 |
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 AM NO SCIENTIST!!!!!!!
But I am an avid reader. I have learned much in reading Anthony’s “Wattsupwiththat” blog, Steve McIntyre’s “climateaudit” blog, R. Pielke Sr.’s “Climate science” blog and several others. There are several things I have learned to trust.
1. Investigators that are willing to report their raw data and their methodology.
2. Those that reveal why they make the statements they do and how they reached the conclusion.
3 Those that are quickly ready and willing to correct any mistakes that are pointed out with data and method.
4 Those that are willing to talk to laymen in laymen’s terms.
I have also learned to mistrust some things.
1 Those that will not reveal the data that supports their findings.
2 Those that are unwilling to offer their methodology so that others may replicate their work.
3 Those that fail to use due diligence to check the papers that they reference as support or as a basis of evidence to support their conclusion.
4 A peer review process that fails to use due diligence in the review process and uses prior coauthors as reviers (this causes questions of Independent review process).
I would love to have a better education. I am also glad that I am not an expert on climate science. I feel that there will be great repercussion in the climate science field. I believe that many young and upcomming scientists in the field will be hurt by the antics currently being used in the current process.
I believe that we are headed for a rocky road for the next few years and the rocks might be made of ice. Lets hope I am wrong and we continue to maintain our current status.
Bill Derryberry
REPLY: Well said Bill.
I believe you mean it hasn’t happened since the dawn of the fossil fuel age. Before that there are plenty of examples. And that gets me to thinking about someone’s sage adage, “The stone age didn’t end for lack of stones.”
Yes, that was my timeframe. But can’t recall any society that gave much of a hoot in hell for environmentalism before the fossil fuel age. And history is my specialty. But perhaps we are speaking to cross-contexts and we have different deinitions of “cleaning up”?
Do you have a specific example in mind; perhaps I am missing a trick, here?
And yes, I am sure we will be nowhere even vaguely near the end of oil before we move on from it. (“Peak oil” is s fundamentally flawed equation.) But I want to see that day arrived at “naturally” in an economic sense. I am in favor of whatever pays.
Rico, you say:
“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.”
Absolutely, the problem though is that the political ideologues are the ones that will be making the decisions.
I think our friend in th UK has his analysis spot on, I must say.
Althoogh I am an “inegrationist”, I mostly agree. We liberals have got to get back into the practice of actual liberalism–as it is defined in the dictionary, that is. I have noticed a couple about who echo these sentiments (yes, I did notice).
(FWIW, I also think that proper conservatism has very valuable aspects as well.)
REPLY: Well said Bill.
Yes.
One thing about british scientists which I’ve always admired is their “sense” of honesty ie: the hadcrut Hadley have been pushing the AGW but lately as data cannot be avoided the language has changed to “almost certain”, “likely” instead of “will” happen etc.. etc
A brief look at the graph depicting January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases”.
and
“However, once La Niña declines, it is very likely that renewed warming will occur as was the case when the Earth emerged from the strong La Niña events of 1989 and 1999.”
and this one is really funny
“In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind”.
So they seem to be picking their words carefully to cover themselves
Quoting: steven mosher (15:09:02) : Mine is so much bigger.
Dude, I have one horse and FOUR wives.
(and the waitress and Umbria liked me more)
That’s what I get for drunken posting after the bars close on Friday night.
AT Umbria.
Anthony/Mosher: your rebuttals to Astroturf made my night. Thanks!
Mosh: In my last two employments, I’ve worked with four Nobel Prize winners. Even though I only have a BS degree, does this trump Astroturf? 🙂
Astroturf: no one can touch you if you use your real name from a private computer (First Amendment and all that)*. As you do not post your real names, I can only think that you do not have the courage of your convictions. I equate this to cowardice. Ergo you have no standing in swaying my opinion re AGW. Watts, Mosher, McIntyre, et cetera have shown the courage of their convictions. I’m not a climate scientist, but I know whose side I want to be on.
* I have experience being vilified, threatened and efforts made to get me fired from my university (publically funded) job by antinuke fanatics – all because I was simply teaching folks how radiation works, which destroyed a lot of their pseudoscience arguments. My point: if you are in a publically funded position, you can still demonstrate the courage of your convictions by simply stating your case as a private citizen. It’s worked for me with no repercussions. Try it, you might like it.
Professor Astroturf,
I must complement you on your choice of prose, your comments remind me of when I also got my Phd, (Piss House Diploma) is your Phd in ‘finger’ or ‘paper’ ?
Face the fact that Gore actually believes what he is saying, like Hansen and the acolytes of realclimate believe it. The left versus right issue only stems from the left blaming big business for polluting the planet and the right thinking that taxes do more harm than good. I trust the rump of us, left and right, realize that business feeds and clothes us all but it needs to be kept on a leash.
And yes Al Gore played a big part in getting the internet where it is today, as the real internet inventors readily say. His enabling actions in fact boosted the US GDP quite a bit so clearly he is far from being anti-growth. He likely believes that the US, and indeed the world, would be better off if it was leading in alternative energy technology rather than continuing to be a Saudi lapdog. Probably you guys do too.
It’s clear that both sides are very prone to witch hunt behaviour. It’s also clear that the oil price is driving the alternative energy technologies much more than any carbon tax would, which is capitalism in action. If we all got off our hobby horses and concentrated on the desired end point – sustainability – then we would actually find we agree on a great deal of things. Insults from either side certainly don’t help but it’s no good rising to the bait either.
There seems to be an expectation here to use your real name, so here’s the real me.
Anyway, I think rather than writing to the CBS execs, it’s more important and effective that we organise presentations and speeches, and take our side right to the people. I’d start with schools, Town Meetings, industry groups, local representatives, publish articles and so on.
Zealots are not going to listen.
I can think of a lot guys who’d welcome King James VI’s problem!
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/EA71FA8B-FF69-4A32-9204-293E5B58BA6E.html
Finally,
JunkScience makes a good point:
If dissent is so miniscule and trivial, then why spend $300 million on a massive campaign to steamroll it?
If the size of Gore’s campaign is an indication of the strength of dissent, then this is very good news indeed.
From reading the comments here, the site looks pretty much like the Intelligent Design, homeopathy, Moon hoax and 9/11 conspiracy websites.
Gore has got it pretty much right.
You’ve got a bunch of guys who’ve discovered some Alternative Reality, they realise they’re being fed lies by the Big Government Conspiracy, and only they are smart enough to see through all those Big Conspiracy lies.
It’s clear from their reasoning skills (and spelling skills) that they mostly have an IQ around 65, but they’ve found a different world here where they know more than all those so-called “experts” who keep insulting them all the time, calling them “stupid”, putting them down.
The common thread running through all these websites is that it serves as a self-esteem builder for people of very limited educational attainment. The rest is random chaff.
REPLY: So no rise to the challenge? No willingness to share the scientific papers in physics you authored or co-authored? Well sir, then without offering such evidence you’ve assigned yourself to fit exactly into the description and labels you have on other here.
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.
You couldn’t be more wrong, Rico. Basing energy policy on reducing C02, which not only isn’t a pollutant, but is a beneficial gas is nothing short of insanity. So yes, it most certainly does matter.
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).
What makes sense scientifically is what a site like this is all about. Like many, I used to believe AGW was true. When I first started looking into the actual science over a year ago, I had an axe to grind; that of being able to write pro-AGW letters to the editor. I had no doubts whatever that it was true, I simply wanted the facts supporting it. Surprise, surprise, there weren’t any. It was all smoke and mirrors. You would know that too, but I don’t believe you are really interested in science. You want to skip the science and go right to policy. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
I will Snail mail today my response to Stahl and five others who looked interesting. I’m sending a cover letter and a copy of my “Science, Method, Climatology, and Forgetting the Basics” essay. The cover letter doesn’t say anything we haven’t read here already, but it’s at http://wermenh.com/climate/stahl.html and worth reading if you are planning to send CBS a piece of your mind.
On other fronts, three inches of snow here yesterday, March 2008 is the most “snowbound” month in my 10 years near Concord NH, and I still have 19″ of snow on the ground. I’m up to 2417 “Snow Depth Days” for the season, old record was 1511. This is 118th day of continuous snow cover, old record was 100. It hasn’t been a cold year, which is one reason for all the snow. La Nina and the negative PDO are probably more to blame than climate change, but at least no one is talking about the demise of skiing. Instead they’re talking about the slow start to the Maple Sugaring season, today is the annual statewide open house at sugar shacks and some may not have enough sap to boil. I wish Al Gore were here.
Although there are scientists in the UK, e.g. those at the Hadley Centre, who are careful and sensible in their choice of words, one problem we have is that the BBC, one of the biggest news sources here, IMO has a definite AGW bias, which makes it less likely that the public will get to hear much from anyone who questions AGW. Much as I otherwise like the BBC, I find their reporting somewhat selective.
Having said that, I just had a look on the BBC News website to see how they reported the Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse, but found nothing about this currently in the Science/Nature section. However, curiously I did find an article about it in their CBBC Newsround pages (aimed at children), which said:
“Scientists reckon the crumbling of the Wilkins Ice Shelf is being caused by global warming and has happened much faster than anyone thought it would.”
So they have reported this online, so far, to the kids but not to us grown-ups, which I find interesting.
It’s not the training of the physicists, it’s the dat hat is turning up – atmosphere and oceans actually cooling.
And another thing, why is 30 years so important for showing a warming trend but 70 years isn’t, nor 1000 years? Because it was colder 30 years ago, but not 70 nor 1000 years ago.
Off topic, but it is comforting to know that Glacier National park will retain its name regardless of the ultimate effects of “climate change”. Usually the web cams give excellent views of the region, but today some of the views are obscured by snowy weather. Spring appears to be arriving late this year.
http://www.nps.gov/glac/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm
“If current trends continue, some scientists have predicted that by the year 2030, there will be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park due to global climate change.”
“Glacier National park was named for the glaciers that carved, sculpted, and formed this landscape millions of years ago. Despite the recession of current glaciers, the park’s name will not change when the glaciers are gone.”
To Bill Derryberry:
I’d like to post your comment titled “I am no scientist” in the quotes section on the http://www.climateclinic.com website with your permission. I believe it’s very succinct and to the point.
Please advise with an email to comments@climateclinic.com.
Jack Koenig, Author and Webmaster
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
aka McGrats
So we learn that astro turfd has an IQ of 65 and never graduated from grammar school. We knew that!
What’s more interesting is that Antarctic ice is enjoying UNPRECEDENTED thickness, and the Arctic ice is thickening nicely as well. The correlation between CO2 and climate has been broken, and the sun is doing what it’s always done–drive the climate of Earth.
Glacier Park can look forward to growing those glaciers back, and even Kiliminjaro is looking whiter lately.
astroboy has may his status clear, Anthony. Waste of time: BAN.
“No willingness to share the scientific papers in physics you authored or co-authored? Well sir, then without offering such evidence you’ve assigned yourself to fit exactly into the description and labels you have on other here.”
Right, here comes the “I know where you live” line of debate, the last resort every time. You can always see this coming a mile off.
There’s a formulaic set of responses on this kind of Big Government Conspiracy website, starting with “I am insulted” and moving on through “who are you?” and so on. It’s the same every time.
(Your point makes no sense, by the way)