[Vision2020] Al Gore thinks climate "deniers" are akin to racists from the Old South

Sat Sep 3 10:16:52 PDT 2011

Paul,

I prefer to have all the available information and facts. I prefer that we hope for the best but plan for the worst. I think that people will, especially politicians, lawyers, and greedy corporate types, always exploit anything real or unreal regarding peoples' insecurity and safety to maximize power, control, and profits. It is an unfortunate but a dark reality of human nature. But it cuts both ways, for and against. Exploitation on all sides by all sides. 

However, I don't think the vast majority of scientists and experts in this field are trying to deceive and shut down conversation, research, or confuse people with disinformation or create panic. On the contrary, I think they want total awareness of what they know or suspect. I think they believe they have a general ethical obligation to inform the public of potential environmental consequences of their actions as individuals and as a society. 

Of course they don't know everything, and their knowledge, research and ability to predict is limited and will lack some accuracies. However, that doesn't mean they should withhold information from the public and not do what they can to inform the public. I consider this akin to a fire department not releasing information about a fire heading toward town because they don't know the exact place and path or the extent a fire will burn. Their obligation is to tell the public what they believe based on the information they have and their expertise. Sure, shouting fire might lead to some panic, unneeded work, and moving, etc, exploitation by looters as people leave their houses unnecessarily, but they are still obligated to inform. 

We have two choices, either ignore or follow what the experts advise us to do. Ignore it and we risk the consequences. I think the risks of ignoring what they tell use to do and sacrifice don't outweigh following it. My odds of getting into an car accident are about .0001%, yet I still wear a seat belt. Because the cost and inconvenience of wearing a seat belt is far less than cost of not to me. Same with the air that I breathe. Even if the actions requested for me turn out to be almost totally bogus, the costs are little to the .000001% chance my air will be less safely breathable in the distant future.

Your beef is with the hype and spin that is inherently connected to any important subject. Not with scientists. It is just a cost of making sure everyone knows how serious the situation is. 

Donovan Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Al Gore thinks climate "deniers" are akin to racists from the Old South

I don't actually believe that the earth isn't warming.  See, that's the problem with trying to sweep this conversation under the rug ala racism.  I'm just skeptical that they actually know how much warming is due to mankind because I haven't seen any evidence that they have a handle on the natural processes involved.  I am also skeptical that they know enough about the possible feedback mechanisms to have any right to claim that the results will be catastrophic.

Anyway, there's plenty here that could be discussed, but not if we bury our heads in the sand and poo-poo the conversations because someone is bringing up a subject that people have worked really hard to make into a political statement, and are now trying to make into an unassailable truth.

Doesn't it matter to you at all that they play fast and loose with the numbers sometimes to add more shock value?  Wouldn't you rather they just told you what they actually knew?

Paul

On 09/02/2011 03:38 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote: 
Paul,
> 
>Yes, because your "fact" doesn't support your claim that global warming isn't occurring. The preponderance of empirical evidence and the overwhelming majority of experts believe that global warming is occurring. If you have evidence to show that the Earth is not warming or can convince a majority of geologists, meteorologists, and weather and climate field related experts they are wrong, then I think your claim can be supported. Pointing out a misplaced decimal point or misquote from a supporter of stopping global warming doesn't logically support your claim the Earth isn't warming.
> 
>Donovan Arnold
>
>
>From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>Cc: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 7:49 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Al Gore thinks climate "deniers" are akin to racists from the Old South
>
>
>Does it matter if the person "denying global warming" has actual facts to back them up?
>
>For example, when I correct someone yet again on this list who is overstating the amount of sea level rise that the IPCC expects as their worst-case scenario, do I sound ignorant?  Should everyone turn away and pretend I didn't say anything at all?
>
>Don't mind me, I'm just trying to probe the outer edges of their reality-distortion field.
>
>Paul
>
>On 09/01/2011 08:48 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote: 
>I do think someone sounds ignorant and uneducated when they deny global warming and humans having a negative impact on the Earth's environment. I also think someone sounds ignorant and uneducated about people when they say racist, sexist, homophobic things. So, yes, in that respect, I think the two are similar. Other than this, no, there are no similarities. 
>> 
>>Donovan Arnold
>>
>>
>>From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>To: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:14 PM
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Al Gore thinks climate "deniers" are akin to racists from the Old South
>>
>>I'd like to get some vision2020 members opinions on this.  Here is an article from the Huffington Post where in an interview Al Gore talks about "winning the conversation" with climate deniers which refers to how racist comments were basically shunned in everyday conversations after the civil rights movement occurred.
>>
>>Here is the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/gore-climate-change-deniers_n_940802.html
>>
>>Do you think it's legitimate to treat talk of skepticism of anthropogenic global warming in the same way that we do racist language today?
>>
>>Should I, as a climate skeptic, be told that "we don't talk about that here in polite conversation" when I have a question about something related to the science of climate change?
>>
>>Just curious if I sound like everyone's uncle that everybody seems to have that embarrasses you every time you go out in public with him.
>>
>>Is that really a healthy attitude to have about scientific skepticism?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>        mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110903/4d3b7fed/attachment.html>