 |
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.
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.
The probem being that the “wealth” he has “created” is that of the Ponzi scheme and comes directly out of food prices and genuine engery profits. It isn’t even “real”.
And who is taking it in the teeth? The poor. Both at home and (especially) abroad.
Regarding energy imports, we are much more of a Canadian lapdog than the Saudi variety, anyway. And we needn’t be either. All we need to do is dip the Noth Slope and offshore, which we can do cleanly, effectively, and to huge (real) profit and wealth creation.
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,
Well, the alternative reality of severely and recently corrupted surface stations (photos publicly avaliable) do have their alternative effect. I don’t say AGW is a scam; I say it appears to be simply a well meaning error. Since it is a potential error that promises to have profound negative consequences to weath and wealth creation, especially for the poor, I must insist on at least a modicum of due diligence–which has NOT been forthcoming.
Try being a genuine liberal concerning this issue–for a change.
AstroTroll, why don’t you take your mindless AGW drivel someplace else, like RealClimate? I hear they are loaded with drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysterics like you, so you should fit right in.
It was all smoke and mirrors.
OTOH, so is the skepic position: Aerosols and albedo.
You want to skip the science and go right to policy. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
So they have reported this online, so far, to the kids but not to us grown-ups, which I find interesting.
“You’ve got to be carefully taught.”
It’s not the training of the physicists, it’s the dat hat is turning up – atmosphere and oceans actually cooling.
Is it the angle of the dangle or the motion of the ocean?
Pierre Gosselin (aka AGWscoffer) :
[Thank you for “coming out”. My exposure to “the net” goes back to ARPAnet days before people thought of hiding behind screen names. Despite a scarce name like Werme I haven’t had regrets at being public. Keeping a sensible tone and avoiding most flame bait helps.]
“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 agree, but I think it’s important to encourage the news media to worry that their bias may be on the wrong side. It’s also worthwhile to let them know that despite Astroturf’s wishful thinking, doubters are more reasonable than Gore claims in his propaganda.
One reason I spent more time than necessary on my cover letter to CBS was to be able to put a polished document on my web site.
Consider this – in addition to your recommendations, share those presentations with the news media and anyone else adhering to the simple bias.
One thing I’ll do today is contact a reporter at the Concord Monitor who hasn’t been able to gain the identity of Concord NH’s official snow measurer. Concord is close to has set a 100 year record for snowfall and eight more inches will break all those records from the late 1800s, so it’s a good time to for interest in the subject. I have lots and lots of data, am open about it, and am glad to find a local forum.
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080329/FRONTPAGE/803290320
And it’s important to note that the majority of the modern retreat of those glaciers occurred before 1950.
I don’t think he does. His ongoing relationship with Occidental Petroleum is proof of that. He profits from oil exploration and exploitation while railing against it.
Only because he was in a political position to do so. I’m sure many other people played larger roles than he, the difference is they don’t spout off at the mouth.
We (The US) only get about 13% of our oil from the Middle East. That hardly makes us Saudi Lapdogs. Europe, on the other hand…
I’m so impressed by Astroturf’s posting of tolerance.
If that’s all that’s left of the alarmist arsenal of facts, data and arguments, then us skeptics are truly in supreme shape.
Personally I think Astroturf is just a real lonely person and is only seeking attention. It’s okay – we’ll talk to you to Astro. But I’d also like to see something that’s related to science from you. What do you say?
Anyone think he’ll manage that?
It’s clear from their reasoning skills (and spelling skills) that they mostly have an IQ around 65….
So says AstroTurf, itself! Really, it’s no longer strange to me that many Prog Cultists seem to name themselves so appropriately – essentially as a confessional which they then proceed to prove, while also projecting their own disabilities onto their perceived opponents.
Alex Cull,
The British Antarctic Survey (www.antarcitica.ac.uk./staff-profiles/messages) will give you a idea; look for in the left hand column ‘Climate Change, Our View’
Which in part ( read the full article) says ” that a significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities”
D.G.Vaughan of this organization has been quoted on CBS, as saying that “the world is in trouble owing to man made climate change,”
But if you go to antigreen blogspot.com. Todays posting tells a different story, some real good photo’s and graphs and lots and lots of links to very important people, who seem to be at odds with the British Antarctic Survey.
For you Astroturf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327172038.htm
In summary, the more one knows about climate science, the less a problem it appears to be, and so the less one worries about it. Judging from your level of panic and worry, I’d say you’re horrifically ignorant.
To Alex Cull,
The British Antarctic Survey (www.antarcitica.ac.uk./staff-profiles/messages) will give you a idea; look for in the left hand column ‘Climate Change, Our View’
Which in part ( read the full article) says ” that a significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities”
D.G.Vaughan of this organization has been quoted on CBS, as saying that “the world is in trouble owing to man made climate change,”
But if you go to antigreen blogspot.com. Todays posting tells a different story, some real good photo’s and graphs and lots and lots of links to very important people, who seem to be at odds with the British Antarctic Survey.
Sorry about that people got, a double!
“Television News Journalism”
What is thing of which you speak? One of those “pick two” things?
Many thanks Alan – much interesting reading here. The link didn’t work for me, but I found the British Antarctic Survey’s “Climate Change – Our View” article at:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php
They do appear to be conceding that there has been little or no overall warming of Antarctica, except for the Peninsula. Some very careful phrasing in that article! Thanks again.
Alan, better is antigreen.blogspot.com
You missed your period. Whether you’re glad for that or not is none of my concern.
=====================
By the way, that website, by John Ray, looks like a fine aggregator. It’s hard to beat icecap.us but he’s got some other stuff.
============================
Bruce Cobb (04:50:50) :
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.
Basing energy policy on reducing fossil fuel use is not insane. It makes sense on a health level, on an energy security level, on a national security level, and as I’ve been trying to stress, on an economic level. The fact that it would also reduce CO2 emissions is a bonus, but it is not an essential component. Which part of that is insane? It seems to me more insane to attempt to justify maintaining our heavy dependence on fossil fuels solely on your disdane for those who argue that AGW is real. That is an ideological argument, not a logical one.
I am arguing that even if you ignore the CO2 emissions part, nothing much changes in terms of shaping energy policy. It still makes sense to reduce fossil fuel use — as much as we can, and as quickly as economically feasible. There are of course dangers associated with any policy change. Mistakes have been made, and almost certainly will be made in the future. And of course there are plenty of greedy politicians and their patrons out there. But there are also dangers — and I would argue more so — in keeping the policy the same. For one thing, doing so is likewise beneficial to a different set of greedy politicians and their patrons. More importantly, by doing so we potentially miss out on some very large, very important, very lucrative opportunities. There are no guarantees (and there never will be), but by careful, intelligent rearrangement (easier said than done to be sure) of our country’s energy policy to stimulate the development of alternative fuels, it could be very good for jobs, for domestic manufacturing, and for the trade deficit. It would certainly be good for our national security (we wouldn’t have to rely so much on antagonistic regimes), and for our energy security because it would certainly help to insulate us from supply shocks. Considering all that, I have a hard time seeing the insanity.
There’s another reason to pay attention to energy policy too: it’s going to happen. No matter who is elected president they will change the policy. It is almost certain that the Dems are going to pick up seats in both the House and the Senate, possibly quite a few. That may be an uncomfortable thought, but that’s the reality.
Concerning the science, it seems to me that too many people interpret the debate as two-sided and highly polarized. Pro-AGWers tend to reject any criticism of “the consensus view” out of hand, and accept any evidence for it equally uncritically. Anti-AGWers are the reverse. It gets so ridiculous that people accept every unusual weather event as “proof” that the climate is moving in one direction or another. There is plenty of evidence for that right here on this thread. Well I reject that. I also reject the notion that one or two years of warmer or cooler weather indicates much of anything with respect to the overall trend in climate. The fact is, the earth has gotten warmer in the last 100 years. It’s obvious in Fig. 1 of the Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Part 1 thread. That’s not the question. The question is whether it’s a result of natural or human causes. I also get the impression that a lot of people here are hoping like crazy that solar cycle 24 never happens. A few are absolutely convinced it won’t. And further, when it doesn’t, the world will plunge into another ice age. I’m not convinced of either one. I’d say the safe money is on cycle 24 happening. I’d also say that NASA’s shifting predictions in that regard is evidence that they don’t know everything there is to know about solar dynamics. But that’s not the same as saying they know nothing. However, if cycle 24 really doesn’t happen, I’m sure that will cause a great many solar scientists to sit in their offices and scratch their heads long and hard. On the other hand, if cycle 24 does happen, what are those who were convinced it wouldn’t going to do? My guess is they’ll just go on to some other argument and never look back, never examine their assumptions, never learn anything from the experience.
Either way, how will it impact energy policy decisions?
I do care about science. I try not to get involved in credential debates because they tend to be self-serving. Besides, while most PhDs I’ve known are very smart, very able people, some of them are so channeled and myopic that unless you focus on their subject area you’d think they’re dumb as bricks. So I’d rather present my argument unencumbered from whatever credentials I might have, so that the weight of the argument itself is the focus, not the letters after my name. I’ll just say that I went the academic route for a number of years before I started my own business. And through my business (and my consulting work) I interact constantly with academic and government scientists. So it’s something I care about. And I know something about the bureaucracies surrounding the enterprises. And like any bureaucracy they have an internal inertia which dictates that to a certain extent you have to go along to get along. But to claim that inertia rises to the level of some kind of grand conspiracy is exceedingly hard for me to believe. A lot of these guys have huge egos, and sometimes pride themselves with being generally contrary, and sometimes downright obnoxious. I have a funny story in that regard. I happened into a (crowded) restroom at a conference I was attending. I did my business and went over to the sinks to wash my hands and there was a guy at the sink beside me pissing into it. He was an older guy, dressed in a crumpled, ill-fitting suit. He looked at me and I looked at him. “Do you know who I am?” he asked. “Yep”, I said. “I can do this”, he said, smiling. I smiled back. “Yes you can,” I agreed. Even if I cared (which I didn’t) I sure as heck wasn’t going to tell him he couldn’t. He was Julius Axelrod, a very smart guy (he won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on synaptic transmission), and very engaging in a goofy sort of way. A true iconoclast. The scientific community is full of people like him to a greater or lesser degree. To think they could be co-opted to participate in some kind of grand conspiracy strikes me as wildly optimistic.
And of course most of the peninsula isn’t even in the antarctic .
[snip]
Banned for trolling
The fact is, the earth has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.
Yes, but a large chunk of that increase came before 1950. And I heavily suspect that a good slice of the increase measurement after that is spurious result of microsite encroachment.
The mere fact that who gets elected is going to affect the economics is a concession that wealth-destroying policies are at issue here. I refuse to go with the flow. I protest.
Besides, while most PhDs I’ve known are very smart, very able people, some of them are so channeled and myopic that unless you focus on their subject area you’d think they’re dumb as bricks.
They are no more likely to be right on policy than anyone else. Which is a sorry state of affairs.
A lot of these guys have huge egos, and sometimes pride themselves with being generally contrary, and sometimes downright obnoxious.
I have noticed this. And counterintuitive (for its own sake).
It’s not conspiracy. It’s a sort of “herd-instict class action” behavior. Doctors don’t sit anround and plot against chiropractors. They just mostly . . . hate chiropractors.
Hell hath no fury like a pacifist (and no one goosesteps like a nonconformst).
jeez, the waitress liked you more because she knew she no chance with the moshpit and that I would just break her heart and leave her breathless.
Evan Jones (07:42:36) :
The probem being that the “wealth” he has “created” is that of the Ponzi scheme and comes directly out of food prices and genuine engery profits. It isn’t even “real”.
You ignored JamesG’s primary point and instead chose to reply to the tangential one. So allow me to reply to his main point first, then blend in a reply to your reply. My understanding of the situation in the 90s and early 00s is that most economists agree that a considerable portion of the rise in GDP during the 90s and 00s is directly attributable to improvements in information technology — both PC penetration and internet development — which improved worker productivity. That is unlikely to continue. Rather, the most obvious untapped resource to improve productivity is better attention to energy productivity. I’ve offered numerous citations on that topic in the past, none of which have been contended, let alone refuted. In spite of that there remains the contention that we should consume energy like drunken sailors and encourage the rest of the world to do so as well. I mean really… how does that make sense?
Regarding energy imports, we are much more of a Canadian lapdog than the Saudi variety, anyway. And we needn’t be either. All we need to do is dip the Noth Slope and offshore, which we can do cleanly, effectively, and to huge (real) profit and wealth creation.
Have you done a cost estimate? You keep saying the same thing, yet you haven’t provided anything by way of documentation. No one else has either. I think it’s time to put up or shut up. And frankly, I don’t think “you” (not you personally, but you in general) can mount a convincing argument. I am not at all opposed to drilling on the North Slope or offshore. By all means, I think we should. I just don’t see it as a game-changer. It’ll make a dent, but not that big a dent. And it will be relatively expensive, too. But the longer we wait the more expensive it will get, and the less impact it is likely to have. We need it now, as a bridge to a more sustainable future. Looking at things completely dispassionately (and irregardless of CO2 emissions), coal kills more people than oil does, and oil more than natural gas. But poverty kills more than any one of them. Having said that though, I strenuously argue that it’s a false equation in the long term. We are going to make the transition to sustainable fuels sooner or later. The question really is how to optimize that transition in a way that kills the fewest people while at the same time doesn’t wreck the economy (because you can’t save people without money). People whine about how reckless and inefficient the government is. And it certainly can be. Then again, there are also numerous recent examples indicating that too free a market is the same way. Lead paint on toys, toxic chemicals in dog food, downer cows in the food chain, predatory lending practices depriving people of homes. Yes, there was a tech bubble in the early 00s. I’m a big fan of high tech, but not mindlessly so. I managed to see it coming before I got too burned (I lost money on Cisco, but that’s a different story). And yes, there are going to be bubbles as the alternative fuels industry takes off. But unless we’re really stupid about it, that doesn’t make it a bad idea. You can’t properly consider the downside without properly considering the upside — and vice versa. It’s not an either-or situation, regardless of how Lewis Carroll portrays it. Go ask Alice.
RutRow, where did astro go?
Hi Mr. Watts, Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a troll, right?
At first, I thought you were confused, but honest.
I know better now.
REPLY: No it is because your sole purpose here has been to denigrate others with taunts. You have not contributed anything positive to the conversation. Your goal here clearly is to start a flame war, and I won’t have it. So off you go.
As for everyone else, back to business, you too Mosh.