Poll: twice as many say Gore NOT a global warming expert

[tenacea73]

His inventing days ended when the came up with the early version of The Internet that worked over wet kite string.

True, 16 Baud, but it worked!  Trouble was, in the patent application, he spelled the word:  "Bawd".

Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but he did invent the Internet Tax that was added to everyone's phone bill some time ago. As a true liberal, any invention, good, or service never really exists until it is taxed - so in Gore's way of thinking - he invented the Internet.

/

[Anyacat]

I did not know that a spokesperson for any issue need be an "expert." Mr. Gore did not write the movie, or direct it, or do the research for it. He was hired to do what he did, narrate a documentary. (Was Morgan Freeman an expert on penguins when he narrated The March of the Penguins?) Frequently, spokespersons are chosen because they have an interest in the subject, but that is not always a prerequisite. Climate changes for a number of reasons. The causes for the current change remain the topic of ongoing research. Those scientists intimately involved in this research agree that current climate changes are anthropogenic, although there is debate on the extent and rate of anthropogenic warming. Generally, people seem to have a poor understanding of what global warming is, what causes it and what people can do to control it (or even if it can be controlled). An Inconvenient Truth is one example of how one segment of the climate research community has chosen to educate the public. A film has a wider audience than, for example, an article on the same topic in Science magazine. Both sides have equal access to public relations tools such as documentary films with which to state its case. The British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle (BBC 2007) argues against prominent scientific views on global warming. I think it is foolish to dismiss an idea just because you do not like the spokesperson. And Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. In fact, there are a number of places on the Internet that discuss that issue. Here are just three:

http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=Al+Gore+and+the+Internet&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D2e86483adca51a8c%26clickedItemRank%3D3%26userQuery%3DAl%2BGore%2Band%2Bthe%2BInternet%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.snopes.com%252Fquotes%252Finternet.asp%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPBoom%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fquotes%2Finternet.asp

http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=Al+Gore+and+the+Internet&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D2e86483adca51a8c%26clickedItemRank%3D2%26userQuery%3DAl%2BGore%2Band%2Bthe%2BInternet%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.firstmonday.org%252Fissues%252Fissue5_10%252Fwiggins%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPBoom%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstmonday.org%2Fissues%2Fissue5_10%2Fwiggins%2F

http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=Al+Gore+and+the+Internet&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D2e86483adca51a8c%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3DAl%2BGore%2Band%2Bthe%2BInternet%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsethf.com%252Fgore%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPBoom%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fsethf.com%2Fgore%2F

[Johnny Morgan]

I did not know that a spokesperson for any issue need be an "expert."

I don't see alot of "spokespersons" being summoned to Capitol Hill.

I'll be sure to let Al Gonzales know that the next time he's asked to speak to a committee, he can send his spokesperson instead.

Unless Gore's visit was all political theatre?  Nah, the Democrats want to get the facts on global warming.

I guess Tony Snow is an expert too.  As is Elliot Mintz (that's Paris Hilton's PR agent, for those who don't read The Superficial).

[Anyacat]

Spokespersons are always testifying before congress, some are famous names, such as Michael J Fox, some are not. The Breast Cancer people often use well know names such as Pierce Brosnan and Rob Lowe to speak for them, sometimes before a congressional hearing. In the 1950s, Helen Hayes begged for money to fund polio research after her daughter died of the disease.  If you are saying that spokespersons are shilling for their cause, I cannot deny that's the case because that's what a spokesperson does. Of course it's political theater, that's how public attention is captured these days. Tony Snow is not an expert on the disease of which he is afflicted, but he can be a powerful spokesperson when funding and public opinion is needed. Christopher Reeve in a wheelchair is far more "newsworthy" than some scientist who is seeking funding with the results of his research. Cheryl Crowe was on Capitol Hill this week asking for more Breast Cancer research funds. I think sometimes personal antipathy gets in the way of common sense. Or not, as you wish.

[Johnny Morgan]

That's fine and all.  I agree that high-profile people are important in getting issues out in the open, and clarifying them.

But when Gore is professing knowledge of an issue, upon questioning by the committee--not just Inhofe--on the scientific matters of global warming, we're running into an unqualified person giving testimony on a matter he may know but doesn't practice.

Shilling is one thing; holding yourself out as an expert 9or having Congress hold you out as an expert) is a totally different thing.

Unless I missed Al Gore's Ph.D., his answers to the committee were WAY too detailed for a layman to answer honestly, truthfully, and credibly.

[Anyacat]

That's fine and all.  I agree that high-profile people are important in getting issues out in the open, and clarifying them.

But when Gore is professing knowledge of an issue, upon questioning by the committee--not just Inhofe--on the scientific matters of global warming, we're running into an unqualified person giving testimony on a matter he may know but doesn't practice.

Shilling is one thing; holding yourself out as an expert 9or having Congress hold you out as an expert) is a totally different thing.

Unless I missed Al Gore's Ph.D., his answers to the committee were WAY too detailed for a layman to answer honestly, truthfully, and credibly.

Oddly, I never considered Al Gore an expert in climate control or brain surgery. So, are we angry because he came armed with some scientist-supplied answers? Or just because he's Al Gore and that is enough to make many people angry? Is Congress mounting an investigation into Superficiality and is that why that Mintz guys is invited?

[Johnny Morgan]

I never considered Al Gore an expert in those areas either.  But the question them becomes:

If Gore had scientist-supplied answers, why did Congress not request the scientist(s) appear?  Why get "evidence" of global warming from an unlearned intermediary subbing for scientific experts?

If Congress wanted the truth, they wouldn't ask such detailed questions of Gore.  But I submit that the Democrats in Congress didn't want the truth, they wanted the show.

So, are we ever going to get the truth from scientists?  Or are we just going to parade spokespersons in front of Congress.  That's real effective there.

[Anyacat]

I never considered Al Gore an expert in those areas either.  But the question them becomes:

If Gore had scientist-supplied answers, why did Congress not request the scientist(s) appear?  Why get "evidence" of global warming from an unlearned intermediary subbing for scientific experts?

If Congress wanted the truth, they wouldn't ask such detailed questions of Gore.  But I submit that the Democrats in Congress didn't want the truth, they wanted the show.

So, are we ever going to get the truth from scientists?  Or are we just going to parade spokespersons in front of Congress.  That's real effective there.

I don't really know, but here's my guess. Names get media attention, scientists do not. Gore, or Reeve, or Fox testifying before congress is sure to make the news. Cheryl Crowe captures the public attention in a way that John E. Niederhuber, M.D., Director of the National Cancer Institute, does not. Of course, you assume that a Republican Congress does want the answers, rather than a show, and therefore would eschew the celebrity spokesperson in favor of a scientist. I think it's sweet that you think that. But I disagree. A spokesperson armed with the words a scientists should say, if anyone cared to listen, is the only recourse we have these days. With research funds limited, we have scientists at each other's throats scratching for a way to put their case before the public, before Congress and before potential funding agencies in such a way as not to be forgotten. Yes, this is show business and while it has no business in scientific research, it is currently the only game in town. When it comes to global warming, we have very wealthy people who are willing to spend billions to prove that their products are not at fault--and this is well before there is any scientific consensus as to what contributes to global warming. The oil concerns have the money and will to prove that fossil fuel is not the problem; how does the other side get their story told? Enter the dog and pony show--the well meaning, sometimes honestly involved celebrity who is there because he or she is a celebrity who is armed with information provided to them by some faceless scientist who doesn't photograph well. This is our society. This is how we impart news. This is how we do business. So, one can bash Al Gore and use him as a convenient reason to ignore climate changes or to pretend there are no questions, or one can ignore the messenger and take a look at the message (and there are plenty of other places to go than your local theater). It all depends on personal motivation.

[Johnny Morgan]

Ah yes, the old political motivation red herring.

News flash: the Democrats are in the majority in Congress now.  They invited Gore.

Any reference to what a Republican Congress did or may do is inapposite.  The Democrats are in charge, this is their baby.

The question, still unanswered, is whether Congress wants facts and honest discussion with experts...or do they want the names and dog-and-pony show of Al Gore.

It appears, much like the rest of the Democrats' own campaign promises, they want the usufructs--all the glory and celebration, with none of the actual responsibility and work.

[Anyacat]

I have no idea if Congress wants facts and honest discussion with experts or if they want the names and the dog and pony show of Al Gore. Of course, you are correct that the Republican Congress, which did the very same thing, is out of this discussion because its the Democrats turn. But if trotting out the usual suspects is what gets the CDC or the FDA or the NIH the funds they need for research, you can bet that's who will be trotted out and why--regardless of who is in power. The plan is to get money to fund research however the agency can swing it. You seem to think that things would be/were different if/when the Republicans were in power. And while we are on the subject of evil, baby-eating Democrats, let us not forget that the Bill Clinton is a Democrat and he was impeached because he got a you know what from you know who and then LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH--also there's something about Obama and cocaine, I don't really know what, but there's a connection there somehow.