This is not the sort of op-ed we are used to seeing in the Washington Post. But I found it funny nonetheless. – Anthony
With Al Due Respect, We’re Doomed
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009; Page A03
The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.
What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.
“Geothermal energy,” the Goracle prophesied. “This has great potential; it is not very far off.”
Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. “I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,” the Goracle spoke.
A third asked the legislative future — and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. “The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.
The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”
It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.
“Tennessee,” gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore’s home state, “has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy.” If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”
Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.
The Goracle’s powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. “We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”
Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be “an almost existential impact” from the climate changes Gore described.
As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”
Others sought to buy the Goracle’s favor by offering him gifts. “Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don’t either understand it or want to understand it,” gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: “Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?”
The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by “naysayers” who thought it funny that Gore’s testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. “The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,” Kerry said at the start of the hearing.
The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as “Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region.” At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. “I’m not proselytizing,” he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.
The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.” Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”
The lawmakers joined in. “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat,” contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. “And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”
Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.
Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a “practical politician,” how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. “I am a recovering politician. I’m on about Step 9,” the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.
Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? “There’s a high degree of confidence.” The future of automobiles in China and India? “I wouldn’t give up on electric vehicles.” The potential of solar power in those countries? “I have no question about it at all.”
Of course not. He’s the Goracle.
We’ve been looking at CO2 growth in the atmosphere at this blog for some time now. Going by the different analysis shown, …
CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere by about 12,000 MegaTonnes to 15,000 MegaTonnes per year.
That is 12,000 Million Tonnes.
CFL Lightbulbs, wind energy, solar energy, more efficient cars, wearing a sweater at home in the winter, is not even going to put a dent in those numbers at all. Not even a dent.
The trend hasn’t changed at all since Kyoto was implemented or since An Inconvenient Truth came out. It is still rising at a slightly exponential rate.
If we are going to change the growth rate at all, we need really big projects that get rid of CO2 at 3 or 4 MegaTonnes at a time, not a light bulb that gets rid of 0.00001 tonnes over its lifetime.
An entire coal plant’s emissions must be eliminated, replace 6 old coal power plants with a nuclear one, the entire State of Oklahoma has to use Zero-Till on the farms, CO2 from a coal plant in North Dakota needs to be captured and sunk in an oil field to increase production, we even need a new cement since its production is one of the biggest contributors to GHGs.
And we would need 1,000 such projects around the world to cut the 12,000 MTs by 30%. We would need 4,000 to cut the net increase in CO2 to Zero.
The problem is the cost. The average cost to get rid of each tonne is about $15 and higher per year, each year.
12,000 million X $15 = $180 billion per year.
Gore wants you to wear a sweater, or spend $20,000 on geothermal heat. That would leave about 11,950 MegaTonnes still to go.
Oops didn’t finish…
b) consciously deceiving because his real, unstated end justifies the means
c) Believes the story because he is suffering from cognitive dissonance or is really unable to grasp the science which says CO2 is a bit player.
I think its probably (b).
We are witnessing one of the biggest ego ever seen on earth. It has lasted longer than the sun´s cycle!; will it become a Nova or a black hole?
THAT is the truth and the problem. The government answers to their clients, not to science, not to the productive, but to the mass of compliant leeches attached symbiotically to the government teat. They are now in the majority and the future is dark.
King of Cool
I’d prefer to see Philip Stott.
He knocked out Gavin and Co. in last year’s NPR debate big time.
Alan the Brit,
“this is completely consistent with our understanding of global warming & how it affects our climate”!
How many listeners will actually believe that?
You’s have to be a total idiot among morons to fall for that one.
Ah, nothing is more vomitous than hearing Senator’s prostrate themselves. Bunch of obsequious apple polishers. [sarcasm]Nice to see our tax dollars at work.[/sarcasm]
“Frankly, the science is screaming at us,” said the committee’s chairman, John Kerry.
This statement of Kerry’s pretty much sums up the extent of these buffoons knowledge of what science is. It is politicians and the media that screams, and what they scream has nothing to do with science.
Gore has become a parody of himself. What is most revolting about all this however, is the fawning, indeed the near worship of this bloviating Fraud by these brainless politicians who seek to further harm our economy by making energy more expensive through Cap n’ Trade scams and/or “carbon taxes”.
TonyS: Al Gore doesn’t have any “facts”. He pontificates and prophesizes much the same way as the oracles of old did, based on “divine inspiration” or some such thing. The term “Goracle” fits perfectly, and as such is not ad hominem.
Smokey,
We are no where close to the peak of this insanity, unfortunately.
Eugenics only ended at the cost of many millions of lives.
AGW is to climate science what Eugenics was to Evolution.
Orwell called it ‘groupthink’.
Glad I have retained the capacity for independant thought.
I have always been thoroughly repulsed by “something that looks like a donkey and rymes with pass” kissers and this ‘love fest’ in the commitee hearing is frankly nauseating.
I find each time Gore opens his mouth my striving to remain open-minded about this subject becomes even more of a burden – sorry I can’t do it. The man has every sign of a being totally self absorbed and conceited which, in my experience, renders them incapable of dealing with information contrary to their strongly held opinion.
Someone posted this yesterday and it was so appropriate I shamelessly lifted it:
Tolstoi provided another explanation for failing to acknowledge the growing evidence.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
MartinGAtkins (03:28:07) :
Peter Hearnden (01:21:22) :
“You people really hate ‘Gore’ don’t you. Burn him, burn him!”
Can’t do that old chap. Too much CO2 already. Perhaps we could sequester him. Six feet deep should do the job.
…and as the coffen is lowered into the grave, a voice will be heard from within: “I tell you, it is getting warmer!!!”….at that point he may just be right!
Seriously Peter, you don’t hate a snake oil salesman…you respect that he is very good at what he does and try and limit the damage he causes until his lies finally catch up with him….cdl
It appears that the “fix is in”.
One of my hopes for global understanding of global warming this year is for the Mainstream media to realize that AGW has more problems than just a few relatives of flat earthers being stupid. The skeptic community has had three strikes against it until the recent PDO flip:
1) The climate really was warming for much of the last few decades. The 1998 peak, thanks to an El Nino, provided cover for cooling (La Nina) for a few years after that.
2) Respected people in the AGW movement derided the skeptics forcefully enough and frequently enough so it must have been true. The flat earth comments from Al Gore on 60 Minutes and other venues were lies, ad hominem, and effective enough to discourage efforts to understand the other side of the story.
3) Not just the mainstream press, but science end enviromental reporters are discouraged from reporting the skeptic side.
Point 3) has not been discussed much here, but this is a good thread and a good time to call attention to http://www.sej.org/ home of the Society of Environmental Journalists. In particular, I want everyone reading this thread to read their Climate Change Guide and look at the subtle (and not too subtle) pro-AGW and anti-skeptic bias it shows.
It does mention the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change and does have contact information for scientists “who have more substantial climate science research publications and who have accepted little or no fossil industry and advocacy group money. However, it’s completely accepting of pro-AGW groups, e.g. “When somebody is spinning the latest climate story, RealClimate posts authoritative, research-based articles in language accessible to lay readers while the controversy or deception is still fresh in headlines. The site is a collaborative effort of at least 11 scientists actively working on climate research – with Michael Mann of Penn State (author of the famous “hockey stick” graph of global temperature adopted by the IPCC) playing a principal role.” Thankfully, that’s worst paragraph in the guide, but if Environmental Journalists can’t understand that “debunked” is a mild word to use with the Hockey stick, how can we expect any other journalist to understand?
I don’t have time to analyze that whole page, but if someone were to score each paragraph on it friendliness toward AGW, it would score highly, even if you skipped that RC abomination.
I don’t know the reach the SEJ has, but but one of my favorite Science publications (that I don’t have time to read because I spend all my time here!) is Science News. I’ve subscribed continuously since 1969 and for a long time read every issue. Their lead environmental reporter is an active SEJ member and has referred very positively to Dr. R. K. Pachauri speech to the SEJ 2008 conference. See http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37758/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Eggs%2C_Tea_and_Mr._IPCC . Her blog does allow comments, and I’ve been quick to mention the other side on a number of topics, as have a few other WUWT readers.
Finally, while I understand why the SEJ guide has links to the IPCC, National Academies, NASA, NOAA (and NCDC), DOE, and other scientific organizations, it’s disappointing that they leave no place to include skeptic blogs like WUWT or CA.
I’ll drop them a note tonight and point them to this thread, so be on your best behavior. Ah, just don’t go beyond the attitude in that OpEd piece. 🙂
Sorry for the OT
Remember all the articles which say the ice melted at the fastest rate in history in 2008 and 2007. Using the gridded ice data I wrote some R code which regenerates the daily trend curve and guess what?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
We have record increase rates in 07 and 08 but the record 30 day decreases are actually in 1999.
Peter Hearnden:-)
You are quite correct if you want to be accurate, as it was a radio announcer who actually said it, & therefore was probably not a representative of the Met Office!
As to the South West & West Country you are also correct. However, it was just a slip of the keyboard for which I feel suitably admonished. However, I am quite fed up with the Met Office (although I don’t classify local weather guys in this group), & many others taxpayer funded organisations who refer to the West Country & the South West as one & the same whenever they feel like it. The South West for these people includes Gloucestershire, Somerset, Avon, Dorset, West Hampshire, West Wiltshire, & the usual suspects of Devon & Cornwall. Just depends on who, where, & when really! We all have a laugh at it from time to time!
Philip Bratby;-)
Yes Plymouth & Dartmoor are indeed chalk & cheese. I remember working for a National Plymouth based consultancy at the Prison for a refurbishment job around 10 years ago. It was mid-April, bright warm & sunny in the city centre with blue skies. A few miles up the road on Dartmoor it was grey, bitterly cold, & a keen wind to boot! Chalk & Cheese indeed!
Steve Milloy did a nice piece on Gore’s Venus theory that he put before the senate
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485064,00.html
from today’s CCNet
========
AND FINALLY: FREEZING COLD CONSISTENT WITH GLOBAL WARMING
The Daily Telegraph, 3 February 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html
Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Temperatures for December and January were consistently 1.8 F ( 1 C) lower than the average of 41 F (5 C)and 37 F (3C) respectively and more snow fell in London this week than since the 1960s.
But despite this extreme weather, scientists say that the current cold snap does not mean that climate change is going into reverse. In fact, the surprise with which we have greeted the extreme conditions only reinforces how our climate has changed over the years.
A study by the Met Office which went back 350 years shows that such extreme weather now only occurs every 20 years.
Back in the pre-industrial days of Charles Dickens, it was a much more regular occurrence – hitting the country on average every five years or so.
During that time global temperatures has risen by 1.7 F (0.8 C), studies have shown.
“Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,” said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford.
“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.
“As for snowfall that could actually increase in the short term because of global warming. We have all heard the expression ‘too cold to snow’
and we have always expected precipitation to increase.
“All the indicators still suggest that we are warming up in line with predictions.”
FULL COMEDY at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html
The most disappointing aspect of the Post article for me was the deference paid to Gore from both sides of the political aisle. Even my own Republican senator Richard Lugar apparently buys into the AGW story hook line and sinker. He’s also just released a statement advocating a substantial gasoline tax, ostensibly to cut dependence on foreign oil. He claims that the net tax burden would be kept unchanged with schemes to return the additional taxes to the public. Can you imagine the government actually doing this? Even if they tried, they would almost certainly make bad economic choices, and I don’t recall government ever being able to resist diverting tax revenue toward political whims of the moment.
Okay folks, lets get down to debate. The snarky stuff is fun but it won’t fly in serious situations. I am a raging liberal. I voted for Obama, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, marriage licenses for committed couples of legal age with none of the restrictions that are commonly thrown about, etc, etc. Mainly because science does not support the arbitrary rules that many conservatives adhere to. That’s not a bad thing, it just is what it is regarding one person’s morals compared to another. But Gore is not sticking to science here. No even close. He is promoting an emotionally ladened vision that doesn’t follow the CO2 science, if you are versed in it. Needless to say, this emotional response from him and from us is no where near science that is discussing weather patterns over the short and long term. Emotional injection into science discussions does not promote it.
Rather than burning the Goracle, why not handcuff him to John Kerry in Barrow AK. Their cooing about each other would hasten the arrival of warmer weather.
And we wouldn’t have to listen to either of them in the lower 48.
The only word to describe the Goracle is delusional.
Something to think about, the NAZIs used science propaganda(lies) to push their notion of Germans as the super race, and look where that got them. Taking advantage of ignorant people is stock and trade of the communists and their brethren ilk for over a 100 years.
Scientists need to take a stand, for science, regardless who pays their grant money.
Good heavens. Proof positive that I should not post until my second cup of early morning coffee.
the Goracle!
LOL!
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn’t seem like the most relevant forum to discuss global warming. I wonder if it was chosen by the Goracle because he knew he would not be confronted by any skeptics on this committee?
Our representatives don’t take the time to gather facts and data.
PERIOD
It does not matter if were talking about Global Warming, Gun Control, Welfare or Polar Bears. Facts and data are useless to them. It is all about perception and pleasing special interest. Or pleasing the masses of the uninformed and misinformed.
The questions to Gore prove it…