Gore to throw insults on 60 minutes

A valuable collectors’ item!
Right up The Wrong Rev. Gore’s alley.

Astro.
Thanks for joining the Conversation. As you note you have a Phd and 15 years of research in the feild. I have 3 Phd’s and 1 nobel prize and 23 years 2 months 6 days, 4 hours, 33 minutes and 23…. nope 45 seconds! in research.
So I am right.

Perhaps astroturf would care to engage in a discussion of the physics of the GHE with Lubos Motl?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/al-gore-flat-earth-and-tiny-tiny.html
Clearly you don’t even know what the debate is about. It is not about those who say there is/is not a GHE which does or does not get enhanced by human activity leading to some warming. It is about the ~details~ like, how much? WHat does the physics tell us? We can calculate the warming from doubling CO2 theoretically, assuming the Earth system just warms and doesn’t act to counteract or amplify warming. The result is about 1.2 C, which, I can’t emphasize enough, is ~no big deal~. Models, which predict ~catastrophic~ future warming give values for this of 2 to 5 C (which the IPCC thinks is a little high, with it actually being 1.5 to 4 C, but good enough for the models). But if the models are wrong, a there are negative feedbacks like that proposed here:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf
And evidence for which was found here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Then Greenhouse warming is insignificant, and a considerable fraction of warming could, perhaps ~must~ come from a different source.

Dr. Astroturf, sir, would you dispute Hottel’s measure of the emissivity==absorptivity of C02(300ppm or 3000) at STP of 15micron radiation at 9*10^-4? Would you disagree that those of asphalt are approximately 1000 times greater?
Would you dispute UAH MSU data indicating no significant lower lattitude high tropospheric warming, no cooling of the stratosphere and Willis’ recent report of no ocean warming this milennia to 3000m?
If not then perhaps we can give you a pass, and let you fend for yourself as a logician.

R John,
That’s hardly a signature unique to Lee. There are numerous blogosphere gadflies with the same MO.
I would be interested to know what “research” our friend AstroTurf has been doing in “physics” but it is wholly irrelevant. What would me more interesting is to see how the basic physics texts (s)he cites demonstrate circa 4 degree C increase for a doubling of CO2 vs. the classical (?) value of circa 1 degree C that even avowed deniers recognize as the unenhanced greenhouse effect.
I mean, it’s basic physics, right?

Incidentally, has anyone had a look at this ‘Earth Hour’ campaign? Won’t make much difference in Canada, most of our electricity is hydro power. Lighting candles for a candlelit supper between the hours of 8&9pm is more likely to contribute to ‘global warming’ than shutting off your electricity for an hour.
Oops. I’m a heretic.

What I want to know is, how warm was 1998, versus 1198?

Stephen Fox (12:50:28) : Even though it was unattributed, I’m guessing you didn’t write the first part of your post yourself. Either that or you work for a newspaper. So why don’t you tell us in your own words what you find so compelling about Miskolzi’s paper.
I’ll tell you one obvious thing about it that I don’t find compelling — his assumption labeled (g), upon which his conclusions are bound: The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem: the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the total gravitational potential energy. The surface air temperature tA is linked to the total gravitational potential energy through the surface pressure and air density. The temperature, pressure, and air density obey the gas law, therefore, in terms of radiative flux SA=σtA [note: the equations did not translate well] represents also the total gravitational potential energy.
Radiative flux equals total gravitational potential energy? That seems a bit odd to me. How about you? It’s an important question because, as indicated in Sect. 3.1, the assumption is key to his entire treatise. Maybe I’m missing something, but it’s too bad he didn’t apply his equations to Venus. Or, say, the early Triassic period right here on Earth. I don’t see how his assumption applies in those cases. And if they don’t apply in those cases, then chances are good the assumption is wrong (even if it might seem right in some contexts). And if the assumption is wrong, then any analysis upon which it is based is wrong. And if the analysis is wrong any conclusions based on it are meaningless. That’s not opinion, that’s logic.
On a somewhat different topic, Russel Seitz, who spoke at the recent ICCC conference in Manhattan, issued a blistering critique of the conservative approach to the issue of what he calls “the Climate Wars”. I largely agree with him — almost everything he says — especially this snippet: “It [the forces aligned with Gore] does so with Hollywood’s full arsenal of special effects at it disposal, and makes its case using lines corny enough to make Captain Planet wince, yet the results seldom face scientific criticism. This stands in stark contrast with its token opposition, chosen for political reliability rather than scientific acumen, and scripted by conservative media often as scientifically impoverished as they are well funded. The result is that Republicans find themselves poorly armed and bizarrely outnumbered in the Climate Wars.”
Later he adds, “In science, as in politics, the truth that sets men free is seldom the one they want to hear. The conservative media’s most favored talking heads frequently adduce views by turns obsolete, tendentious, or just plain daft.”
I’m not sure what to believe about AGW. I’m even less sure it matters in terms of a coherent, forward-looking energy policy. But one thing I am sure about is that one’s ideological point of view, whatever it is, should also not matter. What should matter is what makes sense scientifically (when talking science), or what makes sound energy policy (when talking energy policy). One cannot rely on obsolete, tendentious, or just plain daft talking points — or Hollywood glamor.

There’s one thing I should add to my comment, I believe you mean it hasn’t happened since the dawn of the fossil fuel age. Before that there are plenty of examples. That is this: there are plenty of examples where “riched up” societies failed because supply of a critical commodity failed to keep up with demand. In the present case the critical commodity is energy, not fossil fuels. To equate the two is perilous. To refuse to think forward is also perilous. If we fail, then it very well be necessary to chop up the trees in Central Park and burn them. But I’m pretty sure that, as was the case on Easter Island, it would be a short-term solution — just kicking the can down the road a while.

My mathematics is not up to a lot of the discussion on this site but I do recognise there is something odd going on between the warmists and the sceptics. It is very reminiscent of the debate we have in Europe between the European integrationists and the sceptics. It sometimes feels as if there is a conspiracy between the politicians and media to lock the sceptics out of the debate, although in truth it is more to do with how modern society, politicians and the media works.
Firstly there is the name calling and branding rather than entering into discussions. In our case it took decades to overcome the impression that the sceptics are all right wing little Englanders who hated foreigners, in your case you are flat earthists who do not believe man landed on the moon. Then there is the pretence that there is a consensus of all right broad minded people and finally there is the under-reporting of facts that do not fit the consensus.
It is really extraordinary how illiberal the chattering classes are, how easily they embrace fads and how intolerant and closed they are to sceptical opinion.
One last observation; people who are attracted to centralized control are very attracted to the possibility of manmade climate change. It is the excuse they want to have more totalitarian government and less democracy. The free-market pro-capitalist economy people hate global warming because they do not want centralised government. So the whole global warming debate has been staked out by the political classes. It is going to be very tough for you sceptics to get your voices heard.

Gore as the high priest is needed more than ever to galvanize the resolve of the AGW faithful.
All these contrary signs. The faithful are confused.
The climate has stopped warming! The oceans are cooling! Antarctica has more ice now than it has at any time since measurements began (yeah, I know its only 30 years)! The maple trees are late for the syrup festival! The Hockey Stick is broken! An now snow storms across the nation in late March!
Yes – his words will bring comfort to the faithful in these troubling times.