# Why no one cares about global warming. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337 "2015-04-23T04:05:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/61 "2015-04-25T03:51:49Z")
Forgot to add: When I said that many in government want to make sure that we do not even do efforts to prepare and that they are only making the situation worse, [it is because they do not want to inconvenience the ones that will be affected by the change of assigning a price to the human emitted global warming gases.](http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/movie-reviews/2015/04/24/Movie-review-Merchants-of-Doubt-shows-how-to-do-battle-on-major-issues/stories/201504240143) > [@](#): > > There’s no doubt that asbestos and cigarettes cause lung cancer. > > There’s no doubt that DDT kills wildlife. > > There’s no doubt about the existence of acid rain and holes in the ozone layer. > > There’s no doubt that the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves have shrunk by 23 percent. > > There’s no doubt that man-produced carbon dioxide has exponentially aggravated the greenhouse effect. > > Irrefutable scientific data and photographic evidence now confirm all of the above. But there was a time when they didn’t. > > What do you do when such data and evidence debunk your ideological beliefs? When there’s truly no doubt? > > You sow it. > > That’s the premise and political tactic that documentary director Robert Kenner (Oscar-nominated for “Food Inc.” in 2009) explores in “Merchants of Doubt,” an expose of the pundits-for-hire who pose as scientific authorities on such issues as toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and climate change. > > Their genesis dates from the 1950s with the initial full-throated (pardon the adjective) defense of tobacco: “Nicotine is not addictive and smoking doesn’t cause cancer.” As research data showed otherwise, the defense modulated to: “It is not known whether smoking causes cancer” and then “There is no conclusive proof.” > > That approach — backed by a billion-dollar public relations campaign to promote it — staved off government action/regulation for the better part of half a century, while other toxic industries took notice: If it worked for tobacco, why not for us? > > The playbook: Deny the problem, call for more evidence, cherry-pick data, create front groups to raise concerns about threatened freedoms, hire media-friendly “experts” to promulgate disinformation and mislead the public (an easy-enough task). After all they owe a lot to the ones that did help them to gain power. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/62 "2015-04-25T04:06:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Forgot to add: > > When I said that many in government want to make sure that we do not even do efforts to prepare and that they are only making the situation worse, [it is because they do not want to inconvenience the ones that will be affected by the change of assigning a price to the human emitted global warming gases.](http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/movie-reviews/2015/04/24/Movie-review-Merchants-of-Doubt-shows-how-to-do-battle-on-major-issues/stories/201504240143) > > After all they owe a lot to the ones that did help them to gain power. Thank you for that excellent analogy with tobacco. Cigarettes have had warning labels since 1966, and the US was the first country to require them. Tell me more about how big tobacco fooled everyone, with the complicity of the US gov’t. ETA and tell me that date. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/63 "2015-04-25T04:15:15Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Thank you for that excellent analogy with tobacco. Cigarettes have had warning labels since 1966, and the US was the first country to require them. Tell me more about how big tobacco fooled everyone, with the complicity of the US gov’t. > > ETA and tell me that date. As usual many contrarians (and conservatives) do have trouble with time and time lines it was clear that the time was “yesterday”. About 35 years ago when it was very clear that the sun became less of a factor in driving the current warming. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. So yes, as pointed before the sources that claimed that the sun was the main cause of the current warming lied and continue to do so. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/64 "2015-04-25T04:29:54Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Thank you for that excellent analogy with tobacco. Cigarettes have had warning labels since 1966, and the US was the first country to require them. From the Wikipedia article on cigarette labeling: “Though the United States started the trend of labeling cigarette packages with health warnings, today the country has one of the smallest, least prominent warnings placed on their packages. Warnings are usually in small typeface placed along one of the sides of the cigarette packs with colors and fonts that closely resemble the rest of the package, so the warnings essentially are integrated and do not stand out with the rest of the cigarette package.” Other countries, like Canada and those in the EU have long had stronger wording and graphic images and overall much more visible and effective warnings. And yes, much of the reason this wasn’t done in the US was due to the complicity of Congress and endless lobbying and court challenges by a powerful industry. > [@Grotonian](#): > > Tell me more about how big tobacco fooled everyone, with the complicity of the US gov’t. Sure. There are many books that detail that sordid history, like this one: [Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming](http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942), which is also now a critically acclaimed documentary, but there are many others. Wendell Potter also talks about it in [Deadly Spin](http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Spin-Insurance-Corporate-Deceiving/dp/B00A16M7HC/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8), which is mainly about the same tactics being pulled in the health insurance lobby, but also talks about tobacco and climate change disinformation campaigns by the same powerful PR and lobby industry. The interesting thing is that some of the same unethical characters that sold their reputations to the tobacco lobby for personal gain then later went on to do exactly the same thing on behalf of climate science denial, mostly on behalf of oil and coal companies. These included Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and Robert Jastrow, among many others. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/65 "2015-04-25T04:45:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The interesting thing is that some of the same unethical characters that sold their reputations to the tobacco lobby for personal gain then later went on to do exactly the same thing on behalf of climate science denial, mostly on behalf of oil and coal companies. These included Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and Robert Jastrow, among many others. Regarding less scientific deniers, it baffles me why people like Mark Morano, whose claim to fame was to help swiftboat a presidential candidate, has become a source of climate change disinformation and many conservatives do not see anything weird with that. > **[Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano](https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/climate-change-misinformer-year-marc-morano)** ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/66 "2015-04-25T05:09:22Z")
Just goes to show that self-serving mercenary liars completely devoid of ethics are pretty much fungible across different industries and endeavors. 😃 “The dangers of tobacco smoke are unproven”, “the dangers of climate change are unproven”, or “John Kerry is a traitorous coward” are all the same to them if there’s a buck to be made. And [there’s lots to be made](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/). ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/67 "2015-04-25T12:49:16Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > I’ve yet to see a proposed fix that isn’t absolutely devastating to the American lifestyle. Until there’s a solution that doesn’t involve us shivering in a 50 degree, one bedroom flat above a liquor store, huddling under a single flickering compact fluorescent and taking a stinking, low class bus to our job, I just don’t want to hear about the problem. There was a thread some time ago that asked people fully on the AGW camp with “hockey sticks” tattoed on their chests what they would do, that required sacrifice, to solve AGW. It was funny to hear why they, for some specific reason, wouldn’t or shouldn’t do more than CFLs, maybe a (subsidised) solar panel or driving a little bit less. Nobody would comit to actual change that mattered, they wanted others to do it. Don’t tell me how great and easy to follow your diet is if you’re still 35% above your ideal body weight. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Just goes to show that self-serving mercenary liars completely devoid of ethics are pretty much fungible across different industries and endeavors. 😃 “The dangers of tobacco smoke are unproven”, “the dangers of climate change are unproven”, or “John Kerry is a traitorous coward” are all the same to them if there’s a buck to be made. And [there’s lots to be made](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/). Yup, nobody is going to profit from making AGW scary, not one single person, not one single buck, all donors are as pure as driven snow; angels walking amongst men. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/68 "2015-04-25T14:56:47Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I remember a Top Gear episode where they went to the North Pole and concluded global warming was a myth because it’s…like…really, really cold there. No, seriously: it’s _cold_. In the spirit of fighting ignorance, they claimed they drove to the [north magnetic pole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole), not the actual most northern point of the planet, what we think of as the north pole. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/69 "2015-04-25T16:33:14Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > There was a thread some time ago that asked people fully on the AGW camp with “hockey sticks” tattoed on their chests what they would do, that required sacrifice, to solve AGW. > > It was funny to hear why they, for some specific reason, wouldn’t or shouldn’t do more than CFLs, maybe a (subsidised) solar panel or driving a little bit less. Nobody would comit to actual change that mattered, they wanted others to do it. > > Don’t tell me how great and easy to follow your diet is if you’re still 35% above your ideal body weight. That is of course a gross misrepresentation of what was said, can not speak for others but basically like in the case of acid rain many other problems coming from technology were controlled by pressuring industry to remove acid rain causing materials from emissions at power plants, reduce the materials in the fossil fuels and to put catalytic converters in vehicles, the point was that doing things on your own does help and solar is growing more in popularity, but that is not were the bulk of the solution will come. As shown before the most effective solution is to have government and industry deploying the use of new technology at large scale to be more economically effective, and then the slight increase in costs will be pay by all, after all it really was inefficient and more expensive to force all drivers to install converters in cars, but/and it was better to have government regulations and industry to make them parts of the vehicles and the increase in cost was shared by all. And the same can be say about water and sewage systems in our cities: [QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE] Claiming (with the same logic) that the ones demanding clean water and no cholera as people that only wanted to get clean water the easy way or to shame them because they did not install a sewage line on their own (all the way to the Thames and all of them individually?) is bananas. In any case, our consumer choices are also important but not as much as what the government and industry will have to do to change. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yup, nobody is going to profit from making AGW scary, not one single person, not one single buck, all donors are as pure as driven snow; angels walking amongst men. I would not be surprised to find that many toilet bowl manufacturers in Merry Old England also pushed for clean water and sewage lines, that does not detract from the fact that cholera and other diseases became almost unknown in London and many other cities after, this point of yours is really silly. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/70 "2015-04-25T17:49:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As shown before the most effective solution is to have government and industry deploying the use of new technology at large scale to be more economically effective, and then the slight increase in costs will be pay by all, after all it really was inefficient and more expensive to force all drivers to install converters in cars, but/and it was better to have government regulations and industry to make them parts of the vehicles and the increase in cost was shared by all. That is absolutely correct. Most people have to be forced to do almost anything that is for the public good, and resist and refuse to do anything if it cost them anything. While it rankles the idea of freedom, forcing people to do things has always been the only way it will happen. Combined with industry not wanting to give up a single dime of profits, it’s always been a hard road to force changes. But with out them, we would all be far worse off. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/71 "2015-04-25T18:46:44Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yup, nobody is going to profit from making AGW scary, not one single person, not one single buck, all donors are as pure as driven snow; angels walking amongst men. Cite to where I said that? Cite to where _ **anyone** _ has said that? What I said, and what the cited study and the actual evidence backs up in abundance, is that there are vast amounts of money to be made by lying about climate change and trying to minimize it as a non-issue. For the simple reason that the beneficiaries of the lies are pretty much all of the world’s industries, oil and coal companies, power companies, all the investors therein, and every citizen who perceives a threat to his energy-rich lifestyle, who drives a gas-guzzler and prefers his mind closed, his ears blocked, and the world’s problems to be just a distant buzz that he can ignore in blissful ignorance. On the other side of this bombardment of propaganda that dominates the airwaves, the print media, and the Internet are the scientists who actually study the issues. The scientists stand pretty much alone. Even governments, wary of skittish voters like the ones I just mentioned, and terrified of spooking Wall Street, tend to downplay the problem. Because the money is overwhelmingly on one side of this manufactured “debate”, and it overwhelmingly favors the side that manufactured the debate in the first place, despite strong scientific consensus to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/72 "2015-04-26T01:02:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What I said, and what the cited study and the actual evidence backs up in abundance, is that there are vast amounts of money to be made by lying about climate change and trying to minimize it as a non-issue. How exactly does one make vast amounts of money by lying about climate change? What’s the mechanism for turning lies into piles of cash. Serious question. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/73 "2015-04-26T01:18:29Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > How exactly does one make vast amounts of money by lying about climate change? > > What’s the mechanism for turning lies into piles of cash. Serious question. > **[Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)** > > Documents show Willie Soon, researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center, received total of $1.25m from groups that included Koch brothers foundation > [@](#): > > A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. > > Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. > > According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal. > > The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules. I still remember how Inhofe and the Republicans used Willie Soon’s shoddy research as example of the work of a “Galileo” And promptly spiked the progress of a comprehensible bill to start controlling emissions. > **[Why Big Energy Took a Tip From Big Tobacco](https://thinc.blog/2015/03/03/why-big-energy-took-a-tip-from-big-tobacco/)** > > Dana Nuccitelli has published a piece looking more deeply at the Slick Willie Soon affair. An interesting question to ask is, how does a hack for hire get his “science” papers, what he … > [@](#): > > For example, Climate Research editor Chris de Freitas published 14 separate papers from a group of climate contrarians that included Willie Soon during 1997–2003. The practice finally ended in 2003 after the journal published a particularly bad paper by Soon and his colleague Sallie Baliunas. > > That paper concluded that current global temperatures are not anomalous compared the past 1,000 years. However, it contained numerous major fundamental flaws, such as equating dryness with hotness, and was subsequently refuted by an article in the American Geophysical Union journal Eos written by a number of prominent climate scientists. The publication of this badly flawed paper, and Climate Research’s refusal to revise or retract it, led to the resignation of five of the journal’s editors. Michael Mann documents the episode in detail in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. > > After publishing this paper, Soon was invited by Senator James Inhofe to testify before US Congress, and the Soon and Baliunas paper was used by Congressional Republicans to justify opposition to climate legislation. During that testimony, Soon claimed not to have knowingly received funding from organizations that oppose climate legislation. In reality, he had received such funding. Twelve years later, US Congress still has yet to pass climate legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/74 "2015-04-26T02:02:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In his State of the Union address this January, President Obama said, “No challenge – no challenge – poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” I’m not worried about it because Obama’s not worried. He and his wife couldn’t be bothered to ride in the [same 747 to the same destination to tape TV shows](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/13/obama-first-lady-flew-separate-planes-la-same-day/). Scheduling difficulties don’tja know. Granted she probable took an economy airliner (757) so clearly they’re doing their bit to shave off their carbon footprint. [He once flew to DEN to sign a bill](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-plans-sign-787-billion-stimulus-plan-tuesday-denver-article-1.391420). I’m pretty sure Congress would have driven it over the the White House but what do I know. I’m just footing the bill. Yeah I’m staying awake at night worrying about it. Maybe the world got tired of the deliberate misrepresentation of data or the constant lies about what should have occurred already but didn’t followed by excuses as to why the numbers were off. All the fear mongering completely ignores the natural transition to electrical power over fossil fuels were experiencing or the switch from coal to natural gas because of the huge deposits found. Global warming is so far down the list of people’s concerns it’s been relegated to public eye rolling status. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/75 "2015-04-26T02:12:27Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’m not worried about it because Obama’s not worried. He and his wife couldn’t be bothered to ride in the [same 747 to the same destination to tape TV shows](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/13/obama-first-lady-flew-separate-planes-la-same-day/). Scheduling difficulties don’tja know. Granted she probable took an economy airliner (757) so clearly they’re doing their bit to shave off their carbon footprint. [He once flew to DEN to sign a bill](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-plans-sign-787-billion-stimulus-plan-tuesday-denver-article-1.391420). I’m pretty sure Congress would have driven it over the the White House but what do I know. I’m just footing the bill. Yeah I’m staying awake at night worrying about it. > > Maybe the world got tired of the deliberate misrepresentation of data or the constant lies about what should have occurred already but didn’t followed by excuses as to why the numbers were off. All the fear mongering completely ignores the natural transition to electrical power over fossil fuels were experiencing or the switch from coal to natural gas because of the huge deposits found. > > Global warming is so far down the list of people’s concerns it’s been relegated to public eye rolling status. Read post #69, again, attacks of this nature are red herrings, and also silly too. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/76 "2015-04-26T02:13:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > How exactly does one make vast amounts of money by lying about climate change? > > What’s the mechanism for turning lies into piles of cash. Serious question. Al Gore gets $100,000 just in speaker fees for each of his Chicken Little speeches. Forget the carbon offset scam he’s involved in that brings in millions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/77 "2015-04-26T02:17:59Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Al Gore gets $100,000 just in speaker fees for each of his Chicken Little speeches. Forget the carbon offset scam he’s involved in that brings in millions. > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. But lets see again what a conservative Republican scientist has to say about him: > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… > [@](#): > > 1. Scientists expect journalists and popularizers to get a few things wrong when explaining scientific work. > > … > > The upshot is that scientists are usually pretty resigned to the fact that the popular media is going to botch some of the details, so we’re generally happy if they get the overall gist right. > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. “Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/78 "2015-04-26T02:24:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Read post #69, again, attacks of this nature are red herrings, and also silly too. It’s not a red herring that the people shilling this bullshit don’t give one fucking fart about it. Nobody is buying it. In 50 years the world is going to be electric powered instead of fossil fuel powered and all this rhetoric will be a footnoted joke. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/79 "2015-04-26T02:26:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm) > But lets see again what a conservative Republican scientist has to say about him: > > [“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?” | Climate Asylum](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/) You can vomit all the cites you want. Al Gore makes his money selling bullshit and Obama flings carbon as if it was his core job function. Nobody is taking them seriously. Get use to it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2015, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/80 "2015-04-26T02:30:21Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You can vomit all the cites you want. Al Gore makes his money selling bullshit and Obama flings carbon as if it was his core job function. > > Nobody is taking them seriously. Get use to it. Get used to being **wrong** in all your posts so far, including the one where you claimed that this subject “it’s been relegated to public eye rolling status.” > **[Most Republicans Say They Back Climate Action, Poll Finds (Published 2015)](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=0)** > > A poll found that about half of Republicans would favor a presidential candidate who supports fighting climate change. > [@](#): > > \*\*Most Republicans Say They Back Climate Action, Poll Finds \*\* > > … > > Although the poll found that climate change was not a top issue in determining a person’s vote, a candidate’s position on climate change influences how a person will vote. For example, 67 percent of respondents, including 48 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents, said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who said that human-caused climate change is a hoax. > > The results came as climate change was emerging as a source of debate in the coming presidential campaign. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337.md?page=5)