Joe Bastardi tackles Gore’s global warming credentials….and rightly so:
I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted… by anyone.
The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore’s premises grows by the day.
What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility.
When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the “orals,” at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU.
In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know.
But you know he DID invent the internet so we have to give him that…..sigh
Meanwhile in other global warming news there appears to still be a few level headed blokes in England:
Today, Andrew Guy Tyrie, Conservative Party Member of Parliament for Chichester, first elected in the 1997 General Election, and formerly a special adviser at HM Treasury, has written an excellent piece in The Times, in which he describes our carbon emission targets as “absurd” [‘A fantasy that will bankrupt us’, The Times, March 27]:
“… drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuels and therefore huge increases in the cost of energy – in industry, for heating our homes and in our cars – would leave us all worse off. It would hit the poor hardest, for whom energy is a larger proportion of their income.
Implementing the [Climate Change] Bill would also, in practice, mean the closure of parts of British industry, only to see them reopen in China and elsewhere. The UK contributes only 2 per cent of global emissions. Unilateral action by the UK, as required by this Bill, would be politically irresponsible and economically disastrous.
Back in the real world these targets are unlikely to be met…”
Mr. Tyrie is to be congratulated – how unusual it is to hear an MP who dares to say what we all know in our heart of hearts to be true; it punctures the balloon of hypocrisy like a bubble bumping onto a thistle.
And finally a new book is out by Lawrence Solomon on the the deniers of man-mad global warming. Born out of many articles he wrote for the National Post regarding those scientists who were labeled “deniers” by the many environazi’s we have all grown to know quite well over the years. The book The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
Sterling Burnett wrote this about the book:
This book does not attempt to settle the science, or show that humans are or are not responsible for the present warming trend, or settle what we can expect the future harms/benefits of continued warming (or cooling) might be. Rather, the genius of the book is that it shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the “consensus” view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible (and often more compelling) than the IPCC/Gore camps.
The Deniers, examines what should be the active debates concerning the plausibility of the argument that human CO2 emissions (or CO2 per se) is a driver for climate change, what role the sun may play in warming, what role the present warming trend (and human activities) play in hurricane and tropical/parasitic disease patterns, and the reliability of the climate models, among other issues. In addition, Solomon notes the harsh treatment that many scientists have endured simply because they followed the scientific method, the evidence from their research, and their own consciences, all of which led them to the conclusion that this or that facet of the global-warming consensus view was woefully incomplete or flat-out wrong. This treatment has had the effect intended by global warming scaremongers — to shut down promising areas of research and to silence credible critics.
Though there are many good books on global warming, The Deniers is among the most effective in showing how science is being fundamentally undermined in the current politicized atmosphere of climate research. In addition, like no other book or paper I know, it provides a concise but thorough overview of the myriad weaknesses of the consensus view, the quality and substance of the criticisms of that view, and the stellar qualifications of those scientists labeled derisively as “deniers.”
Certainly appears to be a book you should pick up to better understand how the vitriol and labels of “the debate is over” have effected the debate over man-made global warming.
See author page
I wonder everyday how I made it out of public schools without being infected by such stupidity
Re: “Rather, the genius of the book is that it shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the “consensus” view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible (and often more compelling) than the IPCC/Gore camps.”
And making something sound “plausible” to the public is all the industrialists and Right-wingers want. That way they can continue to keep the money from from fossil fuel companies to Republican candidates. While ther earth literally “burns”.
This use of “plausible” non-scientific studies (usually using carefully selected data as we have seen in ohter threads), is how Creatioists keep tehri pseudo-science in front of Americans.
Add to that the insane levels of hatred Conservatives have toward Al Gore, beyond anything ever shown against George w. Bush and his list of backers, and this book should make ther NY Times best seller list (thanks to lots of bul buys) in no time.
You know, I’ve always wondered why the so called cure for the current allegation of ‘global warming’ is pretty much the same as it was about 30 years ago for the then alleged ‘global cooling’. =)
how do I delete a comment when made to the wrong thread?
I wonder how paying more taxes to fund socialism, changes the weather …
“But you know he DID invent the internet so we have to give him that…..sigh”
I have to call you on this one, Curt – can we please bury it once and for all? See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp for details.
As far as global warming is concerned, my position is pretty simple. While we may disagree on the severity of the impact man’s activities have on the earth’s climate, almost everyone in the debate agrees that we ARE affecting it in a negative fashion. (No one is arguing that what we’re doing is GOOD for the earth, right?) I think we also agree that unexpected events are taking place, for which the root causes cannot be determined easily or definitively; the recent events in the Antarctic ice shelf (see
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p25s10-wogi.html for details) are a good example of this unpredicted/inexplicable behavior.
Therefore, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to limit man’s influence on what may well be a natural cycle of events. That doesn’t mean that we require every factory to be retrofitted with cleaner technology, but it does mean that new factories shouldn’t be built with high-pollution technology, and that older factories shouldn’t be rebuilt with old, dirtier technology. We should be working toward “greener” sources of energy. These are reasonable, common-sense things that should be done, even if we don’t agree on the ultimate outcome of the climate change question.
Credentials? Why not ask Gore’s Thesis Adviser?
WATER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS“Water Rules!”Please read it, and try to understand it.In summary…H2O is by far the most important contributor to the greehouse effect, and human contribution is virtually nil.CO2 is much less important than water vapor, and humans contribute less than 5% of the total, the rest being natural, and completely out of our control. We could spend trillions of dollars to reduce our CO2 output, which will drastic effects on our economy, and have NO MEASUREABLE EFFECT on temperature.Also consider that if when CO2 was much higher in the past than it is today, why didn’t global warming “run away” back then, and the temperature stay high? Could it be because CO2 is not the driving factor? That would seem the most likely explaination.
Wesmorgan1
Actually there are many people who feel that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to most of the people on earth. The increased CO2 enhances plant growth, and the slightly higher temperatures are generally of benefit. It is pretty well agreed that there is a limit to the temperature increase due to CO2, and that the IPCC projections of catastrophe are due to “positive feedbacks.” The data from the Aqua satellites and the Argos ocean buoys are casting doubt on the “positive feedback” hypothesis.
ECHOING JAMES WILLIAMSAccording to Wesmorgan1, <em>”(No one is arguing that what we’re doing is GOOD for the earth, right?)”</em>That’s WRONG. (…and we aren’t “doing” it – see my post #7, above for details on what really runs the greenhouse.There are quite a few people who think that Global Warming and or elevated CO2 levels are good, for the reasons that J.W. gives, and others (like, more people die of exposure to cold than they do from heat).
Ummm…yonason, you realize that citing an economist on climate change is kind of like citing a cobbler on particle physics, right? I mean, come on, you give me an article in which the author actually seems to consider:
scientific debate on the questions of climate change? He’s basically saying that “it might mean something, it might not.” Here’s another diligent application of the scientific method, from the same paper:
Do you really want to hold this stuff up as scientific argument?
@wesmorgan1
What are Al Gore’s qualifications? He’s never done any independent research. He’s not an economist or an historian. But, he IS a con artist.
Exactly what is your problem with an economist dealing with the economical impact of global warming, anyway? Using his expertise he is analyising just how we should prepare to deal with what happens if the earth gets warmer, and/or if CO2 levels raise.
Are you aware that the IPCC itself relies heavily on economists for it’s assessment, though it frequently distorts their conclusions to suit it’s predetermined views? So, yes, the views of economists are indispensable in assessing the impact of climate on economies.
Remember, the IPCC write the conclusions, and they are political bureaucrats, not scientists. The science tells you what might happen. The economist tells you how to deal with it. Too bad, though, that the IPCC flunkies are so corrupt and dishonest.
When will you guys realize that it’s all a pack of lies to con governments into regulating your disposable income so that it goes straight into the pockets of swindlers like Gore?
For those who want to read what experts who are also “deniers” say, here’s a series of reports about them and why they think that being of climate change has no basis in reality. There are currently 38 of them, and growing.
“CV OF A DENIERRoger Revelle was Professor of Oceanography at
Scripps Institution of Oceanography and became its director from
1950-64. After his successful efforts to create the University of
California San Diego, he went to Harvard University, where he was
Professor of Population Policy and director of the Center for
Population Studies until 1976. He was also founding chairman of the
first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean under the Scientific
Committee on Ocean Research and the International Oceanic Commission. Dr. Revelle received a PhD in oceanography from UC-Berkeley in 1936.”And, he says, when asked “What will the warming of the earth mean to us?” …”There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a
fertilizer for plants … you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2
levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their
pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier
climates. Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with
people saying the weather is getting worse? Revelle People are always
saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is
predicted to temper weather extremes … .”OK, is it better now that you read it from a scientist? At least now you know one economist and one scientist who are of the opinion that it not only won’t be a catastrophic, but in fact beneficial, if in fact the world warms as opposed to cooling, as some others say it might.
First off, I didn’t vouch for Gore’s credentials, remember? *laugh* Second, you asked, “Exactly what is your problem with an economist dealing with the economical impact of global warming, anyway?” When the question is the economical impact, that’s fine; when the question is the existence and/or root causes of global warming itself, that’s a question for the hard scientists…who cares what the economists say on that question?Those were interesting articles in your link in #12 above. Gee, by their definition–and my position as described above–I’m a “denier” as well. You’re better off leading with some of these guys–the actual meteorologists and climate scientists–instead of the economists.
If you will recall, I wasn’t addressing “the existance and/or root of gw itself.” I was addressing your comment, ”(No one is arguing that what we’re doing is GOOD for the earth, right?)” – note that you didn’t specify “scientists” but the generic “no one is arguing.” So, I have named one economist (you can’t dismiss them as irrelevant, because the scientists on both sides of this debate don’t.), and one climate specialist, though that one didn’t post for some reason. So, here’s what he said in answer to the question of what might happen in a warmer world with higher CO2…”There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a
fertilizer for plants … you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2
levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their
pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier
climates. Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with
people saying the weather is getting worse? Revelle People are always
saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is
predicted to temper weather extremes … .”In answering your question, I showed that your specific assumption that no one thinks a warmer world is good is incorrect. Also, I digressed to show that economic analysis is integral to determining the impact of global warming, and that the IPCC perverts what the scientists and the economists say. In any case, I’m glad you liked those links, and even more glad to hear your not ‘over the edge’ yet. Also, sorry, I didn’t pick up on your not vouching for the Gorecle’s credentials.G’night
ARRRGGGGHHHH! A SECOND POST THAT DIDN’T GO THROUGH. WHAT GIVES? I’ll try it again tomorrow.
“When the question is the economical impact, that’s fine; when the
question is the existence and/or root causes of global warming itself,
that’s a question for the hard scientists…” — wesmorgan1
Yes, but the question I was answering was if anyone thought that global warming was good. I wasn’t addressing the “existence and/or root causes.” And since the economists’ analyses are essential to the topic I was addressing, I figured it would be ok to use one for reference.
Also, sorry, I didn’t pick up on the fact that you weren’t vouching for the Goreacle.
…glad you liked the refs.
The comment applet is different – and this one is butchering indentations and formatting.OK, we seem to have talked past each other. My “good for the earth” was in reference to the physical earth itself, not the “good for man” sense about which the economists speak. That’s why it struck me that you came back with an economist’s viewpoint.That’s one of the problems with this debate; both sides extrapolate from the “hard” science into the nebulous “yeah, but what does it mean for human society” areas. The entire debate loses when that happens; we all know what happens when you get two economists–or two psychologists, or two sociologists–in the same room…*laugh*
If carbon dioxide causes global warming, then why hasn’t the liberals tried to ban carbonated drinks? I guess Jones Soda paid for carbon offsets. But I wonder how they get around the EPA regulations, after all CO2 is now toxic.
As in every liberal cause, intent is more important than truth. He means well, therefore the facts don’t matter. I have no idea if he even believes his own crap. He may not really understand the difference between correlation and causation, and seems like a dimwit when talking about his favorite subject.
The excerpt from the British press was illustrative. If Britain, or the U.S. were to reduce industrial activity using carbon for energy that activity WILL simply move to China.
John McCain said that “even if we are wrong” about global warming, we’ll still get a cleaner world. Well, we won’t because China has almost no controls on emissions. The soot that is already coming out of their coal fired power plants is reaching the North Western U.S.
Another point is that the Environazis used to claim that “no credible scientist” opposes their view on global warming. That big lie is as outrageous as the rest of their claims. Glad to see the truth is getting out.
If, when McCain is elected, along with many other Republicans (some of them hopefully real ones) then maybe we can keep him in check on this.
And, reducing CO2 won’t make the world any cleaner, because CO2 is colorless, odorless, tasteless gas. Of course, people will be able to appreciate the world more then. They’ll have plenty of time, what with the lack of work. Just don’t expect to see far away places. You won’t be able to afford to travel. Only the Goracle and his con-artist friends can afford to take trips with the money we are forced to pay them for their “carbon offset” snake oil.
(Gore) – I feel so good about myself.
(the gored) – But you didn’t accomplish anything.
((Gore) – Well, at least I tried.
(the gored) – You did nothing. I’m the one who made all the sacrifices.
(Gore) – But I’m the one who told you how.
(the gored) – Yeah, and all that happend was I got poorer and you got richer.
(Gore) – Them’s the breaks, chum. But don’t worry, I’m working on my next great project.
(the gored) – [Blinks, mouth wide in disbelief, then looks around for heavy blunt object.]