Arguments
Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Posted on 11 September 2020 by BaerbelW
It finally happened: about 13 years after first watching Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT) in 2007 when it became available in Germany, I recently completed the Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training! Participating in this particular training had been on my to-do list for quite some time but it hadn’t worked out thus far for different reasons: I didn’t want to apply for one of the earlier trainings offered around the world as these would have meant having to fly there for a 3-day event which I didn’t want to do. Then, when an event was scheduled to happen in Berlin in 2018, it unfortunately didn’t work out timewise for me. However, due to COVID-19 the trainings were moved to an online format in 2020 and when I noticed, I immediately applied for the first virtual session planned to happen in July. Not too surprisingly, the training team got too many applications for the event (over 10,000!), so I ended up in the second round happening from August 28 to September 3.
The training was structured into five modules: Introduction, Science, Solutions, Social change, Skill building and “Taking it home”. Four live broadcast sessions featuring Al Gore giving his presentation divided into four parts made up the focal points. Each of these sessions was followed by additional shorter panel discussions and wrapped-up by live virtual “table discussions” under the guidance of a mentor with a group of 10 to 20 trainees. In addition, several on-demand sessions were available from which we had to at least watch four from a wide variety of topics. I picked sessions about “Ensuring a healthy future for all”, “Youth Leadership”, “Mastering the presentation” and “Engaging an Online Community”. Last but not least we also had to write “Our Climate Story” and about an example for impacts or solutions to climate change, ideally from our own neck of the woods. Here is the link to “My Climate Story”.
The live broadcasts were offered at three different times to cater to different timezones. By default, trainees were put into the group fitting their country so I would have ended up in the one for Europe/Africa where the broadcasts and subsequent table-discussions then happened between 18:00 and 20:30 my time in Germany. This however didn’t suit my daily routine well, so I asked whether I could do the sessions with Asia/Pacific instead. Thanks to the flexibility of the organizing team, this was possible and I watched the sessions starting at 11:00 my time and then joined “Table-001” mentored by Glen Garner and with about a dozen table mates based in Sydney. These discussion sessions were fun to join and provided an opportunity for sharing information about our various backgrounds and activities tackling climate change. Many new connections were forged across the globe thanks to these online meetings.
One aspect of the training which really amazed me, was how current the slides presented by Al Gore during the live broadcast sessions were: they for example already included footage from recent extreme weather events around the globe. He also paid tribute to climate scientist Koni Steffen who died on August 17 while doing research on Greenland. Really impressive and moving! Directly after completing the training and joining the ranks of Climate Reality Leaders, we got access to Al Gore’s slides - all told, almost 600 of them! These will become a very valuable resource to make use of in my own presentations, especially as we are allowed to include selected slides within our own material and not only use them when we do a “signature” Climate Reality presentation. We are however strongly encouraged to do at least one of them within the next twelve months.
The general expectation is that Climate Reality Leaders complete at least “10 Acts of Leadership” within a year. These don’t all have to be presentations but can also include activities like writing a blog post (check!), writing a letter to the editor (I’m sure, I’ll find a reason for one), meeting an elected official (should happen sooner rather than later due to my involvement with Citizens’ Climate Lobby and Bürgerlobby Klimaschutz in Germany) or attending a relevant event (the next global climate strike on Sept. 25 will take care of that!) to name just some of them.
On Monday evening I joined a European meet-up where we learned about the project’s structure in Europe. This was attended by a large number of trainees, reaching almost 600 participants at one time (and without crashing Zoom!). Shortly after the meeting I got an email from a longtime online friend who was also participating in the training and he mentioned “being surprised to see my face instead of Al Gore’s”, a comment I couldn’t really place right away. All was revealed the following day when a table-mate resolved the mystery by sharing this screen-shot he had captured while waiting for the broadcast session to start:
On Thursday, the final live broadcast was titled “Taking it home” and it featured a Q&A-session where questions submitted throughout the training from several “tables” were shared via messages recorded by the respective mentors. Al Gore moderated the session and Dr. Henry Pollack, professor emeritus of geophysics at the University of Michigan as well as Dr. Marshall Shepherd, Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Georgia provided answers. This was followed by Al Gore presenting the short and to the point “Truth in 10” which is a very condensed version of his presentation fitting within about 10 minutes. An older version is available for download on the Climate Reality homepage.
Next up was a real highlight when Al Gore introduced four very engaged Climate Reality Leaders and asked them questions about their first presentations, memorable feedback they received and related questions to lower the threshold any newly trained Climate Reality Leaders might have before giving their first presentations. Al Gore then had a big surprise - judging from their reactions - for the panelists: they were awared the “Alfred Sirkis Green Ring” for their outstanding engagement and contributions!
Last but not least, I’d really encourage anybody with an interest in climate change - and the already existing solutions to tackle it - to check out and then apply for the training. Once you join the Climate Reality Leadership Corps you’ll get access to a wealth of Al Gore’s slides and you’ll be networking with many other people across the globe as well as locally who share your committment to tackle climate change!
Thanks for your feedback on the Climate Reality training online. I helped with the in-person training in Australia in 2019. You can connect with Australian-based Climate Reality leaders and your new contacts from Sydney through the Australia-Pacific node of the Climate Reality project, based at the University of Melbourne http://www.climatereality.org.au/
Just note that the web site is in the process of changing.
Thanks, Baerbel, you've inspired me to take Gore's training, but I'm going to wait until after November 3. Until then, the most important climate action that I--and all other climate activists--can take is to persuade our American friends to get out and vote--either on November 3 or by absentee ballot prior to November 3. For the US and for the world, for the climate and for democracy, this is the most important election of my 79 years on this planet.
Baerbel:
I looked into Gore's training several years ago and it appeared to require a PhD in science to attend. Since I only have an MS I was not qualified.
What are the current requirements to take the course?
michael sweet @3
Mike - there are no special requirements to participate in the training. You'll however have to apply to join one and provide some reasons of why you'd like to participate. They have the following text about people participating in the training on their website:
You can sign-up on their homepage to get a notification when the next trainings (in person and/or virtual) have been scheduled, most likely for 2021.
Has Gore 'denialist proofed' his slides and presentation, by paying attention to whether they can be easily misused?
When he did 'An Inconvenient Truth', the denialosphere was nowhere near as sophisticated as it is today and the ambiguities in his words back then gave them fertile ground to misrepresent the science in future by shooting the messenger - indeed, those weaknesses of expression helped the denialist ideology to grow...
Nick Palmer @5
Nick - not sure if any presentation by anybody about climate change can be made completely "denialist proofed"! However, judging from the detailed speaker notes accompanying each of the slides Climate Reality Leaders get access to for their own presentations, I think that the answer is yes. The slides I thus far "sampled" all have references back to the sources and - where applicable - peer-reviewed literature.
That's great. I'm sure you realise how many problems we denialist fighters face when we have to deal with countering the rherotic generated by political figures who spin a story that will appeal to their political base whch is not necessarily the complete scientific truth
Nick Palmer @5,
BaerbelW's reply @6 deserves to be reinforced.
A reason(s) for the validity of: "not sure if any presentation by anybody about climate change can be made completely "denialist proofed"!" was presented by Al Gore in his 2007 book "The Assault on Reason".
Trump anti-truthism is not a new thing, and it is not a Trump thing.
In the introduction to the book Gore states "Why do reason, logic, and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" That was published in 2007 and was about the Republican pursuit of dominance and power over all Others.
Climate change is a major item that is an Inconvenient Truth for the wealthy powerful people who try to defend their Status as 'deserving wealthy and powerful people' (losing that status would devastate them in may ways).
Moving beyond Gore's book, a review of actions taken by the Republicans, and many similar political parties in other nations, indicates that they are likely responding to, and resisting, the successful robust improvement of understanding what is required to achieve a Sustainable improving future for humanity. The required corrections of many harmful unsustainable things that have developed are very robustly established. The only way to resist them is a successful Assault on Reason.
Once it is decided that Logic, Reason, and Truth is The Enemy the rest is all downhill.
Tragically, as Jonathan Haidt presents in "The Righteous Mind" many people are powerfully inclined to be subservient to Their Identified Authority and believe whatever that Authority tells them. And they fear not continuing to be part of that group. They can easily be made to fear being Governed "By Reason".
The core support of the Republicans are easy targets for efforts to Assault Reason. There is likely no way to make anything that will be 'bullet-proof' to Assaults on Reason that appeal to that core group.
Nick, Al Gore chose drama over facts because in the end the people lead and governments follow.
Governments are designed to work slowly and so only the voting public will be able to make any difference when push comes to shove.
He invites the deniers to the conversation in the public square because without them there is no conversation in the public square.
The deniers advertise the whole problem,... so Al Gore played a very good hand by making vague and sweeping statements that made the deniers have to take a stand... and the conversation began!
Keithy "without them there is no conversation in the public square."
Well then it's a catch22 because there is no conversation possible with them either. They deny, they mirepresent, they mislead, refuse to acknowledge evidence, portray minor issues as if they could distract from the weight of the evidence, etc, etc. They are so dishonest that there is really no communication possible. They do, however, have good techniques, inherited from various industries who practiced denial before them, and are advised by experts in mind manipulation techniques, so they are convincing for the masses with little scientific literacy and limited critical thinking skills. That does not make them right or legitimize the so-called "conversation."
Deniers do not "advertise" (whatever that may mean) the "whole problem." They fool their audiences with methods in comparison to which Al Gore's small shortcomings are essentially negligible. They make an argument, shown to be entirely wrong, only to turn around and then pretend that the initial argument was not applicable anyway, not acknowledgeing that they initiated it. The list of their dishonest behaviors is almost as long as the myths listed on this site, or the the catalog that can be found in Wikipedia under "logical fallacies." Calling their participation a conversation would be a joke, if it was funny.
Keithy @9, I am struggling a bit to understand your point of view. I do not think Al Gore chose drama over facts. His book and movie sounded very facts based to me. Did you mean he emphasised drama over just a dry delivery of the facts?
I think Al gores book was good, but over simplified a few things. It could have better explained why CO2 lags temperature in the ice age cycles and generally how the thing worked.
But either way, I do concede there was a big element of drama and theatre in Gores book and movie, and that this would attract the denialists. But I'm not sure we really needed the denialists involved to advertise the climate problem. The problem speaks for itself.
Like PC says the climate change denialism is just misleading rhetoric and assorted nonsense. I think we can live without this frustrating public debate that seems to never end.
However Gores book and movie would probaly grab public attention. I read Al gores book and it did focus my attention on the climate issue because it was well presented. However it probably didnt go down well with the right wing in America, given Gore is a rich democrat. But whats done is done.
I object to the term "debate." A debate can happen when participants are arguing in good faith. That is clearly not the case with deniers.
From years of looking at the debate, I would say denialist arguments are mostly either strawman or cherry picks. (With a dose of "its a hoax" and conspiracy theories when public facts dont match expection).
Strawman arguments work because you have to know what the science actually says to spot them.
Cherry picking works because people are poor at looking at the data and thinking "Gee I would have expected that record to be longer", and finding the full dataset is work.
Either way, getting educated on the science is best defense.
The denialists are simply making sure the numbers are in before they have to make drastic investment decisions. They have every right to question the significance of the data.
It's their money and everyone needs them to give them jobs.
(You don't become a blue chip company by listening to every Tom, Dick and Harry!)
Phillipe, didn't you ever consider that deniers have to be careful with their line of argument?
The voter is also a consumer... as such they can invest in publicly listed companies... publicly listed companies have reputations!
Like I said: the deniers are essential to any conversation or else there is no conversation.
No, nigelj, the problem does not speak for itself.
Most people don't care unless they are made to... Al Gore made sweeping statements that big business knew had to be refuted because investment certainty is a must in big business.
He lit a fire under their posterior.
All he did was use the age old political trick of making some noise(read: HEADLINES) and then massaging the message when he gets the required attention.
Welcome to the conversation fed by deniers...
Keithy,
I've been at this long enough. Deniers are not careful with the evidence underlying their lines of argument. It ranges from the carbonic snow in Antarctica delirium to the Soon-Baliunas fiasco, hitting the grotesque Arcitc sea ice predictions by Jo D'Aleo and innumerable ridiculous pieces of idiotic nonsense. It works, although mostly with the Anglo-Saxon public, with the exception of New-Zealand. They are careful with how they deliver their message, with the best propagandist methods known to date. Perhaps that's what you meant by careful, it does not add anything to the message validity.
Keithy , I take a business-oriented view ~ rather different to yours.
Your statement: "making sure the numbers are in" is too vague by far. Please specify what are these numbers which are "not in". What do you feel is needed to be in? And to what extent?
From my own business experience, I would say that delaying investment until complete certainty is reached . . . is a recipe for business failure. Good management requires reasonable decisions in the presence of some degree of uncertainty about present & future conditions. It was ever thus. Otherwise, your better-managed competitors run rings around you.
And I would want the accountants/auditors to give adequate warning, if there were early signs that my business was faltering. I am very surprised that you seem to think differently!
scaddenp, false arguments are a dime a dozen: big business has only ever been forced to make public statements on the issue because of denier fed fier sparked by Al Gores sweeping statements.
The garden variety denier cannot be the public statment of a blue chip company because these public companies have reputations.
Once again, the climate change denier has every right to make his argument but an argument he must make. The consuming voter has power... He doesn't have to buy bulldust just like investors don't have to listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry or the blue chip companies themselves who compete against each other when push comes to shove.
Iff it were the case that the blue chip companies don't compete against each other then that would indeed be illegal, though it also the law that the shareholder is their priority.
Politics is all human relations....
Phillip @17, which public companies are associated with such statements?
Eclectic, you don't sound like any captain of industry to me.
Keithy @21,
(chuckle) And you don't sound like captain or middle management.
Nor have you answered about what these necessary numbers are, which you say are not "in". Have you any idea what you are on about?
Eclectic: how do you make consuming voters do anything? By the power of your words? Your words are something I don't buy and I dare say most other people on the planet wouldn't bother remembering anything you ever said either.
The necessary number are what the people with the money deem necessary and you aren't them.
Welcome back to reality buddy!
Keithy , sorry but you are getting vaguer and more incoherent.
(And even more waffly on the other thread you're posting in.)
Relax. Concentrate. Try again :- what are these necessary numbers which you yourself believe are not adequately "in" ?
IOW ~ what is needed for you (and any timid captains of industry) to make reasonable decisions in planning? Competent captains of industry would rightly say that a vast amount of data & analysis is already "in" (and has been, for years).
Entrepreneurs don't get out of bed to make peanuts. If there is no pathway for future profiteering then the ideas of capitalism, with its associated captains of industry, itself go to sleep.
Where is the work involved in an imagined utopia?
There isn't any... thus we come back to the reality of price points and diminishing returns.
Eclectic, its not up for me to say what numbers are required to be in because I am not the captains of industry.
You think you know what analysis is? You have never been payed enough to know what analysis of trillions of dollars worth of plant investment means.
Keithy , you are still waffling.
Answer the question you raised : and tell the readers why (and what is still required) the currently-known information is inadequate for competent planning decisions.
Keithy @various,
You seem to have been vacillating between two arguments which is not helpful to setting out yor arguement.
Your initial point @9 concerned Al Gore's 2007 message which had been described @5 as not being denier-proof. You counter saying Al Gore's message had to resonate with a public audience meaning 'facts' are less important than 'drama' and (perhaps less well explained by yourself) that such a message would kick off a public debate which would include denialists.
@14-16 you imply that industry/business is synonymous with 'denier' and set out a second argument that unless AGW mitigation is made worthwhile for industry, they would not assist in it. (@19 you rather confusingly seperate 'blue chip company' and 'the garden variety denier', presumably this latter being the denialist public with presumably the former requiring 'facts' and the latter 'drama'.) In terms of which of the two is more important, industry or public, you assert @23 that it is primarily industry/business which needs to be convinced of the requirement to act on AGW.
And in similar vein you state @25:-
In trying to make sense of this "waffling" (as Eclectic terms it), I would suggest that there are certain industries which have been attempting to push back against AGW mitigation. A giant oil company, for instance, has assets on its books in the shape of oil reserves worth billions and it would be employing divisions of workers to find more, such operations also being book assets worth billions. AGW science is saying these assets should not be exploited and the search for more oil reserves should stop immediately. That presents such companies with the prospect of massive loss of assets. So to delay such AGW mitigation, even by a decade or two, is a very profitable enterprise for such companies.
But the vast majority of industry would not react so aggressively against AGW mitigation. And industry does not "go to sleep" when faced by the need to mitigate AGW. Certainly some industries will have a harder time than others in the carbon-free energy-scarce world which will closely follow successful AGW mitigation. Many will see once-profitable business likely disappear (eg steel cans & glass jars replaced by bio-plastic-&-cardboard containers) but when the economic writing is on the wall such industries will evolve into new businesses, either scaled down or providing the modern replacement product.
Of itself, industry is not a barrier to AGW mitigation. What is a barrier is a denialist public whose existence prevents an honest political AGW debate (which is required to mitigate for AGW). Certain industries have actively promoted public & political denialism and they are likely greatly surprised how successful they have been at it so far.
I agree with your summary of my POV, MA Rodger, but you must admit I'm replying to more than one person.
To delay mitigation by a decade or two is certainly worth a fortune and that really is the only point I'm making. Yet: who exactly are the interests requiring such a delay? I put it to you that they are vast....
Therefore, I also put it to you, that they require more than a decade or two:
..because basic high school economics teaches that all government intervention in the market place is difficult to recede owing to the fact that the economy itself develops its roots around it depending on it level of intervention: and in the case of fossil fuels we all know that level of interevention is of almost a planet like proportion.
MA Rodger, I think I was actually more saying the debate only exists because the deniers exist... Al Gore sparked the deniers and they put their money into advertising the whole issue.
Win, win, win scenario.
Keithy @various
This graphic from our resource section shows that your "theory" of Al Gore sparking the deniers is off by almost 20 years - denial thrived way before Al Gore's AIT:
It seems indeed that the only point to be extracted from Keithy's contribution is that Al Gore caused the denialism we have been witnessing and the pseudo-debate that is now raging. As Baerbel showed us, the timeline does not support that argument.
It's possible that an in depth analysis could in fact reveal that Al Gore managed to attract on the subject more public attention, an attention that some of the work of deniers ironically had aimed at keeping off the problem. So, if anything can be gathered from Keithy's contribution so far, it's that Al Gore forced the denial supporing industries to ramp up their effort. Wow! How unexpected, how surprising. We are so fortunate that someone came up to bring that powerful insight.
If there is anything left for Keithy to argue, that would be that the overall balance of Al Gore's climate campaign has been negative, but he has come nowhere near supporting that with facts and analysis; it would be a very difficult case to make in my opinion. Surveys of the general public, even in the ill-informed US, where denial is the best organized, most vocal and best connected, shows that the majority of the population is well aware of the problem and realizes its importance.
Keithy @16
"No, nigelj, the problem does not speak for itself.....Most people don't care unless they are made to... Al Gore made sweeping statements that big business knew had to be refuted because investment certainty is a must in big business."
I dont entirely agree. Most people globally are aware of the climate problem, you see this in polling studies, and clearly most people havent even read Al gores book or seen his movie, just look at the number of sales globally. I think this could be true even in America. Many people live in countries who probably haven't even heard of Al Gore. Likewise all those countries also have plenty of climate denialism.
Most people including business interests probably get their climate information mainly from general media commentary on the issue and from media commentary on the IPCC reports. The denialists and business are also reacting to media commentary.
The most we could say is Al Gore has probably polarised things a bit in the USA because of his political leanings, and yes I would agree to the extent that his book probably helped motivate the denialists. But they would have been pretty motivated anyway just by things like the IPCC reports. Do you really believe denialists would have just ignored those?
BaerbelW, how vocal were the deniers before Al Gore?
[DB] Pointless and argumentative snipped.
Phillipe, are you saying your contribution is more valuable than anyone elses because you're in business?
In capitalism everyones in business...
[DB] Off-topic snipped.
Everyone: how powerful were wind turbines before Al Gore?
[DB] Pointlessly off-topic snipped.
Keithy ~ Google is your friend. You can very easily research for yourself the gradual development of wind turbines.
But your questions are all over the place, like Brown's cows.
Concentrate the focus of your mind. Identify the basic "heart" of what problems are worrying you. What is it that is truly bothering you?
The world is warming gradually (from a slow start in the 1800's ). For the past 50 years, the average warming rate is around 0.15 degreesC : which is super-fast, in planetary/geological terms. And this will continue for decades into the future, with increasingly unpleasant consequences for most humans (but not for a very small minority).
Governments & businesses will adapt to some extent ~ but overall they won't enjoy it. And so the intelligent thing to do is to aim to minimize the adverse effects which are heading down the line toward us.
The deniers are in favor of taking no action ~ apart from bullshitting everyone. But what say you, Keithy? (It is a fruitless waste of time mulling over whether Al Gore stirred up the deniers, or the deniers stirred up Al Gore. That's history. We have to play the golfball from where it's sitting right now.)
Keithy , what do you think should be done about the AGW situation? Ignore it and deny its existence? Run around in circles in a panic? Surely, between those two crazy extremes, there is some prudent & logical action to be taken.
Typo above : warming rate around 0.15 degreesC per decade.
Eclectic, I'm saying Al Gore got the ball rolling by making sweeping statments and forcing the deniers to nail their colours to the mast.
You're on some weird trip trying to imagine I am anti-science or something. Some business man you must be, lol!
[DB] Ad hominem snipped. Do not make things personal.
Keithy @39 , thank you for clarifying that your chief concern is the role of Al Gore.
BaerbelW's post at #31 demonstrates that your own "suposition" was quite wrong. As you see, the deniers' propaganda machinery was gearing up, from the late 1980's. Some years before Gore made a big splash on the climate science scene.
And it's well to remember that Gore is not a scientist ~ there were some of his comments that were incorrect (in a trivial way) or were oversimplified (and mis-reported, often). But then, he wasn't speaking to scientists. He gets a B+ score for his "essay". Look in the scientific journals (and SkS website) if you want to improve your own knowledge about climate !
Keithy, it still seems mysterious why you made comments about business/ capitalism/ government ~ subjects where you are clearly speaking in empty slogans, and your understanding of them is shallow.
The business ramblings, the scattering, it's getting kinda funny. This is a clear case of DNFTT. It's a somewhat interesting one though. These days, not impossible that it could be 100% machine. Some signs possibly point to a non-western origin/treatment.
Yes, eclectic, I'm sure the whole world believes you're a legend in your own lunchbox- but seriously, you and I know you aren't!
[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
Hey, Phillipe, do you and Eclectic share the same shift?
Eclectic falsely summarises someone elses words and you reinforce that false narrative and pretend your both geniuses: you must make this whole website so proud.
[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Plenty of electrons exist in other venues, since you are not interested in the scientific discussions here.
Philippe , sadly you are right. Many signs, from the very beginning.
An interesting mix of DK and WUWT.
A machine? No. Even a Romanian programmer never aims so low.
Addressing the assertion that "Al Gore sparked the deniers" is made more difficult by the term "deniers" being used as a euphemism for 'industry actively preventing AGW mitigation' (although not always and not always obviously so) and also because Al Gore has had such a long record of calling for AGW mitigation. As a Congressman in 1976, Gore held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change." So the 'sparking' alluded-to could be referring to events as far back as the 1970s.
Well, MA Rodger , I give you credit for not concluding I'm a machine or whatever those other blokes seem to have summised - but I will check out that link... I never knew Gore was into that far back. 1976 is when I was born....
Oh yeh, Motorhead and the LX Torana came out that year!
[JH] Off-topic struck.
Keithy @46,
We can actually go back further than 1976. Gore was aware of AGW science from his university days (so back in the 1960s) when he was taught by Revelle. And there is the incident of Revelle's name on the Fred Singer 1991 Cosmos article which has often been wielded by denialaists against Gore. And I do recall some saying the reason for Singer getting the aged Revelle's co-authorship on Singer's article was actually because of Al Gore's prominent AGW activism within the politics of that time and Gore's association with Revelle.
Great, MA Rodger, but don't you think you're becoming a touch unreasonable, if not abstract yourself, as toward my argument?
I just said Al Gore lit the conversational fire and the deniers kept it going by forced move... now we have multi megawatt wind turbines as a result- plus much more- to thank him for!
I thought my idea was quite straight forward to follow actually, instead there seems to be a whole team of idiots on here set to bark at anyone daring to have a brain cell that dare deviate from the whistle blown song sheet.
[JH] Argumentative ad hominem attack stuck with warning.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Keithy @48,
It would be good if you could be specific about what Gore did to 'light this conversational fire'.
If it is the 2007 'An Inconvenient Truth' film then you will have an uphill battle getting any agreement here as this is very late. Perhaps you do have some specific denialist response post-2007 in mind, but we idiots here are not mind-readers.
My 'touch of unreasonability' was prompted by the possibility that you were putting the Gore 'ignition' at an earlier date. He had run for the Democratic nomination for President in 1988 and was a well-kown AGW campaigner through the 1980s and, of course, did become vice-presidential candidate in 1992. But again, if that is the period you have in mind, along with some resulting girding-up of the denialist effort, we are not mind-readers and without any assistance of what you actually mean, I for one see no such earlier process at work.
And I'm at a loss where the wind turbines come in to all this.
Pretty much textbook trolling technique, and zero substance. Seriously, this is not worth bothering with. To all, again, I advise DNFTT.