There’s an eye-opening interview on Grist of Richard A. Muller about the current state of science understanding by presidential candidates, global warming, and alternate energy tech.
Some of the answers are very enlightening. Coming from an avowed environmentalist such as Muller it cements much of what I and many others have been saying for months about Gore’s outright distortion of facts and Hansens selective cherry picking in choosing “his” way to publish the widely cited GISTEMP data set.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the Muller interview:
Hansen I’ve known for many years. He’s a very good climate scientist, but he’s decided to do the politics. I feel that he’s doing some cherry-picking of his own [when it comes to the science]. At that point, he’s not really being a scientist. At that point, you’re being a lawyer. He’s being an effective advocate for his side, but in the process of doing that he’s no longer a neutral party and he’s no longer giving both sides of the issues.
I know you drive a Prius. What else are you doing to reduce your carbon emissions?
My house is lit by compact fluorescent light bulbs. Let me just tell you, though: Suppose I drove an SUV and lit my house with the worst kind of light — I could still be an environmentalist. Al Gore flies around in a jet plane — absolutely fine with me. The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures.
If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion — which he does, but he’s very effective at it — then let him fly any plane he wants.
Truth be damned, but hey, it’s OK, Hansen and Gore are saving the planet right? But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself on the environmemtal blog, Grist. Here is the link.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Essentially “fake but accurate.”
Science isn’t supposed to support that approach.
As I see it the problem is these folks feel the end justifies the means. I am no believer in AGW but I am fully supportive of energy conservation. Is it a good thing to pour endless amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? no one knows for sure. When arrogance grows so deep you are unwilling to listen to arguements with opposite views then its time to step back and re-evaulate.
Hansen-Gore et-al efforts may well backfire. If the world does go into a cooling mode Joe Sixpack is not going to be willing to listen when a true world endangering event arises.
To think I once aligned myself with this camp. I am disgusted.
Oh!
Now I know the trick.
Just produce the impression you are saving the world, and then it’ll be okay to pollute it.
If this were Christianity, you’d only have to go to Church on Sundays, say a couple of Hail Marys every evening, preach to others about their sinful lives, and then it would be okay to commit sin and act wickedly.
This is the problem with the whole issue. A small group of people think they can tell the rest of the world how to live, while exempting themselves from the very rules they demand we accept.
I know Anthony loathes the idea, but I still think a page here called “Lifetstyles of the Rich and Alarmists” would have much entertainment value. I also think we need a Charlatan Hall of Fame.
This is one of the few issues I can ever recall where hypocrites run free without any fear of being called for it.
The obvious flaw in such reasoning: exaggeration and distortion may hide the fact there is no problem to be solved. This is particularly true for an individual who is good at it.
Tragedy will result if funds and resources are allocated to a non-existent problem, denying those resources to very real a serious problems. In this case of AGW, very significant portions of the world’s GDP being misallocated.
Also, consider the long term implications for the general view of science. When people finally realize the truth about what is going on here, what will be the consequences in the future when science does identify a real problem and no one believes the arguments? Could a future, skeptical public dismiss a legitimate warning as another self serving exaggeration?
For more on Gore’s real motivations in these discussions, read Capitalism to the Rescue by Jon Gertner, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/magazine/05Green-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin
Mr Gore may not have time to engage in debates or answer questions from the public and press; but he does have time to visit a venture capitalist on a regular basis. From the article above:
“Perhaps the most challenging aspect of Kleiner’s endeavor, then, is for green tech to expand into the markets more rapidly than any energy technology has done before. In a conversation I had with Al Gore in early September, I asked how that would be possible. Gore shows up at Kleiner’s offices several times a month to share his political and environmental insights. (When I asked Gore what he thought he brings to Kleiner, he quipped, “I think it’s my knowledge of subatomic physics.”) He became involved in private-sector climate solutions because, he said, “more money is allocated in the private markets in one hour than in all of the budgets of all of the governments of the world in a year’s time.” The trends that have governed the development of alternative-energy technologies till now, he said, aren’t a result of some natural scientific law. Echoing a point Bill Joy made to me a few months earlier, Gore said cheap oil had made renewable technologies less appealing as investments, which in turn had made it difficult to bring clean-energy costs down through mass production.”
And the first person I nominate to be in the Charlatan Hall of Fame is:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/04/wheres-al-gore-now.html
Thank you Tom Nelson!!
“…let him fly any plane he wants.”
Because some people are ‘more equal than others’…?
All the answers were suspect so I guess you had to limit which you quoted. I do think the first answer was possibly his worst.
Consensus? So the mere existence of a group = consensus, even when there are innumerable outsiders?
Though the US having moral responsibility to fund China’s coal stations was vying for worst answer.
Ralph B says what I have been saying for years, that when this (CO2=warming) is shown to be false then it will damage science and set it back. People will be loath to treat any future alarm as real. That’s why I support a list of all the people who endorse the idea that CO2 is warming the Earth, so that we can name and shame in the future. Science has stepped backward during this AGW scam. Great shame.
PS I know my post showing that Arctic ice is recovering strongly was off topic on the thread below, but did it have to be withdrawn? Are all off-topic postings going to be removed now?
He seems more interested in solving problems technically, rather than trying to change people’s behavior through moralizing, culture, and lifestyle messages. So the fact that Al Gore preaches doom, is of little interest to him.
It does put him at odds with the kind of environmentalist who wants people to change and return to low-population tribal “communities”. But then those people need “re-educating” in the old cottage industry traditions; knife grinding leading to a form of black lung disease, for example.
More evidence of a widening split between pro and anti nuclear enviros. Perhaps some environmentalist groups might pull back a bit now that they realise that nuclear power is being forced through by the extremist fossil fuel scare-mongers. I was certainly surprised that the greenpeace energy plan has a very realistic role for fossil fuels but maybe i shouldn’t have been; they were only jumping on the bandwagon like everyone else. I increasingly wonder how much of this AGW stuff originates from the nuclear lobby. Just like the peak oil ballyhoo started with Shell Oil wanting to get into nuclear energy, and the Hadley centre being set up by Margaret Thatcher in a cynical anti-coal, pro-nuclear mood. Most wind, wave and solar energy disinformation starts with them too. I’m not anti-nuclear but I’m not at all happy with some of their dirty tactics or the general hand-waving about nuclear proliferation in rogue states.
Reminds me of a psychology student I knew back in the 70s – he maintained his tutor had told him not to worry too much about ‘finessing’ tiny bits of anomalous evidence if the end result was definitely right, because “everyone does it.” The student took that to mean ‘adjust what you like – it doesn’t matter’, got caught and reprimanded, and was puzzled as to what he’d done wrong.
The trouble with ‘the end justifies the means’ as a modus operandi is that people are liable to take greater and greater liberties with the means, without realising why they shouldn’t.
Gore and Hansen certainly aren’t the only kool aid peddlers. Here is an update on my “debate” with my neighbors science professor at a local community college. They are now at the point in their class where they ar “studying” the planets. This guy is teaching that the greenhouse effect on Venus can and will happen on Earth due to human emissions. Of course, when I asked why science hasn’t come to the conclusion that Venus at one time must have had a huge civilization to create all that CO2 I was dismissed as a “denier”. If and when he allows me to actually go into his class and speak to it, I may need some help from the rest of you “deniers” on this blog, (but I’m not holding my breath for that to happen).
Sorry, that last line about not holding my breath has to do with being invited to the class, not that I wouldn’t get any help from this blog. After I read it again, I realized how it may sound. I have lots of respect for poster on this blog and of course Anthony and his moderators.
Reply – It was clear to me what you implied. And of course all of us would help prep you. – Dee Norris
“Lifetstyles of the Rich and Alarmists”
HAHA! Priceless 😀
Could make a nice soap opera as well…
Here’s a quote from Richard Muller about the Hockey Stick:
“Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming
community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”
But it’s disappointing that he seems to be a believer. But he can see bad science for what it is, so there may be hope. He wrote an amazing book called ‘Nemesis’ about his experience with the Alvarez group that discovered what may have killed the dinosaurs. One thing that Alvarez repeatedly told him was that you should never accept something to be true merely because it comes from authority. As he uncritically cites the IPCC he seems to have forgotten that lesson. There were some other lessons in his book that he seems to have forgotten also.
By the way, if you haven’t read Nemesis then I thoroughly recommend it. It’s probably the best science book I ever read. Oh, yes, among other things it describes how yet another scientific consensus turned out to be completely wrong.
Chris
“I was dismissed as a “denier”. ”
Reminds me of a discussion group I attended, not about AGW, it was something else. The group was very friendly and the leader of the group encouraged discussion. The leader was happy to spend the whole afternoon discussing a subject I’d raised, up until a final point came when he couldn’t answer, at which point he declared that the topic “is not relevant”.
I’m sure I’ve done it myself. There comes a point where you discover what it is that people are fully invested in and committed to. When people say “denier”, they are closing down the discussion, because they have reached a point where what it is that they are fully committed to, is being challenged or even overturned, and they have no idea on how to respond.
I had another discussion with someone who was into environmental issues, but after we named what it was that she really was interested in, we discovered that it wasn’t AGW, it was a sort of humanistic feeling that she didn’t want to be a cog stuck in a machine of endless production and consumption, rather she valued being a sensitive individual with friends, living a quieter life.
The environmental movement seems to have many different issues and agendas, as different people and organisations come into it and use it to promote whatever it is that they are committed to. So yeah, energy companies committed to nuclear; socialists committed to wealth redistribution–maybe someone could make a list.
The question is, when someone says “denier”, what is it that they are personally trying to protect? What is their issue that they are committed to?
It’s too bad Muller has been taken in by the “consensus” argument of the AGW propaganda machine, and either hasn’t bothered to, or is simply afraid to do his own research. He has also surprisingly bought into the AGW idea that the ends justify the means, exhonerating Gore for his lies and hypocrisy.
Sadly, he seems to have forgotten what a true scientist is, mustache or no.
Interesting interview. I’m all for conservation myself by the way. But I see this guy as out of the mainstream of thought among Warmists. He’s of the more practical reality-based nature, yet still solidly grounded in Warmist doctrine. Man is still causing and going to cause catastrophic global warming if we keep going on as we are, in his view. I like that he stays away from advocating policies, the one point of wisdom I can give him during this entire published interview. But he does not seem to understand that the passion of politics will trump the neutrality of science every time. That is the nature of man. If the Warmists merely said, “the science says so. look into it,” and left it at that they would not be in the various positions of power and influence they are now. And there are many benefits to be enjoyed by them because they do not do that.
I am a student of history, and the French Revolution is always instructive as to how people operate during a crisis that they feel threatens not only lives but also ideals. People will do a great many things to save lives, but they will also do a great many more things in sacrificing lives to save ideals. With politicians the latter is more likely because they can often call for great sacrficies while risking little themselves. And the more emotional they can get public opinion to be of the situation, the more they can control it because rational arguments against that strategy break down or have little lasting effect. Sometimes reality-on-the-ground does provide some clear and unequivocal evidence to the contrary that escapes their grasp and spin; however, in an age where most publicly consumed information is released through the lenses of idealogically compromised media outlets, such clarity is substantially rare.
There is a lot of thought and talk about progress. I must confess that I do not see it. The true power of progress is in reshaping and advancing a culture. Globally, we are being reshaped, but we are not advancing. We are going backwards slightly. And as the Warmist’s scientific doctrine is translated into real-world policies (that will always be tweaked yet never wholely abandoned) that will become increasingly so. We’ve had the Age of Kings, and the Age of Democracy is coming to a close. The new age shall be one of Oligarchy. A broad oligarchy, given the world’s present population, but oligarchy nonetheless, yet it will still have some of the trappings and pretences of democracy. That is why I feel that human civilazation as a whole is on the decline. I suppose, however, since progress like temperature cannot have runaway upwards movement in perpetuity, that now is the time for such if there is ever a fitting time. I do not think we shall be wiped out, but I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that much unnecessary suffering will come out of this for quite some time. Yet there is such a slow pace in its development that few will see it for what it is, if indeed we ever do, until it is too late.
In a revolution, the existing order must be swept away. It must be replaced and its formerly fundamental guiding principles dissolved. Upon a new foundation must rise the new society. Yet when freedom of thought and speech are constrained, as will necessarily happen (this ‘debate’ is just a precursor), when reality is filtered and shaped around ideals instead of the opposite, such a society cannot succeed even if it lasts long. That is the lesson of the French Revolution, and its contrast with the American Revolution.
Nice observations, Stefan. You and I are kindred spirits in that regard: seeking past the surface for the real answers. Such is why I have never thought AGW to be of any scientific consequence. It is purely and wholely political. It is a life philosophy. Its spirit is unequivocally global, and its political philosophy idealistic and anti-democratic. The breadth of it is quite comprehensive.
As a movement, it seeks a solution for a problem it terms as immediate, yet it provides nowhere to go in practical terms once the problem is solved. In fact, for Warmists to succeed, their ‘problem’ must be perpetual, unless economies-of-scale undergo some radical transformation that negate Warmist arguments. Yet its principles are sufficiently broad, even if its aims are not, to attract a lot of support, varying from activists to uneasy moderates. There is a very broad and comprehensive re-education program underway, and the media is rather tightly controlled. If we did not have the Internet (and who knows how long that will remain relatively free of censorship or relatively cheap) who knows in what kind of shape we should be in now. Were it not so real, and yet surreal, I should find it dispassionately fascinating.
He’s a physicist? Seems to lack basic engineering principles. If he thinks solar, which is a very diffused energy source, will produce less effect/footprint than nuclear or even coal (which are far more concentrated & efficient sources), then he’s either dishonest or lost in green la-la-land.
This guy is teaching that the greenhouse effect on Venus can and will happen on Earth due to human emissions.
Does this so-called “professor” deny that Venus has an entirely different environment, with C02 comprising 96.5% of the atmosphere, with virtually no water, and a surface pressure of about 90 times higher than that on Earth?
He isn’t interested in debate any more than Gore is.
I feel sorry for the students who have to listen to that nonsense, and regurgitate it if they want to pass. Their indoctrinator holds the power, and they know it.
“I’m no expert on economic policy, but I think we have to pay for [China’s] clean coal.”
Well, he’s got the first part of the sentence right. Can you imagine what it would cost us (USA) to pay for China’s clean coal???
Tom,
I get that all the time. I know I should not be impolite about an opponents argument, but that idea, that earth’s atmosphere could become like that of Venus, is nothing short of idiotic. I have this thrown at me from time to time, and frankly, I have a hard time figuring out where to begin. I suppose it comes from the idea that, since Venus and earth have similar mass, and volume the planets atmospheres can be similar, or something like that. Never mind that Venus has no planetary magnetic field, no Moon, is exposed to a stunningly larger amount of solar radiation than earth, Venus has no oceans and appears not to have had them for at least 4 billion years, if ever, has an atmosphere 93 times more massive than earth’s (meaning any water vapor produced is elevated to the ionosphere and promptly blown away by the Solar Wind), no tectonic plates, the sun rises in the West on Venus, the Venusian ‘day’ (243 earth days) is longer than the Venusian year (224 earth days).
But who am I to boggle over such trivia?