 |
There will be a story featuring Al Gore and his climate views on CBS 60 minutes this weekend. Normally I don’t pay much heed to this program, but Gore is publicly calling those who question the science “…almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat…”.
To me, a person who has at one time been fully engaged in the belief that CO2 was indeed the root cause of the global warming problem, I find Gore’s statements insulting. In 1990 after hearing what James Hansen and others had to say, I helped to arrange a national education campaign for TV meteorologists nationwide (ironically with CBS’s help) on the value of planting trees to combat the CO2 issue. I later changed my thinking when I learned more about the science involved and found it to be lacking.
I’ve never made a call to action on media reporting before on this blog, but this cannot go unchallenged.
The press release from CBS on the upcoming story on Gore is below. You can visit the CBS website here and post comments:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml
See the video clip here
But let’s also let the producer, Richard Bonin, know (via their communications contact) what you think about it, as I did when Scott Pelley aired a whole hour long special telling us Antarctica was melting. They did no follow up.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I seem to remember that Gore was a theology student for awhile. I’m sure that 500 years ago he would have been one of the top inquisitioners. Wait for it. He’s going to come out with the 21st century equivalent for the non believers.
Gore’s statement is about right. It isn’t really a political issue, Mr. Watts, you simply have a problem understanding elementary physics. You may find it “insulting” to have that pointed out to you, but it’s true nevertheless. I’d suggest you get yourself some basic undergraduate physics textbooks and work your way up from there.
I looked at the article and started to read the comments. What a futile effort. I should have know better, anyone who uses CBS for their news is lost. One poster stated the list of “proof” of AGW, the usual suspects of .7 degrees of warming, warmer oceans, unprecendented Cat 5 hurricanes and a host of other babble. Thanks for the link anyway.
Al Gore just looks old, tired, and slimy. He gives me the creeps just to look at him, and his voice sounds like fingernails on a blackboard. Physically, he’s repellent. Mentally and emotionally, he is riddled with holes like Swiss Cheese.
Think about it. A crisis of epic proportions that may end life as we know it and half of all Americans won’t even pony up a penny a gallon. You have to love the common sense of the common man. Although encouraging to hear, there’s a bit of a disconnect, I’m afraid. If they had instead asked, are you in favor of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, or of passage of Senate Bill 2191, known as the Climate Security Act of 2007, many would probably say yes, not realizing those would affect their wallets in much the same way by driving all prices up, in addition to energy.
Once again I am reminded of my limitations. I again remember in the run up to the 92 election remarking publicly that the Donks’ VP candidate seemed more “Presidential” than the ‘Bama Gov. D’oh!
I wonder if CBS mainstream media realize that the public may be turning?
VG, I suspect their response will be similar to that of many Kerry supporters following the 2004 election: “how could so many people be so stupid?”
I like this. Every time Gore opens his mouth, he sounds more desperate.
Live Earth was a failure. Heck, they blamed climate change for the low turn-out in Johannesburg — it had snowed there the week before the event for the first time in 25 years. And yet somehow humanity was responsible for that as well.
The foundation under his anthropogenic climate-change fantasy is cracking faster than an antarctic ice shelf.
It’s not a “tiny, tiny minority” anymore. The skeptics are growing in number and he knows it. This is the only way his pea-brained mind knows how to respond.
That’s a sword that can cut both ways. Once this AGW house of cards collapses, imagine the “radically cut emissions no matter what the economic impact” crowd facing trial for several million counts of attempted murder.
Heck, let’s just plea-bargain it down to a day in jail at hard labor… for each count, to be served consecutively.
Relax, sit back, and enjoy.
Give him enough rope……………..
In the video, Al Gore claims that there are a few scientists who disagree with AGW. In fact there are many. Following are three separate lists of scientists who disagree with AGW:
60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treaties. The letter states :“The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Ref http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the world in entirely the wrong direction” Ref http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
19,000 scientists signed a petition stating:“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Ref http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
Each of the above letters or petitions contains a list of the signatories who disagree with AGW.
Now let me ask; where is the list of scientists who do agree with AGW?
And “Nobel” too 😉
Astroturf,
This may come as a surprise to you, but most people who seriously question the AGW-by-CO2 are some of the most versed in physics people you will find. In fact, it is physics that undercuts the AGW/CO2 arguments. Everyone, including skeptics, accept that CO2 presents spectral interactions with long wave radiation. The truth, though, is no one, absolutely no one, knows to what degree it influences our climate.
And I will be willing to bet that Anthony’s knowledge of physics far exceeds either your’s or Gore’s.
I helped to arrange a national education campaign for TV meteorologists nationwide (ironically with CBS’s help) on the value of planting trees to combat the CO2 issue.
Planting trees is a good idea for many reasons besides combatting global warming (e.g., if not for trees where would birds sit? Lol!). Likewise, aggressively pursuing energy options alternative to fossil fuels is a good idea for many reasons. For example, it appears one common assumption shared by many here is that oil is available in abundance if not curtailed by tree-huggers and the like. Certainly tree-huggers have had an effect, but I would say the magnitude of the effect is over-stated. It was easy for them to prevent drilling in deep, off-shore waters, or in ANWR, because it didn’t make much sense in dollars and cents. Now the argument is that it does. And if we were to just drill for it the price of oil would drop. The problem is, if the price of oil drops, then the companies that did the drilling couldn’t recoup their costs. Thus, the only way drilling makes sense is if the price of oil remains high. And in that context tree-huggers, while something of a nuisance maybe, are irrelevant. It also stands to reason that if the price of oil remains high, other alternatives become more attractive. Increasing energy productivity becomes very attractive. In fact the economics in general become attractive for all sorts of reasons. Mitigating GHGs is just another benefit. To paraphrase James Carville once again, it’s the technology stupid.
If Anthony was to do a survey of his following, I would not be surprised that the vast majority would be Republican. Just an observation from the land downunder.
OZDOC, if you were a little more observant, you’d note that there are probably more Brits, Germans and Ausies who comment here than there are Republicans. Most of us here, though, regardless of nationality or political persuasion, would love to get the politics completely the hell out of this discussion.
As to the validity of your “observation”, I’d call it more of a Conservative vs. Liberal issue (Evan Jones being a notable exception) rather than a Republican vs. Democrat issue, and, if you stop to think about it, THAT is very telling.
AGW skeptics are often called paid tools of Exxon. I wonder how Lesley Stahl would react to the charge that CBS simply wanted some of that 300 million dollar advertising budget? Waving around that kind of money would certainly attract a lot of ethically challenged advertising salesmen eager to get a piece of the action.
Apparently, the Goreacle senses impending doom and is launching a last minute “surge” to try to turn the tide of battle. It’s probably too late for him. As the temperature falls, so will Gore’s prospects.
Let me get this straight. In his Paper on UHI, Dr. Peterson claimed that we dont find UHI in the temperature record because ” climate stations are located in cool urban parks, following siting guidelines”
So, Anthony decides to check this claim. Guess what? he finds out that Peterson was wrong.
And now Gore says that people like Anthony are flat earthers?
The FLAT EARTHERS in this debate are the people who claim, like Peterson and Parker and Hansen, that Climate stations are well sited.
They never even checked.
REPLY: Here’s the Los Angeles Weather Station, the GISTEMP plot shows nicely that siting is indeed an issue. Of course there are many more. My personal favorites are Lampasass, Texas and Baltimore, MD which are both part of the USHCN “high quality” network.
“This may come as a surprise to you, but most people who seriously question the AGW-by-CO2 are some of the most versed in physics people you will find.”
The question is, what’s their evidence? That’s how science works, you see, that’s how it differs from politics. Can you put up any evidence at all (that means scientific papers)?
“And I will be willing to bet that Anthony’s knowledge of physics far exceeds either your’s or Gore’s.”
You’d lose that bet. Since you bring it up, I have a Ph.D. in physics and 15 years research experience in the subject. It’s obvious from Mr. Watts writing that he has no science education at all. It’s all a political opinion to him.
It isn’t a liberal vs conservative thing unless you define liberal as democrat. I’m as liberal as the come…liberal as in freedom to live my life as I choose sans religious zealots et al. I’m an animal loving, tree loving, forest loving, bike riding for fun, hiking and camping liberal….that doesn’t believe for a second that we are in any crisis or that the earth is any danger from wonderful CO2.
I agree lets take politics out of the discussion. It isn’t about that. It’s about shady science and people with an agenda. It’s about control of a populace.
(e.g., if not for trees where would birds sit? Lol!).
You’d be surprised. it turns out the upper notch in the “K” on K-mart signs is a favorite nesting place for spotted owls.
I also like trees. But even places without them can be bird havens.
After the clean air act began to have real effect in New York, huge numbers of birds have flocked to the city, especially crows, sparrows, gulls, and hawks. (The only new arrivals I hate are the starlings.) Pigeons have become far more robust and healthy–and have taken on a wide variety of colors: Brick reds, sandstone yellows, chocolate browns, creamy grays, and everything in between.
Central Park has become one of the “top ten” bird sanctuaries (whatever that means) and is overrun by ducks, swans, egrets, robins, and many other birds.
A clean city has all sorts of nooks and crannies of the sort favored by birds.
It’s obvious from Mr. Watts writing that he has no science education at all. It’s all a political opinion to him.
Give the man some credit. He’s a weather forecast veteran of around what, 30 years? He is the one who discovered and documented the massive degree of microsite violations, not GISS or the NOAA..
Besides, it is ultimately the laymen who will determine the policy related to this issue, not the Ph.Ds. (And heaven forefend government-by-postgraduates!) It is up to the experts on both sides of this controversy to help inform our decisions with honesty and openness, not to impart writ. It is also the obligation of experts to listen to, answer the questions of, and, yes, even learn from the layman side of the fence.
Consider that the vaunted Club of Rome–composed of a multitude of scientific experts–was entirely ubdone by the common-sense theories of an informed layman who was bucking the “consensus”. And that alone had a major positive effect on the everyday life of all of us.
Why does anyone give the former VP any consideration? This is a man how has an extremely long distance relationship with truth, or has everyone forgotten?
“No Controlling Legal Authority”
“I walked point in ‘nam”
“Love Story was written about Tipper & me”
“I discovered Love Canal”
“I took the initiative to invent the Internet”
His credentials?
Stan: I’d count myself as at the liberal end of a Liberal party in a Liberal region of a Liberal country (compared to the US, anyway), but that is irrelevant to the science.
AJ Abrams: Whether you believe some people have seized upon this as an attempted means of control is also politics, and is also irrelevant to the science.
As Anthony’s alter ego said, “Just the facts, Ma’am”. The key question in my mind is simply this: Is the Earth warming more than the basic heat physics predicts for the given amount of CO2 increase (positive feedback) or less (negative feedback), or maybe just the same. With the all the variables around dodgy measurement, multi-decadal cycles and chaotic ocean oscillation systems it seems at best undecided. But after 25 years in the computer business I sure as hell know I don’t trust a computer model to tell me; and after several more years than that in the life business, I don’t trust the media or politicians to tell me either.
I seriously doubt if Mr. Astroturf has a PHD in Physics. A good science education makes one very careful about what one says and a PHD usually is not afraid to use his or her real name.
Until Mr Astroturf uses his real name so we can check his credential assertion ( another unprovable assertion at this point ), he can safely be ignored.
AstroTurf
Here is – by an engineer who has spent his working life using the wonder gas – which is plant food (vital for life on this planet), NOT a pollutant and definitely not at optimal levels(preferably 1200ppmv as opposed to the dangerously low current level or under 400ppmv).
The best gift the developed world can give to the developing nations is free fertilizer. We should be praising CO2 not condemning the miracle that it is.
But then again these people (like Gore and JP Morgan and DuPont and Maurice Strong and on and on) would like to “limit” humanity in both numbers and reach. AGW is just a pawn in their game. A game that will kill millions through starvation through crop/earth changes to provide unnecessary bio-fuels and then tax the rest of us so hard that no-one will have the will (or money) to look to the stewardship of this planet. Nice people.
Their is a that would satisfy everyone.