Al Gore is generally a good guy, and I think his message on global warming is an important one. He’s still traveling around, giving his slideshow that we’ve seen in An Inconvenient Truth, but apparently he has added some new material — and these aren’t slides that make me very happy.
The slide I found particularly interesting/shocking/sad, was his new(?) slide containing a graph of human population growth over the past couple hundred-thousand years. It started off good. He pointed at the beginning of the graph, showing the population of humans on Earth from 200,000 years ago, and referred to the “rise of humans.”
Cool beans. So he believes that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominid ancestors, right? Nope. In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this “rise of humans” was God’s creation of mankind — apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption “Adam & Eve” above this starting point.
Wha…?
He might as well have shown the chart of global temperature vs. number of pirates — it’s nonsense that completely undercuts the serious of the science he’s discussing.
It’s strange how this one little slide makes me far less enthusiastic about the prospect of another Gore run for the presidency. Even if he doesn’t actually believe in a literal creation event for mankind, he’s not above pandering to the ignorant.
The guy’s identified as a Southern Baptist. He’s just got sense in other matters, by observation. He said on Countdown: he believes in the Christian faith, and part of that is being a good steward of god’s creation, which humanity aren’t being.
I dunno, this was a surprise?
Hell, the way you say it, it seems like you honestly thought an atheist, even an atheist-by-omission-of-mention-of-faith would wind up in the White House. That’s just not going to happen while the majority of your nation are religious, surely.
Hmm. I am dubious about the truth of this (prima facie unlikely) anecdote based on one blog post.
Yes, let’s get some corroboration of this.
There’s a disturbing tendency for some atheist sites (this one included) to occasionally print dubious stories that later turn out to be hoaxes or a misunderstanding. (The recent circumcision story on Pharyngula for instance may have been an urban legend)
That’s to be expected in a way. Misinformation travels superluminally across the internet and there’s an inherent immediacy in blog posting.
If this is true, then it’s quite disturbing. Al Gore is probably the most scientifically educated politician who might run for the presidency. What a disappointment.
I’m disappointed too.
But I still think it would be be better if he hadn’t lo..er, had the election stolen from him.
I wish he’d run again. Almost everyone else is a fukctard or a psycho. You know, if GW’s poll numbers were better, they might try repealing the 2 term limit amendment.
Then we could get slick wilie to run against him. Hee Hee.
Not that I’m a huge fan, but the scandals were more about entertaining and less about massive incompetence, greed, and the death of the last shred of America’s moral high ground.
Oh,
And may you be touched by his noodley appendage.
RAmen
A quick google reveals that in the 10/25/05 Michigan Daily, Gore discussed the same thing. However, here is how they describe it: When he brought up a graph showing human population growth over the past 100,000 years or so, Gore at first made light of recent debates over the origins of human life: “You don’t have any new laws here I should know about?” he quipped before labeling the point at the beginning of the graph “Adam and Eve,” provoking laughter. But then Gore adopted a more prudent tone, adding, “In all seriousness, I really do not see any conflict between my religious faith and sound science.”
Seems to me this is a more accurate telling of the lecture. I have attended his Global Warming speech and that is how I remember it also. And, as the date reveals, this is not a new addition. It seems to be a standard part of his lecture. The last phrase describing religious faith and sound science also accurately describes what many scientists feel. It may not be the way many here feel but it was surely not said in the manner described by the original post.
I searched for newspaper reports and they made very clear that the “adam and eve” thing was actually a joke.
“You don’t have any new laws here I should know about?” he quipped before labeling the point at the beginning of the graph “Adam and Eve,” provoking laughter. But then Gore adopted a more prudent tone, adding, “In all seriousness, I really do not see any conflict between my religious faith and sound science.” (Michigan Daily).
So he is religious (I knew that…) but does hardly believe literally in biblical creations myths.
I question the inconsistency of his internal logic, then. Shouldn’t he be pressing the government into a massive Ark building program?
Dang. This blog needs one of these thingies that warn you that another comment has been posted while you were typing.
> “I really do not see any conflict between
> my religious faith and sound science.” Al Gore
I for one have no problem with that attitude. If the faithful always practiced sound science, I wouldn’t care if they believe in an invisible man who made it all happen. He would eventually fade away, just like all of the other great mythologies.
http://www.xkcd.com/c250.html
Gore rejects the literalist view of scripture, and makes mention of a reasonable way a Christian might interpret evolution. He’s getting no points from the fundies for mentioning Adam and Eve — especially if it’s “Adam and Eve” in quotes (Has anyone else seen the slide? How is it referenced?)
Gore bases none of his calls for action on anything that might remotely be considered a claim that humans were created as is, and not evolved. In fact, Gore’s chart doesn’t deny evolution in any way. “Rise of humans” probably refers to “rise” from other apes, and not rise from the dust (though of course, many of us note Twain’s claim that humans are in no way above other animals . . . humor for another time).
I’m unclear on why anybody takes offense. There’s a lot of reading things into what Gore said, that he didn’t say.
For the religious, there may be an issue of “ensoulment.” The Bible is unclear on the issue — Ecclesiastes making the most clear statement, and that one that supports evolution.
Ask him. Maybe Gore will add “number of pirates” to the slide, too. Some people are working overtime to get offended where no offense is meant.
Whether he believes it or not (and oh how I hope he doesn’t), in this case I’m willing to give him a pass for pandering, and even to think it a good idea. It will take generations to get the majority to drop their superstitions–and we simply don’t have that much time to correct climate changing behavior.
Oh, barf.
Apparently, he doesn’t like atheists:
…December 5 [1999] when Gore appeared on the CBS program 60-Minutes, for a segment with Leslie Stahl. In a discussion of religious beliefs, Gore admitted to being a born again Christian, adding:
I am. It — it — it’s something lampooned, you know. And I think the –what I call the anti-religious view — it sometimes tends to be arrogant and to the intimidating side of — of making people who do believe in God feel kind of like they’re, you know…”
Stahl eagerly provides the ending for this: put down. Mr. Gore goes on to assure the viewers this “born again” philosophy is the “core of my life. It is — it’s the foundation of my other beliefs, my political philosophy…”
http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar12-7-99.html
Stupidity knows no bounds.
Gore has officially gone over to the “dark side.”
What’s sad about this is the thought that many americans may be so fixated upon science being that “evil study that attemps to take people away from god”, that the only way to reach them with a serious scientific concern, is to pander to their whacked out religious beliefs. A shocking and depressing thought.
Kudos to PZ for drawing attention to this,
As for the comments, I find it hilarious that a site usually so populated with red meat atheists suddenly gets all forgiving when Al’s ox is being gored, so to speak.
Gore’s a Southern Baptist. The explicit teaching of the Southern Baptists is that the Bible is literally true and inerrant. Either Gore is an apostate, or he believes in the (scientifically impossible) story of Adam and Eve.
This could be a prime example of “framing” the global warming issue in order to make it more appealing to Creationists. That is assuming that Gore is not a closet creationist and simply wants more acceptance within the Christian Conservative circles.
Don’t you mean “framing the message for his audience”?
Double barf!
Apparently, when he was running for President, he endorsed teaching creationism in schools!
CNN (August 27, 1999):
Should presidential candidates be arguing over whether the planet is 4 billion years old, or whether was it made in six days 10,000 years ago, or if men and dinosaurs coexisted?
It all started when a spokesman for Vice President Al Gore announced that the vice president “favors the teaching of evolution in the public schools,” adding the decision should be local and “localities should be free to teach creationism as well.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/27/president.2000/evolution.create/
Reading the comments can be quite instructive. The number of people saying “his doctrines are close enough to ours – shouldn’t we overlook the belief statements that don’t come from our canon if the rest are compatible?” is, sadly, entirely predictable.
Science doesn’t have faith statements.
#17 ditto. this is framing, pure and simple.
shame on any of y’all that expected more of a politician (an opinion whore).
it is rather clear that democracy and enlightenment are not compatible.
short answer: teach your children to hunt fish and play fiddles and banjers, then ‘civilize’ them.
It’s not a matter of “going over to the Dark Side”; this is who Gore has always been (see #19). I guess a lot of people haven’t been paying attention.
I am a little worried about his use of the phrase “sound science”, though. Since that’s the Republican keyword for “sciency-sounding stuff that fits our agenda”.
The joy of ZA FRAME.
Yeah, I think it’s a serious tactical error to allow Gore to be the point man on this issue for a number of reasons:
1. It further reinforces the politicisation of science.
2. It hands out free ammo to the denialist camp.
3. He’s neither a great science communicator, nor a great politician. He’s just another careerist.
However, I am prepared to accept that a degree of pandering may be required here. Ideological purity is all very well, but we need to get shit done. And there seems to be a sizeabe portion of the American public that simply isn’t amenable to reason.
Who would you all rather have? (I mean from realistic prospects and don’t all say PZ).
Fercrissakes, people! He’s always been this way, and if you’ve been paying attention, you shouldn’t be surprised. Yes he’s a Southern Baptist, but beyond that, he also happens to be the only man on the planet obligated to sexually service Tipper Gore on a routine basis! Sure, I voted for him, but not without a few reservations. I still think he was the best choice of the three main candidates. Until some radical changes to the constitution take place, we are stuck with choosing the lesser of two (sometimes three) evils.
Steven Strogantz. I loved his book Sync in which he already referred to global warming.
Science and politics are two very different things.
The only question you need to ask in a political context is “Is this individual better than the alternative(s)?”
With Al Gore, the answer is yes. Find me another candidate or potential candidate in either party who is not expressly a theist, and I will consider changing my support. Oh, and did I mention, it has to be someone who can actually win?
Wrong. By your reasoning, when confronted with two candidates who will bring utter ruin to the nation, our only question should be which is less utterly ruinous. In that case, additional questions we ought to be asking are “why can’t we choose other candidates”, “why are these particular candidates running, and why should we support the groups supporting them”, and “perhaps a revolution or two is in order”.
Actually I would prefer either Edwards or Obama to Gore- on both substance and electability. (If you want to go by “least theistic”, Obama is UCC, the most liberal of all Christian denominations.) To me Gore would look good only compared to Hillary, which ain’t saying much.
If I had a nickel for every politician who was eager to appear pious in public I would be living in an enormous citadel made of glued-together nickels. I am unsurprised but willing to give Al a pass on this for now.
while not an exact analogy, the phrase “only Nixon could go to China” comes to mind. Maybe only a Southern Baptist can “preach” the “gospel” of climate change to Americans and have them accept the message. Throwing in the little jokes about Adam & Eve and “we had a trial in my state a while back” referring to 600,000 years of CO2 data; it seemed to me he was able to make palatable the idea of “whatever you believe about the creation of the earth, we are f!@#$ing destroying it now”
Here’s the problem: he is not preaching the gospel of science. He’s got the right answer, but he demonstrates that he arrived at it, in part, by an invalid method, and science is all about how you get your answer, not that it matches somebody else’s.
What gets mistaken for complaints about deviations from ideological purity are actually complaints about completely failing to grasp the basic concept.
I oversimplified my position because I don’t think Al Gore will bring utter ruin to the nation.
In a worst-case situation like you describe, our only question should be “How do we engineer a revolution?”
I read a great quote, can’t find it so I’ll paraphrase. It’s by a Poly Sci prof in Calgary.
Ten percent of the population is of such low intelligence that they are unable to reason. They don’t vote.
Eighty percent of the population is complacent; they are concerned only with obtaining material goods, fitting in with their peers and not making waves.
Ten percent of the population is intelligent, concerned, nonconformist and willing to stand up for issues that matter.
Politicians target the eighty percent.
All empires fall.
“I for one have no problem with that attitude. If the faithful always practiced sound science, I wouldn’t care if they believe in an invisible man who made it all happen. He would eventually fade away, just like all of the other great mythologies.”
You wish! I’m an atheist, but I’ve no idea about how to dispatch the middle eastern sky fairy to the fables like Wotan, Apollo and Zeus. Perhaps it’s not that they won’t, just that they won’t go quietly, and they have nuklear f***ing weapons (sorry, egregious joke).
Now, I have to reveal my atipodean origin. I love you yanks (Americans), I just don’t know why most of you revel in the technology of man and thank the imaginary enslaver of man for it. I’m not particularly refering to you fine people of reason (and/or this blog), but can’t you bitch slap your bretheren who thank god for their “miraculous” survival of an operation that just happened to be performed by an expert surgeon (or was he/she just peripheral?) who trained half his/her life to perform that surgery? Or the guy who wins the Masters at Atlanta, thanks Jesus, while Jesus was ignoring all the kiddies who for no fault of their own were suffering terrible torment? Etc. Where are Jesus’ priorities? ;-)
Al Gore, you could be a Giant, But you act like a Pissant (American expression, sorry if the context is wrong, I’m a silly antipodean). Bugger off.
Love Brian.
PZ
As a member of Gore’s Climate Project, I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that the Adam and Eve reference in the slide show is a joke. Lighten up, buddy.
“As a member of Gore’s Climate Project, I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that the Adam and Eve reference in the slide show is a joke.”
Seeing that all American politicians are honest. I’m sure Al Gore will rectify the misunderstanding and tell the godfearing ignorant where he stands………..(insert NOT here). Egregious Joke ends.
Do we learn nothing?
Or do you just not read Orac’s blog? His feelings will be hurt. ;)
Climate change deniers would love nothing more than to spread lies that alienate Gore from the scientific/secular communities. And by reporting these stories without some basic checking, you’re playing into their hands.
It was an easy mistake to make, but I think you need to issue a retraction on this.
“And by reporting these stories without some basic checking, you’re playing into their hands.”
What reporting? Let Al Gore categorically give it to the climate change deniers that the are deniers and then there’ll be no question, except to the resultant pain in their asinine butholes (is it worth parecetemol or codeine?)
Really, is this even possible?
ok, whatever fella. Could it be that it is unclear because perhaps it is made up? WHy do you expect the bible to be clear on this when it isn’t clear on anything? Really I’m serious why?
Well, that title was a little Big-Brother. I was sneaking a news-feed read at work, when what scrolls up? “What are you doing, Al?”
Thanks for the shock,
Al
This is why all the bother about Obama’s “god blather” was misplaced.
As I and a few others said at the time PZ was posting about it, nothing Obama has said is importantly different from what people like Gore have been saying for years. The reason I almost (I said almost!!!) voted 3rd party in 2000 was a reluctance to choose the lesser of two evangelicals.
That doesn’t make it a good thing, but you certainly can’t single Obama out as an anomoly. All the big time Dems engage in it unfortunately. Perhaps, even more unfortunately, out of actual necessity.
Dammit, how do atheists, or progressives, expect to topple the Empire of Unreason if we let any random rumor or soundbite send us into a fratricidal feeding frenzy?
In the U.S., it’s about 30 percent, and they *do* vote. There’s no intelligence test for voting (probably a good idea, given how easy it would be to corrupt, but it does have its downsides.) It doesn’t take rational thought to hear your preacher, Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh tell you that the guy with the R next to his name is your friend, and the guy with the D next to his name is a minion of satanic terrorists. In fact, rational thought would just interfere with the clear transmission of that message.
Democracy is the proposition that ignorance is not only a point of view, but like all other points of view, entitled to respect proportional to its popularity. This is what makes it the worst form of government… except for all the others.
How are scientists expected to contribute to the toppling if we’re supposed to shrug our shoulders at unscientific stupidity, and merely criticizing a foolish statement by someone on our side is characterized as “a fratricidal feeding frenzy”? Seriously, man, if we had a Democratic executive and legislature, if the morons on the Supreme Court were replaced with rationalists, I promise you — the scientists will still be sniping at their every wrong-headed remark. It’s what scientists do.
I don’t know. I mean, does having conflicting beliefs in some way minimize the accuracy of what he’s saying about global warming? Do ALL of his beliefs have to agree in order for what he says about global warming to be true? OK, so he isn’t an expert in science, he’s a politician, and he’s voicing his understanding of the problem. There are a whole bunch of people who likewise don’t have degrees in science who are listening and being prompted to understand the problem. Is this a bad thing?
Or should people only consider the things they are qualified by some university to consider?
No, not at all. What I want to know from the people in my government is how they will make their decisions, not what kind of degree they will have. I want to know that Gore will make decisions on the basis of evidence and logic, not religious dogma. This anecdote casts some doubt on that.
If he’s making a joke, I’d like some clarification from Gore. These are not matters on which it is easy to tell anymore when someone is joking — unless you are confident that Inhofe has been engaged in a long, drawn out comedy routine. Could someone tell him to deliver the punchline already?
Some would consider that grooming his argument so that “Americans” can understand. Is very ironic though, considering Gore’s recent dedication to science.
I tend to turn the other cheek when politicians start talking religious virtues. Politicians HAVE to be religious (or at least say they are) in order to capture the mainstream vote. Al is definitely on a “mission from God” though, in that he actually believes in a Creator.
Let’s just hope that this stupendously moronic remark will confuse the evolution/global warming deniers. How are they to understand the world when someone who denies evolution (at least in this comment) nevertheless believes climate science?
My final comment is that it’s time for Al to face his own inconvenient truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
I was wondering if Gore believes in ensoulment too (#12). Theistic evolutionists tend to accept ensoulment (as do evolutionary IDists who do not believe believe in special creation of humans).
My guess is that the Adam and Eve reference is mainly just a lighthearted tip of the hat to religious faith. Does anyone think that PZ literally believes in the imminent awakening of Cthulhu from his slumber?
And has it occurred to anyone that it may also just be metaphorical? After all, there are science books and popular science magazine that mention a Mitochrondrial “Eve” or a Y chromosome “Adam” on their covers. Even if taken in the theological sense it may merely be metaphorical; for example, many Christians do not believe that Antichrist is a literal individual, but just represents forces opposed to God.
What’s interesting is that based on this brief report alone – without its full meaning being entirely clear – many are prepared to jettison support for Al Gore’s potential candidacy. Are those who do so also interested in Obama, Clinton, and Edward’s public statements or private views regarding ensoulment? Some apparently want to believe that these candidates are just mouthing pieties for the rubes. No, I’m quite sure that Obama is sincere in his beliefs and like other sophisticated contemporary Christians, accepts evolution along with Christ and souls.
Do you want a rationalist litmus test? Well, guess what, almost no national politicians would pass it.
Have you considered the fact that perhaps he believes his god created humans through evolution? He has the correct date for the first appearance of homo sapiens. There’s nothing wrong with calling two of the first humans “Adam and Eve”. In fact, since he says science and religion are consistent, and he refers to Adam and Eve, he couldn’t possibly mean anything else! I’m no fan of religion myself, but your hatred of it clearly blinds you.
He didn’t add the “Adam & Eve” comment to the population graph as far as I can remember when he did his lecture in Portland, Oregon last year (surprise!). I do remember there was one scriptural reference in his slides (a rather innocuous statement about looking after the world I think… I knew I should have taken notes) and he prefaced the slide with a rather apologetic introduction – something like “I hope this doesn’t cause offense; this is something from my faith and I recognize that there will be many people who differ etc. etc.”.
I guess there is a little bit of local adaptation going on.
Also nice to get some validation that I do, in fact, live in a locale with substantial leanings toward sanity :-).
Triple barf!
“We have often felt the presence of God and the power of prayer, so although we have grown up in the church, we are believers not by habit but by decision.” Al Gore — Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of the American Family,
2002, p. 40
“Of course, faith is just a word unless it is invested with personal meaning; my own faith is rooted in the unshakeable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of and relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all live, and all things.” Al Gore — Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, 1992, pp. 368
“A shared commitment to faith has always been a central element in the life of our own family. Our deeply held beliefs form the very core of the values we hold in common, and the rituals of our faith tradition have always provided a reassuring and stabilizing rhythm to family life.” Al Gore — Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of the American Family, 2002, p. 40
http://home.att.net/~howington/al.html
There’s nothing wrong with calling two of the first humans “Adam and Eve”.
Which two?
The way I interpreted is that he simply sees it as a nice metaphor that will be reassuring to his audience. No harm, he thinks, it’s just a nod to christianity.
It’s just that I don’t want my president reaching for a bible metaphor when he’s making a decision.
Well, seeing as this is based on my blog post and I was in attendance at Gores slideshow yesterday, I should clarify…
I don’t think it was clear yesterday during his presentation as to whether or not this “Adam & Eve” reference was a joke. I know I was the only one in my seating area who was laughing, and it wasn’t because it was “haha” joke-funny. I was laughing because it was a total 180 degree schism in the middle of his scientifically based slideshow. If Gore meant it as a joke, it really didn’t come off that way. I don’t recall him asking us if there were laws here against this sort of thing.
I’m very appreciative of the effort Al has put into informing the public about climate change, and wish him nothing but the best. I was just taken back by the sudden religious overtones he threw in during the middle of the show, which really did not come across as comical to the people sitting near me.
Crap. That’s not what i wanted to hear was in there.
And now here comes that sad part, which would be worse? if he was pandering? or if he believed that crap?
very sad.
Oh, second thought:
This could be a nice change though, to see christians taking up the idea that if the planet was a gift, they just might want to treat it well.
Just a thought.
“…he’s not above pandering to the ignorant.”
Duh, did you forget about the PMRC? For that, alone, I will never vote for that ignorant, whipped, chowderhead.
With all respect, Justin, how do we know you didn’t just misread him?
Are there any other reports from people who saw this?
If Gore is really, seriously suggesting in his slide show that the creation story of Genesis is literal truth, then that’s a problem. But it’s also, in my opinion, a really serious accusation, so pardon me if I want a little independent confirmation before I launch an anti-Gore crusade based on it.
The part of AIT on Al Gore’s 2000 run for president showcases it as a failed strategy; a distraction which served only detract from a more important goal: advocating action on climate change. It struck me as a very strong statement that he intended never to return to presidential races. It’s very puzzling to me that so many people watch AIT, and then expect Al Gore to return to presidential races.
I recently witnessed his presentation at the University of Oklahoma and I can assure you the comment was made in jest.
Whether he believes it or not, if that little addition will make other resistant-to-science ‘believers’ buy his global warming message, then it is a white lie worth tolerating. I think the urgency of the issue warrants any number of white lies.
I’m willing to admit that it’s possible I misread him. It’s entirely possible that he intended the remark in jest. Whether or not it came across that way to the audience is another matter. Because he didn’t really explain himself (other than to remark that he holds religious beliefs), I felt that the audience really didn’t know if he was joking or not, and because it’s probable that the majority of people in the audience are also religious and believe in God, they just accepted his placement of “Adam & Eve” on the slide. I talked to my co-worker about this on the walk back to work after the show, and his impression was the Gore believed God created Adam & Eve 200,000 years ago.
I still remain a supporter of Gore, but I do wish that if he was going to make a statement/jest like this in front of a mostly religious audience, he should spent a little more time clarifying himself.
I wonder if this is a signal that he’s going to run for pres…you know the way the piety (and usually gun ownership too, funny that) seems to start ramping up around the start of a run for the big house. Just a thought…
For a politician to use a statement in a sufficiently ambiguous way that the atheists are convinced he’s joking and the creationist’s think he’s down with them, all the while making important points at the science/policy interface, is nothing short of virtuosity.
The science/policy boundary is going to require the cooperation of the godbotherers. There is no way around it, and whatever a politician believes, if he is going to lead, he’ll have to speak to the majority. He has to be one of them. Whether Al is running for president or not, he is attempting to lead. I won’t fault him for not being a scientist, because he never claimed to be, nor for not being a secular rationalist, because he never claimed to be. If he is a bible-slapping born-again who nevertheless supports science and the scientific approach to human problems, he’s on my side, despite our philosophical disagreements.
Which, however, won’t protect him from my derision and venom when and if he says stupid shit along the way.
He made the comment about adam and eve and he followed it up with saying that his views on religion were compatable with that of science, which I viewed as a dismissal of those who reject science for the bible…
I thought it was pretty clear, that he was not endorsing creationsim and actually poking a little fun.
Young earthers often claim their views are compatible with science. They just internally redefine science to mean the twisted parody of science which agrees with their religion.
Really, some honestly and with a straight face will tell you that real science supports a six thousand year old Earth.
This could be a nice change though, to see christians taking up the idea that if the planet was a gift, they just might want to treat it well.
Or not:
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 7:32:26 PM
My husband and I just watched an inconvenient truth last night and were astounded! We are Jehovah’s Witnesses and know that God has a plan to end civilization as we know it and convert it to a perfect world, as he intended it to be in the first place with Adam and Eve in the Garden. However, I guess we always think that it will be a long time before this happens. This movie showed us, even if Jah did not step in ( which he will ) this world is not going to be around more than 20 or so years. There are scientist who believe it is too late and nothing can reverse the damage, after seeing that movie, even with Gore’s message of hope, I am one to believe as these other scientists. Especially because of my beliefs. It makes me so happy to know I have the promise of eternal life on this beautiful earth that Jehovah has created and that he has the power to bring it back to the perfect environment he created!!
http://blog.kapor.com/?feed=rss2&p=27
In at least two cases I can think of, Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr., some of their best, most thoughtful stuff came when they reached for the right line from the Bible. Sometimes it didn’t work, like when Johnson said “Come, let us reason together.” But other times it did, like his Great Society speech. When King pulled the line out of Amos about justice “flowing down like a river,” he made the point that the Bible stands for justice, even against its own winking toward slavery and especially against the racism that the latter days of slavery in America required to survive, and which survived the formal, legal institution of slavery.
So I’m not much troubled when former theological school student (at Vanderbilt, a Baptist school) Al Gore mentions the Bible.
But in my brief working with Gore, my more extensive work with others who had to work closely with him and in my watching him, I find that Gore gets the science right generally because that’s where he starts, in science. His global warming stuff is science based, with, as far as I can see, one line for creationists. The other lines from the Bible don’t bother you, I suspect. He reminds the audiences that God has commanded humans to take care of the Earth, to make the Earth richer, and not plunder the planet. I suspect Gore got to those conclusions through science, too, but understands the Bible well enough to find the verses necessary.
No case has been made that Gore said anything that should make any scientist nervous, unless he’s way off on modern humans being 200,000 years old. And if he’s off on that, then it’s still a science issue. The creationists aren’t going to rise to his defense.
So get over it.
PZ writes: “It’s just that I don’t want my president reaching for a bible metaphor when he’s making a decision.”
Untwist your panties. There are no decisions described here. He’s giving a narrative, that’s all. And it’s not even a narrative that’s central to the overall message, he’s merely talking about how long humans have been around.
I don’t care if, as is likely, he reaches for the metaphor when explaining a decision or policy, because it seems those are the only terms many people listen to. I only care if the decision or policy are actually based on solid ground.
I get accused of being a Bush apologist all the time by the same type of people that are apologizing for Gore here, just because I refuse to believe, without empirical evidence (that means none of these whacky conspiracy theories), that he has done the things he’s accused of…funny how the shoe on the other foot fits just fine with a bit of cramping and bending the toes, huh?
I haven’t read through all the comments so this might have been clarified, but for what it is worth…
I am one of the Al Gore trained Climate Messengers in Australia.
I can confirm that he does do the “Adam and Eve” thing, but when he did the show for us a) he pretty much glossed over it and b) he said something like “if that’s what you are into”.
Even knowing he is a christian, at the time I got the impression that he was trying to accommodate creationists so that they would at least listen.
I can’t help it! I smell blood and I can sense the electrical impulses of something thrashing!
as a limey, it is my understanding that no american politician has a hope in hell of advancing unless they profess to be a christian. even bill clinton had to do it! but it is dismaying to hear science-savvy gore espousing biblical nonsense.
tony blair is a christian but this played no part in his getting elected and his faith seems to embarrass him in public debate.
i’d assumed gore had dumped his pretence of faith now he had no hope of elected office but you live and learn.
explains tipper on rap lyrics too lol
funniest thing i ever heard was jimmy carter admitting to ‘impure thoughts’ about other women. torture yourself, boy!
Before ya folks get too worked up about Gore “changing” this that or the other – have you even bothered watching the movie?!? I suggest you stick in your DVD, flip it over to “special features”, go down to the part where you can watch the “An Update with Former Vice-President Al Gore” and scan forward to the extended version of the scene with the human population curve. Watch for yourself the same scene Gore is being attacked here for “adding” to his talk.
It’s no big damned deal.
This thread, which had died of its own overblown nature, seems to be about to revivve thanks to the click-hungry Seed Zeitgeist editors who’ve dragged it from the grave and pasted it across their page.
New readers, it’s old dead info being flogged to sell ads. Nothing new here. Read it anyway, first, eh?
I just wish this elitist, depopulationist would drive down the road and disappear out of sight in his big, black gas guzzling limousine.
Human induced climate change is serious science in exactly the same way that Adam and Eve is!
Adam and Eve only existed in an old, outdated and incorrect book, and the tropospheric heat island required to create the positive feedback loop required for the catastrophic warming, only exists in old, outdated and incorrect computer models.
The NASA Aqua satellite system found no evidence of such a heat island, nor any mechanism for “human induced climate change”
All the evidence taken over a long period of time from the only accurate model we have (the earth) shows very little actual warming in the 20th century and moderate cooling in the 21st. All in ways that contradict the computer models.
The only realistic and scientific conclusion is the computer models are as accurate as the bible in scientific investigation.
Still I am very very pleased that many hitherto self described scientists, who (ironically) believed in Al Gore before, can now finally see that he is a pure charlatan.
Perhaps that will shock them out of their brainwashed state to look afresh at the actual evidence, appraise it realistically and see the real truth. The scientists have been used to push an agenda for human de-population and overt global control based on a false “environmentalist” premise. A very damaging agenda it is too as we see real and massive environmental harm being created as a reaction to the “global warming scare” Food shortages, ancient forests destroyed and Orang-utans on the brink of extinction.
The “global warming messiah” also believes in Adam and Eve as a literal start of the human species….
Says it all really!
Al Gore, Global warming and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Prevent our loss of rights then handle the environment.
Right, because we–all of us, together–can only work on one important issue at a time. Only one.
*eyeroll*