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.
Smokey!
Oh my God! Look at that! I posted without fixing my name! Would you please email me.
“naked open source programmers”
I am utterly dismayed, alarmed, upset and scandalised – OPEN SOURCE programmers!! 😉
That wasn’t pissing in the fireplace, it was merely passing a large amount of gas while not even trying to be silent and to keep moving. When Our Boy Ben matriculates from sophomorism and understands how farcical his defense of Gore is, he’ll be ready to learn.
===================================
When kim learns to factcheck, kim’ll be ready to write. ‘Our Boy Ben’ should be ‘Our Dandy Dan’.
====================================
Ooh, sorry for the misspelling; I meant ‘fartsical’.
===============================
AW is not banning opinion, he is banning attitude Mr. Pierson. I understand counters is just a kid, and I do admire his enthusiasm. However, sometimes even though you may have the most lucient point, if you throw flames with your rhetoric rather that reasoned, polite discussion, people have a right to say no more.
Back on the topic. Telling is the lack of debate among the players with the outsiders. The players will refuse debate or even discussion of the science. Al Gore won’t even answer questions. You don’t see Mann et al (The Team) defending thier study. You never see Prince Phillip grilled about the science.
You do see the IPCC hide behind freedom of information walls. You do see the precautionary principal invoked even though temps. are falling.
I think one more climate conference should be held, and it should be open to anyone who has science to contribute to the debate.
If the Team refuses to attend, then enough is said by them by not showing up. If they will not stick up for their science, then how can anyone else?
I mean by stick up, to be face to face, toe to toe, calcs to calcs!
Bobby Lane: I cannot foretell the future of course.
And, of course, neither can I. But I enjoin you to draw a “trendline” from the Good Old Days (pick your century) to today.
I think that the only reason it seems worse is that every little piece of bad news in the world winds up on our TVs and computers, often in living color.
Back in the Old Days we never heard about any of that stuff–till the day the Mongols came and burned our village and made a pyramid out of all our skulls.
Heck it used to be a cliche:
“Doctor can you do anything for him?”
“Nothing you people could afford.”
(Actually, odds on he couldn’t do anything but dose you with laudanum no matter how rich you were, but never mind.)
That sort of attitude buys a doctor a lawsuit (if not a criminal trial) nowadays.
And that’s only the Industrialized West. Life in, say, India, China, or Latin America is so wildly better today than in even the recent past, that it staggers description and imagination. Even Africa is much better off.
Comparing any point in the past–ANY point–with the present and the only possible conclusion is considerable optimism. Surely we who study history can see this.
Yes, the world could go blooey at any point. But I think our odds are better now than they ever have been, and by a long shot.
Wait. Didn’t the Rev say counters could drop a simple “I’m sorry” and be back in (marginally) good grace?
So what’s the problem?
that infringes on everybody else’s right to be heard.
But not necessarily in one’s venue of choice. The Rev has clipped my wings on occasion, and he has every right to. Until and unless he comes around to my forum and clip my wings, he is–entirely–within his rights. What appears here reflects on him; therefore he has and should have right of arbitration.
Ooh, sorry for the misspelling; I meant ‘fartsical’.
He who spelt it dealt it.
LOL
John Philip: “It’s actually a lot worse than you think, Brendan.”
What, no Bilderbergers? But the Bilderbergers are key, I tell you, KEY!!
Graig D. Lattig: “The simplistic answer to your questions is “YES!”
So it’s all of the above. This AGW be mighty powerful science.
“The first test is: If what they are promoting will give them more power or money, then it is about the money and power.”
Which places most human activities under suspicion. Universal scepticism is a powerfully corrosive state of mind, especially in one so young. It inevitably leads to cynicism and utter nihilism, and a sad old age.
You know, you seem like a smart young man. You should join us in the balmy companionship of the consensus. Relax and let your mind float downstream. As a bonus, there’s big money attached. Lots of warm babes. And much power. Renewable, of course.
Dee Norriss: “And without a through examination of the interests involved with the AGW movement, it could seem like a conspiracy to some?”
And “could seem like” is the operative phrase. Many years ago I spent an agreeable half-hour skimming a text called “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. The author helpfully explained the glaring anomaly of the conspiracy in plain sight by referring to the children’s puzzle – not so popular nowadays – where faces and other shapes are ‘hidden’ within a drawing.
To see the shapes one merely changed one’s perceptual orientation. I suppose that’s how it is with conspiracies, except it’s a matter of changing one’s conceptual orientation.
But whether the claim is conspiracy or conjunction of interests, the fallacy is the same: even if it were shown conclusively that AGW were driven by a desire to annihilate the entire human race, that fact would not falsify AGW.
“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.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
“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.”
Que?
Reply – Beg pardon. I had a senior moment and confused you with the other Branden (who vanished shortly after having ignored my request for the methodology for his cited survey). – Dee Norris
Anthony: “I have invited guests and we have a lively debate daily, some have behaved badly, have insulted me and my other guests, and thus are not welcome in my home anymore.”
Thanks for this clarification, Anthony. Two points:
1. I will assume this ruling applies across the board to all posters.
2. What about third parties? Does this ruling apply to them, or are they fair game?
Brendan (23:45:25) That’s a pretty cynical point of view you’ve got there; what happens when the sun decides to chill everything? What’s the intent?
====================================
Brendan (00:04:17) Open bar, everyone, Brendan’s kindly brought the booze.
=============================================
“Author Glass”
Je vous remerci. M. Gosselin! I do have pretensions in the direction of authorship.
By the way, wouldn’t a cold winter in North America and in Europe result in an increase in anthropogenic CO2 as a result of the increased BTU’s necessary for heating? I don’t necessarily mean another Maunder Minimum; a repeat of the winters of the late 1970’s, the memory of which is dear to this afficianado of negative numbers, would suffice.
“Reply – Beg pardon. I had a senior moment and confused you with the other Branden (who vanished shortly after having ignored my request for the methodology for his cited survey). – Dee Norris”
Yes, I was rather surprised at your accusation since I make a habit of supporting my claims with the relevant evidence.
I am now even more surprised that you’ve confused me with someone of a different name.
Reply – To err is human, to forgive is divine. Let’s move on. – Dee
SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice, 5
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
How can you not like a poet named Frost?
Cold, entropy, is equally, and more basically deserving of reflection.
Yours in the Maunder Minimum!
Kim: “Brendan (23:45:25) That’s a pretty cynical point of view you’ve got there…”
I wasn’t being entirely serious.
“…what happens when the sun decides to chill everything? What’s the intent?”
As far as I know, the sun doesn’t make decisions, nor have any intentions, but I could be wrong. You may wish to check with the sun people for a more authoritative view.
Perhaps your question is: what is your [my] intent? Well, I was replying to this comment: “The first test is: If what they are promoting will give them more power or money, then it is about the money and power.”
This comment places all political and business activity under a cloud. Understandable, perhaps, in today’s economic and political climate, but nevertheless it strikes me as unduly cynical. The fact that someone might gain wealth and power from a particular activity does not necessarily make that activity bogus. That’s why the ad hominen is a logical fallacy: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Brendan (13:50:21) Well, sure, it was obvious that you weren’t being perfectly serious; what I meant by cynical was your casual acceptance of the consensus. And ‘intent’ was just thrown in to highlight the absurdity of some of this discussion about great natural forces little impacted by man, such as climate regulation.
==============================
Robert Wood:
I remember now, but did not make the connection at the time, so your reasoning is lost to me.
60 years is a full cycle of the major oscillations (if not permutations thereof), was that the idea?
[…] have recently heard from Richard A. Muller justifying the distortions and untruths (I guess if the untruth were committed wil… as necessary to stir the public to combat AGW, but at the same time are these tactics shifting […]
If you can tax carbon use, you control the essense of life.
Who needs such control? Why?
AGW/ACC is a political vehicle to advance the agenda of some pretty scary people. Science is just the useful tool to fuel it. Other useful tools will be found and used up as well.
All famine is political. What will we get when we exceed our allotted carbon ration and are unable to pay?