went stale I suppose. Read the damn article then you can come back and tell us how precious your opinion is.

One has to try damn hard to marginalize Gore’s opinion on climate change and anyone who attempts it seems no better than a troll to me, sorry, that’s how it comes across.

Read the article, folks, it’s a good one even if it doesn’t say everything everyone wants it to say.

No, he’s not, it’s just that it is a *very* subtle point.

Science is based on a variety of assumptions, assumptions so basic they are almost invisible: “physical laws are the same everywhere in the Universe”, “the physical world exists objectively as perceived”, “observers are independent of that which is observed” – although that last one is wearing away as quantum theory goes its merry way.

These “axiomatic truths about reality” are just that – axioms, aka assumptions, aka “things taken on faith”. Most of the rebuttals are about how it WORKS, and it does work and is almost certainly the very best tool we plains apes ever dreamed up. That’s not the point he’s trying to make, it’s the (quite correct) point that *ultimately* science is based on faith. It has to be, ya gotta start somewhere. There Ain’t No Such Thing As First Principles.

That’s not saying by any stretch of the imagination that the Bronze Age religions we battle with in the West are a better way to approaching the world than the scientific method – they aren’t. It’s just the very subtle point that buried down there eventually there are assumptions.

I understand people don’t like hearing that – they assume it’s a defense of the Big Sky Fairy, and (understandably under that assumption) react angrily – but it remains true nonetheless. I’ve had a philosophy professor on NPR tell me I’m a solipsist for pointing that out, as if there’s no room between ‘Science is not self-evident’ and ‘I’m the only thing that exists”.

Again, it’s an extremely subtle point, of practicable use to damn near nobody, but the over-the-top-nymed EternalVigilance is quite correct in his/her assumption.

Mr. Gore is overweight? If he were to stand in the halls of Congress, at an AEI or Heritage Foundation gala, GOP or ABA fundraiser, ballgame, pizza parlor, bowling alley, corporate boardroom, dentist’s office, shopping mall or first tee of half the golf courses in America, he would not stand out for his weight. That’s an indictment of Big Ag and the Western Diet it promotes, with its emphases on chemical preservatives and colorings, taxpayer subsidized corn sugars, and monoculture maize, wheat and rice, the products made from which make up the middle 2/3 of every grocery store in America.

Mr. Gore is not noticeably more rotund than Newtie, Haley Barbour and a good many current and former CEO’s. His weight may be the message that pundits paid by his opponents want emphasized, but that’s because 97% of scientists who study the issue agree with him, that global warming is a clear and present danger to life on earth more than it is to the profit margins of the Kochs and their pack mates.

That you are skirting philosophy and religion doesn’t surprise and explains the confusion.

Science is based on faith? Really? Faith of what exactly? Faith of the same things religion and philosophy prescribe?

Right, science is as untrustworthy as philosophers and religion. As if science doesn’t have an entirely different process for examining reality than do philosophy and religion? Right. You know how absurd science-denial sounds, no?

Thank you, Margaret.

EV ought to try out that post over at the Pharyngula blog. Can you say Cupcake? Sure! I knew you could!

FunnyDiva

An axiom is an obvious or apparent truth, something found to be true so often in human experience – apples fall and water runs down hill – it is no longer open to question – at least within the parameters within which it is normally found. As with all “truths”, an axiom is a rebuttable presumption that falls away when better, testable, repeatable, verifiable explanations come along.

Science has its own myths and fables, and a strong culture that accepts dramatic changes in worldview through generational change more than personal psychological acceptance. But it is not the same as faith.

As for DDT, it would pay to be more scientific in evaluating its effects rather than pretending to a gotcha moment by throwing into Mr. Gore’s face that its inventor(s) won a prize. Observations about DDT’s competing effects are not mutually exclusive.

DDT was wonderful at killing pests that spread harmful diseases and its emergency use in wartime spread wildly during peacetime, thanks to ignorance, inexperience and the profit motive. DDT, it turned out, was equally wonderful at killing lots of other things we need and of persisting in the food chain long after its direct targets were dead.

DDT also gave us a wonderful example of Darwin’s theory of descent through change. The few insects that survived the catastrophic change in their micro-climate through introduction of relatively massive amounts of DDT spread their resistance quickly (on a human timescale) and that trait became dominant in their species, reducing DDT’s effectiveness for its stated purpose, while its other deleterious effects continued. That rather dramatically shifted the cost-benefit analysis relating to its use. Something similar is being introduced to the human environment through the massive use of antibiotics in factory “farms”.

I don’t think EV is thick-skinned enough to survive an outing at Pharyngula with that meme.

“…but it is really an indictment of not just our politics but our media’s coverage of climate change.”

No. It’s an indictment of our *society.*

We will kill the planet because the lie is comfortable.

I voted for Obama only once.

Yeah, uh that and, oh, they STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION, with a little help from the supremes

Yeah, well, uh, Gore should have been able to beat Bush easily in, say, Tennessee. The fact that the vote count in Florida was even so close that the election could have been stolen IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF GORE’S MASSIVE EGO.

Is that what you’re going to tell you grandkids years from now? ;-)

Uh, huh. Unlike the well-balanced, manageable, productively directed egos of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove, ad nauseum. All top politicians have egos bigger than their houses. That is no more a credible issue than Mr. Gore’s weight.

Mr. Gore may have been bland, he was following a television preacher president, but he didn’t corrupt the press corpse into calling him a liar with every utterance, he didn’t corrupt it into giving George Bush a break on all his lies, omissions and evasions, and he didn’t steal the election. And he didn’t give us the post-9/11 security state nightmare that Mr. Cheney dreamt about.

Bottom line in my view is that, had Gore served after his election, there would have been no Iraq war. How much different would the world look if there had been no Iraq war? Let me count the ways….

Well, uh, like.

He ran a change campaign when the country wanted a third Clinton term. He chose Lieberman and slapped a great, big kiss on Tipper at the convention because he thought he could use the nonsense scandal to justify running a change campaign when the country wanted a third Clinton term. All he had to do was coast into the WH.

Instead, his massive ego got in the way and he showed up to three debates as three different people.

At the core of the failure of the Gore campaign was his stupid need to break with the Clinton administration. It was his to lose. He lost. Casting blame elsewhere does a great injustice to the massive ego that drove Gore’s campaign off a cliff, when all he had to do was coast into the White House.

Family Guy did a great episode in which Peter made one change in the past and then returned to a future in which Gore was president, the air was clean, the economy was doing great, and Cheney shot Rove in the face during a hunting trip.

Right.

At least he earned the right to deserve such an ego.

He seemed uncomfortable to me. That wasn’t going to play well with the media or the folks watching.

The SCOTUS thanks you. They made a lousy and in a sane world what would have been impeachable decision.

Nah, you’re right, those assclowns in Florida who were and still are taking away people’s right to vote without any legitimacy whatsoever and an entirely corrupt and nonsecure vote counting system had nothing to do with it. It was all Gore’s ego, that’s the ticket.

What is your evidence? You have none. Can’t even believe I am responding to this nonsense. Apologies to those who would rather this kind of thing go ignored.

What’s my evidence for what? For the fact that the American people would have welcomed a third Clinton term, or for the fact that Gore ran against the Clinton administration?

I can’t even tell what you’re arguing, defending and/or are upset about. Are you upset at the notion that Gore is to blame for losing Tennessee in 2000? Are you upset because he ran a change campaign when most Americans didn’t want it, causing the Florida count to be so close? Why does the idea that Gore deserves most of the blame for not soundly defeating Bush upset you so much?