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.
RE: Kum Dollison (12:46:36) :
There are several media sites that one could go for the answer to your question.
Here is one that discusses the deaths of seven individuals:
http://www.aidg.org/component/option,com_jd-wp/Itemid,34/p,1049/
Naturally, food riots are much more complex than just biofuels legislation, but it is paramount to recognize the unintended consequences of such legislation.
Hypocrisy is nothing new for Gore. During the presidential campaign some enterprising reporter found out that Gore owned a house that he was renting to a family. Turned out the house was a wreck. In other words Gore was a slumlord. And here are some more skeletons.
I have been reading through this thread while listening to today’s Presidential Debate on the radio, it has been an interesting experience in both respects.
Of particular interest, of course, was Mr Counters’ contribution.
It is often enlightening when those who speak with apparent authority on the scientific aspects of the AGW debate decide to dip their toe into the political waters. The scientific case for the alarmist cause is a necessary precondition to any of the political issues arising at all, but it is only a precondition. If the scientific case is made the baton changes hands and the debate is then political rather than scientific.
I suspect that Mr Counters was doing nothing more than seeking to defend the side of the scientific debate to which he subscribes. In doing so he conflated political attacks on St Al of Gore with attacks on the science. In fact, 100% proof that St Al is a money-grubbing hypocrite would add precisely nothing to the scientific debate and, therefore, conceding that he is a money-grubbing hypocrite concedes nothing about the science. Equally, 100% proof that St Al believes everything he says and acts from a selfless desire to save the planet from disaster does not impinge one iota on the accuracy, validity or truth of the scientific arguments on which he relies.
I have insufficient technical knowledge to say anything about the science other than that the AGW doomsday scenario sounds like fanciful nonsense to me. What do I base that on? My own personal version of common sense. Nothing else. My common sense is the only analytical tool I have at my disposal. This means that I concentrate my attention on something I am qualified to understand, namely the practical effect of the steps we are told we must take to stave-off doomsday.
Mr Counters’ error was to carry his belief in the doomsday scenario into his assessment of those who question the “remedial” measures.
There are, after all, only three possible “true” situations:
(1) The AGW doomsday scenario is false. If this is the position, everything else in the debate is otiose, unless:
(2) The AGW doomsday scenario is false but there are some deleterious consequences of man-made CO2. In this case we must assess what, if anything, can be done about those deleterious effects and weigh the cost of countering them against the cost of business-as-usual (an exercise in which the balance might change over time).
(3) The AGW doomsday scenario is true. In this case we must assess what, if anything, we can do about it and weigh the costs of taking one or more of those actions against the cost of not taking them.
There is no fourth option, although some seem to suggest there is. They say the AGW doomsday scenario is true and we must do what (often self-appointed) “experts” or, if you prefer, “authorities” say we must do. This is to miss a vital step in the analysis because it presumes not just that something must be done but that the one thing identified by the experts/authorities is what must be done. It fails to take into account that decisions about what, if anything, must be done is a political decision rather than a scientific one and is, therefore, a matter for debate and persuasion and not a matter for diktat.
As for Mr Counters’ suggestion that additional taxes on business are not taxes on individuals, I am a kind man and will put that down to him not concentrating while typing. We all say silly things sometimes.
And as for the debate, I thought they both did very well and wonder whether it will prove another example of the Kennedy-Nixon phenomenon of 1960 – those who listened thought one candidate won but the other was the victor for those who watched.
Alan S. Blue (20:10:59) :
What would happen if we just flat-out mined the carbonates from the sea floor?
This shouldn’t have any effect. The presence of sea-floor carbonates has no influence on deposition of additional carbonates. Most basinal sea floor carbonates (vs reefal carbonates) are formed by pelagic oozes from planktonic organisms. I have seen proposals to “fertilize” the oceans to make these planktonic organisms thrive , thus increase the carbon sink.
…. but that’s not the point – if there is no problem, then there is no need for a solution. It would just be a waste of taxpayers dollars & resources.
I would like to address some philosophical aspects of the debate. The intellectual underpinning of the recent ( last 400 years, or so ) rise in Western civilization was the free and objective search for truth through scientific methods and inquiry. This started with Galileo and the heliocentric description of the Solar system which was very strongly resisted by the Catholic Church on religious and ideological grounds. When Copernicus’ and Galileo’s views prevailed, there was a tremendous burst of activity in scientific discoveries. Scientific inquiry has become extremely successful and well respected. Unfortunately, it has attracted the attention of the political class. There was a crude attempt by Stalin and Lysenko in Soviet Russia, where they attempted to manufacture “scientific” results to put the Soviet system in a more favorable light. However, that was nothing compared to Gore and Hansen multi decade efforts to create a sense of panic and emergency about Global Warming through the methods of political campaigns, directing funds to supporters, marginalizing opponents and most of all distorting scientific observations to serve their purposes. I am not particularly worried about Global Warming and everybody will be able to judge for themselves whether it is happening , or not. The biggest damage inflicted, however, was not on society or the economical impact. Science has been the biggest victim. It took scientific inquiry back to the days prior to Galileo, when the primary requirement for any thesis was that it conformed with the orthodoxy. Fortunately, science attracts bright and inquisitive people and if Galileo could come forth under much more difficult conditions, I am sure that there will be people not just the well known “skeptics”, who will come forward and challenge the existing orthodoxy.
FB,
What about option (4) AGW theories are true, the planet can be warmed through the actions of humanity, but the effects are positive and good for Mankind and Life As We Know It?
Personally, I am skeptical of AGW. However, should it be the case that we CAN do something to warm the planet, I say let’s do it!
Warmer is Better. Fight the Ice.
That is included in (3), Mr Dubrasich, although it is helpful to isolate it to show that the wind does not necessarily always blow in one direction.
I would like to point out an interesting article “How the Global Warming Hoax was Born”.
see http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
In it is shown how Margaret Mead laid out the necessity for natural scientists to manufacture the science “that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats [sic].” Note the ‘artificial warning’.
The more I get into this business, the less I think this is about science, and more about modern eugenics and population control. There are some very serious players who actually hope modern civilization crumbles to save the planet. Prince Phillip has actually said, and I am paraphrasing, that he hopes he will be reincarnated as a lethal virus and infect billions of people to, ta da, save the planet.
This explains many things, most notably how in many circles, the debate really isn’t about CO2 or global warming as evidenced by the rejection of nuclear or carbon capture. It is about population control through ending the developed countries growth and not letting the undeveloped countries develop.
We are, I’m afraid, at a tipping point that was planned as far back as 1975 and set into motion in Rio in 1992. We have been duped and we will pay a tremendous price. Remember, once these laws are on the books, they will, most probably, never come off………….
Anthony,
Regarding you banishment of counters…one thing you may want to consider, all of his remarks were easily rebutted and the rug pulled out from under him. Debate needs to be encouraged and counters points were in the same context as the article. Your spanking of counters (in rebutting his points) was in effect a spanking of Mr Muller and the whole Gore movement.
Remember the Pat Benatar song…Hit Me With Your Best Shot…bring ’em on.
I would love to see Gavin or Mann or Hansen posting here on a regular basis and attempting to prove their sides theory. It would show that they are willing to put the planet/humanity before pride.
The involvement of the Thatcher government in the birth of modern AGW propaganda was succinctly put forth by WUWT frequent commentator, Richard Courtney, in Global Warming: How It All Began
EJ: “I would like to point out an interesting article “How the Global Warming Hoax was Born”.
Dee Norriss: “The involvement of the Thatcher government in the birth of modern AGW propaganda was succinctly put forth by WUWT frequent commentator, Richard Courtney, in Global Warming: How It All Began”
The 21st Century Science and Technology article claims that a “Global Warming Hoax” was birthed by Margaret Mead in 1975 for the purposes of eugenics and population control.
The Richard Courtney article claims that global warming is not a conspiracy, but was nevertheless created by Margaret Thatcher for political purposes, and was picked up by interests driven by motives of wealth and power.
Now I’m confused. Is AGW a hoax or is it a non-conspiratorial conjunction of interests? Was it created by Margaret Mead in 1975, or by Margaret Thatcher, perhaps in 1979, or maybe later? Is its purpose eugenics and population control, or wealth and power?
Total good riddance.
I hope we debate this in depth. (Acknowledging said debate is irrelevant to whatever Anthony does.)
For now, I have to leave for a while. Just know that I think talking with counters is a detrimental waste of community time and resources.
Are they not getting it? At all? I came across this in a lifestyle magazine I perused while waiting at an orthodontist’s office.
The quote missing from my previous post is…
Sir Richard Branson looks to the skies over Necker Island, one of the four Caribbean islands he owns. The Virgin tycoon defends his jet-set lifestyle. “I honestly think that the problem with CO2 emissions is not going to be solved by Richard Branson travelling less often by plane,” he says. “It’s a global problem on a totally different scale.”
I’ve read to this point, and as always I am beyond impressed with the quality of commenting I’m reading. Even the banished are far more coherent and well-mannered than many in other forums and blogs I regularly follow.
My own comments? Not, I fear, as eloquent or groundbreaking as others here, but that won’t stop me from typing them.
al-Gore has decided to bring himself into the cult of personality, or “superstardom”, and plays the martyr role quite well. “Why, oh why, do those horrible right-wing polluters hate the Earth so much? Why do they argue against the science that my advisers tell me will fool… er, convince them?”
Hansen? NOT so good at the cult of personality martyrdom role. “This administration is trying to SILENCE MY VOICE!!!!!” (Don’t look at the massive list of publications, data manipulations, public appearances, pontifications, etc…)
Either way… I run into this argument on a regular basis: “even if we’re NOT….. shouldn’t we…..” This is not an argument. It is a childishly naive way to follow the instructions that are programmed into your brain.
If we’re not increasing the atmospheric load of CO2, if some other process is at work causing the incremental rise, then reducing CO2 output is absolutely worthless.
If the rising CO2 is not affecting climate as the alarmists claim, then reducing CO2 output is absolutely worthless, and worrying about whether or not our contribution is causing the atmospheric increase is moot.
If the solar factor is greater than that credited by alarmists, then reducing CO2 output is absolutely worthless.
But everyone reading this (both of you who got this far) already know this. What I mostly object to is being LIED TO. I despise it. Lying to someone implies that you think they are too stupid to know you are lying, too clueless to find out facts for themselves, and probably denotes that you are too arrogant to even care. These are characteristics I have seen demonstrated amply by Gore and Hansen, and David Suzuki, and Greenpeace, and virtually every other person or entity associated with “environmentalism”.
Is there anything the “environmentalist movement” ever got right? Anything? DDT? Dead wrong. Ozone? Dead wrong. Rainforest? Dead wrong. Ice Age? Dead wrong. Global warming? Dead wrong.
Ah, but they KNOW they are wrong. And that is the part that enrages me. I really truly don’t care about the science or the argument when it comes to some arrogant, ignorant blowhard LYING to me, and it’s even more infuriating when they use my public money (CBC for Suzuki, NASA for Hansen) to lie right at me.
Anyway there’s my soapbox. (And for the record, bye bye counters, I won’t miss you).
Brendan,
Now I’m confused. Is AGW a hoax or is it a non-conspiratorial conjunction of interests? Was it created by Margaret Mead in 1975, or by Margaret Thatcher, perhaps in 1979, or maybe later? Is its purpose eugenics and population control, or wealth and power?
It’s actually a lot worse than you think, Brendan. See here for the definitive truth.
JP.
coming next year…
Climate Entitlements !
‘‘(a) FUNDS ESTABLISHED.—There are established in the Treasury of the United States the following funds:
‘‘(1) The Climate Change Management Fund.
‘‘(2) The National Energy Efficiency Fund.
‘‘(3) The Low Income Consumer Climate Change Rebate Fund.
‘‘(4) The Consumer Climate Change Rebate Fund.
‘‘(5) The Supplemental Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
‘‘(6) The Low-Carbon Technology Fund.
‘‘(7) The Green Jobs Fund.
‘‘(8) The National Climate Change Adaptation Fund.
‘‘(9) The Natural Resource Climate Change Adaptation Fund.
‘‘(10) The International Clean Technology and Adaptation Fund.
‘‘(11) The Strategic Reserve Fund.
How much is all this going to cost?
Not to worry! You get a REBATE !
There’s even a “Green Jobs Fund,” so when you lose your real job, the government will give you a Green Job! EVERYBODY WINS!
@ur momisugly John and Brendan:
Have you considered that perhaps the conjunction of interests continued to grow? And without a through examination of the interests involved with the AGW movement, it could seem like a conspiracy to some?
Since both of you are committed believers, I don’t expect either of you to address the subject matter brought up by myself and EJ. Sort of the same way I expect that Brendan will never provide the oft-requested methodology for that questionable survey he was waving around here a few weeks ago.
How can anyone trust your pronouncements on the science of AGW when you do yourselves a huge disservice with this sort of behavior?
More from the ” Dingell-Boucher bill, ” dang near certain to pass the congress next year (maybe this year).
Here’s a “Green Job” for you:
” Sec. 727 Green Jobs Training, (C) Energy Efficiency Engineers Program.
‘(3) GRANTS.—The program under this subsection shall include grants from the Secretary to companies hiring and training energy efficiency engineers to match up to 50 percent of the salaries and apprenticeship training costs for those engineers. The grants shall be made available only upon the completion by the engineers of a minimum apprenticeship period of 2 years. ”
YOU can become an “Energy Efficiency Engineer” and get two years of taxpayer-paid training !
(I wonder how many “energy efficiency engineers” it really does take to change a compact fluorescent light bulb.)
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
Brendan H
Now I’m confused. Is AGW a hoax or is it a non-conspiratorial conjunction of interests? Was it created by Margaret Mead in 1975, or by Margaret Thatcher, perhaps in 1979, or maybe later? Is its purpose eugenics and population control, or wealth and power?
The simplistic answer to your questions is “YES!”
It was a flawed scientific theory used to support an agenda…and everyone else climed aboard. It goes to the old saying, that if you want to be seen as a leader, find a parade and get in front of it. That is clearly what algor has done. AGW is a broad enough concept that virtually anyone can find a way to hitch on and and make a buck, or promote their favorite agenda. Examples are far too numerous to mention. Fellow travelers all. The first test is: If what they are promoting will give them more power or money, then it is about the money and power. If what they propose forwards their personal agenda, then it is about the agenda. Mead had one…so did Thatcher. If they have just moved several miles inland and are telling everyone to get the hell away from the coast…THEN the may actually believe in AGW. Don’t look at what they say…look at what they DO!
Everything cycles and this too shall pass. In not so many years AGW will go into the dustbin of history along with “the earth is flat” and “Communism Works”. The real problem is the enormous damage AGW will do before it fades away.
cdl
THEY JUST CAN’T WAIT to inflict a full-blown CLIMATE TAKEOVER on an already struggling economy
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/CLIM08_001_xml.pdf
TITLE I—CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM
Sec. 101. Amendment of Clean Air Act.
‘‘TITLE VII—GREENHOUSE GAS CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM
‘‘PART A—DESIGNATION AND REGISTRATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES
‘‘Sec. 701. Designation of greenhouse gases.
‘‘Sec. 702. Carbon dioxide equivalent value of greenhouse gases.
‘‘Sec. 703. Greenhouse gas registry.
‘‘PART B—CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM RULES
‘‘Sec. 711. Emission allowances.
‘‘Sec. 712. Compliance obligation.
‘‘Sec. 713. Penalty for noncompliance.
‘‘Sec. 714. Trading.
‘‘Sec. 715. Banking and borrowing.
‘‘Sec. 716. Strategic reserve.
‘‘Sec. 717. Permits.
‘‘PART D—DOMESTIC OFFSETS PROGRAM
‘‘PART E—INTERNATIONAL EMISSION ALLOWANCES AND OFFSET CREDITS
‘‘PART G—INTERNATIONAL RESERVE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM
TITLE II—CARBON MARKET OVERSIGHT
‘‘PART IV—REGULATION OF CARBON MARKETS
TITLE IV—HYDROFLUOROCARBONS
Sec. 401. HFC regulation.
Sec. 402. Excise tax on hydrofluorocarbons.
I think I want to step back and be the apologist for Counters for a few moments.
Mr Counters is a 2nd year student at the Ag college in a university about 100 miles to the NW of me (FYI, this is all publicly available information from his university’s website). It is a pretty good school (my father is an alumni of the same university, different college) and to get in it requires a degree of intelligence that Mr Counters clearly exhibits in his posts.
In full disclosure, Mr Counters has taken a couple of swipes at me, most recently taking public offense at my recital of the accepted history of the Hitler Youth. He didn’t like the obvious similarities that arose in his mind when contrasted to the AGW youth movement. I am equally offended by these similarities, too.
My daughter is about his age and sometimes spouts the same sort of received notions without any careful reflection before hand. When I call her on it, show the facts (sometimes even just suggest there is an alternate explanation), she shrilly denounces my data as a result of cognitive dissonance. Overtime I admitted that I was no different as a youth and that only by repeatedly discovering that my dearest preconceptions were false (sort of like realizing one’s parents had sex as a child), did I see the wisdom of being right all the time by changing my mind when confronted by superior data rather than trying to force everyone to agree with my notions.
I say let him back. I am confident enough in my knowledge to withstands his slings and arrows and I look forward to the day that Mr Counters is confident enough in his own knowledge to share his opinions under his real name as so many of us do and willing suffer the slings and arrows of others.
No – counters must remain banned for ironic reasons. This is after all a thread about hypocrisy and the stifling of critical commentary.
BTW I see ‘reliable’ UAH for September is up 0.17C while ‘untrustworthy’ NASA GISS is down 0.01C.
John Phillip, I see untrustworthy GISTemp has once again changed past history–what crap!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/giss-temp-august-anomaly-now-lower-than-before/
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
Via Drudge work. A moment of unintentional candor
http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnvironment08/idUSTRE4966A220081007
“A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist [Paul J Crutzen] said on Tuesday.”
Sounds like a pre-emptive attempt to cover all bases, one of these being the possibility of continued flat-lining or decline in global temps over the next decade. See? We told you it was CO2!
“We could have a much slower increase of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere … people will start saving (on energy use) … but things may get worse if there is less money available for research and that would be serious.”
Never mind the volume human misery that a deep and protracted global economic decline would cause. Grant money for Play-station climatologists might be cut!
At least that is candid.