It seems about time somebody pointed this out:
Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about “saving the planet.” What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act.
You want to “save the planet?” Pay your tithing, give money to other worthy international causes, and support globalization, free trade and free markets, which are the quickest ways to end international poverty. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program sponsored by international do-gooders who do no good at all.
Geoff,
This seems to be a common theme from those who might not agree with global warming. Why is it an either/or scenario? Why can’t we be concerned with BOTH global warming and waterborne diseases? I mean really, who’s pushing both issues anyways? The same people generally.
Who would those people be?
Dan, to answer your #3, I’m thinking of Al Gore and his 20,000 sq. ft. mansion specifically.
To answer your #2, I don’t necessarily disagree. But the climate regarding the global warming debate is totally out of control.
See this article for more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
so you don’t think Al Gore is doing any good AT ALL? Nothing? Zip? Your statement seems to imply that.
On the Global warming issue, Al Gore is doing no good at all. Nothing. Zip. There are probably other areas of his life where he is doing some good.
Anytime you hype an issue out of control and create an environment that snuffs out real debate, you are doing no good at all.
I didn’t realize every time I do something to save the planet it negated money I’d given to charities that try to help with poverty. Really Geoff, I understand you guys are trying to the the ultra-conservative blog in a group of pretty liberal LDS blogs, but occasionally you have posts like this that seem to have no point other than to tell people “look at me, I’m not like you others!”. Are things like conserving energy, using less water, and driving less in some way not harmonious with the gospel? I don’t think they’re any less harmonious than wanting to stop poverty?
Tell us the truth, do you secretly wish you were writing for a political blog so you didn’t have to try and tie in the boring religious stuff to what you want to blog about?
I like how Bjorn Lomborg put it:
Another good quote is Richard S. Lindzen:
What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence?
This is the exact attitude that makes it so hard to do anything about global warming, just like it’s hard to convince people to eat right, and get regular changes: if we’re not in immediate danger from something, it’s really hard to pay attention to it. This is especially the case in the free market: individual players in the free market don’t generally plan for things from a long-term position of: “What will happen if the naturual resources I use and upon which I’ve built my entire business plan disappear?” or “What if my customers die?” or “What if the world ceases to exist?” A great, though admittedly somewhat tangential, example of this is the music recording industry.
Their business model has been optimized and built around selling hard-copies of distributable media to the public. When that media ceased being in vogue, their sales crumbled, and they didn’t meet the public’s demand for the new format which took it’s place, the MP3. If Steve Jobs hadn’t stepped in and shown that there was a viable economic model for digital versions of the music that the industry sells, the RIAA would be even further up a creek than it is right now.
Ultimately, however, I think with regards to the piece you cite, that I really agree with Dan, in #2. There is no reason why this is an either/or issue, and Phillip Stott is really creating a straw man by insinuating that if we worry about global warming we’re taking attention away from curing poverty, or curing waterborn illnesses or… Doing so is just as bad, if not worse, than what you’re claiming Al Gore is doing, whether or not I agree with his politics or his 20,000 sq ft mansion, because he’s not even using good thinking. He’s using simple logical fallacies.
Geoff,
So educating the public, going around and raising awareness of a real problem in the world is “doing no good at all.” You do realize that that is what some think of our missionaries going around the world, Geoff, and your position is very weak. To say someone is doing “no good at all,” is foolish and flimsy.
Hypothesis
– If CO2 increases then world temperature increases
Observed fact
– World temperature has increased from 1970 to 2006
Logical fallacy
– World temperature has increased because of C02 increases.
Observed fact
– World temperature decreased from 1940 to 1970(remember the impending ice age)
– CO2 increased from 1940 to 1970
The original hypothesis is shaky.
http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/328668_a.jpg.html
http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/328669_b.jpg.html
jjohnsen,
I’ve done political posts on the other side that were much more tangential to religion than this one. So I’m hardly one to begrudge Geoff his say. But in any case, the whole issue seems relevant to me, as a Mormon. Sure he probably could have thrown in a couple scriptures, but it’s fine by me.
Now Geoff, if I understand you correctly, you’re making two points:
1. Attention, resources and energy devoted to “global warming” prevent us from addressing more pressing human problems.
2. Economic development, on a classical capitalist model, is the real solution to human suffering and societal betterment. If environmentalism is handicapping the march of capitalism, it’s doing more harm than good.
I think you have a good argument on #2. #1 has holes in it for pretty much the same reasons Dan has already pointed out. By the logic you are setting up here, any efforts that are not directed towards “public enemy #1” are wasted.
It’s a logical given that resources devoted to one cause will leave less available for other causes. Of course that’s true. But if you re-read your Adam Smith, you’ll note that it is simply not economically efficient for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING to be devoted to the absolute most pressing issue. Specialization requires that different people and different NGOs work on different issues. This maximizes efficiency.
Not everyone can be working on poverty. Neither can everyone be working on AIDS and Malaria. Neither should everyone be working on building roads, sewage lines, and phone networks. Neither should every last American be directing all charitable donations to any one of those causes (or even exclusively all the causes listed above).
Now, if you’d like to re-direct the argument into whether environmentalists play an obstructionist role that stunts prosperity and does more harm than good, that’s fine. People have been debating that issue quite a bit without any real resolution yet. More power to you.
But I note that many environmentalists would be puzzled by your implication that they are supposedly not doing anything about AIDS, poverty, etc.
The problem is that those most opposed to doing anything about global warming are also often those most opposed to doing much about global poverty, global disease or so forth. I agree that there should be a sense of balance. However balance would entail significant increases in research for alternative fuels, for cleaning the environment, for medicines, for improving third world nations and so forth. Unfortunately R&D is decreasing, not increasing, science is being politicized so that what is bad for big donors suddenly is suppressed, and of course means that could improve things aren’t done.
I’ll grant you there’s a lot of hypocrisy among those who mouth off about global warming. For far to many preaching and “appearing” to care is more important than actually solving anything. Ditto with work on global poverty, on avoiding extinctions, and so forth.
But to move from “some are hypocrites” to “we ought ignore the issue” seems extremely problematic.
I recently heard that Animals emit more CO2 than cars. Anyone know if this is true? Maybe mass genocide is the proper cure for environmental warming?
Anyway, Geoff B’s quote seems like a last ditch effort on the loosing side of the argument. It seems like someone has been beaten on all other fronts and is now asking us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
My main concern with simply releasing the hounds of capitalism and profit up a troubled world can be summed up in two words I learned in Econ 101:
“market failures”
Self interest does NOT always work out for the betterment of society. A “rising tide” does not always “raise all boats.”
Sure, you can point to the examples of England and the United States as an argument that we ought to simply “leave things to sort themselves out over the long haul.” You might note that Dickens Oliver Twist was a dark, but necessary step England had to take on a long road to the brighter future it enjoys today.
The problem is Geoff, we have no time for that approach anymore. To invoke Dickens again:
“Oliver Twist has come to town. And he has a TV and a radio, and he’s seeing how YOU live. And you must either show him a way to get what you have, or he will turn to someone else or some other idea to get his share.”
Unfettered capitalist societies can never achieve stability in a highly interconnected world. The system will collapse in revolution, rioting, and civil war before it ever gets off the ground.
Development must be stabilized and humanized, if it wishes to be sustainable. That is the true mission of the environmentalist.
Matt W.,
Sounds like an Ann Coulter soundbite.
Clark,
Pointing at the hypocrisy of the messenger does absolutely nothing to address the message.
I would also note that many among the scientific community feel that the “politicizing of science” has been largely at the hands of Republicans. In the 1950s through 1970s (and earlier), government scientists didn’t fear losing their jobs simply for advocating on the wrongs side of a societal debate (with isolated exceptions). Conservatives are hardly in any position to complain about the politicizing of science. They made their own bed on that score. Now it’s coming back to bite them.
I might make a similar argument on the polarization issue. Are you surprised that the environmental community is becoming increasingly extremist?
After all, congressional Republicans were SOOO open and understanding about scientific evidence all those years they were in control.
Where on earth did these shrill environmentalist voices come from? And why are all these people suddenly listening to them?
(heavy sarcasm)
Guys, the folks like Al Gore who are the biggest proponents of “doing something” about global warming are also the ones who are mostly opposed to real solutions about real poverty. And to a certain extent, the two goals are diametrically opposed. The reason the rain forest is decreasing in Brazil is because of economic development, which brings jobs and helps people escape poverty. One solution for Brazil would be to develop nice, clean jobs in office buildings far away from the rain forest. But most people worried about global warming are also against globalization and free trade, which would help create those nice, clean jobs in office buildings. So the people of Brazil are stuck every way they look: if they go out and get a plot of land and clear it so they can not be super-poor, they are contributing to global warming. But they don’t have much of a choice because global elites also oppose development that would give them jobs elsewhere.
Global warming fanatics like Al Gore are doing incredible harm to actual human beings who suffer because of people like Al Gore, who continues to live in his 20,000 sq ft house while Brazilian peasants are prevented from even getting subsistence-level jobs.
Clark, I disagree with your #13 statement that those opposed to doing anything about global warming also oppose doing anything about poverty. Free-market economists since Adam Smith have been pointing out an obvious truth, that the market left alone will resolve most problems. The last decade has seen the greatest decrease in poverty in the history of the world, and it has mostly come in Asia (think China and India, but also Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam and on and on) precisely because these countries have adopted free-market solutions. I oppose doing much about global warming because I don’t think human beings can do much about it, and it is a waste of time. But I have consistently supported policies that are ending poverty for literally hundreds of millions of poor people. You may or may not know that I wrote on this issue for several years for the Economist magazine and may have had a very small part in informing people and influencing a few opinions here and there.
So, many of the same people who oppose doing anything about global warming are in fact the same people who are doing a lot to end hunger and poverty for hundreds of millions.
Seth –
that itself says nothing about the message. Both sides ignore and/or embrace science when it suits their politics.
Organic farming contributes more to global warming than “conventional” farming. Which party gets cognitive dissonance from that fact?
Also, if you had to guess, which party is more likely to be opposed to bioengineering of foods and/or cattle?
There are numerous examples. Yes, the Republicans ignore and/or belittled environmentalists – but that almost is a chicken and egg thing – it seems that many environmentalists went on the attack.
The other problem is that the part of the public at least ten years older than I am is going to recall being told back in the 70s that “global cooling” and the “population bomb” were inevitable, irrefutable, scientifically proven facts and those who disagreed were immoral or at least just plain wrong. Since that didn’t pan out quite as the doomsayers said it would, many people probably wonder if we aren’t under similar hype, what with the cries of “ten years or we’re all doomed.”
My suggestion to scientists and/or environmentalists: Get better PR and actually engage the debate. Stop casting aspersions at people who disagree or express doubts. The name calling and nasty straw man attacks that many engage in does NOTHING to help y’all’s cause. (Sarcasm will not win the day either).
Until that changes, it will not sound like a scientific debate. And now that we have supporters of Gore referring to him as a prophet and themselves as true believers – well, it’s quite easy to see why there’s a lot of skepticism out there.
Gore’s movie may get the Oscar, but something tells me a semi-obscure documentary from Britain’s Channel 4 – http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html – is going to be more in line with what the general public will believe, since the Planet Gore crowd seems unwilling to actually engage in discussion/debate.
The problem of using the market to deal with global warming isn’t that off. However there are two things necessary. First an informed populace. The market only works when there is good information flow and understanding of the information. Unfortunately most are woefully ignorant of science. (Most of the information on global warming the public gets from both sides is just bad) The second problem is that the “costs” associated with global warming take place far enough in the future that it’s too easy to put it off. Humans have cognitive limitations and not dealing well with future planning is a big one. Thirdly most of the costs of global warming won’t be in our countries but in poor nations like the African nations. Once again human cognitive limitations enter in. Out of sight, out of mind. The same reason we treat a poor person in our neighborhood differently from a poor person in Africa apply.
Seth,
Exactly what are you arguing?
I agree that the hypocrisy of the messenger says nothing about the message. However it also seems fair though to note that if the group yelling the loudest isn’t willing to sacrifice for the problem why should others? To draw an analogy a missionary who is simultaneously sleeping around says nothing about the message of chastity. But we sure shouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t persuade too many people and perhaps turns a lot of people off of the gospel.
While many in the scientific community point to Republicans as politicizing science this really is the Bush administration. It’s something I’ve long been critical of, even if I think some elements are exaggerated in the press. (And I think Democrats politicized science in the past – Bush just mastered the art)
As to the environmentalist movement “becoming increasingly extremist.” They always were extremist. Folks just stopped paying attention to them for a while. We’re talking about groups who kept protesting the seal hunt in Canada long after it had ended, who demonized in a very political fashion any kind of nuclear power (rather than just bad power), and who push “conservation” so much at the expense of alternative stable fuels. (i.e. non solar and wind) Anyway, I’ve no love for a lot of environmental movements.
However clearly all aren’t like that and even those that are do some good.
Geoff,
Real solutions about real poverty? Name me something that Al Gore has been for that has increased poverty somewhere in the world. Actually, since your point of view is that Al Gore does “no good at all” your burden of proof is impossibly high, Geoff. You’ve got to prove that EVERYTHING that Al Gore does has a negative effect on the world around him. Do you see how silly your position is?
Dan, your comments have become so predictably partisan (all Democrats good, all Republicans bad) that I am just going to ignore them. At some point you will perhaps be interested in real dialogue, but that day has not yet arrived.
my comments partisan? Geoff, can you not see how badly partisan your own words are? You say Al Gore does “no good at all.” The implication therefore is that Al Gore is all bad, if there is nothing good in him. There is nothing partisan in calling you out. But go ahead, run and hide, Geoff.
Geoff,
No offense, but your comment to Dan could equally apply to you. You seem to be suggesting that all environmentalists increase poverty and don’t care, a position as black-and-white (and wrong) as what you accuse Dan of doing. You stated that Al Gore does nothing good with regard to global warming, which is both false and inflammatory (I’ll give you that some things he does are the opposite of environmentally sound, but nobody I’m aware of acts in an entirely consistent manner).
Count me on the side that preventing global warming and lessening (or eliminating) poverty aren’t mutually exclusive. Like Clark (and others) have said, though, the costs of global warming are sufficiently far in the future, and often in evaluating them, we underemphasize them.
Matt W., you are essentially correct. The URL below has a diagram of the global carbon budget. The seven billion tons of carbon added to the atmosphere each year by man-made causes is a fraction of that released by living matter. A marginal difference, though, can still matter and make the difference as to whether atmospheric CO2 is increasing or not. Atmospheric CO2 is currently rising by three billion tons of carbon each year.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html
I couldn’t get to the program that was broadcast over the U.K. Channel 4 last Thursday from the info in comment #19, but this link to “The Great Global Warming Swindle” worked for me:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24760&only&rsssmall
The media would have us believe that the debate is over on the issue of climate change. It we are really interested in the truth, let’s hope it isn’t.
Interesting how big a role money plays in this whole science/media event. Studies that don’t show catastrophe looming don’t merit much media attention; and applications for grants are far more likely to be accepted now if the scientist can work “impact on global warming” into the proposal.
Only a few people are pointing out how wrong the 1970’s dire predictions about “global cooling” turned out to be. The old Club of Rome predictions about starvation due to overpopulation (and almost everything else) are laughable now; but the media usually ignore failed predictions, while touting similar future prophesies of doom as scientific truth.
A better comparison is Nuclear Winter. There was the kernel of a correct concept underlying it, but writers like Sagan hyped it up into a limited nuclear exchange dooming civilization. He later admitted the exaggeration, but felt justified because he was arguing on the side of the angels. Nuclear explosions are bad, after all, and any argument against them, legitimately posed or not, is good. With global warming, consumption is bad, and everything is an argument against it.
Only a few people are pointing out how wrong the 1970’s dire predictions about “global cooling” turned out to be.
This is why it’s important to follow what legitimate scientists and the consensus of scientists says rather than what the media says. The media is notorious for sensationalizing anything they can and being woefully bad about science reporting.
Clark,
To clarify, I’m very ambiguous on global warming. I could be convinced either way really.
I consider myself an “environmentalist.” That does not mean I ram speedboats into whaling ships or approve of those who do. It also does not mean I have a Sierra Club membership. In fact, I don’t have a ton of use for them. I also don’t really like the knee-jerk tendency in the environmentalist camp to always go running to either federal agencies or federal courts whenever “them locals is misbehavin on the ranch.”
But I also think that the arguments thrown out by right-wing radio pundits and bull-headed Republican former committee chairmen are not fit for serious discussion.
Balance is what I’m after.
To say you don’t have to worry about global warming for one hundred is like telling a teenager they don’t have to worry about smoking until their fifty and it is okay to go ahead and smoke for now and not worry.
Lets not forget that our wonderful Global Corporations want us to believe that if we are concerned about Global Warming and want the pollution better regulated and controlled that we will all live in poverty. I know I think those corporate CEOs deserve those huge bonuses at the expense of clean air and water. NOT.
“So the people of Brazil are stuck every way they look:”
Please, Geoff,
Just a couple of days ago President Bush was down in Brazil where he said the the issue of the US lowering its tariff (54 cents a gallon) on Brazilian sugar cane-based ethanol (which is 20 times more energy efficient than corn-based ethanol) was not up for discussion. Should Al Gore be blamed for this as well?
As for your denial of climate change, we’ve discussed it before. I no longer take seriously the people who cite cherry-picked scientists who represent the opinions of less than 1 per cent of serious scientists working on the problem. The most poverty-stricken areas of the world are also the most likely to suffer from the effects of global warming, so efforts to decrease its effects do help combat poverty, although as you mention, many other things can and ought to be done simultaneously.
cent
Ditto to what Bill said. One of the many things that have come to disturb me about Bush is his “claim” to be a free marketer and free trader when he is anything but. One could rattle off his protectionisms: lumber imports from Canada, steel tarrifs, farm subsidies, corn subsidies, salmon trade disputes, etc. One of many reasons I have a hard time calling him a conservative. What he did in Brazil really, really bugged me. Not to mention how short sighted it was.
Larry, surely you realize that a lot of large corporations are quite concerned about global warming. The insurance companies being but one example. As for CEO bonuses, relative to the costs of the problem they are miniscule. I know they bug some, but they really are irrelevant.
However you raise an excellent point. If some conservatives attempt to sideline the issue by politicizing science, many liberals attempt some deceit by not coming clean on the economic costs of solving global warming. Most as a practical matter try to do it on the cheap in a fashion that’s just a waste of money. (cough) Kyoto (cough) Both sides are pretty complicit in not making the issues clear.
One last point to those who raise the market red herring. Let’s take an other issue many fear will lead to destruction and loss of life: nuclear weapons. Should we turn to the market for the solution there? Of course not. We recognize that some issues are so large and so dangerous that they demand government action. One can be opposed to large government yet reject libertarianism. i.e. think that government does often have a role to play.
BTW here’s a very interesting libertarian take By Tyler Cowan whom some here probably recognize.
And your source for this data point is….what?
It certainly is not true for my family. We work for real solutions to global poverty by strongly supporting the Perpetual Education Fund and other charities, and we do something about global warming by refusing to drive a car that gets less than 30 miles to the gallon. And mostly trying to avoid driving when possible (I commute and do errands by bicycle a lot).
And breastfeeding and using cloth diapers, so that we are not filling landfills with excessive garbage. And using reusable shopping bags for groceries.
The thing is, the same things that will help with global warming are the same things that will leave the environment in better shape for my children, grandchildren, and their children. It isn’t so much fear of global warming as it is wanting to be good stewards of the earth.
To me, the science of global warming matters far less than the indisputable fact that our oil reserves will not last forever, and there has to be a kinder, gentler way of living with the earth.
Anybody see Glenn Beck’s interview with the PETA guy on CNN last week? It was really interesting, and caused me to think about global warming a little bit differently. Beck is one cool Mormon, imo.
Pointing out liberal hypocrisy is clearly a red herring, though. Who cares if Al Gore has a 20,000 sqf house? All that matters is whether or not his arguments convince us to support the policy changes he advocates, to prevent the catastrophe he predicts.
All that matters is whether or not his arguments convince us to support the policy changes he advocates, to prevent the catastrophe he predicts.
Hmmm – so even if his arguments are bad, overblown or inaccurate, all that matters is the end result?
Considering I’ve recently been told by major media outlets that Global Warming is responsible for the genocide in Darfur (April issue of the Atlantic), and that those who “deny” global warming are on par with holocaust deniers (Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe on Feb. 9) –
well, I don’t think these kinds of arguments are going to work.
Gore’s movie may or may not have had good science in it, but I felt like it was more about creating a cult of personality around Gore. It may win awards, but it isn’t really winning over those who don’t agree.
But it seems many of the commentators here feel that illegitimate arguments are okay as long as it’s in service of a “true” problem? Or can y’all be clearer on that?
And behavior like this doesn’t help the cause any:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
[also see here: http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/climate-skeptics.html ]
To defer the inevitable attacks: My point is not that this somehow proves that Global Warming is not a problem. My point is that the pro-Global Warming side is so badly behaved they are in danger of losing the debate. Get over how “right” and “correct” you are, and stop banishing people for being on the wrong side of the issue. Serious, informed dialogue that respects people, not scare tactics and scientific pseudo-excommunications will do a lot more for the issue than what’s been done so far.
Ivan, I think the point is that if they are bad, overblown, or inaccurate, show it. Prove him wrong. Turning Al Gore’s name into a hiss and a byword doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong.
If it’s bad science, there’s an established peer community that should be able to refute it. The community of scholars should be allowed to do their job; confirm or debunk. Leave the politics out of it.
It appears we cross posted. I’m glad we both are willing to look past politics and get to answers.
And as for bad behavior, there’s plenty of that to go around.
Of course, post #39 almost proves my point –
the anger, the vitrol, the refusal to listen.
Ivan, I don’t advocate bad argumentation.
Likewise, I don’t care a huge amount about global warming. I’m far more concerned with our strategic energy reserves and the stability of the price of oil. For me, it’s a issue of national security.
But the GOP needs to realize they have already lost this fight. The only people on their side on this issue are mostly going to be dead in 15 years. Aside from the elderly curmudgeons, you’ve got a few hardcore College Republicans, and that’s it. No one else takes the anti-global warming people seriously.
Seriously, the GOP needs to marginalize the anti-environment Congresspeople and cut ties with industrial holdouts who can’t see where the wind is blowing. This is an albatross around the GOP’s neck. Until they get on board the environmental movement, they will ALWAYS be seen as that stubborn old man at the end of the block who writes angry letters to the Daily Herald, yells at children, and still thinks the Japs can’t be trusted and are trying to take over America.
I’m not talking about the validity of the arguments. I’m talking sheer politics. The position you are taking Geoff, is already an anachronism. No one ever won an election by telling people that their fears are “silly and overblown.” Being right (if you are right) does neither you, nor the American conservative movement no good here.
Just look at the Patriot Act. Can you imagine anyone in 2002 telling Americans that their fears of “the Axis of Evil,” anthrax, and bin Laden were, in large part, “hype?” Political suicide.
Time to wake up and see which way the wind is blowing here folks.
Oh – yep, we did cross post.
Still – it might be better to try and engage in dialogue, Chad, rather than jump out on the attack and assume the worst. Really, post #39 is in bad taste, even if you did somewhat rescind it in #40.
I never said what Gore did was bad – there are plenty of websites dedicated to “scientifically” showing he has his facts wrong. I can’t judge them, as all I have is a basic college 101 level training in science. But, I can say that viscous attacks like what is going on in the media and on this thread don’t help me see the issue in any sort of positive light.
All I’m saying is:
Every time someone says “I don’t quite get it” or “I’m a skeptic” – stop jumping down their throats or doing what post #38 describes. There’s a bit too much fanaticism going around the issue.
Second to last paragraph, read: “any good here.”
Seth –
No one else takes the anti-global warming people seriously.
Interesting. Polls show that about 77 percent of the public does think it’s occurring (so is that 23% “no one else”) – but they are massively divided over what the causes are and what/if we should do about it. Less than half, however, believe it is primarily caused by humans. Just under 40 percent even consider it a top tier issue.
So, I don’t see how that statement holds. Most of the “anti-global warming” crowd doesn’t argue it does not exist – they just argue that it’s not a top tier issue, or that it’s not primarily humanity’s fault. And the polls seem to show that they are winning.
Here’s the poll I got the above stats from, but other polls show roughly the same thing.
Well Ivan,
I tried to read my post to my wife and she didn’t know what the heck I was talking about.
I’ll take your appellation of “interesting” over my wife’s appellation of “ravingly incoherent.”
Ivan, you’re going to have to show me what is in bad taste in #39. I find it to be levelheaded and in great fairness. I don’t want left-wing shrillness and I don’t want right-wing whining. I want answers.
I don’t see any attack there either. A challenge, perhaps, but no attack.
Methinks ye doth protest to much…
Ivan, 40% see it as a top priority. An other 33% as somewhat serious. You see that as losing? Personally when worried about terrorist and Iraq to have that high a score is pretty amazing to me.
BTW – a new gallup poll just came out.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26842
It shows Americans pretty worried about global warming. One can attack Gore and company, (and I’m no fan), but they’ve been pretty effective at raising awareness. (Or, if you are a foe, scare mongering)
Chad,
That’s pretty common around here. Note Geoff’s attacks on me for, what exactly?
Clark, when you speak of a scientific consensus, you need to be careful to identify what that consensus is so that others don’t assume that every proposed hazard has been confirmed. To my understanding, the consensus is that 1) global average temperature is rising 0.2 degC per decade, and 2) man-made causes are likely factors contributing to the rise. Beyond that much is open for discussion and debate. The last two decades of research have added a lot to our understanding. Besides telling us some things we need to be concerned about, that added knowledge should be tempering some previous fears. Instead current consensus is erroneously represented as telling us that every circa-1992 prediction of doom was on target and needs to be taken seriously.
I worry about what can happen to the reputation of science. In thirty years, we’ll know a lot more. Specifically, we’ll know how predictions three decades into the future will have panned out. Present science is being presented to the public mainly in terms of improbable worst case scenarios which probably won’t materialize. When they don’t and science’s reputation is damaged, it’ll be too late to point out the full range of predicted outcomes.
Climate change skeptics aren’t all crackpots. They appear to mostly be older scientists like Freeman Dyson who have seen too much to get swept up by fads. I read an interesting bit on it by Hendrik Tennekes, a leader in my old field, turbulence research, who was Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (URL at bottom). Tennekes is as much an expert in atmospheric fluid dynamics is there is. Something is dreadfully wrong in any representation that everything is settled.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/01/31/a-personal-call-for-modesty-integrity-and-balance-by-henkrik-tennekes/
Clark –
there’s a big difference between “lost” and “losing” and “will lose” – since the polls show the number of people who see it as a serious problem has gone down over the last year. And since considerably less than half even see it as a top-tier problem:
well, I just think if the comparisons to holocaust deniers and blaming everything bad (like Darfur – is there a scientific consensus on that?) on Global Warming were to stop – well, you’d have a clear majority of the public thinking its a top tier concern.
Clark – you said you used to be a skeptic. I would think that would give you some sympathy towards skeptics and a desire to explain rather than attack. Instead, you’re falling into the trap that’s ruining the debate: “We scietists know better, so stop questioning us – we don’t need to explain.” You also seem to think the scare mongering is okay as long as it’s in the service of “truth.” That’s going to backfire.
In general: Stop the scare tactics, stop engaging straw men, stop taking the superior tone that tells the rest of us we’re either evil or unelnightened, and stop the cult of personality as well.
{and that Gallup Poll is interesting because of the questions it doesn’t ask. But the best summary is this sentence: Americans don’t seem to consider global warming an imminent threat to the welfare of the planet — thus supporting the idea that while Americans may sincerely worry about the problem, it is not a burning or top-of-mind issue for them.
}
Here’s an article from the Global Warming denying, neocon tool The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rsses:
excerpt
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore, Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
….
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
Ivan, that’s a great article. It is a hopeful thing to see this addressed this way in the New York Times. The paper also ran a review last Tuesday on a book by a coastal engineer on the limitations of predictive engineering models (now in the paid archive). That paper’s science section not infrequently shows more devotion to accurate science reporting than to the editorial board’s stance.
Those scientists in the article recognize what I referred to above. If Al Gore is unchallenged as de facto spokesman for science, then down the road, when Florida still exists, people will tally it to the unreliability of science. As the article states, the IPCC summary is quite a bit more moderate than has been commonly portrayed.
As I said Ivan, I’m not fan of Gore although I’ve not seen his film so I just can’t comment on that. The book he had just prior to the 2000 elections was bad – especially in terms of the science of the time. As to your other link I was going to post it but you got it first. I do want to take exception with a comment you made.
Exactly where on earth did you get this idea? Could you point to where I’ve said anything remotely justifying those comments? I’ve constantly attacked scare tactics and sophistry on both sides. What I want is people to become more understanding of the science. And I’ve constantly said the worst foe is the sensationalizing media. (Both left, center, and right) However I’ve also criticized scientists and the way they’ve framed the debate. Not just on the warming controversy but over ID, over genetic engineering and over a lot else. Trust me, I regularly read Science Blogs where some of the most overheated rhetoric comes from.
I know plenty of good humble and “modest” mormons who live in 20000qf houses and drive big suburbans.
Clark –
okay. Perhaps I misread you. Sorry if I did – it just seemed to me that when you said things like “Gore and company [have] been pretty effective at raising awareness” you were tacitly endorsing scare tactics. I think the Gore & co. approach will backfire in a few years if left unchecked.
Anyway, apologies for my misreading you, Clark. It’s probably the nature of the internet, where it’s hard to hear what tone of voice you meant something in. I’ll try to be more charitable in my readings in the future.
{FWIW – my own basic stance is that Global Warming is real. I’m not convinced it’s primarily caused by humans, but I think we should act as if it is anyway, mainly because pollution is always bad. That’s a simplified version, but it should clear some things up.}
My take?
Is there “global” warming? Could be. The science seems to take us there.
Why? Not sure we can really say–I kind of think we have a fairly complex system here. I always thought scientists worked with theory to try to explain stuff. Now if the prophet said that the “global” is warming, that would be something else…
What do we do about it? I like the word stewardship. We were given this “global” and the Lord has said, “the earth is full and there is enough to spare…”
And, I’m kind of partial to the globalization thing. I run a business that is starting to support my family and a family in China that does my sub-assembly manufacturing. My hope is that we can carve a sustainable niche which will eventually support a handful of families (and let fly anglers fish with a remarkable and distinctive natural and handmade instrument).
Works for me.
One should add that regardless of what one thinks about CO2 and warming (and of course that’s not the only cause) CO2 does more. Its effects on the ocean have been devastating. Wormwood, have we already found thee?
Well I think Gore and company have been pretty effective. Typically the rhetoric I decry is effective. Mainly because so much of the electorate is disengaged and ignorant. Heck, I think Rush Limbaugh is highly effective and he’s at least as bad as Gore if not worse.
Will Gore’s efforts backfire? Well, let me turn the question around. Have Limbaugh’s efforts backfired?
Well – I’m not sure. It depends on what you mean by effective? America still elected Clinton over Limbaugh’s objections, and the recent change in power in Congress went ahead despite what Limbaugh said.
I think Limbaugh is rather ineffective, since he basically creates a “safe zone” or “echoing c h a m b e r” where hard right wingers can feel like their views are okay and widely accepted – this causes them to, IMHO, be less actively engaged in politics. He creates a lot of unfocused anger, but seems unable to swing a significant portion of the electorate his way.
Gore, on the other hand, is doing a basic power grab. The environment is a handy issue, but since he’s rich enough to buy carbon offsets (environmental indulgences) from himself, he doesn’t have to obey the rules the rest of us will have to if he succeeds. It’s a clear two tiered society he’s after, with him and his ilk in charge and the rest of us doing their bidding.
It works in the short term, but scare tactics are like conversions based on miracles – once the initial awe wears off, the feeling fades and the movement will be hurt.
Limbaugh is a funny guy with a radio show. Gore was almost elected president. No one cares what Limbaugh says. Gore could take the reputation of science down with him.
Huh? Maybe that’s why he’s never quoted by right-wing bloggers whenever he denounces or makes fun of anyone on the left…..
finally, y’all keep talking about what Gore has supposedly done or said. Can you please provide your references. What has he said that “could take the reputation of science down with him.”
I understand that most commenting here on this blog are conservative and don’t think highly of Gore one way or the other, but please, if you are going to disparage the man, show us your evidence.
dan –
Go read the NYT article linked to above in post #52. Not that I expect it to change your mind (you’re clearly too partisan for that), but because it quotes actual scientists who think Gore just might do that. So John isn’t just making stuff up.
Dan, I’ll second Ivan. Go read the NYT article if you want an answer to your question.
It’s comments like these that undermine Ivan’s message:
The article he cites does not portray this. Ivan is simply showing his own partisan hand, whilst criticizing me for showing mine. That’s a bit hypocritical on his part. I personally don’t care. I am partisan. I wish Republicans to be wholly and thoroughly discredited for what they’ve done these past six years. Read my blog and you’ll see that quite plainly. But Ivan (and Geoff) should not be calling others out for their partisan views when they themselves hold them quite strongly.
As for the article in question, it is a pretty good article. It shows that Al Gore is a polarizing figure among climatologists and geologists. This is to be expected. The science of global warming is not definitive, but it certainly leans towards what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore gets the message out in ways that scientists cannot. He’s a persona well known around the world. What scientist can do what Gore can? Just look at how many blogs talk about global warming. Al Gore would say this is great, and he would be satisfied, because he succeeded. He got the word out. You’re doing his work, Ivan and Geoff. You’re talking about global warming. This is what Al Gore wants. Why? Because this will at some point lead to doing something about it.
Knock him all you want, but he is doing good for this world.
I have to add, I’m rather disappointed with Dr. Hansen, who critiques Gore as follows:
Dr. Hansen is one who should know that El Nino periods reduce the amount of Atlantic hurricanes, and this last year was a period of El Nino. Why he doesn’t mention this is rather befuddling. However, this fact seems to undermine his criticism of Gore. He believes Gore isn’t accurate about the hurricane prediction because of a soft season in 2006, but the reason behind the soft season is El Nino, a natural occurrence.
Just thought I’d add that.
No one cares what Limbaugh says.
Sadly that’s not true. Millions care what Limbaugh says. Probably more than care what Gore says.
I’d add that having an influence doesn’t entail everything happening that they want. In ’96 Limbaugh was faced with Bob Dole as the candidate – a person most people weren’t excited about. Ditto for ’06 with a Congress that wasn’t behaving ethically.
Well, I don’t agree that no one cares what Limbaugh says, but I don’t think he’s as influential as people say he is. He’s popular, but popularity doesn’t always equate to influence (for example, Bob Dole was very popular – most polls showed people liked him personally a lot better than Clinton. But that didn’t equate to Dole gaining any votes).
As for Dan – well, it’s quite clear you don’t care how something gets done, as long as it gets done – even if it is done illegitimately. Scare tactics and overhyped science are fine in your view, I guess. Who cares about long term damage to the credibility of science when we need to make those Republicans pay, eh?
Ivan,
There’s nothing illegitimate about what Al Gore is doing. The very fact that you are talking about global warming means he succeeded.
Who said this was a Democrat/Republican issue? Certainly not Gore. Those who are politicizing this happen to be on the denying side, because they know that the moment they agree with the science, they take upon themselves the responsibility to do something about it, like the rest of the world. At this point, they don’t want to do anything about it, because that would mean harming their dear god “Commerce.” Doing something about global warming means doing something about commerce. They are the ones fighting tooth and nail to discredit a man like Gore to their utmost ability, as so clearly shown on this thread. They (and that means you Ivan) don’t actually want to debate global warming (else this thread would have been about global warming, and not Al Gore), but rather to make yet another attempt to shoot the messenger. You’re politicizing this, Ivan, not me, and not Gore.
If you wish to debate the science, then start a new thread that debates the science and leave Gore out of it. He’s done his job.
Dan –
1.) I can’t really debate you on this, because you’ve got some bizarre straw man in your head that you think is me (and/or conservatives in general). Most of your comments to me ignore nearly everything I’ve said in favor of attacking isolated sentiments – so it’s hard to respond to something that bears little resemblance to what I said (in context).
2.)I’m not trying to shoot the messenger – I’m saying we need better messengers.
3.)There’s too much either/or going on here. I’ve already stated my position on Global Warming – I agree it exists and is a problem. Apparently, you don’t believe me.
4.) There are better ways to save the environment than to give power to people who tell us to sacrifice while refusing to do it themselves. There are other methods, means and groups we can support that don’t involve Gore and his type. I support a few of those myself.
5.) No matter how noble the cause, it does not justify illegitimate means, bad arguments and exaggerated science.
you’re right, Ivan, continuing in this manner will not work.
Ivan, for the record I completely 100% agree with your comments in (#70). What’s sad is that many don’t see Gore as a divisive figure. To make an analogy, it would be as if in 4 years George Bush goes out doing the same. There will be a large component of people who will distrust him precisely because of who he is and how he attempts to convince others.
I hope Al Gore its not been judged by the party that he belongs. I think that Al Gore it’s doing a lot of good. He’s addressing an issue that has been passed over our heads without any major recognition. If your major its international relations or business, it clearly states that American’s by culture are way ethnocentric. I see that we are too fed up with all the goodness and rosed up color lives that we don’t see the real danger of mishandling the earth that we live in. Politicians and money seekers care for short term things MONEY .. they don’t see the longterm jeopardies of misguided actions.
I cant understand the need to destroy the earth that we live in, instead of looking and searching for better alternatives, because they EXIST.. sadly its all special interests.. and this special interests are grossly fed in the American Media own by this same groups ( FOX news, CNN everywhere .. ) .
Didnt we learn the stewardship of the earth?!?! isnt that one of the quality’s that we are taught in Church?!?!.. I don’t see why bring Al Gore down or tell that he’s not doing any good. I applaud him for bringing this issue to the attention of the people.
You guys consider what Limbaugh says as legitimate ?!?! That would be pretty scary.
Phillipe –
you may have looked at the words on the screen, but apparently you didn’t actually read the comments.
No one was saying Rush is legitimate. At best, it was said he was effective (something I don’t agree with, personally, but which is a far cry from legitimizing him).
As for Gore – I’m rather tired of hashing out that subject. Just read the actual comments and the NYT articles. You’re attacking straw men that don’t truly resemble any of the substantive comments made about him or related issues on this thread.
As with others, you’re setting up a false dichotomy that somehow makes it impossible to not like Gore all that much and still be pro-environment. Realize there are many more than two sides to the issue.
Gore IS global warming (or is it ‘climate change’ now? I forget). If I were to adopt Geoff’s generalizations on immigration and apply them to global warming, if you don’t like Gore, you’re anti-environment.
Seriously, I tend to be the most conservative poster here, but I’m a pretty green guy. I am anti-development, pro conservation (even if that means more government control), and pro strict regulations on pollutants. I’m no climatologist, but I can see through political bullcrap. My belief at the moment? Climate change is occurring, but any evidence that man is causing it is too mired in politics to be conclusive. The debate is far from over. And I think we’re just beginning to see a growing backlash against Gore’s scare-mongering.
When the weather experts can get the five day forecast right, then maybe I’ll give their long-term predictions a little more serious thought. Until then, I’ll be a good steward of the earth because I love it, not because I fear it will be flooded.
Wow. This is nearly exactly my view on global warming. Well worth reading.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003331.php
Regarding recent comments. What does it mean for someone to be “legitimate”? I think Limbaugh says a lot of things that are correct and a lot of stuff that is mind blowingly naive. Ditto with Gore. I’m clearly closer politically to Limbaugh than Gore.
Anyway, like others I see the Gore issue as a strawman. At best he made a movie some like that popularized the issue. He’s largely irrelevant beyond that.
“When the weather experts can get the five day forecast right, then maybe I’ll give their long-term predictions a little more serious thought.”
Actually, they’re getting to be remarkably good with there five day forecasts, but the two types of predictions (short-term variable behavior, as opposed to long-term
trends) can hardly be judged by the same parameters.
In fact, many of those long term predictions have proven to be quite accurate:
http://columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
Unfortunately, the NY Times article was not a great piece of journalism. Check here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419
for a critique and here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/
for criticism of a previous effort by the same author. (Sorry, the system is not letting me link normally.)
Comment 107 to the first thread sums it up best:
The hook of the NYT story is that “rank-and-file” scientists (explicitly “not…skeptics”) are critical of Mr. Gore. Mr. Broad’s first and paradigmatic source is Easterbrook, who in fact doesn’t believe that CO2 causes global warming and actually believes in “global cooling.” Thus the premise of the entire article falls apart–ie the “rank-and-file” guy is actually a climate science weirdo. That’s bad enough. But think about it: are we to believe that Mr. Broad somehow ran into what he thought were some “rank-and-file” scientists critical of Gore and then ran a story on them, not realizing that, in reality, they were all climate change skeptics? That seems next to impossible. The logical conclusion is that Broad intentionally misrepresented his sources. By even Fox news’ standards, that should be ground for dismissal. Here’s a link to one of Easterbrook’s handouts in which he covers “global cooling,” benign CO2, and his dissing of the IPCC. You be the judge: “rank-and-file” scientist or skeptic? And did Broad know or not about his sources? Either answer demands a retraction from the NYT.
As a Darwinist I am counting on gobal warming. To fullfill the Bible prophies.
Well, considering that Al Gore in this interview says he deliberately exaggerated the effects of global warming, I would consider him a lot less reliable than Rush Limbaugh:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html
Scroll down and note that Gore says the following:
“I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.”
As for Rush, it is fascinating to me how many people criticize him without ever listening to what he has to say. I listen to Rush for a half-hour perhaps twice a week and, for the most part, find him factually accurate and entertaining.
Philippe, if you don’t think Rush is legitimate, could you please cite something he has actually said on global warming that is “illegitimate?”
I understand that it is definitely not politically correct to like Rush Limbaugh, but I try to judge commentators on what they actually say rather than what I think they say. Al Gore has actually said he is deliberately lying about the effects of climate change. Now, THAT’s something worth condemning.
Geoff, I listen to Limbaugh much less frequently than you (not an especially productive use of my time, since I can almost always predict exactly what he will say in advance), but I’m afraid I find him only occasionally entertaining and quite often factually inaccurate.
In any case, 30 seconds of research unearthed the following links (I’m sure there are hundreds more similar examples):
http://www.bestofmaui.com/rush.html
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Limbaugh.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160007
Bill, you are a smart guy, and clearly are interested in the global climate.
I will admit that, based on reading the attached, there are times when Limbaugh gets his facts wrong. I hope you will also admit that there are also scientists, not part of the current scientific “concensus,” who agree with much of Limbaugh’s comments and his point of view. Much of what you claim are errors are simply differing interpretations of data and part of the current scientific debate on global warming. But your larger point is true, that Limbaugh has made some factual errors. This is not an excuse, simply a point of fact: if you’re going to talk for three hours a day, you will make mistakes. Most bloggers I know make mistakes in every paragraph, and talking three hours a day creates pages and pages of data. Yes, there will be mistakes. But, again, it is incumbent on commentators when they make blatant mistakes to correct them. Rush sometimes does that and may have in fact issued corrections on some of his errors — I don’t think there’s a way of knowing for sure without googling for hours. I have heard Rush correct mistakes before.
On the other hand, I would think that you would be alarmed by Al Gore admitting he deliberately exaggerated results for political effect. Considering you appear to be somebody with a scientific bent, I would think that would cause you concern.
Btw, I think it is legitimate to do a Gore vs. Limbaugh comparison because they are probably the highest-profile promoters for each side of the debate.
If Rush were to take on Gore in a debate, my personal opinion is he would destroy him and make him look incredibly foolish. Gore has a long history of avoiding real debate on his issue.
And, by the way, here are 25 factual errors in Gore’s book:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
Bill,
#78,
Well said. I also quoted from Dr. Hansen in that NY Times piece in which he mildly critiqued Al Gore’s obsession with hurricanes as a predictor of the bad weather to come from global warming. Dr. Hansen used last year’s hurricane season to disprove Mr. Gore. However, Dr. Hansen failed to mention to the readers that 2006 was an El Nino year, and that El Nino reduces the amount of Atlantic hurricanes we see (and that was the case).
Anyone surprised that you would think this?
Dan, you seem to think that NOAA et al. forget to account for El Nino when they work out forecasts.
From NOAA: August 2006 Update to Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook, “One factor known to significantly impact Atlantic hurricane seasons is ENSO [El Nino-Southern Oscillation] (Gray, 1984). El Nino favors fewer hurricanes and La Nina favors more hurricanes. Based on the most recent ENSO outlook issued by NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, ENSO-neutral conditions are expected in the tropical Pacific through much of the Atlantic hurricane season. Therefore, ENSO is not expected to impact this hurricane season.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml
John,
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2748.htm
I know what I heard last fall, and I was right.
I have a love/hate view of Rush. I think he offers incredible analysis and can make dull things like the legislative process interesting in a way that nobody else can.
What bothers me about him is that he sets himself up as the bastion of conservatism while he has little personally in common with the average conservative. But I do think that if his critics actually listened to him they would find a whole lot less to criticize than they think.
As for Al Gore- this is why he has no credibility with me. You don’t exaggerate something even if you believe it’s for a good cause. You could argue that Bush exaggerated evidence of Iraq’s WMD’s for what he believed was a good cause. Look how much credibility he has now. Plus, the whole Inconvenient Truth scare smacks too much of the Dan Rather/CBS News Bush National Guard scandal. Fake but accurate. I’m not buying it, Al.
Oh, and I agree with Geoff- Rush would clean Gore’s clock in a debate. Gore has never had to have a real debate in his life.
Except for that Ross Perot thing on NAFTA — oops, that wasn’t a real debate either. 🙂
Dan, if you’re still following this debate, I would like to send you a private e-mail. I went to your web site and couldn’t find an e-mail address. I probably just missed it. Could you send it to me at: geoffb123456@yahoo.com?
Thanks, Geoff
I just sent you an email, Geoff. 🙂
Tossman, I tend to agree with Limbaugh a lot and he is a gifted orator. However what bothers me so much is when he attacks strawmen or engages in pretty extensive ad homen. And then on some issues he’s just so demonstrably wrong it’s ridiculous. The way he wouldn’t admit to any criticism of the Republican leadership until after the election last fall was embarrassing.
It still boggles the imagination that we’re still discussing Gore and Limbaugh when there are so many better thinkers on both sides one could appeal to. If these are our messengers we’re all in trouble.
Indeed!
If these are our messengers we’re all in trouble.
Exactly.
Well, somebody has to synthesize the issues and present the arguments. I think Gore is pretty much representative of the global warming crowd, and Rush is pretty much representative of the other side. People like myself, who have a high opinion of Rush and a low opinion of Gore, will see that as a good thing. But obviously not everybody agrees with me. 🙂
Rush’s response to global warming, as often as not is, “Hey, it’s hot outside! How could there be global warming?”
Ivan #76
I responded in a general sense, it was a broader comment that referred to a vast majority of the comments here, I didn’t go into specifics.
About Rush I was just asking a question, seen that many seem to listen to him here, therefore I was wondering if its for entertainment or just to hear such point of view. As to the AL Gore bashing comments. Its sad because one man its pushing a movement about the subject, he’s bringing this topic into awareness, and it appears to me that just because its AL Garo, all credebility it’s lost. I don’t know why its there such an Anti- Al Gore sentiment ( I could guess it ).. or Is it that Im just taking the wrong perception. Now, all this labels are BS, Conservative, Liberal.. it’s all propaganda that’s been used wrongly, all of the sudden it’s bad to call someone either Liberal or Conservative.. if you’ve done some real studies, you’ll know what it actually means.
And I never intended to state that someone that doesn’t like Al Gore, is not pro-environment, I was just stating the fact that some individuals in here are saying that Global Warming its an exageration by Al Gore’s side. To that point, I will just say that almost all of the scientist community, and the UN have acknowledge the gravity of Global Warming. This issue has been trying to been pushed since the 80’s, but no one really cared. Scientists have been trying to show this facts a long time now.. it just happens that recently, studies are almost certain to indicate that today’s global change its now like ancestral climate changes. Today’s climate change its been accelerated exponentially, and mostly because of Human activity.
Ive been doing research and reading peer review articles on this matter for almost 7 years now, and it’s just interesting to see that some people think that all this Global Warming histeria its been caused by Al Gore, or it seems thats what some show to imply, its been going on for a long while now, just that some people didnt really care, we are seen some of the results in a more impacting matter, so people are now raising eye-brows.
I would also go back to the Hurricane activity.
If you take an Oceanography class, you will know how water controls the earth’s climate change.. from there you will understand how an ice age its caused ( Ice Age comes after Global Warming ).
If all the sweet water in the artic melts, it will shut down the ocean conveyors, meaning, ICE age. no going back to the Hurricanes post.
There’s a relationship of el nino and la nina.. which have an effect on how many hurricanes we may get on a year.. this, had an effect on this year’s amount of hurricanes. Now, the effect that global warming will have, its the type of hurricanes we will get, and their intensities. If El nino or la nina arent in favor on taking hurricane away from us, then start thinking on the quantity of hurricanes.
Anyways, NOAA need to update their equipments, Global warming goes further then that guys 🙂
New article on BBC1
Winter warmth breaks all records
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm
Discuss
A few choice quotes from your article:
Sounds like they want to make it clear that their results shouldn’t be misinterpreted.
One can’t use anecdotal evidence for evidence of global warming. Despite most media outlets and pundits are doing just this. (Although I’ll credit NPR for actually doing a story about why anecdotal evidence is meaningless) The evidence isn’t any particular storm or temperature change but rather the aggregate.
Clark,
You’re right that the evidence is in the aggregate. But how much, exactly, does industrialization factor into it? As much as I’d really like to know, I don’t think anyone can tell me. And it’s the numbers tossed around willy-nilly with regard to the harmful effects of industrialization that seem to be the most anecdotal of all.
That’s the way it seems to me, anyway. Drives me crazy.
Geoff, I like most of what you write, I really do. But I have a hard time taking your position seriously here, because it sounds like you’re more interested in propping up a political stance than taking an interest in global warning and its causes.
Just the way I’m reading it…
Jack, there are ways of accounting for man-made carbon versus natural carbon. Ditto for other man-influenced materials. So those aren’t anecdotal. Rather they can be examined via various models as well as by charting past influence from things like ice core samples.
While the actual effect is debated most put it well above 50% of the influence.
Instapundit gives what is very, very close to my position here:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003423.php
excerpt: I do think — as do many scientists, something that the New York Times just noted — that the hype and alarmism on this front has reached absurd levels . . . I don’t know a lot about climatology. But I know a lot about media bulldozing operations, and I see one of those in action at the moment on this subject . . .
My own position is that it doesn’t matter much in terms of policy. We should be trying to mimimize the burning of fossil fuels regardless of whether it’s a cause of global warming or not. The rather patent hucksterism — and outright bullying — of some global warming advocates, though, will probably hurt that cause more than help it over the longer term.
Interestingly Ivan, I’d linked to his earlier comments back in #77.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003331.php
Although I found his latest statement a bit overstated – too overstated for me to be able to accept.
Clark –
well, the earlier statement you linked to (which I also liked and mostly agree with) was actually by a guest blogger and not Glenn.
As fot the lasest statement – well, to each his own. I like it and think it’s rather accurate. But it’s all good.
It’s not Rush, but Lord Monckton has challenged Al Gore to a debate:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1
You’ve got two competing cultures here.
1) you’ve got the scientific community, who are very concerned about getting the facts right. For them, Gore’s portrayal of, for example, the polar ice caps melting in 34 years is troubling – none of them really think you can have that kind of accuracy in predicting that event. Another example would be Gore’s implication that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming – something very few scientists would feel comfortable claiming. Yet another is Gore’s talk about sea levels rising 20 feet. While scientists agree this is a problem, most see it happening no earlier than 200 years from now.
Science demands accuracy. Science is going to have issues with “An Inconvenient Truth.”
2) On the other hand, you have the culture of Washington DC.
Nothing, I repeat NOTHING ever happens in Washington without an immediate crisis. It’s the way the politics on the Hill work. Out of sight, out of mind.
Gore’s efforts are geared toward creating that crisis mentality that spurs change. Many scientists are actually happy about that shift, as far as it goes, while remaining uncomfortable about the inaccuracies involved.
Ivan and others have expressed concern that the showboating will undermine the credibility of the environmental movement. They feel that exaggerating global warming will ultimately discredit the entire concept.
Well, history gives me reason to believe you’re wrong.
There hasn’t been a single major political campaign or initiative in US history that wasn’t based on smoke-screens and distortions of fact, if not outright lies. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society with Social Security, the New Deal, Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting, the Cold War, the Iraq invasion, the Patriot Act…. the list goes on. All received key boosts from politicians playing fast and loose with the facts, and the American people absolutely ATE IT UP.
Heck, America’s entry into World War II was largely based on the utterly moronic assertion that the Nazis were going to be conducting amphibious landings on the eastern seaboard and bombing New York.
Look at Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America.” Gingrich opportunistically seized hold of some well-publicized cases of Democratic corruption, tapped into a current of American frustration with Congress, and basically made the rest up as he went. A lot of the accusations Gingrich leveled at key Democratic politicians were utter rubbish. Completely unsubstantiated. Gingrich banked on the principle that if you say something long enough and loud enough, people will eventually start to believe it.
And it worked.
This kind of crap works an awful lot in American politics. In fact, you can make a pretty darn strong case that this kind of showboating and misrepresentation is the ONLY way anything gets done in DC. It’s certainly the only way to win a Presidential election (as anyone who pays attention to them knows).
So Ivan, while you might be right that liberal overreach on global warming may eventually discredit the movement, I think history is against you on this one. The American public lives off of stupid little one-dimensional soundbites. People are busy making money, buying stereos and hanging out with people they like. They don’t want to think about politics. If someone comes along and simplifies it for them, they tend to follow him.
Harsh, cynical reality about America.
Clark,
I’m no scientist, so I can’t really talk the talk. But it seems from what little I’ve read that there’s a lot of disagreement on what the effects of industrialization are as it relates to the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. And until we can nail that down–as water vapor is by far the greatest contibutor to the green house problem–it all seems willy-nilly to me.
Seth –
you may be right. But a new Rasmussen Poll says:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2007/March/alGoreGlobalWarming.htm
Roger L. Simon says some interesting things:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/03/deconstructing.php
Pingback: » Climategate: it’s worse than you ever imagined The Millennial Star