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such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.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.
Link did not work, so trying this again.
Latour’s Letter Feb 09
Roger E. Sowell
Can I refer Gordonsclark to Al Gores rather good 1992 book ‘Earth in the balance’ in which he researched numerous examples of former warm periods.
Unfortunately he has obviously forgotten about it and didn’t tell Dr Mann about his research either, or we wouldn’t have the nonsense of the Hockey stick as Dr Mann decided “the medieval warm period was an outdated concept” to the astonishment of thousands of historians.
Please read some of the threads, as I and many others have posted numerous historic links to warmer periods.
TonyB
John Galt,
No link to the NYT article, but I have a link to the 1975 Newsweek scare story about global cooling: click
And is somebody nipping at my heels again? Simon’s emotions are showing. Attempting to frame the AGW argument as a 50/50 discussion about whether measurable AGW exists or not violates the scientific method — something the AGW contingent does routinely.
As Dr. Roy Spencer points out:
Natural climate variability must be overturned by the [repeatedly falsified] AGW hypothesis, if their hypothesis is to succeed.
Those pointing out that the climate is well within its normal, natural historical parameters have nothing to prove; it is the AGW contingent that must conclusively show that they are right. So far, they have completely failed. Thus the emotional response.
Allan M R MacRae (06:31:40) :
“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.”
I wonder what excuse the Met Office will invent when next winter is just as cold. When exactly does weather turn into climate?
For Feb 09 Latour letter, click on the Feb 09 link, then scroll down past the turbine issues. Temple has his letter first, then Dr. Latour responds.
Roger E. Sowell
sorry guys/gals, made a hash of this. mea culpa.
OT here, BUT
[sarcasm on]
What was the worst decision made by US of A?
To choose the english language vs german language.
Hence, lots of your jobs were outsourced ot India, due to the language.
If you had decided different, you would have quite some jobs now, outsourced by/from Germany.
I do know, that was tough.
So, [sarcasm off] and I hope the very best to all of you.
@pkatt (14:57:31) :
Thank you, wise words.
When the worst comes, we should take care of family, friends, neighbours.
Because that’s the people we live with, and that’s the people who do count.
By the way, here’s a 45-min video from the ‘six days war against snow’
Germany 1978/79. Okay, okay for quite some people from the lower 48′ and the cannucks – the alaskans will laugh their pants wet on it – this
is nothing, at least only business as usual, but hence, for us it was quite unusual. Have been there, in 1978/79, was no fun.
Now the the link (unfortunately, language is german, but pictures are ‘interesting’)
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5616993840761940811
klausb
Smokey (15:11:35) :
Simon’s emotions are showing.
There was nothing emotional in my response at all – you appear to be diverting from the issue by targeting the poster rather than the content of the post (not for the first time). Stop engaging is such tedious tactics and stick to discussing science, please.
Actually, I shouldn’t have implied that all ‘sceptics’ accept anything that’s anti-AGW, regardless of the contradictions, it’s only the apparent majority. Here, for example, is Ferdinand Engelbeen’s demolition of Ernst-Georg Beck’s findings (which Smokey relies upon) –
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
You quote Spencer saying “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.” He would also say, of course, that nobody has falsified the hypothesis that the we are the product of ‘Intelligent Design’, and I could just as well say that nobody has falsified the hypothesis that there might be fairies at the bottom of my garden. One cannot falsify a hypothesis that presumes unknowns! Spencer’s statement is thus, effectively, a verbal trick. What has been shown is that known natural variability cannot account for observations. Natural plus anthropogenic GHGs gets very, very much closer, and it is therefore a much more useful hypothesis!
Those pointing out that the climate is well within its normal, natural historical parameters have nothing to prove
Well, you could start by ‘proving’ that, if you want to, though it’s not of much consequence to me personally. “Natural historic parameters” do not include the contribution of substantial anthropogenic GHGs to the atmosphere. I’m concerned about what will happen rather than about the natural variability of the past, and that concern rests upon physics rather than upon hand-waving towards the Vikings in Greenland, or whatever. Of course, if you actually want to consider the natural past then I’d be interested to know how you explain the long-term evolution of the climate without considering the significance of GHGs?
it is the AGW contingent that must conclusively show that they are right.
No, Smokey, no one has to do any such thing. Firstly, this is science, and it doesn’t deal in “proof” but in evidence. I am actually rather surprised that you don’t understand that already. Secondly, there is no such practical need, since virtually every body across the world with a significant influence upon policy accepts the basic science (and I don’t think your citing Ernst-Georg Beck is going to change their minds). And thirdly, ‘the AGW contingent’ has better things to do, such as getting on with scientific research rather than seeking to convince the unconvincible. I’m not really sure why the ‘AGW contingent’ here is wasting its time, beyond it being a sort of obsessively fascinating irritant that must be scratched. What must be done is to find a good way of turning the understanding into effective action. I’m pretty dubious that will happen soon enough, actually. We’re disinclined to pay the costs of mitigation (or unable to reach global agreement on an effective level) so we’ll end up paying the greater costs of adaptation later, IMV.
Oh, and the last reason that nobody has to ‘prove’ AGW is that the climate will do what it will do. So, I’ll catch up with you at the next El Nino when you will, doubtless, still be arguing that it’s all ‘natural variability’ whilst linking to some newly cherry-picked graphs to support your conviction.
Simon, the arguments against AGW theory don’t have to be consistent. Consider a crime scene: two witnesses say they saw the defendant pull the trigger, whilst another eight witnesses each claim they saw the defendant somewhere else at the time–each somewhere different–giving you testimony that the defendant was in any of nine places. All you can conclude from this is that it is a mystery. You will need to carefully examine each of the ten witnesses. Maybe they were all lying or mistaken, and the defendant happens to have a virtual twin. What you really want is a set of incontrovertible evidence–say gun residue on the had, ballistics report, gun ownership certificate, clear CCTV footage of the murder, DNA tests, and so on. Bear in mind that nature’s complexity is such that you might indeed have a wide variety of conflicting evidence. There doesn’t need to be a concise and consistent arrack on AGW, there merely needs to be evidence of confusion. And I wonder that the PR people tried to preempt this with the “debate is over” image. Well see how well that worked.
So yes, it is true that the counter arguments also have counter arguments and I don’t know now how many times I’ve heard someone claim that a skeptic has been “debunked”.
But I am genuinely curious–see I’d like to be right, be on the right side of this debate, whichever side that is. Can you tell me what is the very STRONGEST and most undoubtable specific evidence for the truth of AGW? If there were just three incontrovertible facts you could quote, what would they be?
Simon and Smokey
Did you ever find the comprehensive answers to Simons questioins on Beck’s data that I posted a few days ago?
tonyB
Antarctic warming fiasco becoming headliner is it the end of the triumvirate Hansen Schmidt and Mann? Its looking pretty much in concrete now
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming#48360
OT, but it’s amazing that splicing two unrelated data sets “produced” Antarctic warming that wasn’t there before…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming#48360
Steve’s original article…
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054
and
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5044
Simon Evans:
You speak of scientific evidence for AGW. Please present such evidence. More to the point, please show the evidence that C02 has driven climate change in the past.
Take your time, we’ll wait.
Leon Brozyna (09:51:48) :”Look at the tilt of his head, eyes gazing at a distant vision on a far horizon….”
I try to quickly get upwind of anybody who looks like that.”
Wonderful, I had pretty much given up on the mainstreamcorporatemedia.
Jeff L:
Hey – how about this as an idea – that we collectively assemble some documents like this. A wiki project of sorts, but broken into easily digested chuncks that could be sent out via email – either as pdf’s or ppt’s. Maybe a big picture one to start with but follow ups with smaller sub-sections, such as geologic perspective, influence of oceans, influence of the sun, etc. Nice concise documents , but with key data plots and tons of links to follow up material. Send them to your friends, family & govt representatives. They can fwd on to others. Could educate a lot of people.
Others have mentioned something like this on various threads. I am willing and have some time even though my computer skills are not great. HasItBeen4YearsYet linked to the “Global Warming Petition Project” (copyright 1998-2008; CISM.org). It needs to be simplified, but it seems to hit all the bases.
A scientific opinion which does not jump to conclusions:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1
A political opinion which does jump to conclusions:
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2009/GoreTestimony090128p.pdf
Why should we believe the Goracle? He is biased beyond belief. In fact, he is biased to such an extent that his statements are likely to do more harm than good.
Stefan (16:14:05) :
Ok, I accept from your analogy that one of the ‘anti-AGW’ arguments may be right despite the existence of multiple wrong arguments. I’m probaly expressing the frustration/exhaustion that comes from responding to so many mutually inconsistent arguments!
You say:
“There doesn’t need to be a concise and consistent arrack on AGW, there merely needs to be evidence of confusion.”
and I can’t help being reminded of the ‘doubt is our product’ mantra of the tobacco campaigns (campaigning against an acceptance of the deleterious effects of smoking, that is). It is certainly the case that confusion in the minds of the public is being generated by anti-AGW arguments, not particularly by whichever one might be ‘right’ (if there is such a one) but by a whole range of self-contradictory arguments which, by definition, must largely be wrong.
I referred to the ‘consistency’ of AGW theory, and I should clarify by saying that the science tends towards consistency as it progresses. There will be apparently conflicting results along the way, which must be addressed and, if seen to be robust, must be understood within the theoretical framework.
You ask –
Can you tell me what is the very STRONGEST and most undoubtable specific evidence for the truth of AGW? If there were just three incontrovertible facts you could quote, what would they be?
I don’t think I’m particularly qualified to make that choice, but I’ll give you a personal response. It’s tough to stick to three, and I’ll have changed my mind by tomorrow, but here goes:
1. The basic physics of IR absorption by CO2. No climate scientist that I know of really disputes this – not Spencer, not Lindzen, not Christy.
2. The evidence of relative humidity being maintained as temperature has increased, which is supportive of water vapour feedback theory.
3. The evidence of the temperature record, which is well-explained by anthropogenic + natural forcings but is not explained by natural only forcings.
Now, of course, I know that those points may be ‘attacked’ by those with different views, but you ask for my choice, and that’s it.
I will now, for balance, add three points that I am clearly uncertain about:
1. The net effect of clouds, and how that may develop as the climate evolves.
2. The ‘precision’ of current climate model projections.
3. The dynamics of ice sheets.
My view is probably best summarised in terms of risk assessment (and no, I am not proposing ‘the precautionary principle’). Whatever the uncertainties, and whatever the disagreements that exist amongst scientists, I cannot think it is a bright idea to go on pumping a positive forcing into the atmosphere. This is a dangerous experiment. There is indeed a 10% chance, say, that anthropogenic GHGs will not cause very serious consequences – but there is also a 10% chance, say, that they may cause very extreme consequences, IMV. In between, we have all the other chances. I wouldn’t get onto a plane facing such rotten odds.
Indeed, environMENTALists should take a long leap off a tall cliff to correct the “problem”.
Stefan (16:14:05) :
“If there were just three incontrovertible facts you could quote, what would they be?”
As a Natural Factors Climate (NFC) theorist, it is amazing to me that the only incontrovertible one is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and radiation physics says an increase will result in more absorbed outgoing long wave radiation. There really aren’t any more than that are there?
Global Circulation Models….no better than random walks.
Surface temperature data……influenced upward by UHI and undisclosed massaging methods that makes them significantly in question.
Supposed experts …. appear to be propagandists by their statements and writings…. some use poor methods (or possibly manipulate data and methods to produce &%$#$&^& results) …….which forces folks to question almost everything they say or write.
The AGW theory is so obviously a massive distortion/illusion that it is almost unbelievable. If nothing else it illustrates some of the worst traits in people who manipulate the good hearted environmentalists.
Somehow, I’m reminded of a short story of Wiiliam Tenn:
Satirical SF of its best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tenn
There was a short story, named as far I do remember, with the title
‘Occam’s razor’ -> reference to William of Occham (1288- ca. 1347),
possibly in the collection of short stories ‘The Human Angle’.
There was: How do you recognize if earth is already occupied by aliens?
When policy goes generally against the people.
Still his very best was: ‘ Of Men and Monsters’
…. and there some of his stores online:
http://dpsinfo.com/williamtenn/constantinople.html
http://dpsinfo.com/williamtenn/poulanderson.html
http://www.noreascon.org/guests/tenn-remembrances.html
http://www.templeton.org/powerofpurpose/winners/printer_klass.html
Good Night
KlausB
http://dpsinfo.com/williamtenn/welles.html
He’s already a bloated, Red Giant.
Climate Change Legislation is Running Smack Dab into Economic Rescue.
Here is an Example…
Rescue Plan has a protectionist measure that all steel used in the projects be produced in America.
What do you use to power a smelter? a) a Solar Panel b) Wind Power c) COAL
Now throw a Cap and Trade on that puppy and you basically throw away taxpayer dollars by driving the costs higher for steel and redistributing taxpayer funds to other non-profitable industries that due to economic conditions will sell their permits at the cost of production, and jobs. Thus degrading the amount of money available for worker wages on these projects, the stated goal of the Rescue Plan is to put people to work.
Simon Evans (15:56:49) :
“it is the AGW contingent that must conclusively show that they are right.
No, Smokey, no one has to do any such thing.”
Sorry, Simon, you’re dead wrong. It is the “AGW contingent” that must prove they are right. Why? Because it is the “AGW contingent” that proposes we crater our economy [such as it is, right now] to “solve” a problem that no one knows for sure is a problem. No more drilling, no more nukes, no more coal, no more hydro-electric, no more internal combustion engines, no, no, no…. And for what? Assuming that AGW is real, the ephemeral “changes” that we, in the US and the Western world, can make are so miniscule that they will have virtually no effect on the “problem.”
And what will be the cost for these miniscule changes? Trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on something we do not know is needed. Our farms and our economies will no longer be able to feed the poorest of the world. We will no longer be able to afford and provide the medical advances we’ve made for the last century, for the entire world. When a crisis such as a tsunami hits, we will not be able to respond with the speed and resources that we have historically. Forget for a moment that the “AGW contingent’s” proposals will inevitably lead to a lower standard of living for us, what will our shift of resources mean to everyone else on our planet? Sorry, Simon, but you’ve got a very heavy burden of proof, and you haven’t come close. Your cure is, at present anyway, worse than the disease.
And just for grins, what is your proposed optimum temperature/climate for the planet? Exactly what it is today? What it was in 1998? What it was in 1970? What it was in 1780? What is it you really hope to accomplish?
Further proof that our government is run by morons.
How can “climate change” go into reverse? Unless you mean change in only one direction, then you must mean “global warming” which isn’t global or warming.
Wow, that’s scientific? I don’t think it’s possible to get “too cold to snow” on this planet unless the sun suddenly dies.