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.
Why is it justifiable for Al Gore to waste energy but not the rest of us? It’s very simple. He is better than us; his life is worth more than ours. He could spread the same message without private jets and mansions; heck – he could even still buy those “carbon credits” to compensate for his mansion if he didn’t live in a mansion! In fact, the money he would save by living moderately could then go towards more “carbon credits.” So, Al Gore wastes energy and it is ok. The rest of the population, though, is condemned for wasting energy. There really is only one explanation; Al Gore’s life is worth more than ours.
OT… I wonder when CT is going to update the Seasonal Sea Ice Extent Graph?
Anyone getting depressed over all this? I get bits of depression mixed with anger and a bit of hopelessness, but I hope I have retained enough hopefulness to teleconnect to the universe to move the hope along. Argh!
On the hopeful side:
a) This site, Climate Audit and a few others.
b) Palin being selected as VP – maybe she can bring some sanity if McCain will listen
c) A trickle of main stream articles questioning the consensus.
d) The science can not be stifled forever.
e) Perhaps there will be a significant unintended positive consequence of our going down this path.
f) Perhaps a greater power is testing our meddle.
Also, on the hopeful side, I actually got a response to an e-mail I wrote to a local reporter in response to his article on Michael Mann’s 9/23 lecture at URI (http://www.uri.edu/hc/20080923_MMann.shtml.) His response was perhaps hopeful:
“What’s troubling is how many serious people such as yourself sent me very similar notes. I will keep looking into this.”
Anyone want to take bets on that? Oops! I just the lost the hopefulness, but I do feel better now 🙂
I find some irony in my last post:
We would probably borrow money from China to build clean coal plants IN China. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?
I have had several email conversations with Dr. Muller. I highly recommend his Physics for Future Presidents course (available free from UC Berkely and iTunes). Even though I admire him, he has reached a certain level of knowledge that scares me. My conversations with him were cut short because I disagreed with certain items he wrote. The items he disagreed with were of a nature that made me realize that something wasn’t quite right.
I admire what he has done. When I listened to his lecture series, it was completely consistent with all the science I expected from someone like him. He never leaned on “authority”, he just presented how things worked. That is until he talked about Climate Change. Then he deferred to the IPCC as the most esteemed in their field and that it would be rude to suggest that they were wrong.
He wrote a paper shredding Al Gore’s movie to pieces, proving just about every point Al made incorrect, but he still feels that CO2 is somehow a dire problem.
How someone as esteemed as he can maintain the dissonance that must be there is mind boggling.
Steve Berry (03:22:45) :
“People will be loath to treat any future alarm as real. ”
I actually think there are two potentially unintended positive consequences of the current “situation”:
a) People will realize that “scientists” are not holier than thou, but are real people subject to the same personal and organizational susceptibilities as created the Wall Street banking/credit crisis, Enron, etc. Hopefully, that realization will manifest in improvement in self-policing in the scientific community and not some draconian regulations (which often have negative unintended consequences)
b) The next generation of young people, being inspired to get into science to study climate, will bump into the real science. When they realize the magnitude of the fraud, they can come sheepishly back to their parents/grandparents and say “Mom/Dad. I’m so sorry. I was so idealistic and the pictures, video and music were so inspiring. I will dedicate my life to making sure that our society will never be subjecte to this again.”
…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
Months??? How about YEARS!!!
Just a few of my cents real quickly ->
People who are making the cliche Animal Farm analogy are missing the point and really not accurately painting the picture. (Note that I am neither endorsing nor dismissing the argument from the quoted interview, this is just for the sake of discussion).
The argument isn’t that Al Gore is personally justified in having a larger carbon footprint than other people; this is a strawman. It seems that time and time again, a certain flavor of skeptic likes to bring a decidedly political twist into the debate, alleging that AGW is a vessel for greater socialization or broadening of government. This completely misses the point and is nothing but an attempt to cast AGW as a false bogeyman; it is rooted in almost no truth.
Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual. Although it is common (at least from what I’ve seen) for some skeptics to sarcastically predict a future of “carbon audits” akin to IRS tax audits, I have never actually seen anything of the like proposed. Legislation or ideas focused on combating growing carbon emissions – including ideas such as cap’n’trade or outright taxing – almost always focus on industry, and big industry at that. I’m not passing a judgment on this – I merely wish people would recognize that this is the actual field on which AGW-related policy stands, not on some farsical notion that people will have to carry around high-tech cards which accumulate how much carbon dioxide they’ve been emitting into the air while they breathe.
Al Gore is not “more equal” than anyone else. You have to approach the idea of justifying his “carbon use” pragmatically and rationally. Al Gore is in a line of work which requires him to travel frequently and over great distances to meet with lawmakers and the public and talk about AGW. It would not be practical for him to carry out his line of work without using more carbon than the average American citizen. For example, I could drive a car to campus every single day; my dorm is about a mile to two miles from most of my classes. Or, I could walk or ride a bike – it makes little difference in my case, although these are ideally more “environmentally friendly” alternatives. So what do I do? Ignoring the fact that I don’t want to pay out the nose for gas, I walk to class.
Does Al Gore have the same option as I do? No; flying on jets is his only one. So he does the next best thing – he chooses to fly commercially. He could fly a private jet I suppose, but he recognizes that this unnecessarily adds another polluting vehicle in the air and acts in such a manner that reduces not necessarily his personal carbon footprint, but society’s net contribution. HIs house is a similar story; we’re all familiar with the character-defaming story that his house uses an absurd amount of energy. That’s because his house is also a personal office building. So what does he do to offset this? He uses a great deal of renewable energy (in his case, solar). The net effect is that yes, he uses a great deal of energy, but it comes from renewable resources, not fossil fuels, which again reduces not necessarily his carbon footprint, but society’s.
You can carry on your discussion about whether the facts in his presentation are 100% accurate or whether he is propagandizing or not. But it’s imperative that you be honest: the man is not a hypocrite, and all it takes to demonstrate it is a bit of rational analysis of the situation. After all, skeptics are supposed to be the rational ones who step back and analyze the situation – they’re not supposed to jump on partisan bickering based on false presumptions about policy and/or fact.
REPLY: Mr. Rothernberg writes, “Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual. ” Hmmm, that’s why my local city sustainability committee is recommending a “gas tax” as part of their city wide carbon assessment and mitigation. Citizens aka individuals, pay that tax.
“he chooses to fly commercially” Here is the scoop on all Gore’s private jet
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/gulfstream-from-nashville.html
“yes, he uses a great deal of energy, but it comes from renewable resources, not fossil fuels,” Note: Jet fuel That’s not fossil based petroleum? You can’t even get your research correct at a basic level, literally you missed the plane.
But here is the kicker:
You wrote: “But it’s imperative that you be honest: the man is not a hypocrite,” Imperative that WE be honest????
Counters WE aren’t the ones pushing this issue, WE aren’t the ones with conspicuous consumption, WE aren’t the ones who knowingly continue to make false statements, proven false by court and by science, to further the goal , WE aren’t the ones that refuse debate, WE aren’t the ones that deny the press access to our presentations as Gore does, WE aren’t the ones selling ourselves carbon credits from a company we setup, WE aren’t the ones taking millions in donations with no accountability.
You saying that WE need to be honest in the face of these things? Truly I’m insulted, and you’ve insulted the readership. You’ve crossed a line.
Mr. Rotherberg, you sir are not welcome here in my home anymore. Get out of my house on the Internet! – Anthony Watts
To Bobby Lane
Your elegant and wistful thoughts about the downward trend of culture left me feeling a gratitude laced with sadness.
Gratitude for sharp minds that ‘get’ it.
Gratitude for blogs like Anthony’s that permit the expression of divergent opinions.
Sadness that the best may be behind us.
Sadness that so many of my friends and acquaintances have succumbed to the Warmist mantra and march like lemmings toward the sea.
I am old and may not see this all played out. I’d like to have left on an ‘up’ note, but take comfort in knowing that there will always be voices resisting the usurpation of our freedoms.
“Were it not so real, and yet surreal, I should find it dispassionately fascinating.”
“There really is only one explanation; Al Gore’s life is worth more than ours.”
Actually, I believe the explanation is far simpler. Al Gore is in it for the money, nothing more, nothing less. Why the Gories don’t see through this shows magnitude and scope of the deception. Hudini would marvel at Gore’s ability to keep people focused on saving the planet from doom, which forces governments to adopt policies which mandate the use of the technology produced by companies that his venture firm owns large portions of, so that his bank account continues to grow.
Ironic that most Gories detest business and capitalism, yet that’s what’s driving Al and his “Green Money Machine”. The fact that his lifestyle is a testament to his total disregard for the environment shouldn’t be all that surprising.
Jim
Re: Counters
Amen, Anthony.
There’s divergent opinion,
and then there’s the insult – the lie nourished at the bosom of hypocrisy masquerading as reasoned dissension.
Good riddance.
[…] this in mind – Gore isn’t always, well, truthfull. Even the AGW true believers admit Gore is not the most honest broker when it comes to Global Warming. But as long as they get what they want, then lying is perfectly OK I […]
In several threads, not just this one, folks mention they don’t favor throwing pollution into the air just for the fun of it, or words to that effect. In reading that, I begin to wonder if conservation and care-for-the-environment are conceptually opposed to a position that CO2 is not a climate driver but climate driven. In my mind they are not mutually exclusive concepts.
A second thought comes to mind. Research and development in industry used to be unfocused. AT&T’s Bell Labs was a prime example. The Big Bang Theory originated here, along with the development of digital sound and video. The transistor and laser also had their births in those New Jersey labs. While all these discoveries had some basis for telecommunications use, the researchers were free to explore the subject with few borders.
But now we have focused R and D. The reason is simple, the unfocused research produces commercially viable ideas once in a while and is expensive. Focused R and D is dedicated on getting a money making idea to market quickly. Because speed and cost are such large factors, promising but off vision avenues are discarded in the race to production.
In weaving these three thoughts together, I think we find the present AGW argument. Using clean coal technology as an example, if environmental concerns weren’t a focus of this group, we’d be cheering on changes that gave more power per coal pound than changes that cleaned the stack gasses of mercury and soot.
In my view, the focus that R&D uses now is migrating over to science. The premise for grant applications is changing from something like “Explore the effects, if any, that CO2 has on worldwide climate,” to “Prove the existance of a positive link between increased CO2 and worldwide temperature”. Which gives more bang for the buck? Which has the greater promise of products for both the financial and manufacturing industries?
Maybe, just maybe the problem is not the scientist at all, but the question that was asked. Maybe 42 is the correct answer but we’ve misunderstood the question.
Mike
“Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual.”
I can hardly believe that anyone could fall for this nonsense. Every single tax is paid by the individual.
Thanks, Anthony
counters: “Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual.”
I wouldn’t exactly agree – in the UK, only two years ago David Milliband was proposing this carbon allowance scheme, which would involve every citizen being issued with carbon ration cards. It has since fallen by the wayside, thank goodness.
In line with the elegiac tone of many comments, I’d ask: is this the way the West ends, not with a bang (military conquest) but a whimper (self-inflicted Third World-dom?) I hope not.
Counters,
I do try not to poison the well, but sometimes a person poisons his own well. Your defense of Al Gore is so disingenuous that it will be hard for my thoughts not to be affected by it when reading your other comments.
In various blogs, I have avoided discussing the personality or character of Al Gore; yet if there are actually people who believe as you do, then some type of statement should be made.
The bottom line first. Al Gore is as much of a hypocrite as those TV pseudo-evangelists who engage in scandalous sexual or financial activities. And at least the latter are often apologetic and remorseful about it.
Yes, a traveler will use more energy than a stay-at-home person, but much of Gore’s energy usage is not due to necessity – rather it is for his convenience and comfort. Regarding his home, he has added solar to his home, but that is like the politician who gets caught with a prostitute and then saying, “I won’t continue to see her.” Even after adding solar, he uses an immense amount of fossil fuel. And then there is his boat . . . .
The home office as an excuse – ridiculous! I have a home office, but I do not use the type of energy he does. I added solar energy in the 1970s to my home – decades before Gore faced insurmountable scandal if he did not do something.
His lack of honesty in his presentations should not be tolerated by people who agree with his politics, and people who do not agree should not have to suffer through the dishonesty. Have you seen his follow-up to AIT? While talking about declining Arctic ice and destruction of the shoreline, he shows a video of home tumbling down to the sea. In truth, the home actually was in Newfoundland, hundreds of miles south of the Arctic, and the home was lost due to construction and ponding issues, not due to the ocean. On another (but less obvious) note — but one which further taught me not to trust anything he says — he explains that the stratosphere continues to cool which shows that it must be CO2 causing the warming spell. However, data shows that the stratosphere hasn’t cooled for 13 or 14 years, and that time frame is longer than the warming spell that existed in the satellite era. (Naturally, one could argue that the warming spells of the twentieth century are longer than the satellite era, but we do not have stratospheric data pre-satellite, and one also should be suspicious of much pre-satellite information packaged by biased individuals.) Looking back to AIT, his attribution to Thompson for his hockey stick graph is a grievious form of dishonesty.
Hypocrisy is one thing, but I am even more frightened with his conclusion. Consistent with his suggestion of civil disobedience, he concluded that individuals cannot be allowed to make their own energy choices. We must use the power of the gun (government) to force individuals to do what he wants accomplished. That is a frightening concept, especially when framed with misinformation and dishonesty.
Regarding who pays for AGW legislation (or who is impacted by it), it is incredulous that you would maintain it is industry, not the indiviudal. Biofuels legislation — driven by the AGW agenda — has affected food prices, leading to food riots and deaths. California has discussed regulating home thermostate temperatures. A couple of decades ago, Minnesota instituted minimal purchases of gasoline at stations in a conservation effort. Logically, denials of coal plants will increase our dependence on foreign oil with plenty of impact on the individual. Any cap-and-trade policy will ultimately be paid for by the individual, not by industry.
Anthony, please let counters back onto the comments. It’s always a good exercise to think through counters to his arguments. There aren’t many dissident voices here.
REPLY: You have a point, we’ll see how contrite he is with an apology first. I’ve always encouraged debate, and to do that, we do need opposing POV’s. But at the same time telling me and the readership “you need to be honest” in the face of someone else pointing out Gore’s problems is way over the top. – Anthony
“In line with the elegiac tone of many comments, I’d ask: is this the way the West ends, not with a bang (military conquest) but a whimper (self-inflicted Third World-dom?) I hope not.”
—————————————
“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Abraham Lincoln
They don’t care if they argue from a point of truth. They only care for the outcome.
I have to say since we are not smart enough to figure anything out ourselves it sure is a good thing we have these enlightened people to show us the way.
By the way, I just did a new post which is quite revealing about the math behind hockey sticks. I learned a few new things myself.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/demo-of-flawed-hockey-stick-math-using-actual-nh-data/
I should really stop trying to think so hard.
Al Gore uses 20 times as much energy. per year, as the average American. Or , 100 times as the global average.
In one house.
He owns at least 3.
But the greatest hypocrisy is either:
A) buying a condo in San Francisco, on the water front. Obviously even he does not believe his own statements on sea level rise.
B) Accusing others of being energy company shills, when he has made 100 million on global warming. (His 2000 disclosure listed his wealth at 1-2 million. Forbes now estimates his wealth at 100 million. )
Wow.
Johnny B.
Beautiful.
Sobering.
” . . . If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Abraham Lincoln
To add on & emphasize what other posters have said:
• In a civil society, the ends never justify the means. Lying for cause, no matter how noble some may perceive it to be, is unacceptable. That might be OK for some totalitarian governments, but not in a democracy.
• If deliberate falsifications & exxagerations are needed to try to convince society that they should accept the AGW proposal, that is pretty much the definition of fraud. Perpetrators should go to jail as fraud is a crime.
• This is fundamentally an issue of science. Science is about facts & data, not falsifications & exxagerations. They have no place in a scientific debate (now if we are talking a politcal debate, then that’s a different story …. )
• Rhetorically, If science is about facts & data, why are “skeptics” called “deniers” when they are the ones looking at ALL the data & hypotheses. The fact is that it is the AGW crowd that routinely “denies” data & all other hypothesis about climate change. The skeptic crowd should address this by developing a nice negative label like they have given us.
Thanks for the post. The book looks interesting enough to check it out, but the author’s apparent bias raises an important issue. Anyone who advises the president about science issues will be skewing public policy in a big way, not just for the next 4 – or 8 – years, but for a long time to come, since policies put in place now will likely have to be addressed in some way by future presidents.
WRT the present candidates’ preparedness for, and their scripted replies to, these issues, I was struck by how the questions themselves frame the response.
One of those (Q # 2), certainly demonstrates this. Just posing the question shapes the respondent’s answer, as well as the listener’s feelings about the issue.
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
The implied biases here are obvious to readers of this site, starting with the presence of any climate-related questions to be fielded by a presidential candidate. Why should any politician have to concern himself with matters of the climate, rather than whether the people and the country are prepared to deal with its vicissitudes?
Must our president seriously address whether climate on earth is a system which is Too Big To (Let It) Fail?
Obama’s and McCain’s scripted replies to “The Top 14 Science Issues” is:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42
Of course, the candidates’ views and knowledge about science issues are of great concern to the country and its economy. I’ll be watching to see how they address these issues “spontaneously” in their town hall style debate tonight.
Counters:
“Legislation or ideas focused on combating growing carbon emissions – including ideas such as cap’n’trade or outright taxing – almost always focus on industry, and big industry at that”
How naive to think that industry wouldn’t pass on the cost to their customers, which are you and I.
johnnyb, thanks for the Lincoln quote.
I don’t think Richard Muller understands how much Al Gore’s hypocrisy undermines his own sales pitch; “do as I say, not as I do” is only slightly less obnoxious than “let ’em eat cake”.