Chicago Sun-Times | James M. Taylor | June 30, 2007
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, “We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth.” Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.”
. . . more
Fr. Hans –
I am disappointed that you posted this highly misleading article.
I researched this James Taylor guy and found out that he is just a singer who hasn’t had a top ten song in decades. Plus, I looked at lyrics to some of his so-called “hits” and found this:
“Oh I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain,
I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end”
BUT!! According to the latest UN climate report, fire and rain have not been seen together for several decades, which is a sure sign of global warming. AND!! the sunny days ARE ALREADY ENDING since it is definitely getting more stormy, and more hurricaney, etc. etc.
Just another stooge for the recording, uh… I mean… oil industry.
Tom,
Please, are the claims in the article TRUE or FALSE? Enough with the “attack the messenger” approach to intelligent debate of the issues. Either address the claims objectively or be respectful of the rest of us who actually want to engage in mature and logical discussions.
Your research has mislead you – this article was written by James M Taylor, who is not the singer songwriter. You may also not have learned that James V Taylor, the musician, is very involved with the National Resources Defence Council http://www.nrdc.org/
Note 1. Tom C. writes:
Oops, my mistake. Didn’t realize there were no top-ten hits for decades. I should have checked Oprah first. Celebrity is credibility!
#2 and #3
I guess I didn’t calibrate my satire meter correctly. I posted with tongue very firmly in cheek.
I’ve been had. Got me with that one! Very funny… 🙂
Yep, me too!
LOL!
I first thought you were quoting Dean and had left out the “”…:)
How proud you will be to tell your grandchildren that when global warming began causing drought, crop failures, famine and coastal flooding, turning millions of human beings into refugees, and causing the extinction of hundreds of species, your reaction was to make a big joke out of it.
The joke is being played on the entire world by people like you who keep claiming that 0.037% of the atmosphere (a colorless and insignifican gas) is causing the warming when it’s the SUN and WATER VAPOR that’s overwhelmingly responspible. Hey Dean, still waiting for that scientific experiment that was done that showed how CO2 “causes” warming when it’s 0.037% (I adjusted it to current level) of the atmosphere. Please do tell us how you intend to control the sun.
The entire premise of this article is a compete fiction meant to hoodwink the gullible and witless.
Here is what scientists actually said about Gore’s global warming presentation:
Scientists OK Gore’s movie for accuracy, USA Today, 6/27/2006
Does Al Gore get the science right in the movie An Inconvenient Truth? National Snow and Ice Data Center
As a scientist who studies the climate, what do you think of the movie?
Dean,
You better carefully read what you post as “evidence” because your “proof” is laughable:
(1) “The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion.”
Who did they contact? And 100 is now considered “statistically significant” for a consensus. I can’t stop lauging. Is this the best you can come up with? This is beyond pathetic. What kind of random sample did they use, how accurate the sampling, what response rates, what questions were asked, etc. etc. You know the type of objective analysis we keep asking for and the “man-caused global alarmist” keep failing to provide over, and over, and over again. (NOTE: Anecdotal “evidence” and unproven CAUSE and EFFECT theories do not suddenly become objective scientific analysis just because some folks say so.)
(2) “Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.”
Now that’s funny! These folks “HAD NOT SEEN the movie.” That’s precious. I almost fell off my chair when I read such brilliant “evidence.” We’re in great shape if this is how the “blame man for warming” cult continues to approach the issues.
The article by Mr. Taylor, who is not the singer, provided specific references to articles in peer-reviewed journals on each topic of interest. Any interested person can look these up and read for him or herself.
The article quoted by Dean S. on the other hand, cites no serious scientific literature. Instead, we get this:
Wow! Nineteen climate scientists who had seen the movie, or read the book, and answered questions from the Associated Press.
So, excluded from this list are those climate scientists who did not see the movie, and those who might have seen the movie but did not want to answer questions from the AP. Maybe they would not want to answer questions from the AP since they would get tagged as “deniers”. One of the publications that Dean links to has called for Nuremburg-style trials for “deniers”.
This thing has to collapse on itself sometime soon from the sheer weight of nonsense being generated.
How proud you will be to tell your grandchildren that when global warming began causing drought, crop failures, famine and coastal flooding, turning millions of human beings into refugees, and causing the extinction of hundreds of species, your reaction was to make a big joke out of it.
BAHHHHHH!!!! Dean you just unwittingly saterized yourself!!! I am STILL not convinced your a figment of Fr. Jacobse imagination – his best immatation of a liberal!! LOLHow proud you will be to tell your grandchildren that when global warming began causing drought, crop failures, famine and coastal flooding, turning millions of human beings into refugees, and causing the extinction of hundreds of species, your reaction was to make a big joke out of it.
BAHHHHHH!!!! Dean you just unwittingly satirized yourself!!! I am STILL not convinced your a figment of Fr. Jacobse imagination – his best imitation of a liberal!! LOL!
This thing has to collapse on itself sometime soon from the sheer weight of nonsense being generated. .
I sort of hope not – it can all be quite funny…
Actually, I will be proud to tell my grandchildren that I did not get hysterical when the weather got a few tenths of a degree warmer, nor did I delude myself into thinking that changing out my lightbulbs would “save the planet”.
I will also encourage them to fix their minds on eternal concerns, such as salvation.
To the extent that I will comment on their “carbon footprint” I will encourage them to live modestly and to not be wasteful, but not because of what that does to Gaia, but because it will be good for their souls.
Tom C. – That’s the “Boiling Frog” syndrome, you just described.
Check out:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=147595&zoneid=500
It explains how if you break one of those fluorescent light bulbs in your home, you immediately are exposed to many times the recommended level of mercury. Apparently, “saving the planet” is more important than a few heavy metal poisonings. I mean, what’s a human life compared to the planet?
p.s. In all seriousness, if you have those fluorescent light bulbs in your home, remove them now – today – to your outside fixtures. They are dangerous to your health…
“That’s one expensive bulb”…
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/columns/4003319.html
Read the recommendations from Maines “Department of Environmental Protectioin” if you do break one of these killer bulbs:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm
What if it breaks?
The most important thing to remember is to never use a vacuum. A standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area as well as potentially contaminating the vacuum. What you should do is:
Keep people and pets away from the breakage area so that the mercury in the powder inside the bulb is not accidentally tracked into other areas.
* Ventilate the area by opening windows.
* If possible, reduce the temperature.
* Wear appropriate personal protective equipment, such as rubber gloves, safety glasses, old clothing or coveralls, and a dust mask (if you have one) to keep bulb dust and glass from being inhaled.
* Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container or airtight plastic bag.
* Next, begin collecting the smaller pieces and dust. You can do this using a disposable broom and dustpan or two stiff pieces of paper to scoop up the pieces.
* Put all material into the container or airtight plastic bag. Pat the area with the sticky side of duct, packing or masking tape. Wipe the area with a damp cloth or paper towels to pick up fine particles.
* Put all waste and materials used to clean up the bulb in the secure closed container or airtight plastic bag and label it “Universal Waste – broken lamp”.
* Take the container for recycling as universal waste. See proper recycling information above.
The next time you replace a bulb, consider putting a drop cloth on the floor so that any accidental breakage can be easily cleaned up.
From the General Electric web site:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#mercury
From the Environmetal Protection Agency:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/downloads/MercuryInCFLs.pdf
Note 17 thru 19.
So should we also remove from our homes all these items: Sources of Mercury ?
Snopes.com has your Brandy Bridges story listed as Urban Legend. link
Here is all I can find on the owners of the site, Snopes.com. They are probably a bunch of Liberals, no sarcasm intended. Really they probably are, but the only other sources that I found that ran the story were the ones in your previous post and FoxNews.com, referenced in the Snopes page.
Could you be categorized as a CFLs alarmist, maybe? I would love to see some more evidence to the contrary, because I do not want to put my family in danger.
Dean, Thanks for the substantive and objective information on exactly how much mercury there is in a CFL bulb. Helps balance out the discussion and provides us with a proper perspective. See, that wasn’t that hard, was it? Now use that same approach when dealing with the other global warming issues I and many others (including many reputable scientists and climate experts) have raised and we’ll have ourselves a very reasonable and meaningful debate. Heck, we may even find common ground. 🙂 (PS – Still waiting on those laboratory experiments that show how an increase from 0.028% to 0.037% of C02 causes most of the warming in a volume of air.)
note # 20 and 22:
Correct, relative to thermostats, the amount is many times lower. However, it is STILL high enough that upon breakage you be exposed to about 10 times the recommend level. Where Dean is miss-using the EPA point, is that in the case of coal fire plants, the mercury is effectively dispersed where you are not exposed to the concentrated source. In the case of a CFL breakage, you (and your family) are exposed to a concentrated source, so that you have to follow rather strict cleanup procedures. Save the planet, but poison your children? I don’t think so. Besides, my power is nuclear so in my city the argument is false 🙂
note 21:
The facts are real (not urban legends). See the state of Maine link above. Have you ever broken a thermostat? I have not. Have you ever broken a light bulb? I do all too often. I specifically remember breaking a CFL about a year ago.
As an adult, exposure to heavy metals is bad enough. I would NEVER put your children at risk by having these in your house (in outside fixtures is a different story). If as an adult you want to accept that risk (i.e. maybe arguing that you will always be very careful as to not break a CFL), but no reason to expose children to unnecessary risk – especially due to a “save the planet” ethic that is suspect…
Christopher, what happens when the CFL’s burn out? They go to landfills. It is a fair bet to suspect that they do not all stay unbroken there. From the landfills the heavy metal eventually leaches into the ground water.
What would be the effect of kerosene lanterns and candles (disregarding the increased rates that would eventually occur for homeowners insurance.)
Christopher, what happens when the CFL’s burn out? They go to landfills. It is a fair bet to suspect that they do not all stay unbroken there. From the landfills the heavy metal eventually leaches into the ground water.
Exactly, which is why the State of Maine and others are now recommending you treat them as “hazardous waste”, like you would your used car battery, and take them to the public “hazardous waste” handling facility. Most State/counties/municipalities have such facilities set up where on certain days (in my county it’s twice a month) you can bring by your household “hazardous waste” to be properly disposed of by the state for no charge.
Now, what percentage of people who purchase these things realize they are hazardous? I will “hazard” a guess and say it’s far less than 1%…;)