Skip to main content

I am writing to report a response from Kalee Kreider (VP Al Gore's communications director and environmental advisor) to a pair of Washington Post articles on British High Court judge Michael Burton's ruling concerning Gore's movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Please find the response here: An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore responds, which links to the preceding posts at the Post which Kalee was responding to.


Kalee starts by noting that the Judge ruled that the movie is suitable for being shown in UK schools, subject to minor caveats:

With a column titled "Fact Checker," it is difficult not to lose the forest for the trees. First and foremost, An Inconvenient Truth presented thousands and thousands of facts. We stand by our initial statement. We were gratified that a UK High Court judge, a layperson with a full docket, found the film worthy enough to be shown in British schools. A generation of schoolchildren will become more educated about global warming and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.

She then addresses two broad points; the first:

A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. And, as is not made clear by the Fact Checker, the judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling.

and the second:

Former Vice President Gore does not solely rely upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ...
Some scientists predict more extreme consequences and some predict more conservative effects, but Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious. Although we commend the Fact Checker for looking to the IPCC, Mr. Gore relies upon other highly credible sources as well.

Based on this exposé (reported by CBS News here) by UK's The Observer (a Guardian New paper), Kalee points to the promoters and sponsors behind plaintiff Dimmock's case, shedding light on his obvious motives:

The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past.

The Guardian article reveals that, Dimmock, the plaintiff, was funded by mining interests and various other forces interested in undermining Gore's and others' efforts to raise the awareness and the political will to address global warming. The article unearths detailed linkage between Dimmock and his funders that winds through the global warming denialist industry, all the way down to Exxon Mobil.

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor. Sunday October 14, 2007

Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement.

the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle ((from NL: please see (4) in the science and information links section below for a full blown debunking of denialist video production, which has been shown there to have employed fraudulent tricks and gimmicks)) , a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims.

Dimmock also received support from a new organisation,, which calls for politics to be left out of the classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.

The denialist industry has clearly been rather busy here. One may guess based on the timing of the case and even that of the ruling that the whole case may have been engineered to diminish Gore's chances of winning the Nobel peace prize and/or to undermine the impact following a win.

I wish that the expose by Guardian came out a few days before the verdict or the Nobel peace prize announcement.

For the rest of kalee's response which addresses Judge Burton's nine points of concern, I would like to suggest the readers to go over it at the source here and then visit this article which provides the scientific basis and related material with links.

Linkronology: Dimmock vs Gore's Movie

  1. An Inconvenient Truth (movie site)
  2. Unofficial AIT transcript (another version)
  3. Justice Burton's ruling, UK. 10/10/2007
  4. Washington post's print hit piece: U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors. By Mary Jordan, Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A12 (online edition seems to have appeared on the evening of 10/11/2007)
  5. An 'error' is not the same thing as an error. October 11, 2007 11:39 PM, by Tim Lambert, Deltoid blog.
  6. IPCC and Al Gore chosen as the winners of the Nobel peace prize for 2007!
  7. Washington Post "The Fact Checker" hit piece: An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore. (succinct and appropriate first response to the hit piece in the comments section: Sour grapes. Posted by: Malafry | October 12, 2007 11:10 AM)
  8. Meteor Blades' post reporting on Tim Lambert's article: Could the Judge Require Guidance Notes for Media Reports? by Meteor Blades, Fri Oct 12, 2007.
  9. Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film. Jamie Doward, home affairs editor. Sunday October 14, 2007
  10. Report: Mining Exec Funded Gore Film Trial, CBS News, Oct. 14, 2007.
  11. Convenient Untruths. by Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann,, 15 October 2007 (they give a comprehensive treatment of the 9 points raised by Judge Burton. They also note in a 10/18 update that: "We are very disappointed that the Washington Post has declined to run an op-ed placing the alleged 9 'errors' in a proper scientific context, despite having run an extremely misleading news article last week entitled "UK Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors" ((4) above)"
  12. "The Fact Checker" followup: An Inconvenient Truth, Part II mentioning that they have invited Gore and Kreider to respond to their 10/12/07 post.
  13. Kalee Kreider's online response: An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore responds, October 18, 2007.

In the interests of balanced coverage for their readership, Washington post is certainly obligated to publish scientists' response in the same spot as where Jordan's post appeared in the print edition. A couple of action items that I'd like to suggest in this regard:

  • please visit this post where Kalee's response appears, and post a polite comment requesting the above
  • contact Deborah Howell, the Post's ombudsperson, for the same purpose. The ombudsperson page for the Post is here, and this is the contact info: email:, phone: 202-334-7582 (again, please be polite and courteous)

Global Warming Science and Information Links:

To follow is a compilation of articles, videos and blogs, which provide:

  • a good set of basics on the science of global warming/climate change (would Rapid Global Climate Destabilization be a more accurate term to describe the phenomenon? please see here)
  • rebuttal arguments for various skepticisms and denialisms
  • blogs as means for communication and interaction

The first three are strongly recommended background materials for all audiences.

  1. How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC: Video parts 1, 2, 3. How It All Ends: Index. By Science teacher wonderingmind42
  2. The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps, 6 August 2007.
  3. Graphic Evidence, September 5th, 2007. Open Mind
  4. Global Warming Swindle Debate. Video parts: 1, 2, 0, 3, other 5 parts
  5. Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. Michael Le Page, news service. 16 May 2007
  6. How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, Girstmill
  7. Nature Journal's Climate Feedback
  8. Climate 411 Articles: How We Know Humans Cause Global Warming by Dr. Bill Chameides, July 2007 | Swindles in the "The Great Global Warming Swindle", by Dr. Lisa Moore, July 11, 2007
  9. Daily Kos diaries tagged as: Global Warming | Climate Change
  11. Energize America
  12.'s Start Here Page
  13. Al Gore's: Climate Project | Alliance for Climate Protection
  14. The Discovery of Global Warming, A free online book by Dr. Spencer Weart (also available as a paperback @ Amazon).
  15. Principles of Planetary Climate (pdf file 6.9MB), Freely downloadable early draft of a book in progress on climate science by Prof. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, U. of Chicago.

Update [2007-10-19 11:21:31 by NeuvoLiberal]: Diary overhauled to improve readability, added a new link (to, and changed the ordering of the first three science/info links.

Update [2007-10-19 11:54:38 by NeuvoLiberal]: Embedding Science teacher's first video below.

Update [2007-10-19 22:21:29 by NeuvoLiberal]: Embedding all three of Science teacher wonderingmind42's Mechanics of GCC videos, followed by his "How it all ends: Index" video. Added links to Energy America 2020 and to another transcription of Gore's movie. (Update 4) Added more links, including links to Dr. Spencer Weart's free online book and a very readable presentation posted at Climate 411 by Dr. Bill Chameides.

How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC:1, 2, 3

How It All Ends: Index (URL)

It is my hope that the readers will spend some time, perhaps over a weekend or two, to go over as many of the Science and Information links given above as possible and bookmark the ones found useful. Please do not hesitate to ask questions at any of the interactive sites listed in the collection or to post them in this or in other environmental/global warming diaries (if you'd like me to respond, please alert me.)

Here is an easy to remember tinyurl for this article: If you find the information here helpful, please jot down the tiny URL, bookmark the diary page, and share it with others.

Thanks for reading, spreading the word, and helping debunk the ongoing disinformation campaign by the denialist industry. And thanks for the diary recommendations!

Originally posted to NeuvoLiberal on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:09 AM PDT.


Will you help debunk the denialists' disinformation campaign?

6%38 votes
5%32 votes
10%60 votes
76%417 votes

| 547 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please help put this diary up on the REC list! (217+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arlam, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, sj, vicki, Radiowalla, Mountain Don, demnomore, pHunbalanced, Debby, wu ming, Sherri in TX, meg, OLinda, lysias, marrael, ZAPatty, exNYinTX, Poika, VickiStein, louisville lisa, Heart of the Rockies, Smallbottle, eyeswideopen, LiberalBill04, raines, hestal, bronte17, TracieLynn, DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou, understandinglife, srkp23, awakentech, Morague, CoolOnion, peace voter, highacidity, chuckvw, scamp, otto, anoodle, Ignacio Magaloni, MahFellaMerkins, jigsaw68, BruinKid, MadEye, thingamabob, Jesterfox, kimberlyweldon, splashy, arkdem, antirove, psnyder, Dallasdoc, Dr Colossus, commonscribe, lezlie, Ready2fight, churchylafemme, MattR, Penny Century, Tillie630, AbsurdEyes, walkshills, count, Panda, bablhous, djpat, eve, bibble, mdgluon, sxwarren, weelzup, rapala, nailbender, leolabeth, madaprn, Fabian, chumley, lcs, Pokerdad, radarlady, blueyedace2, JanetT in MD, Tonedevil, LostInTexas, PBen, kuvasz, Simplify, chancy gardner, truong son traveler, Brooke In Seattle, dj angst, Turkana, GreyHawk, Barcelona, Little Lulu, wulidancer, Shotput8, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, sodalis, Spathiphyllum, Ekaterin, noladq, kkjohnson, maryru, RiaD, Denny in Seattle, Jennifer Clare, BalanceSeeker, tarheelblue, beartooth, vigilant meerkat, DrSpalding, dharmafarmer, garykephart, SciFiGuy, faster democrat kill kill, Gorette, seefleur, victoria2dc, greenearth, StrayCat, A Siegel, Lashe, nonnie9999, nilocjin, condoleaser, BalkanID, el cid, ER Doc, ChapiNation386, CA Nana, Dianna, va dare, RantNRaven, scoff0165, NYPopulist, NeilP, slakn1, FrankieB, minimei, markthshark, Tempus Figits, Reel Woman, embra, Mishima, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, Dave the Rave, Cocker Mom, blue armadillo, dmh44, FWIW, ColoTim, ricsec7, SchoolFan, moosely2006, 0wn, Outrider, Foxwizard, dotcommodity, la urracca, yowsta, ezdidit, DWG, drchelo, Rex Manning, lizpolaris, Carib and Ting, jockyoung, jnhobbs, Moderation, pioneer111, Rumarhazzit, slowheels, madgranny, feelingsickinMN, Bikemom, aseth, roycej, Empower Ink, LAMaestra, Theghostofkarlafayetucker, AJ WI, JDWolverton, MKinTN, davewill, LightningMan, MollyStark, Blue Town, Phil N DeBlanc, zerone, Professor Sin, Judge Moonbox, ReEnergizer, Ronald England, cumberland sibyl, Residentcynic, LucyMO, dewley notid, RDemocrat, Victory Coffee, GoracleFan, pritchdc, junta0201, billybam, Scubaval, Diogenes2008, ryangoesboom, Chad Michaels, cybrestrike, Mr Tentacle, ARS

    thanks for the recs and for spreading the word.

  •  Good diary. (13+ / 0-)


    If we continue to accumulate only power and not wisdom, we will surely destroy ourselves. -Carl Sagan

    by LightningMan on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:19:54 AM PDT

  •  Now is the time (5+ / 0-)

    for the denialists to run their campaign.  They have taken a very strong blow and all they can do is respond now.  To respond before the peace prize would have been almost a waste of time.  In our twisted media landscape they are now offering the "other side of the story" right?  

    •  they never really stopped (10+ / 0-)

      the movie gave them a pause when it became a strong success. They regrouped and launched a counter offensive, which is still going on.

      •  Should we criminalize denialist speech? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mdgluon, Gowrie Gal

        Oh no, one might say. First Amendment!

        Well, not quite.

        As your diary illustrates, most denialist speech is commercial speech, funded and promoted by business interests whose profits would be affected by carbon controls.

        It has long been accepted in the US legal system that while commercial speech is protected, it is entitled to a much lower standard of protection than, say, purely political speech.

        There are laws against false advertising. Misrepresentations material to share prices (think Martha Stewart). Unsubstantiated claims of efficacy against disease.

        In fact, there is a broad spectrum of laws constraining what companies can say in their pursuit of a buck.

        Global denialism should be no different.

        We should explicitly prohibit commercial interests from funding or publishing materially misleading information about anthropogenic global warming--whether through PR, advertising, or any other communications channel.

        I think there are ways to do this. And I think we should try.

        •  Honest skepticism is healthy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Judge Moonbox, GoracleFan

          and is needed in any debate. But, if an only if such skepticism is honest and earnest.

          Denialism on the other hand is an art form where the people looking for whatever angle they find to attack, with a predetermined and fixed stance; clearly denialism is founded in dishonesty. That shouldn't tolerated in reasoned discourse.

          But, our media is essentially malfunctional anyhow. So, I don't where we would have to begin.

        •  pet speech peeves (0+ / 0-)

          alright, but then I would add to your list of forbidden corporate topics...

          - forced medication of a population through the fluoridation of water sources is a good thing.

          See?  Its not going to work.  You can't ban every subject controlled by corporate interests.  Even if you have contradictory scientific evidence of your own on your side.

  •  they never do stop, (9+ / 0-)

    but the Peace Prize in the name of the Scientists and Gore is probably more solid than the broad success of the movie.  It's just one more thing to them, but it is a pretty potent thing.  By the way I admire your blogs especially regarding Gore.  God I hope he gets in!

  •  Great diary. Thank you. (7+ / 0-)


    Now, that Guardian piece. That's real reporting!

    I wish we had that kind of journalism in the US instead of the corporate-Pravda nonsense that passes for news here.

    •  thanks. agreed about how the Guardian (4+ / 0-)

      nailed it down. Likewise, check out the videos debunking the denialist show "GW swindle" ((4) in the science/info links).

    •  Amen on the Embedded Press (5+ / 0-)

      I was listening to Howard Kurtz on the Ed Schultz show and literally started smashing my dashboard. His whole take on the news business is like a nerd fascinated with the homecoming queen electoral process.

      Memo to Ed: I like you all right dude, but Tom Tancredo and Howard Kurtz? These guys already have media access! Try talking to people with important things to say who don't! And if you're going to have Kurtz on gushing fake sympathy for poor pathetic Dan Rather who, he goes on to say, was a fuckup who in Kurtz's mind and probably a vindictive one with a Bush-hating agenda to boot, then have Dan Rather or Mary Mapes on to give their opinion of Kurtz.

      You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

      by brainiacamor on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:27:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I haven't listened to Ed for months. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Does he still tell those boring stories about outboard motors and fishing boats that he has owned?

        Man that guy is dull.

        •  I only listen to AAR in the car (3+ / 0-)

          So only get snippets. But I like Ed because I think he's a good presence for us to have - in addition to Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder, Laura Flanders, Cenk Uygur, Chuck D, et al. Diversity is a good thing and Ed is our token middle aged rural white guy.

          Then again I live in Texas and don't mind hearing about fishing and hunting and boating.

          You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

          by brainiacamor on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:55:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  AAR or XM 167? (0+ / 0-)

            I only listen to AAR in the car . . . So only get snippets. But I like Ed because I think he's a good presence for us to have

            If you are in your car and think that you are listening to Air America Radio that probably means that you are really listening to XM Satellite Radio channel 167 which also calls itself Air America Radio (it used to be called America Left) and is the exclusive outlet for Air America Radio programming.  But as explained by this Wikipedia article XM 167 is not actually AAR

            Channel 167 on XM Satellite Radio is branded as Air America Radio, named after the network it takes affiliation with. XM currently has exclusive satellite rights to the Air America network. Much like terrestrial radio stations that carry Air America programming, XM 167 is not obligated to, and does not, carry the network 24/7. The channel is programmed by Don Wicklin.

            When Al Franken left the 12 to 3 PM slot to run for the Senate in Minisota, Air America Radio decided to put Tom Hartmann into that slot but XM 167 decided to put Ed Schultz into that slot and, finally to add a time delayed version of two hours of Tom Hartmann to run at 8 PM on XM 167

            In 2007, XM announced that Ed Schultz, who was airing on Extreme XM on delay and truncated to two separate hours, was going to be returning to XM 167 to fill the timeslot being vacated by Al Franken. This allowed Ed to return to the full three hours in a live timeslot. Some were not happy about this move as it prevented Thom Hartmann from taking the slot on the channel, prompting midday host Sam Seder to ask his listeners to call XM to complain.

            Schultz responded on air the next day claiming that "Air America sucks, their programs suck, they give liberals a bad name," and recommended that XM play other Jones radio hosts Stephanie Miller and Bill Press on channel 167.[2][3] Schultz kept the timeslot, and Hartmann's show was eventually added to the channel's schedule.

            In further changes to the Air America schedule Sam Seder was stripped of his morning show and replaced with "Lionel" (long a fixture of NY City talk radio whose manic clownish antics bore me to tears) and Seder was given a single late Sunday afternoon slot (where he runs down the Sunday talk shows with the help of a panel of well know left bloggers like Atrios and regulars at Fire Dog Lake).

            Often at noon, when I am at home, go to the Air America Radio streaming audio page so I can listen to Tom Hartmann rather than Ed Schultz.   The problem with listening to Hartmann on the 8 PM time delay slot of course is that there he runs against Keith Olbermann but I try to remember to go to XM 167 at 9 PM to pick up Hartmann.

          •  well i suppose with this kind of attitude (0+ / 0-)

            we might even get a few token middle aged rural white guy votes. maybe.

        •  Yes... he talks about the boats (0+ / 0-)

          and fishing, but he does get a good story out there every once in a while.  He had Pelosi on last week and did a good interview and EVEN BETTER follow-up.  He did no roll over for the princess of power.

    •  Agreed, other than (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal, 0wn

      the fact that the reporter unthinkingly wrote that Swindle seeks to challenge "claims made about climate change," which is a pretty loaded way to refer to a well-established scientific consensus.  It is really important for all of us who would combat this denialist machine to keep alert for and never ourselves use weasel phrases like claims, theories, debate and the like together with global warming or climate change.  There obviously are some scientific questions around the margins and there are legitimate discussions to be had around the questions of how best to address the climate crisis, but I refuse to refer to the established scientific fact as anything other than "the science," "the consensus," or "the facts."

      •  in fairness (0+ / 0-)

        denying the earth is warming and questioning whether humans are the cause and what we should do about it is not the same thing.  So you'll have to be clear as to which camp you're talking to while alerting others to "claims, theories etc".

        I realize people love to thrown around the denialist term because it sounds extreme, but it's not always applicable.

        •  Swindle challenges (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NeuvoLiberal, Diogenes2008

          the clearly accepted facts that the earth is warming and that humans are a major cause of it.  So the context makes it clear that the article is referring to those things as "claims."  I will not refer to those things as claims or theories or ever use the word "debate" in the same sentence as "global warming" even to deny the existence of a debate.  As to what to do about it, I agree that that is not the same thing.  There are certainly legitimate discussions to be had about that, as I said.

  •  Record gas prices are going to hit soon (5+ / 0-)

    Not only will the profits benefit Iran/Venezuela and Russia, the corporate interests will ALWAYS net handsomely.

    Not only are the petro imports arming all sides, American made weaponry doled out like Halloween candy, the corporate profits can be used to quash debate under barrages of bullshit.

    It is sad that this is going to further pound the lower and lower middle classes, but market manipulation is a tool or a weapon nowadays.

    •  Russians are already complaining (0+ / 0-)

      about the sheer amount of petrodollars being looted from the national treasury, much of it surfacing in bank accounts and investment accounts in the EU.
      If I understood correctly, the top 100 richest Russians' worth is 30% more than Russia's GDP.

      For that reason, expect Putin around for a lot longer.  BTW the Russians are blaming GWB; who, they ask, is stupid enough to trust a KGB agent?  

  •  Also note Kalee's point on the complexity (9+ / 0-)

    and difficulty in reflecting the depth of the science and the necessity to truncate these scientific points down to 20 seconds for the movie or a PowerPoint presentation.  Yet,  Gore has been attacked via American Thinker for his lack of "science."

    The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex. Vice President Gore has studied this issue for over 30 years. He regularly seeks the advice and feedback of scientists to understand the latest research. It's not easy, even for Ph.D.'s, to explain the concept of the "non-linearity" of the climate system even after decades in their respective fields. Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case. It isn't simple. In many cases, particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research. A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. And, as is not made clear by the Fact Checker, the judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling.

    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

    by bronte17 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:56:34 AM PDT

    •  The US "attention span" is going to be in-volunta (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave the Rave

      involuntarily expanded, some will be optimistic, but thanks to the american mental health situation, depression will affect a lot of families.

      90 minutes is TOPS for attention span, so how about broadcasting it on network (not cable) television???

      Hell of a lot more relevant than Matt Lauer and Larry Craig.

    •  they are projecting again (11+ / 0-)

      What wingnuts miss in all this - and what we shouldn't lose sight of - is that Gore and other environmental Paul Reveres are not certain in their knowledge the way wingnuts are in Personal Jesus or the Inscrutable Genius and Unappreciated Macho Heroism of George Bush. That's because they're dealing with science. Once again, the wingnuts are projecting their own personal failings on their opponents.

      The answers science gives us are always only provisional pending new and better data and methodology. The information science gives us must always be greeted skeptically. Gore was conveying a consensus opinion from the world's scientific community, and did not have time to present every nuanced objection from every corner of the globe. The wingnuts think that if we heed the message then that means we accept it as received truth from Jehovah, or better yet, George W. Then they get us into pissing matches where we have to defend this position as if we believed it to be scripture. We have to convey that we are skeptics always, including on global warming, but that the burden of proof is on those on the losing side of the scientific consensus.

      To paraphrase Charles Barkley: We may be wrong. But we don't think so.

      You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

      by brainiacamor on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:41:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i like this post (0+ / 0-)

        It seems very fair and I'm happy you are pointing out that skepticism is a good thing.  Too often in this global warming debate you are wildly attacked by either side if you bring up an anomaly on either the science of the hypothesis of what the computer models mean for the future.  It amounts to censorship by uninformed dogpile, and you only making enemies that way.

        I'm not for inaction (well I am, but we'll get to that below) and waiting for the results to come in, but too much action, rashly, is just as bad.

        There are some really bad ideas floating out there--and sorry, Gore supporters, some of them come out his mouth--but lets not let that taint the rest of his work.

        Instead of threatening people with apocalyptic visions of Florida going underwater, consider these:

        • Ethanol is not the answer!  It creates it's own greenhouse gases that some argue are worse than CO2.  It drives up edible corn prices for nations who depend on it.  It destroys forests and creates monocrop incentives for 3rd world countries (and ours)

        •  Nuclear energy.  Good, that argument really back?!  Did the 70s do nothing?  The health risks are on the book.  Power plants leak even if they don't meltdown and no one wants one in their backyard.  The expense of building one is enormous and take many years to complete.

        •New Technologies!  Like Gore urges at the end of his film.  What exactly is he waiting for?  He wants Capitalist innovation to save us when Capitalism is exactly what got us into the mess.  I'm supposed to replace my old junker car with a new Prius made with poisonous lithium batteries and let my old, perfectly good car rot in a landfill?  The same goes for Carbon Credits which is yet another rigged ploy to make money off of the earth.

        I think everyone wants something to happen immediately.  The only way I see that happening is by moving "backwards" not into some future who's repercussions we do not yet understand.  How about some very old ideas instead:

        • Trains people!  For freight and people.  Reconstruct the national rail system which was once the envy of the world.  Helllo!  politicians?  where are the speeches about that one?  I swear I'll get off your back about voting for NAFTA if you create some new train jobs.

        • Stop consuming as much.  You don't need an enormous house built out of cardboard.  You don't need to tear up farmland for your suburbs.  You can walk or ride to the store for your 5 minute errand (if you don't move to the suburbs).  You hate the Corporations who are fighting air quality regulation?  Stick it to them by hitting their pocketbook.  DOn't buy their junk.  Buy second hand. Learn a new trade, quit your job at'll feel better about yourself too.

        •Buy locally.  

        • Start talking to your neighbors.  Maybe you'll find you like people and don't want to move further into the suburbs to get away from the mean streets of the cities.

        •  check out Bruce McFersons train diaries (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bronte17, Sigmarlin

          here at dailykos, also a siegel's and gmoke's and many other dailykos environmentalists collected inmeteor blades' eco diarieswho write with excellent suggestions for this low-key sustainable living - like Gore proposes in his co-authored Solutions book.

        •  let me respond to (0+ / 0-)

          this: "He wants Capitalist innovation to save us when Capitalism is exactly what got us into the mess."

          No, Gore want humans be aware of the problem, get knowledgeable about it, take action and strive to come up innovations to avert the situation.

          On the science aspects, I haven't presented my own arguments (and data) in this diary, but please feel free to explore the science/info links I've compiled, and later, in fact, if you would like, download the pdf file of the book I've linked to.

          There is no question that our rapid consumption of fossil fuels produced over 100s of millions of years and putting that Carbon as CO2 in the air is warming the planet too rapidly and paving for various consequences which could get much worse if we continue on the current path.

          But, you should get to that understanding on your own, and hence the science links I've provided.

      •  That is why Boortz is crowing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mother of Zeus

        that the ice cap on Mars is shrinking like it is on earth. A caller called in to ask if the ice caps on both planets were water based.  Boortz didn't know but did not see difference having different element composing each ice cap would make.

  •  This British judge's findings (9+ / 0-)

    Were front page news last Saturday, October 13th on the National Post, a right wing rag that claims to be USA Today of Canada. The newspaper spent two and half full pages trashing Gore, global warming and the Nobel peace prize in general.

    You can tell that Gore winning the Nobel must have hurt for the rightwingnuts in Canada and Great Britain (as well as in the US) to go into such a hate frenzy.

    Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

    by Ed in Montana on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:02:58 AM PDT

  •  perhaps we can identify places for LTE's (7+ / 0-)

    (Letters to the Editor) and other efforts to target and out the misinformation spreaders, hold them accountable.

  •  there are no global warming deniers (5+ / 0-)

    who can claim independence from oil industry money.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:16:10 AM PDT

    •  Sadly, that's not entirely true... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal, Mother of Zeus

      There are plenty of wingnuts with no direct ties to the oil industry or related industries, who for some reason buy into their disinformation, and whine about fearmongering on the part of Al Gore.  It's all a joke to them.  A scam.

      And if there weren't an actual problem here I'd agree with them on that.  But there is a problem.  And it's not a joke.

      •  true, not individual wingnuts (3+ / 0-)

        Joe Blow down the street who listens to Rush (how low can he go) Limbo may believe there is no climate crisis without having ties to the oil industry, but anyone who gets published or gets major media attention can be traced to funding by those who have something to gain by distracting the world away from this problem.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:23:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  80 degrees in Chicago yesterday (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, NeuvoLiberal

          speaks louder than words.

          fouls, excesses and immoderate behaviors will not be ignored at Over the line, Smokey!.

          by seesdifferent on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:55:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was there yesterday... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, NeuvoLiberal

            to see a concert at the House of Blues.  A stranger standing outside the entrance commented about how unseasonably warm it was, and I responded with something like, "and some people claim there's no global warming".  That sparked a short conversation about the topic.  The guy admitted he used to be a skeptic but that the evidence was becoming too compelling.  He even mentioned the rapid melting of Arctic ice as one of the things that convinced him.

            The message is getting through.  The deniers are becoming an increasingly isolated minority.

            Treasure each day like it will be your last, but treat the earth like you will live forever. -me

            by protothad on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 08:12:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I am a GW skeptic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, Sigmarlin

      First a quick preamble. I am not a religious fundie nor am I receiving money from the oil industry. I "believe" in science. I "believe" in evolution. I "believe" that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

      I remain skeptical that GW exists, is primarily caused by humans, and represents an acute crisis. My reason for skepticism are rooted in the scientific approach.  We all learned the scientific method hopfully in grammer school. That report produced by that UN panel of however many scientists and bureaucrats that got together that produced the "consensus" is not science. You don't vote on science. Newton and Einstein didn't put what they found up to a vote. They published their findings. Their findings were held up to the scrutiny of the scientific community and became excepted theory. This is how it's supposed to work. In contrast...

      Anytime, GW science is held up to peer review and critique, the critics are called tools of the oil industry. I don't know if they are or not. Perhaps they are. I really don't have the time to look into it myself. That dose not mean that their critiques are invalid. The other side can just as easily make ad hominem attacks and often does. Whether its that GW proponents are just a bunch of socailists or are just rigging the results of their studies to receive grant money. Can't the science be discussed on the merits Please?!?!?! I for one am not just going to take anyone's word on it.

      Finally, and this is a digression really, but there are a couple points that annoy me about the GW movement independent of its actual merits:

      1. The use of anecdotal data points to scare the general public. Barry Bonds is not a bad hitter because he strikes out once. A hot day or even a singal year of record breaking hurricanes, is not evidence of global warming by itself. A single data point simply can not make a case for anything. I suppose the reason for doing this is that the GW movements assumes that people are in general very credulous. Perhaps people are more sophisticated than you think and you're turing more folks off with this non-sense than you're turning on.
      1. The leaders of the movement, RFK Jr., Ted Kennedy, Laurie David, George Clooney, name ur celebrity really, seem to lack the courage of their convictions. If the problem is as dire as they claim they'd be living w/i their carbon footprints. RFK cant even deal with windmills in his yachting sightline. They presume to lecture the world, yet can't live anywhere neer footprints they prescribe for others. It's nausating and dosen't well represent a cause that may actually have merit.

      Sorry, end of rant. I realize this is too long. I just wanted you to know that every GW skeptic is not a lunatic. I'm all ears to any critique.

      •  you are brave (if anonymous) (0+ / 0-)

        I would add to that list the use of the word "denialist" as epithet for skeptic (in the scientific sense).  We all know what it's're just one quick step from wearing a swastika on your arm.  

        People should have questions and do some reading for themselves.  Nothing wrong with that.

        For example, I have questions about Peak Oil.  I thought it was an intriguing, apocalyptic vision.  I kind of hoped it was true because it would really 'f" up the system.  Then I read this:  

        Now i'm not so sure...but at least i'm on the right track by bothering to look into all angles.

      •  well...i'll rec you for your bravery here. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, BokenTerp, Sigmarlin

        even if I generally disagree with what you have to say as to why. You're right though, most skeptics are not shills for the oil industry. Denialists are another story, but they're vanishing pretty quick. It's important to know (and i am not one of either on this issue), that skepticism does not equal denialism.

        •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

          I suspect GW is being discussed thoughtfully and intelligently in academia. As a skeptic, I could even concede that we perhaps should, "act as if" on GW for a while to hedge our bets. It's a shame all the general public ever gets on the issue is a food fight.

          •  i'm with you (0+ / 0-)

            I generally keep my "its manmade" doubts to myself because there are plenty of man-made problems that would be helped along with the GW effort.  

            Things like pollution, cancer rates, butt-ugly suburban developments, and destruction of ecosystems here and abroad are definitely man-made problems.

            And I would love to see the principles of Capitalism questioned and halted.  

            I am not impressed by the political talk about GW, Gore's included--that is why I sound so cranky--because consumerism, profits, and technological exploration (usually at the expense of some 3rd world country) are still espoused as the solution rather than the cause.

            •  Given all we know, how could it not be man made? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              We have a very solid scientific understanding of the properties of CO2, how it absorbs and reflects various types of energy, and how that results in a 'greenhouse' effect that traps heat in the atmosphere.  We can reproduce that effect in the laboratory, model it on computers, and even observe it in action in the atmosphere.

              We know with absolute certainty that consumption of fossil fuels is releasing large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, CO2 that was previously sequestered underground over the course of millions of years.  We know how fast we are releasing it and we know how much the levels have increased in recent decades.  These are historic facts.

              Given our scientific understanding of the above, scientists have for decades been warning of the potential of global warming.  They have created computer models, and those models have been proven correct.  When they get it wrong, it is only that they under-predict the effects (we are only now beginning to understand the compounding effects that are increasing the pace of warming).

              We are, in a matter of decades, releasing into the atmosphere greenhouse gases that took nature millions of years to sequester out of the atmosphere.  How could that not impact the client!?  Sure, it seems difficult to fathom that puny old humans could impact this big old planet... but never underestimate the power of several billion hyper-consuming humans.

              Treasure each day like it will be your last, but treat the earth like you will live forever. -me

              by protothad on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:47:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  this is what i'm looking for (0+ / 0-)

                I'm on the fence really, so I appreciate that you are speaking to me as an adult rather than dismissing me with "DENIALIST!"  Don't people realize that just makes them look closed-minded, not effective?  I agree that it's hard to think we don't have an effect.  Clearly we're poisoning the oceans, soil and our selves with all the chemicals in our products.

                And to assure everyone I am not a hedonistic energy consumer, GW doesn't change my habits one way or another.  My parents raised a stingy hippie kid before people knew about GW--so it doesn't really matter what I decide.

                From my understanding, there is some controversy on cause vs. effect.  (And please don't send me to RealClimate--i hate that site and the leader has stated that conservation is not an option.)  Is the earth warming because CO2 is trapping solar heat?  Or is solar activity the culprit and the CO2 a byproduct from  oceans releasing it as they warm up?

                I've also read that the polar icecaps may be melting from the effects of dust from our farming practices.  that the blackness of the soil as it drifts around and settles serves to make them absorb more energy--and well that's not Co2 though it may be man-made.

                There is also the very extreme anthropomorphic argument to it's extreme--sometimes in especially misanthropic moods I'm tempted to make it-- 'so what if the earth sloughs us off like a bad disease...we kind of deserve it and the rest of nature might be better off without it.'  That's not an argument for raping and pillaging while we can, because the exploits give us meaningless things anyway; just stop thinking we should control nature good and bad.

          •  A couple of links you may find interesting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            This is late, but hopefully you'll check your comment list.

            These links were easily found by googling: "Global Warming for Skeptics"

            Global Warming Skeptics:  A Primer

            Global Warming, A Few Skeptics Still Ask Why it's Happening

            Federation of American Scientists (FAS):


      •  The science has been discussed on its merits (6+ / 0-)

        for at least 25 years.  And yes, consensus does emerge in scientific disciplines.

        During those 25 years the skeptics (at the time in the mainstream of climate scientists) ideas were voiced and research programs were built around those criticisms.  Very few of the critiques have survived scientific scrutiny.

        You can look at how the view of global warming has changed in the community of scientists who study it by  visiting "The Discovery of Global Warming" a website that traces history of research in the field.  

        As far as consensus in science it does emerge over time as more and more evidence is amassed to support a theory.  The evidence is ammased by applying the scientific method, as you descibe it, to individual reserach questions.  The results of those individual applications of the scientific methods are what a copnsensus emerges from.  We saw things like that happen with Lynn Margolis's theory of endosymbiosis which explains the evolution of mitochondria and we see it happening with global warming.

        The National Academy of Sciences has published a paper on consensus in the field of Global Warming entitled "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Conscensus on Climate Change"  I suggest you read to come to understanding of how consensus emerges in a scientific discipline not by voting but by the slow process of hundreds of researchers answering hundreds of questions and the answers to all those questions independently converging as evidence for a given theory.

      •  The 'leaders of the movement' are not the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        scientists who have done the research. They are individuals, celebrities who have faults and biases just as everyone does.

        Rather than concentrate on them, which is exactly what corporate interests want you to do, why not read about the scientific research, instead?

        Then, you might understand, rather than being a passive recipient for the bag of shit handed to you by the corporate media.  

        socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

        by shpilk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:18:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  bag of shit? (0+ / 0-)

          not nice.  way to debate.  

          If I were BokenTerp I'd want to steer clear of the ilks of that kind of mob language rather than join you in a common search for answers.

          leave him/or her alone...they're entitled to their opinions and probably not hurting anyone with them, as BokenTerp also urges the 'better safe than sorry' argument.

      •  Oh, I missed this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "I really don't have the time to look into it myself."

        Then, you do have any thing to say.

        Your straw men are nothing but that, straw men.

        Let yourself continue to be led by the corporate media, let yourself continue to use 'celebrity spokespersons' as your pinata .. but "I really don't have the time to look into it myself."  tells me everything I need to know about you, and your motivations in posting what you just did.

        socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

        by shpilk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:21:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey friend (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          My point is simply that we should focus on the science. Like you said, the celebrities are flawed. The sceptics may be on the Exon payroll. So what? Is what they're saying accurate? All the public sees in the GW discussion is a food fight.

          I'm going through Pete's links on the subject now. It's dense reading. Still wouldn't it make more sense to counter GW deniar's like Pete has by saying the consensus is worthwhile because of A, B, and C. As opposed to attacking critcs as capitalist pigs?

      •  Skepticism is good... up to a point (4+ / 0-)

        If you use your skepticism to motivate your own research and enhance your decision making, great.  But it is important to actually examine the available data and not let your skepticism just paralyze you into inaction.

        If you were feeling sick all the time, and nineteen out of twenty doctors told you that you had a strong allergy to a particular food additive, and only one said you didn't (and that one happens to work for the company that makes that additive), would you you do?  Would you decide to change your diet or just say "well, there seems to be some doubt, so I'll just stay the course until all 20 doctors say the same thing"?

        The fact is, the scientific process has done its job and the results are very clear.  The overwhelming evidence is that global warming is real, man made, and a serious problem.  While dissenting opinions should always be welcome in the scientific process they must stand up to the same level of peer review and be free from bias, and frankly, the GW denials almost always fail in that regard.

        As for the idea that scientists would alter their results to attract grant money... there are a few problems with that theory:

        1. Grants are not allocated to 'prove' or 'disprove' global climate change, they are granted to research the trends and their impact, which could be anywhere from zero to catastrophic.  The results will not impact the grant, as the grant is issued before the results are known.
        1. If any financial bias does come into play, it would favor disproving global warming (not proving it) as that would make the fossil fuel industry happy and get governments off of the hook from making difficult policy changes.
        1. The potential consequences to a scientist's career if caught falsifying results are enormous.  It can be career ending actually.
        1. The process of peer review makes this sort of bias very difficult to get away with in the long run, and it would be basically impossible to create the sort of global consensus that now exists.  Nearly every single climate scientist would have to be in on it, and conspiracies of that scale are just not possible.

        Since you seem to lack the time to fully research the topic on your own, perhaps you should take the word of the vast majority of climate scientists around the world.  I know a couple of these scientists personally and have even dug through some of the research, and I have absolutely no doubt that the problem is real and must be addressed.

        And really, when you consider all the positive side effects of reducing our carbon emissions, what do we have to lose?  We would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our trade deficit, strengthen our domestic economy, and reduce many forms of polution.  The only ones who actually lose when we address global warming are the fossile fuel companies.  That might explain why they are spending so much money funding shoddy climate denial 'research' and pushing their message of doubt and inaction.

        Treasure each day like it will be your last, but treat the earth like you will live forever. -me

        by protothad on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're point is well taken (0+ / 0-)

          And I'm going through the links Pete posted above. It's very dense but I'm sure I'll get through it. It's useful to have a forum like this. You can try googling your way through it yourself but that's a bit like trying to find the toilet with the lights out. Possible but not very direct.

          •  Cool. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mountain Don, Mother of Zeus

            Glad to hear you are slogging through some of the available data.  I did quite a bit of that over the last few years (about a variety of topics) and I've felt better for it.  It is always better to wade through the facts and use that to select your opinions than latch onto your opinions and let them select your facts for you.  The former approach takes longer, but yields better results than the latter.  :)

            I just realized I could replace 'opinions' with 'leaders' in the above statement and it would be just as true.


            Treasure each day like it will be your last, but treat the earth like you will live forever. -me

            by protothad on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  the ways grants work (0+ / 0-)

          I think your points about funding are a little idealistic.  

          If I'm a scientist who wants to study the sex habits of frogs in the amazonian jungle and i've struggled for years to get funding for my research because no one thinks it's all that important, I could try altering my proposal a little and say, study the effects of Global Warming on reproduction processes in Amazonian frogs.  Maybe not my true interest, but now I may have a better chance of procuring funding, because GW research is well, admit it, trendy.  Well, now I am a global warming scientist, so I am certainly not going to question the consensus and will begin my frog research with that premise in mind.

          I don't want to start a huge debate on a separate topic, but similar things happen all the time when looking for cures for diseases.  There is now some controversy emerging in the HIV/Aids connection--for example there is no existing source paper that states "HIV is the cause of AIDs" although that's the consensus.  The few scientists that questioned the premise then and now are quickly called "denialists", ostracized and defunded. Given the failure to advance in hiv research, perhaps alternatives should be looked at also. Selling lucrative drug cocktails certainly aren't the answer.

          Actually, the parallels between the AIDS debate--though many people aren't even aware there is a debate--and GW, (especially the hyperbolic language) are quite similar. I would argue in the cae of AIDS the debate is more political than scientific if you look into it.  Perhaps GW is the same; perhaps not--but it's always good to keep healthy skepticism alive though and not hurl names at well-meaning curious people.

        •  Excellent comment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

          I try to say the same things to deniers, but never have put it together in such a non-confrontational and thorough manner.  Thanks.  I will borrow from this in the future, if that's OK with you.

      •  for someone so interested in science (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

        you've provided none here to support your OPINION.

        "You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

        by bigchin on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 01:54:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it's not just one hot year--it's various trends (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

        19 of the hottest years on record have come in the last 26 years.

        it's not just single data points.  go into the science all you like.

        And the leaders of the movement are the scientists, not the celebrities.  The celebrities just have an easier time getting press than scientists do, and that's not the scientists' fault.

        But as for celebrities and their carbon footprints, I haven't noticed any of them "prescribing" footprints for others.  Even Al Gore buys offsets for the energy he uses.

        All the peer reviewed science is in agreement.  The only "researchers" dissenting are funded by the industry.  Did you see An Inconvenient Truth?  Or look at the companion book(available in paperback now)?  Tell you what--I have an extra copy--send me your snail mail address via my email and I'll send it you for free.  I'm serious.  You say you don't have time to look into it--well how about listening to the people who have been looking into it for decades?

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:46:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  one more word on peer review (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

        They published their findings. Their findings were held up to the scrutiny of the scientific community and became excepted theory. This is how it's supposed to work.

        That IS what our side has done.  ALL the publications in peer reviewed journals are in agreement.  ALL.

        That is what I meant by my original post.  The published "research" that claims GW does not exist is all funded by industry interests.  All.

        If you or anyone else can find an exception, please share it with the rest of the class.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:55:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would like you and sigmarlin (0+ / 0-)

        to go over this CO2 problem in 6 steps and tell which part you do not agree with. Please feel free to ask questions. While I am not a climate scientist, I will try my best to answer or to find information, and hopefully others with  better command of the subject may respond as well to your questions on this. Thanks.

    •  Listened to Rush yesterday, I think (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and he had a dig in to the global warming fascists as he said. However then it was time for an ad for a homeopathic cold remedy that will reduce the symptoms of a cold by 2/3s. I almost drove into a ditch when Rush opined, "When I open my medicine chest, what do you think I see?"
      Wonder the drug manufacturer knows the company his product is keeping in Rush's drug cabinet?

  •  Tipped and Recommended (6+ / 0-)

    Great linkage!

    Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

    by ChapiNation386 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:24:33 AM PDT

  •  the people who deny global climate change... (4+ / 0-)

    remind me of the character in the movie Waterworld, the MAYOR (?) of the island who kept giving speech's to his people that things are just fine, nothing to worry about...all the while he is SINKING Into the water, he is still proclaiming there is nothing to worry about as he totally and completely disappears under all the water.

    whenever I hear someone proclaim that global climate change isnt real I immediately think of that moment in the movie waterworld.


    by KnotIookin on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:36:46 AM PDT

  •  Great job, NL. Rec'd of course. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, NeuvoLiberal

    Support Thom Hartmann and migratory song birds! Buy shade grown coffee from a sponsor.

    by OLinda on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:43:03 AM PDT

  •  Look to the property and casualty insurers (8+ / 0-)

    That industry was talking about climate change 15years ago, when suddenly their actuarial science was increasingly problematic. Their use of actuarial data and methods were what exit polling once was for election watchers: a proven method you couldn't go wrong on. Suddenly it was like Republicans were in charge of the climate (indirectly, they were!) and everything they thought they could rely on they no longer could.

    It would be interesting for some news organization to talk to property insurers to see what THEY think about what Gore has been saying.

    You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

    by brainiacamor on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:48:20 AM PDT

  •  "Gore becoming an even more insufferable gasbag?" (4+ / 0-)

    You just can't get any more plain stupid than this WV idiotorial. I would swear, Rove sends them editorials, and they just print them.

    "Reputable scientists have debunked the outrageous claims made in Gore’s movie"

    "Given the sparseness of facts in his supposed documentary....."

    And we wonder why we have a moron in the White House?

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. G. Orwell

    by DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:49:35 AM PDT

  •  In the Guardians defence (3+ / 0-)

    it has been publishing articles promoting awareness of global warming since long before Gore took it up as  an issue. They were looking into it when Europe saw it as a potential disaster and America saw it as a punchline.

    Impeachment is not an option ........It is a duty.

    by stevej on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:59:10 AM PDT

    •  O'Rly? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal, 0wn

      Al Gore was talking about the environment over 30 years ago, discussing carbon dioxied emissions in the 1970's, toxic wastes in the late 1970's and specifically 'global warming' in the 1980's.

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:10:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  carbon _dioxide_ that is .. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, 0wn

        The carbon dioxide and other pollutants we have already let out of the bag ensure that no matter what we do, the problem will get worse before it gets better."

        That warning about the threat posed by global warming appeared in this space in 1988, during Al Gore's first run for president.

        1. "In 1977 the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences issued a study called Energy and Climate, which carefully suggested that the possibility of global warming 'should lead neither to panic nor to complacency.' Rather, the study continued, it should 'engender a lively sense of urgency in getting on with the work of illuminating the issues that have been identified and resolving the scientific uncertainties that remain.' As is typical with National Academy studies, the primary recommendation was for more research." — From "Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock" by Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr., THE ATLANTIC, July 2000

        Roger Revelle chaired the National Academy Panel, which found that about forty percent of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide has remained in the atmosphere, two-thirds from fossil fuel and one-third from the clearing of forests. It is now known that carbon dioxide is one of the primary greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming and remains in the atmosphere for a century.

        1980s: Representative Al Gore (D-TN)
        , who had been a student of Revelle's, co-sponsored the first Congressional hearings to study the implications of global warming and to encourage the development of environmental technologies to combat global warming.

        Ya, thanks for playing.

        socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

        by shpilk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:13:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Neuvo, great diary w/excellent response from Gore (7+ / 0-)


    I believe the comment I saw that best explains the replies to to false claims, was "OH SNAP".

  •  Super diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VickiStein, NeuvoLiberal

    Thanks a lot.

    Your candidate sucks, mine rules.

    by otto on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:17:47 AM PDT

  •  Al Gore (5+ / 0-)

    has come a long way in my estimation, in a period of only a few days. How? He came out last week and endorsed single-payer healthcare explicitly. There's a video of him touting single-payer or "government funded" universal healthcare on Michael Moore's web site. This is huge. So I'm now one of the partisans who's shrieking that we  have to get him in the presidential race, and give Hillary a run for her pandering money.

    Yeah, I'd been kind of lukewarm on a Gore candidacy till now. Good environmental contributions, yes, but also a somewhat shaky track record as a candidate, if you look at the 2000 results. I sincerely believe there were things his camp could have done differently back then, to spare progressives a loss, but I'm ready to move on. I am ESPECIALLY ready to move on, when I contemplate the possibility of having another major Democratic contender in the race (besides Edwards) discussing real healthcare reform in detailed, unequivocal language.

  •  It is challenges like this that make Gore (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Jail the BFEE

    only stronger.  They don't like the truth, and the truth reinforces the case that Gore makes.

    Hillary Clinton: "I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres -- being a first-term senator." --on her presidential ambitions

    by Do Tell on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:53:34 AM PDT

  •  Great diary, Neuvo! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    churchylafemme, NeuvoLiberal, Tober

    Lots of facts to use in our eternal qwest to help raise awareness and truth on Global Climate Change. It was great of the Gore Team to help with your research... a staff that's competent... I'd almost forgotten what that was like!

    Thanks for all your hard work... you are wonderful!


    move it over to it's 215,000 MARK!

  •  Al, we have your back, your front and your sides! (4+ / 0-)

    nothing more to say here.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:19:57 AM PDT

  •  Looking forward (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Tober

    to the next inflammatory, shit-eating-grin-wearing non-correction that "Fact Checker" releases, should they deign to stoop to any kind of response whatsoever, since after all, it's only Al Gore, being Al Gore again...

    Pretty obvious that whoever is funding Mr. Dimmock (emphasis on "Dim") is (perhaps less overtly) behind the money that pays for the bills and other perks over at "Fact Checker." Or as I prefer to refer to them: "Chat Fucker."

  •  So glad to read this information (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

    I heard on NPR when the ruling originally came down and didn't find it as damaging as some have claimed, especially those who are using it to attack Gore as usual. For instance, as pointed out, the judge didn't say "errors." It's good to have more complete information on what went on.

    tragically un-hip

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:25:07 AM PDT

  •  Good to see. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

    When the denialists claimed that Gore's sea-level projections were false, I went back to look up those studies. The scientific projections range, responsibly, from three feet to a worst-case scenario I caught on Discovery last night of more than 250 feet.

    But they're giving Gore sh!t about a single projection of six meters/20 feet.


    And on AM hate radio, who needs the best science can give us when you can bitch and yell and lie to avoid taking any responsibility to change things instead?

    "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary." -Handmaid's Tale

    by Cenobyte on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:27:10 AM PDT

  •  Will corpmedia allow Gore's counter the volume (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic, Tober

    they gave the TRUMPED UP attack against him?

    The safe guess is ABSOLUTELY NOT!

    Kerry campaign always countered the swifts, supplying humdreds of pages of accurate information to the press corps and the news networks - who then proceeeded to not use the corrections and when they did allow them to be heard gave the lies equal weight no matter what the records said.

    They completely ignored Kerry's personal attack on the swifts and Bush for hiding behind them, and would not give airtime to that challenge.

    Muting the truth while amplifying the lies is a crucial   component of the corpmedia's war against honest, open government Democrats like Kerry and Gore.

    The media will NOT give Gore's counter to the lies the same amount of airtime - - they can't - - they fear that fair treatment to a Gore or Kerry would result in more of the public actually LISTENING to them.

  •  UK Gov't case to show film. Who spoke for Gore? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

    In looking at the Gore "teams" response, they don't exactly answer the items the UK judge noted so it would be interesting to know who the UK gov't used to respond to the challenge to show the movie in the UK schools?  UK Education department scientists or did they contact the documentary producers or Gore?

    The challenge items seemed very specific, actual polar bear deaths and cause for example. Was the Gore response what the UK defense team presented or did they offer some other explanation for the movie's specific claim?

    The UK gov't won the case overall since the film can be shown to UK school kids.  That is what the plaintiff's were trying to stop.

    The nine "clarifications" that the teachers have to mention will likely not dampen the impact.

    Gore should use some of the Nobel money to add his reply sheet to the UK school systems "warning label".  That would frost the "flat earthers".

  •  thanks, Nuevo Liberal (4+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the links, including Justice Burton's  ruling.

    I'm reading Ross Gelbspan's "Boiling Point" which concludes with a planetary plan to wean us off fossil fuels and jump start a renewable energy plan with all parties on board.

    Gelbspan does believe in the merits of diffusing energy away from the grid through localized solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen fuel cells, etc but the plan he espouses also gets the giant fossil fuel companies on board by shifting subsidies from that industry to $300 billion annual seed money to transition to a worldwide economic program to develop alternative energy sources suitable to the local region.
    e.g since a shift away from oil would cripple the middle east and exacerbate the strife and misery leading to more terrorist acts, it is suggested that the deserts of the Middle East be used to develop hydrogen energy used to create electricity then used to separate hydrogen from water moving through water pipelines across the desert.

    Gelbspan says that enlightened people in industry, including a former chm of Shell oil is on board and this can be done (must be done).


  •  as usual, NeuvoLiberal, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Panda, NeuvoLiberal, Residentcynic

    a thorough and well-researched diary with links to all the relevant sources. Great job!

  •  I see this whole incident in a larger frame (3+ / 0-)

    My current diary about the nature of corporations, and that they are not moral entities ties into this bigger issue.

    Indeed, I wrote my diary in response to Barcelona's diary, where the discussion of the necessity of moral and political motivations were part of the issue.

    People, for the most part are willing to do anything in order to conform.

    Stanley Milgram's experiments show us one aspect of human nature at work, here. Behind the obelisk of the corporate logo, it's easy to crank up the lies: the judges "ruling", and more importantly the traditional media's rush to latch onto it are prime indications of that corporate hand raising the voltage on the control panel.  

    I was outraged, amused and despondent at the same time, reading about the 'Strip search Prank Call Scam', a series of crimes that show human beings like to be lead by authority figures. If the corporate mindset isn't raising the voltage and killing us outright, it is more than willing to force the weak minded in our society to do absurd, ridiculous and heinous things in the name of the authority. No McDonalds is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated in those examples, but the corporate mindset of society is. The ignorance of people, their willingness to accept what they are told without challenge, these are the things we must fight against.

    Human beings instinctively like to be told what to do; the defense against this ignorance, this willingness to be led .. the only defense is knowledge. Intellectual laziness, a lackadaisical attitude towards challenging authority and most of all fear are what drives opposition to Gore's vision.

    Make no mistake. It's also what drives most of the Republican Party agenda - like Goebbels, Rove no doubt studied and understands the weakness of the human, and it's willingness to be led.

    When we look at the right wing insanity, of which Dimmock represents just a tiny slice of, we are at the forefront of a fight that is bigger than politics: this is a battle for the very nature of civilization itself.

    There is a deliberate, planned effort on the part of corporations to twist the truth. They are more than willing to raise the voltage high enough to kill, in order make their profits. They do it, everyday. They'll justify their moral perfidy under the rubric of 'what is good for the majority'.

    It appears that Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and others never envisioned the true scope and level of danger presented by the rise of corporatism - it simply was outside their level of understanding, of their experience. There was no such thing as cable news, media conglomeration, multi-national corporations. The closest thing they saw was The Church, with it's all encompassing tendrils reaching into every aspect of the society of the day. Corporations have become The Church.

    And this guy warned us about it, nearly 50 years ago.

    socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

    by shpilk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:02:43 AM PDT

    •  or on the flipside (0+ / 0-)

      you could say the same authority and corporate influence is at play with many people who have recently become interested in GW as a problem.  You have to be fair.  How many of our relatives who now make GW jokes have actually read the climatology papers?  So they have to trust films like Gores', political speeches and now that some corporations have seen a way to profit from a green economy, commercials.  

      I don't see a huge difference in which authority you are talking about.  Except, you will say, this scientific consensus thing.  Well, in truth, science doesn't always need a consensus to be the closest to the truth.  

      You once could form a consensus that said asbestos made a good fire retardant, asparatame is safe, or that fluoridation of water is helpful and has no moral issues tied to it.  If you dig a little deeper you will find scientific opinion that differs and always did but was ignored by those who stood to gain.

      I think everyone should keep a watchful eye on consensus especially when radical proposals are brought out as a solution--like nuclear power plants.  Don't trust anyone's motives...even if they're words sound comforting.

      But don't attack the wrong people.  Like the watchful public who still has questions.

      •  No, people here know how to read (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, Judge Moonbox

        I'll step out on a limb, and will say there is nary a single Kossack who bases their ideas about climate change solely based upon AIT.

        I offer as proof the hundreds of recommended diaries that dig into the science, from all sorts of different angles.

        Now of course, you might be one of those who hasn't bothered to read those diaries. I suggest you start reading them.  

        socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

        by shpilk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:45:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I suggest you to read the (0+ / 0-)

        science/info links I've given. The first three are easily digestable for almost all folks. The pdf file of the book I've linked to gives rigorous scientific footing for things (I am reading it as well).

    •  Back in Jefferson's day... (0+ / 0-)

      It appears that Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and others never envisioned the true scope and level of danger presented by the rise of corporatism - it simply was outside their level of understanding, of their experience.

      The big corporations back then were like the East India Company which couldn't survive without the government granting them a monopoly. It wasn't until around the time of the Civil War that freestanding corporations had the strength to achieve such domination.

      I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

      by Judge Moonbox on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 08:03:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  State of Kansas became rejects coal plant (4+ / 0-)

    By rejecting air pollution permits for a new coal plant due to global warming pollution, Kansas become in leader of the USA.

    Washpost has the lowdown.

    Remember, neither the Democrats nor the environmental groups declared carbon a pollutant.

    The Republican-tilted Supreme Court did in April of this year.

    Go Kansas!

    "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde

    by greendem on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:05:17 AM PDT

  •  There is no surprise that all the global warming (3+ / 0-)

    denialists and their cohorts are being paid and promoted by the fossil fuel industry, which has the most to lose in this battle for the survival of the planet.  I pray they simply wake up to the facts, or even just accept that their source of filthy lucre will run out even if global warming isn't looming as an end to life on earth as we know it.  

    Wake up, fossil fuel industry and your horrific handmaiden, military industrial complex, and climb aboard the survival train.  Embrace alternative, renewable, clean energy!  Solar, wind and wave power will line your pockets with gold, too!  And, since that's your only interest, why not be the first in line with solutions instead of spending time and money blowing smoke in the faces of every human being on this planet?  After all, you ain't got nowhere else to live, either.  You and yours are gonna choke, drown and/or starve to death eventually, just like the rest of us, if you don't join us in our quest to save this planet's surface temperatures.

    Just sayin'...

  •  Fantastic diary-THANKS so much!! n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Nixon to WH counsel F. Buzhardt: "He (Fred Thompson) isn't very smart, is he?"

    by Gorette on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:39:56 AM PDT

  •  Too bad out ass-crack MSM can't do this type (5+ / 0-)

    of real Journalism!!  Well... at least we know the latest in Britney's life, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute...

    You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

    by FightTheFuture on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:51:31 AM PDT

  •  As soon as I read about the British brouhaha, (6+ / 0-)

    I thought that the denialists and lobbyists were
    lurking about. Gore's biggest critics here are
    American Enterprise Institute shills and stooges.

  •  TED Speaks (5+ / 0-)

    I'm sure most of you have already seen this video of Al Gore at "TED Speaks", but if not, it is not only educational, but quite funny at the beginning.

    Al Gore at Ted Speaks

    "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." - H. G. Wells

    by Diogenes2008 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:25:52 PM PDT

  •  Great diary, NeuvoLiberal! (5+ / 0-)

    Thanks for informing about disinformation. This whole story is representative of how sound science is debunked by competing interests every day.  Once again, Al Gore is forging ahead and setting the example. Your diaries are consistently excellent and timely. I'm impressed.

  •  Bush aid still in denial (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, blue vertigo, junta0201

    "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde

    by greendem on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 01:42:17 PM PDT

    •  Marburger seems to be backpedaling on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judge Moonbox

      He does acknowledge that global warming is real and is being driven by human contributions, but these latest statements maybe coming after political pressure applied on him. Kyoto-II is in the works, and the Bush admin maybe gearing up to oppose that.

  •  Bravo! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Panda, NeuvoLiberal

    "You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

    by bigchin on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 01:50:55 PM PDT

  •  Had questions about the "errors" the first time.. (3+ / 0-)

    I read them. The judge gives some figures for the global flooding from the glaciers melting struck me as completely bogus. Where did he get his figures?

    I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

    by Judge Moonbox on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:34:28 PM PDT

    •  don't know where he gets his figures on glacier (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      melting led flooding from. I don't know if glaciers amount to that much water to flood on a global scales. Arctic/Antarctic Ice sheets and ice caps are another story.

      You may want to check out figure 8 in tamino's post graphic evidence on glacier mass balance (some data links are there as well) and go from there. Using the search feature at could also help.

  •  Great diary!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    churchylafemme, NeuvoLiberal

    Neuvo!!! I knew we had to agree on some things......  Best wishes!!

    Our country is in danger, not just from foreign enemies, but from our own misguided policies- RFK

    by RDemocrat on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:37:32 PM PDT

  •  You can put two to four videos into a playlist .. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... and embed the playlist, which will play from beginning to end. Embedded playlists with more than four clips will stop playing after the fourth clip (probably to encourage people to drop the link and bring people where they can see the ads on the YouTube site). and Energize America

    by BruceMcF on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 11:16:00 AM PDT

arlam, Sequoia, Greg Dworkin, Thumb, Grassroots Mom, Canadian Reader, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, M Aurelius, MichaelPH, sj, Frank, vicki, Terri, Marek, Phoenix Woman, Radiowalla, GernBlanzten, RW, dalemac, teacherken, Marie, assyrian64, Better Days, yerioy, Geenius at Wrok, Mountain Don, demnomore, pHunbalanced, mjr, TrueBlueMajority, Unstable Isotope, JimPortlandOR, Winger, bosdcla14, karlpk, dengre, RAST, Debby, wu ming, Wintermute, Pondite, kpardue, fink, meg, Jim in Chicago, bellatrys, OLinda, linnen, Troutfishing, darrelplant, jdld, MakeChessNotWar, polecat, figdish, marrael, frisco, lilorphant, shpilk, HL Mungo, exNYinTX, Poika, marge, Jerome a Paris, VickiStein, louisville lisa, Vitarai, Heart of the Rockies, JLFinch, Smallbottle, Paulie200, dpc, RumsfeldResign, eyeswideopen, frayster, Mr Teem, raines, hestal, Hatu, bronte17, TracieLynn, EricS, DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou, Nellcote, cyberKosFan, Mary Julia, understandinglife, whenwego, awakentech, Morague, CoolOnion, peace voter, Liz P, highacidity, KMc, boadicea, stevej, chuckvw, Dont Just Stand There, scamp, Scoopster, samddobermann, Frederick Clarkson, anoodle, javelina, Ignacio Magaloni, MahFellaMerkins, House, jigsaw68, DMK, BruinKid, ceebs, MadEye, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, wonmug, ctsteve, Jesterfox, kimberlyweldon, petewsh61, splashy, Sharpner, arkdem, Cedwyn, antirove, Braindead, WeatherDem, psnyder, Alizaryn, Dallasdoc, jzso, gobigblue, MA Liberal, commonscribe, TXsharon, lezlie, praedor, Ready2fight, churchylafemme, Bulldawg, newore, Jujuree, Black Maned Pensator, Penny Century, ohiolibrarian, snakelass, AbsurdEyes, Harleyhog, Muleskinner, walkshills, General Disarray, count, Panda, WV Democrat, paisa, JayDean, SanDiegoDem, andyj2287, Marianne Benz, TexasLefty, bablhous, sbg, djpat, valadon, rickeagle, eve, BigBite, dss, Jen Hayden, Josiah Bartlett, Wojo, Sol Fed Joe, mdgluon, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, weelzup, rapala, nailbender, leolabeth, nehark, madaprn, Fabian, chumley, lcs, marina, LarisaW, baccaruda, internik, LostInTexas, PBen, KnotIookin, kuvasz, Sinister Rae, truong son traveler, fedupinca, brainiacamor, juliesie, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, cosmicdavej, kldave, lennysfo, GUGA, SaraBeth, chicagovigilante, washingtonsmith, LUH 3417, Buffalo Girl, GreyHawk, podster, Barcelona, Kayakbiker, Overseas, Little Lulu, bmaples, jane123, Yamara, Sevah, mikolo, wulidancer, CSPAN Junkie, Shotput8, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, sodalis, Lisa Lockwood, loggersbrat, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, Lindy, Spathiphyllum, JanL, Ekaterin, noladq, kkjohnson, hedgey, simplicio, fhcec, bently, maryru, Reality Bites Back, lcork, SSMir, RiaD, milkmit, SoulCatcher, Denny in Seattle, Coherent Viewpoint, lilyvaldem, Jennifer Clare, danmac, MissInformation, BalanceSeeker, Do Tell, tarheelblue, beartooth, Debbie in ME, PatsBard, vigilant meerkat, DrSpalding, tung sol, BlueInARedState, dharmafarmer, Themistoclea, garykephart, SciFiGuy, faster democrat kill kill, Big Eddie Calzone, Gorette, Yellow Canary, seefleur, Prognosticator, greenearth, Imipolex, Christopher Walker, StrayCat, Tanya, A Siegel, Lashe, nonnie9999, gooderservice, nilocjin, fatdave, condoleaser, NearlyNormal, BalkanID, CTLiberal, ER Doc, soccergrandmom, bernardpliers, Turbonerd, ChapiNation386, CA Nana, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Dianna, va dare, takeback, RantNRaven, scoff0165, NYPopulist, pissedpatriot, NeilP, FrankieB, pseudopod, Temmoku, UK eye, markthshark, mapman, Aaa T Tudeattack, AntKat, Tempus Figits, Reel Woman, embra, Mishima, bigchin, thrasybulus, FoundingFatherDAR, Dave the Rave, out of left field, ibonewits, asilomar, Cronesense, meowmissy, Cocker Mom, Loudoun County Dem, blue armadillo, dmh44, FWIW, blue vertigo, Kathie McCrimmon, statistician, SchoolFan, moosely2006, maxalb, 0wn, Outrider, Foxwizard, FishOutofWater, dotcommodity, yowsta, some other george, blackeyedsusan, Jimdotz, ezdidit, deepeco, DWG, londubh, drchelo, eOz, Rex Manning, stratocasterman, Carib and Ting, vbdietz, marlakay, jnhobbs, Moderation, rrheard, pioneer111, Rumarhazzit, Got a Grip, madgranny, skod, JML9999, TexasTwister, homerun, Don midwest, trueblueliberal, Bikemom, aseth, mall teacher, Empower Ink, LAMaestra, Theghostofkarlafayetucker, Linda in SFNM, AJ WI, JDWolverton, MKinTN, skymutt, Roger Fox, gfv6800, LightningMan, MollyStark, Phil N DeBlanc, karin x, zerone, Professor Sin, ohioskeptic, Foundmyvoice, LandStander, Peperpatch, limpidglass, ReEnergizer, Ronald England, cumberland sibyl, skohayes, MouseOfSuburbia, Mother of Zeus, Residentcynic, LucyMO, dewley notid, daddy4mak, Spekkio, asius, Jail the BFEE, william f harrison, dantyrant, Jacob Freeze, RDemocrat, Victory Coffee, GoracleFan, Tober, Memory Corrupted, pritchdc, junta0201, BlueGenes, Yoshi En Son, Simply Agrestic, Scubaval, Diogenes2008, ryangoesboom, Chad Michaels, NetRootsDaily, Mr Tentacle, BennyToothpick, changeisconstant, RonRaunikar

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site