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such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.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.
Walter Cronanty (19:31:08) :
Simon Evans (18:06:23) :
“I am in favour of nuclear research (which should not have been held back all this time) and consider nuclear as a necessary part of an energy strategy going forward,”
As you appear to be defending Sen. Gore, I thought you were in agreement with his statement
I’m not ‘defending’ Gore, I’m just saying what I think – and no, I won’t agree with everyone else concerned by AGW (though I do actually agree that the pace of nuclear development will be restricted by supply constraints, if nothing else).
As for how we relate to China etc., we need global agreement on emissions, and I don’t believe that will happen until we recognise the weight of the per capita responsibility argument.
I’m surprised that you expect absolute proof before pursuing policies, which science will never be able to provide anyway. Businesses commit expenditure without proof of what will happen in the future. Do you think we should not pay for the future training and provision of armed forces because of the lack of proof that they will be needed?
Bob D (19:49:05) :
1) …. Do we really believe that a gas making up 0.03% of our atmosphere by volume can cause the whole thing to run out of control? Really?
As you’ll know, 99% of the atmosphere has no greenhouse effect anyway, so it’s a matter of the proportional contribution to that part which does. If we agree that we already have a greenhouse effect from that part then I don’t see why it’s counter to reason to consider changes in effect from changes to its size.
2) This is the kicker. Water vapour (95% of the GHG effect – that’s more like it!) must be employed as the positive feedback mechanism, otherwise the whole alarm thing peters out. However, this effect is unproven, beyond the relative humidity evidence you mentioned. In my opinion this is where more research could be directed.
I agree that more research is always welcome, though I certainly don’t agree with your figure for water vapour’s share of the G effect! You may not find current research convincing, which is fair enough, whereas I think it’s very persuasive. The basic proposal is not controversial in itself, I think – that is that if temperature rises whilst relative humidity remains constant then there will be increased water vapour in the atmosphere. What is questioned by some (such as Roy Spencer) is whether there might not be a ‘thermostatic’ control, or a negative feedback. Personally I think it is that hypothesis that is lacking evidence, on a global scale at least.
Also, it appears it hasn’t happened in the past.
I’m not sure why you say that. I am not aware of satisfactory explanations of the evolution of past climate that can dispense with climate sensitivity. Are we to think that the response of water vapour is not a significant aspect of such sensitivity?
3) This is the weakest of the three arguments, as I’m sure you know (since it’s not #1 or #2).
I put it at 3 since I was proceeding from basic physical theory through to the observational record!
The lack of understanding of other forcings is hardly a good argument to use, especially since the downward temperature trend over the past decade is not well explained by previous models (otherwise they would have predicted it), and is itself therefore probably due to some “other forcing”.
Models don’t predict the timing of the ENSO cycle or the solar cycle – perhaps some day they will. There is definitely uncertainty, such as in net cloud response or in projection of aerosol effect.
As a further discussion of other forcings, what happened during the MWP is troublesome. How did global temperature soar higher than it is now, stay high for ages (but not run away uncontrollably), then dip down into the LIA all without the slightest regard for CO2 levels? I just don’t see the sensitivity to CO2/water vapour positive feedback that is being assumed. Even the Team recognize the MWP as a major problem, and explains why they have tried so hard to re-write history.
Just in case you believe the assertion that the MWP never happened, may I say that the only evidence against it comes from the Team and associated bench members. Not good enough – history and many other scientists back up the existence of the MWP, and it’ll take a lot more than some rather dubious statistical magic to make it disappear for me (and I suspect, most other people).
I really don’t want to do the whole hockey-stick debate again if I can avoid it (energy is limited), but I’ll sum up what I think:
1. Yes, I think there was an MWP, but I am not persuaded that it was global and regionally synchronous.
2. I don’t know the basis of your assertion that “global temperature soar[ed] higher than it is now, stay[ed] high for ages”.
3. I think if we are to be cautious of proxy evidence then that caution must apply to proxies that suggest evidence of elevated temperatures during that period, just as we should be cautious of proxies that suggest otherwise.
4. I’m not concerned anyway about whether or not today’s temperatures ‘could have been produced naturally’. I’m sure they could. Whether they have or not over the past couple of thousand years is interesting , but the fact remains (I think!) that we are adding a warming influence to the atmosphere and thus I am concerned regarding the consequences of that.
5. If the MWP & LIA were global effects (and I think there is much firmer evidence for the latter) and that is then explained, as is commonly suggested, by solar variation, then it implies a high climate sensitivity. Therefore, such an explanation should increase our concern for the effects of anthropogenic GHGs rather than giving us comfort!
Smokey (20:01:01) :
Whatever, Simon. If you can falsify Dr. Beck’s findings, I look forward to seeing it. But so far, Beck has answered every last one of your points — which are no doubt the best you’ve got.
I’ve had a browse, but can’t see where he’s answered my particular points (for example, that 70%+ of his data is from one suburban location over an 18 month period). How is one to ‘falsify’ the assertion that CO2 measurements taken in such a location, and suggestive of implausible CO2 flux over a few weeks equivalent to up to two thirds of the carbon contained in all land flora, are representative of background CO2? I could refer to the ice core data, of course, but Beck’s view seems to be that the ice cores are wrong when they disagree with his data though they offer confirmation of his findings when they agree with him! As I’ve said, Smokey, it’s fine with me if you are convinced, though I might continue to point out that such findings are questionable when you assert them as matters of fact.
Richard M (20:22:48) :
Simon Evans (18:36:28) :
“you’re welcome to believe in Dr Beck’s findings if you wish to. Obviously I think they’re valueless”
Now, what was that about an “open mind”?
I never claimed to have an open mind on Beck’s papers – on the contrary, I’ve made up my mind – I think they are crucially flawed. I think it was Smokey making the broad claims to be open-minded on, apparently, all subjects! Many people here seem to have made up their minds on Mann et al 98/99, so I don’t feel too embarrassed to do the same on Beck’s papers.
@ur momisugly Roger Knight et al:
Sincere apologies for bad link. For Dr. Gray’s detailed comments re: IPCC reform, please see New Zealand Climate Coalition –
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
My URL shrink apparently failed.
Copenhagen reminds me of two things: quantum theory and Hans Christian Andersen.
It was in Copenhagen was it not, that the brave little boy told the naked truth about the Emperor’s deshabille?
Simon Evans (07:25:25) :
“I’m surprised that you expect absolute proof before pursuing policies, which science will never be able to provide anyway. Businesses commit expenditure without proof of what will happen in the future. Do you think we should not pay for the future training and provision of armed forces because of the lack of proof that they will be needed?”
If a businessman wants to “commit expenditure [OF HIS OWN MONEY] without proof of what will happen in the future” – god bless him. I wish him well. When my government wants to take my money by force of law and begin a massive program that will likely never end [see, the “Rural Electrification Administration”, a New Deal program that’s still spending our money – mission creep] to solve a problem that may not exist by instituting policies that will be detrimental to our economy – well, that’s just a bit different. And as to our armed forces – I believe that we have an historical record of their need that’s a bit more compelling than the historical record supporting the theory of AGW.
I’m not surprised that Gore is still off the rails, but I’m amazed that he’s picking up speed when he should have come to a crashing halt. And, that so many of America’s lawmakers are climbing on board the Goracle express to nowhere, is the icing on the cake. It’s like a bad dream. This is not going to end well, especially with Barack HUSSEIN O’Bummer at the helm.
@Pragmatist
Thanks for that link. It’s interesting to note that the author’s criticisms of the IPCC all reflect on it’s nature as a mega-bureaucracy. They have an agenda, and are only using the cover of science to advance that agenda. His letter is a beautiful exposition of that.
“The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.
I guess the 3 steps would be:
1. Keep the populace alarmed and misinformed about climate and C02.
2. Keep the pressure on Congress to ramrod through a cap-and-trade system in order to avoid “dangerous climate change”.
3. Continue to ignore the actual, and ever-increasing amount of scientific evidence that the overall warming of the past century was due to natural causes, just as previous warming periods were, as well as the increasing number of scientists who reject the AGW claims.
The Goracle sees “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”; but like all AGW morons, he has it completely backwards. It is the idiotic, and completely senseless war on “carbon” which could bring human civilization to a “screeching halt”, and “threaten the fabric of life everywhere”.
Roger Sowel, if you’re still hanging around, I wrote a post on California’s dire water situation just a few days ago. And there are updates.
The new Dep of Energy is warming California will have dire effects on its water supply due to global warming. Uh, some should tell the good Energy Secretay It’s already happening, and its got nothing to do with global warming!.
Pragmatist (09:41:09) :
Dr. Vincent Gray, whose comments looked like this?
1. Insert after “Bayesian” “(or super-guesswork)”,
2. Insert after “to” “the utterly ridiculous assumption of”,
3. or more typically like this
You can find more at the Collection of the Havard College Library. AFAIK 97% of his comments were rejected because he did not give any evidence or reasoning for requesting the changes. Compare the quality of his comments to those by other commenters, which got accepted. I’d be obliged, if you could point me to a substantial contribution of Dr. Gray.
P.S.: I have previously posted as “blue”. I have now registered at wordpress, but that moniker was already taken. So I settled for “bluegrue” instead.
sonicfrog, yes, the water situation is dire. I posted a comment a few minutes ago on the “temperature anomaly makes significant jump in January” post, and for the past couple of days elsewhere on WUWT.
Politicians! As if cutting CO2 will create more fresh water…
Ah well. They apparently believe that cutting CO2 will cool the planet, and that will increase the snowfall and chill the Sierra mountains so the snow hangs around long enough to melt and run into the reservoirs behind the dams.
Even if any of that were true, how many decades or hundreds of years does it take? We need the water NOW…not in 500 years!
OT: I haven’t heard anything new lately about the sun. I see no spots. Has SC24 started yet? Or has the sun still been absent of activity?
Remember this, oh ye of little faith (and confirmed “skeptics” and “deniers”).
Yasser Arafat also won a Nobel Prize. And look at how history remembers him. A criminal, terrorist, and failed leader who used and took advantage of the very people for whom he claimed to be advocating, for his own personal benefit.
Given enough time, the end result will be no different for the high priest of global warming hyperbole and fearmongering, Al “The Goracle” Gore.
Just be patient and watch.
This may have been asked as I am late to the conversation, but why didn’t any public officials asked him something along the lines of “Mr. Gore, are you in anyway in a position to profit from the enactment of laws you are recommending enact?”
Seems to be a standard question everywhere else I think we all know the answer.
Mike from Canmore (13:24:54) :
I think you’ve answered your own question.
Mike, have a read here.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care
Some interesting facts on our friend Mr. Gore, and from a leftist writer no less: click
Simon Evans (13:20:09) :
Craig D. Lattig (13:13:29) :
most here are open minded about the data and do not have a political ax to grind…
As you said earlier in the post, “Humor, without bitterness, is one of the high spots of this site. Satire is common…” Thanks for such a good example of it! 😉
Simon…Thank you for the veiw from your side and the smile it gave me. However, if you can ignor the extremists on both sides, I stand by the intent of my words…most here are interested in getting at the truth of the data, concider the politics to be getting in the way of the truth and would prefer that if politicians are making serious decissions based on science, that they at least get the science right first….now, back to covering plants as Florida is taking its turn in the current round of global warming…..cdl
bluegrue (10:17:24) :
“Dr. Vincent Gray, whose comments looked like this?”
Thanks for the link to select Dr. Gray comments. Indeed his sarcasm would fall on deaf IPCC ears and likely reflects his frustration with their process. Most of his comments at your link demonstrate requests for “uncertainty” language as opposed to “accepted fact” language. IPCC notes they have now adopted “uncertainty” language as a standard.
It was, however, Dr. Gray whose comment on the First Assessment Report resulted in IPCC’s change of the chapter on “Validation of Climate Models” to “Evaluation” of same – since there has been no validation of any climate model.
His climate science papers are not published in peer-reviewed journals. His recent paper, “Global Warming Scam” is the result of 18 years critiquing IPCC and AGW theory, and is a reasoned overview of AGW skepticism.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/warmingscam1505.pdf
Craig D. Lattig (18:06:04) :
Craig, thanks for taking my remark in good humour :-). I agree with you in a way, that the debate suffers from being politicised on both sides and at all levels – we’d probably have less polarised discussions if there were no great practical consequences upon the matter! Good luck with the plants :-).
To Simon Evans:
You expressed doubt that water vapor accounted for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here’s your answer:
“Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.”
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
Note that this a U.S. Dept. of Energy report. Credible enough for you?
@ur momisugly Pragmatist (05:51:07) :
Most of the changes Dr. Gray proposed were changes of the formalized language, indicating a higher level of uncertainty than in the draft; however he consistently failed to substantiate, as to why there is more uncertainty than indicated. No arguments, no sources, no nothing whatsoever, other than his assertion.
So Dr. Gray demanded to change the whole meaning of the draft, without offering any reason other than him saying so, and sprinkled in some “sarcasm”. Do you really expect me to take him seriously?
Anyway, I have skimmed over Dr. Gray’s paper.
I’ll skip over his “religion” allegations and mischaracterization s in 1.3 (for a better reading see e.g. The Discovery of Global Warming on the American Institute of Physics site instead), yet again he offers nothing but his word for this.
His arguments in 1.4 simply don’t hold up.
1. The network we have is not perfect, but good enough. In order to observe changes, the determination of anomalies is enough, which makes the determination easier. Keep in mind, while average global temperature has high visibility as a measure of climate change, it is not the only one.
2. We are looking for changes in CO2 background, not the absolute, average concentration. This can be measured with few dedicated sites, as CO2 is a well mixed gas, i.e. it’s concentration changes little in the vertical column and also laterally, as you can see in satellite data.
3. You cannot predict, where the ball in a roulette will fall next. Yet you are able to calculate the percentage going to the house in the long run pretty well. Similarly it is easier to model long term climate trends than short term chaotic weather.
In 2.1.1 he starts citing Hansen on SAT from this page, yet conveniently cuts of the quote before Hansen goes into “Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful?”
2.1.2: Stations need not be placed randomly or uniform, as long as they are representative. His analogy with opinion polls fails, as pollsters routinely either try to not select randomly or try to correct for differences between the sample composition and the general populace composition.
I have given up at this point. I find Dr. Gray’s paper to be ill argued and misleading. If there is a point made, that you think warrants further attention, please point it out to me.
Chris R (11:43:57) :
At face value, I’d be a bit cautious, as the report itself is of 1994 and the climate model they reference for your numbers (#105) is of 1978, that is 30 years old. However you are in luck, it turns out, that the numbers seem to hold up pretty well for instantaneous changes, i.e. neglecting feedbacks. I know RC is highly unpopular here, but I think this one is well worth reading: Water vapour: feedback or forcing? by Gavin Schmidt.
@ur momisugly bluegrue (15:47:26)
Oh, yeah. We should be cautious of a report that was written in 1994 because… why? Has water vapor physical chemistry changed so much since then? Golly, I shouldn’t have been so careless as not to keep up with the literature on that.
Perhaps this will be more to your liking?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Though somehow I doubt it, even though the references are much more recent (like this century, even).
And why on earth would I want to read anything by Gavin Schmidt? He’s been wrong (I’m being kind, here) far too often for me to bother with him, though if I have time and need a good laugh I may take you up on it.
@ur momisugly bluegrue (15:47:26); Re my last.
I guess I owe sort of an appology. The 1994 paper attributes far less importance to H2O vapor, and far too much to CO2. Hmmmm, maybe those are the numbers the warmers are using?
@Carbonicus (12:37:11) :
Oh, I don’t have to be patient, or watch even. I know how it will turn out, hopefully BEFORE the warmers have done too much damage. And, if you don’t know already, here’s one of the contenders that the ignoble Nobel committee rejected in favor of little big Al…
http://www.auschwitz.dk/Sendler.htm
I saw a good cartoon of the Nobel committee deliberating (as if they really meant to pick anyone but the Goracle). It speaks volumes.
And don’t forget they gave that “prize” to Jimmy Carter, too. What a bunch of clueless PC idiots!
Also, there was one member of the committee that was considering Arafat who resigned rather than vote for him. G-d bless that man!
This is why we don’t follow the majority all the time. They are frequently wrong. And the more wrong they are, for some reason the more in the majority they seem to be, at least till they are shown to be totally wrong.
@ur momisugly HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Hmm, I had been under the impression, that for example Lindzen’s iris hypothesis was tested and the CLOUD experiment is on track. However, I’ll take your word for it, that nothing of importance has happened in the understanding of the atmosphere over the last 30 years.