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.
Johnnyb (10:46:21) :
Thank you for the quote…that one gets saved!
Anthony
I regret that I must agree with your action on Counters. While we do need those who present the AGW argument to keep us honest and on our toes, his arguments seem to lack a certain touch of reality. We may express veiws that are flat wrong…but honest mistakes are honest mistakes and not a case of putting on blinders and drinking the coolaid…just as you are wonderfully strict on restricting personal attacks, we have to have some standards for intellectual honesty….
Somewhat OT: The current use of the word conservation bothers me. In the 60s I took a course called “Conservation of Natural Resources”…it basically covered using resources efficiantly…the current definition seems to be more along the lines of “we used X much last year so next year we need to use X-1. That is NOT conservation…it is growth limitation under a different name…and limiting growth is a dead end…nature never stands still…at least not near the top of the food chain…if you don’t mind lilving like an alligator, then standing still works just fine…..
cdl
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
Uhm… there is such a thing as TELECOMMUTING!!!
Enquirer, can you give us an example of someone dying from the high cost (now, about $0.075/lb) of Field Corn?
Steve M,
Yes, I did a double take on that one. I had to reread it several times to make sure I hadn’t misread, but, he actually proposed that we (the United States) should pay to build ‘clean coal’ power plants in China to support their economic growth. ???
Counters,
Beg to differ in one respect. All taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer in the price of goods and services. It’s why I think Corporate taxes are, well, less than good policy. A Harvard Study a few years ago indicated that, in the US, the price of virtually every product carries roughly a 22% ‘hidden’ tax component. Don’t be fooled into thinking that ‘Carbon’ taxes applied to corporate entities are somehow different.
“Most wind, wave and solar energy disinformation ….”
Does JamesG happen to have some information to indicate that these technologies actual work and do not have huge environmental impact?
While I an clearly an AGW skeptic, I have no problem coming up with a long list of good solutions like coal bed methane.
The doom and gloom crowd are only interested in solutions that do not work.
There is a very good reason that the white asked people who make electricity instead of a physicist from Berkley. Mitigating AGW has been an official high priority of the Bush administration.
Please Dr. Scientist explain again why AGW should be a priority again. Maybe we change change policy to AGW to a super duper high priority.
Just how public awareness do we need?
A good assessment of how ‘Global Warming’ is now effectively a religion.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Thomas Gough
Counters must be living in Wonderland. The carbon emission tax is indeed a tax on all of us. Is anyone gullible enough to believe industry won’t pass the cost on to the consumer?
I’m disappointed in Richard Muller. Several years ago he was skeptical that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Apparently, he’s changed his tune… working for UC Berkeley, is he feeling pressure to switch sides and join the consensus?
Veee havf, awlvays, set, da endz, dey joosteeveye da meeens!
Da, da, comrades!
We always knew that truth never mattered to these people.
Now, the rest of the world is seeing the lack of credibility from Gore and others on this issue.
I loved the compare and contrast of the “so-called” Green Gore home versus the President’s home in Crawford, TX. One sucked down power and the other was very self-sufficient. We will let you guess which one was which! 🙂
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
Here is a quote from David Suzuki:
I’m not an economist but economists like Marc Jaccard of Simon Fraser University say that a carbon tax is the most effective way of influencing behaviour and believe me, having spent over 40 years trying to influence people’s behaviour, I can tell you that is very hard to do.
If you can’t educate people to do what you want, the next step is to force them.
There’s usually a reference to a man with a funny mustache in an internet comment like this, but I want to skip over him and bring up the other man with a funny mustache. This movement recruited with an attractive ideology, but didn’t hesitate to impose things on its own countrymen, for their own good of course. But who do you blame? The charismatic/snake-charming leader, or the gullible/brain-washed followers who go out and do the dirty work? The person who incites the lynch mob, or the lynch mob?
I’d blame an educational system which devalues scientific thinking. Without that, we are animals. Protect us from human nature.
I lurk, but rarely post.
After 3 tours in Iraq and a 28 year career serving our country, a bit bloodied out there, I decided to go back to school. After all, what is an EOD ( was unhinged and would knowingly walk up to ordnance and try to make it happy – until we got robots! lol) tech supposed to do in private industry? 🙂
I have found that they are teaching AGW as a matter of fact in “science” classes. The product they churn out is alarmingly ignorant of a great many things involving the “science” of climate.
But they can chant “Sustainabe “x””, “Carbon bad” and a host of other nonsensical garbage.
Even when it’s shown that CO2 can’t possibly be doing what is ascribed to it, our so-called educational establishment will have set us up for round two of whatever the flavor may be of the next “anthropogenically” caused crisis
Paul Linsay (10:36:43) :
I have to concur with the banishment. Counters’ early posts raised some interesting points, but lately they’ve had less and science and more and more agitation. The last post is just over the top. Perhaps he’ll learn a little bit more about how money flows between individuals, corporations, and government after he leaves the Ivory Tower for real life.
Everything useful he had to say he’s said.
Now that Leif Sval-however-he-spells-it, the old stuck-in-photosphere scientist, he’s a dissident worth keeping. 🙂 At least he gives me a good idea of what I have to learn to take him on. If I only had the time. I’d probably lose, anyway.
On-topic:
I read the interview last night (in between bouts of kidney stone pain), I saved the first quote in a collection of quotes for future reference. After reading this item, I realized I read it as Gore’s technique, but forgot that it was coming from a True Scientist(tm). So I saved that one too.
I find it very disappointing, to put it mildly, that a scientist can exist who can set aside the basic tenets of scientific method and truth seeking to excuse the actions of anyone who doesn’t appreciate scientific method. In Gore’s case, it’s understandable. In Hansen’s case, it should drum him out of the scientific community. In Muller’s case he should explain the importance of scientific method to the other two.
In case Dr. Muller comes reading:
Sir, the URL hanging off my name goes to my essay Science, Method, Climatology, and Forgetting the Basics may be a useful refresher for you. While I am not a scientist, I could have been but my calling is programming computers. I am disappointed that you appear to have less respect for scientific method than I have.
One really sad part about the AGW scam is that it will discredit real science. 20 years from now, when someone tells a creationist or a flying-saucer believer that the scientific consensus is against them, they’ll point out how the consensus was for AGW at the turn of the century. “They were wrong about that, and they’re wrong about this”.
Al Gore is in a “line of work”? Funny, I never thought of it that way. I guess if he has a “line of work”, then so does the Mafia.
I suppose he kisses his wife Tipper and says “bye, hon, I’m off for another day of spreading AGW propaganda, lies, and alarmism, in order to garner fame and fortune at the expense of scientific truth, freedom, raising energy costs, and lowering peoples standards of living worlwide.” “That’s nice, dear”, she says. “Have a nice day”.
I hate these [implied expletive deleted] the most. The ones that act like they’re humoring you by conceding a few mundane and irrelevant points, all the while continuing to bleat the mantras anytime they can crowbar them into the conversation. Al Gore is a lying hypocrite. Nothing he says or does is for the good of anyone but himself. To “concede” that he necessarily exaggerates the effects of AGW is to spew the same arrogant, assumed-moral-high-ground, cognitive dissonance that Gore himself is guilty of. [snip] The people behind AGW are the same ones who were behind “political correctness” campaigns in the 90s. Wouldn’t they be surprised to feel the force of my lack of acceptance of both…
We need to change the paradigm. These people no longer even feel shame openly admitting that they are lying and manipulating to get what they want. Instead of letting them control the game by reacting to whatever ridiculous proclamation they’re making today, we need to reject it all, and strike back with heavy prejudice. Al Gore seems to think civil disobedience is another acceptable means to an end on this issue. Considering that his private residence wastes more energy in a month than most of us do in a year, maybe we should take him up on his assertions. The new paradigm should necessitate strict accountablilty for one’s own words. Might as well start the implementation at the source of the problem.
Time for a Pkatt stupid questions of the day.
Im trying to ask this without opening the door for the same old us vs them argument so bear with me. We have all seen the charts of Co2 on a steady rise. Meanwhile, the temp of the world does its own rollercoaster. There was talk from the GW camp that Co2 forces warming. But on the other side of the debate there is talk that Co2 follows warming. So with our cooler temperatures have we seen a reduction of Co2 or is Co2 still on a steady rise? (Especially non human caused carbon) Will that be a delayed reaction? Will a recovery of Artic ice act like a big carbon sink or something? Anyhow, I was curious because from what I’ve read more carbon in a warm climate makes for a green earth, but what does more carbon in a cold climate do?
Winter looks like it is going to come about 3 weeks early this year.. woot:(
Well heck as long as Im asking questions.. Does the movement of magnetic north …http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp_e.php … have any possible connection with the long term ice anomalies?
The “climate crisis” is in reality a western nation environmentalist crisis – the environmentalists promote their beliefs, while the most of the world says “nonsense”.
In July 2008 The Government of India published a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which states: “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.” India is taking a pragmatic approach and has no intention of cutting CO2 emissions if it affects its economic growth. The report Overview states: “India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.”
Russia also disagrees with the politicized western view. “Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol … say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. When President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.”” Russian scientists state: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. This problem is overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis for important political decisions” and “The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases“.
China – the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter – released its plan on climate change in 2007, supporting the rights of developing nations to pursue growth. The Chinese spokesman said “The consequences of inhibiting their development would be far greater than not doing anything to fight climate change … our general stance is that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets”.
With China, India and Russia saying No to emissions reductions, the believers are out of luck with their CF lightbulbs and self-taxation.
If the world does go into a cooling mode Joe Sixpack is not going to be willing to listen when a true world endangering event arises.
And,
what will be the consequences in the future when science does identify a real problem and no one believes the arguments?
Yes, a point I continue to make.
To think I once aligned myself with this camp. I am disgusted.
I see no shame in reacting to a false alarm. The fault is not with you.
In this case of AGW, very significant portions of the world’s GDP being misallocated.
And even worse, economic growth is being prevented. With hideous results for the world’s poor.
Bobby Lane: I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do NOT think either civilization or democracy is on the decline. Part of democracy is the freedom of idiots to go ’round the twist (and vote that way).
As Churchill once remarked, a five-minute conversation with the average voter is the best argument against democracy.
@Counters.
“Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual”
The Australian Governments Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) due in 2010 is broadly based.
As an indiviudal I expect to pay for it in the following ways.
1. Through higher petrol (gas) prices when I fill up my car.
2. Through higher electricity prices when I light my home.
3. Through higher gas prices when I heat my home in winter.
4. Through higher food prices (refridgeration, transport, shop lighting costs passed on to the end consumer) when I go to the supermarket.
5. Through higher prices for all products (shops lighting, and other electricity costs passed onto the consumer) that I buy.
I fully expect to pay a substantial TAX on nearly every transaction of modern life.
If Anthony lets you back on this site – please explain why I wont have to pay those costs.
@evanjones.
Agreed. It is only the western european democracies and the anglo-saxon world that has been infected with the cultural virus of AGW.
If we continue down the path of economic suicide the other major nations will very happily take world leadership away from the west.
seeking past the surface for the real answers.
Very often the surface yields great answers. But one must always be willing to do the necessary double-take!
Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual.
. . .
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.
Oh. Lots and lots of individuals, then.
Sadness that the best may be behind us.
Now don’t you go getting all pessimistic on us!
I am also a student of history and to my fellow historians I only ask that they take a gander at he world’s horrible past before thinking we are on the decline.
Stupidity comes and goes. Fads ebb and flow. Most of the stupidities of the past were incredibly more stupid and incredibly more destructive than this AGW silliness.
Whoops.
Previous comment was in response to Alan C.
Taking from Anthony’s reply to counters, though this is not about the latter, I thought I would point out something rather obvious. He says:
Mr. Rothernberg writes, “Even the most dramatic plans of “carbon taxing” rarely extend to the individual. ”
This is about as dumb a statement as there has ever been. All taxation extends to the individual, period. Whether that is directly through government taxation or indirectly through higher prices for taxed goods. The consumer/voter/taxpayer are all the same person: the individual. Governments derive their monies from the taxpayer, and companies derive their monies from the consumer. We may say we are taxing this or that company, this or that good, or for this or that reason, but it still ALWAYS falls on the individual.
Personally, this is what deeply dissatisfies me with both political parties. Neither of them, though especially the Democrats, have much real respect for the individual taxpayer. This is not about tax cuts. This is about wholesale fiscal responsibility, a poignant fact in the light of our latest government-originated and government-treated crisis.
Maybe counters is becoming more extreme in his comments as the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the evidence grows.