Translate


Thursday, March 4, 2010

Al Gore's Editorial in the NY Times


"That's the weather for tomorrow, folks. Now back to you, Bob and Mary."

"Thank you so much, Al. Now here's Marty with sports."

I see our fearless Global Warming expert, Al Gore, has come out of hiding to launch a defense of his sinking Global Warming ship with the ever-accommodating NY Times ("all the opinions fit to print"). Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?pagewanted=1

"It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Al's crib

Al's plane and limo


Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

Comment: How about drilling for our own oil and building new refineries?

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

Comment: Mistake? How about deliberate falsification?





I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate.

Comment: Wildly inaccurate.


In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

Comment: What an understatement! We are talking about deliberate falsification of numbers, deletion of unfavorable data and suppression of opposing opinions.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

Comment: Not mistakes, Al-deceptions. What's next? Wardrobe malfunction?


The THM ("This here's my boat")Al



What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Comment: Tell me Phil Jones was acting in good faith when he cherry-picked his information and suppressed that which hurt his argument.

Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

Comment: Which scientists? Were not the 1930s the hottest decade on record?Also note the use of labels used (deniers-speciously)-typical of an ideologue.


The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.

"Somebody make him stop!!"


Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

Comment: According to which scientists, Mr Gore? Phil Jones? Rajendra Pachauri?


Though there have been impressive efforts by many business leaders, hundreds of millions of individuals and families throughout the world and many national, regional and local governments, our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them.

And in spite of President Obama’s efforts at the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December, global leaders failed to muster anything more than a decision to “take note” of an intention to act.

Comment: Thank God!

Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution.

The political paralysis that is now so painfully evident in Washington has thus far prevented action by the Senate — not only on climate and energy legislation, but also on health care reform, financial regulatory reform and a host of other pressing issues.

Comment: That's right, Al. Throw in all the other crap.

This comes with painful costs. China, now the world’s largest and fastest-growing source of global-warming pollution, had privately signaled early last year that if the United States passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty.

Comment: Riiiight!"

When the Senate failed to follow the lead of the House of Representatives, forcing the president to go to Copenhagen without a new law in hand, the Chinese balked. With the two largest polluters refusing to act, the world community was paralyzed.

Some analysts attribute the failure to an inherent flaw in the design of the chosen solution — arguing that a cap-and-trade approach is too unwieldy and difficult to put in place. Moreover, these critics add, the financial crisis that began in 2008 shook the world’s confidence in the use of any market-based solution.

But there are two big problems with this critique: First, there is no readily apparent alternative that would be any easier politically. It is difficult to imagine a globally harmonized carbon tax or a coordinated multilateral regulatory effort. The flexibility of a global market-based policy — supplemented by regulation and revenue-neutral tax policies — is the option that has by far the best chance of success. The fact that it is extremely difficult does not mean that we should simply give up.

Second, we should have no illusions about the difficulty and the time needed to convince the rest of the world to adopt a completely new approach. The lags in the global climate system, including the buildup of heat in the oceans from which it is slowly reintroduced into the atmosphere, means that we can create conditions that make large and destructive consequences inevitable long before their awful manifestations become apparent: the displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases.

Comment: Chicken Little




It’s important to point out that the United States is not alone in its inaction. Global political paralysis has thus far stymied work not only on climate, but on trade and other pressing issues that require coordinated international action.

The reasons for this are primarily economic. The globalization of the economy, coupled with the outsourcing of jobs from industrial countries, has simultaneously heightened fears of further job losses in the industrial world and encouraged rising expectations in emerging economies. The result? Heightened opposition, in both the industrial and developing worlds, to any constraints on the use of carbon-based fuels, which remain our principal source of energy.

The decisive victory of democratic capitalism over communism in the 1990s led to a period of philosophical dominance for market economics worldwide and the illusion of a unipolar world. It also led, in the United States, to a hubristic “bubble” of market fundamentalism that encouraged opponents of regulatory constraints to mount an aggressive effort to shift the internal boundary between the democracy sphere and the market sphere. Over time, markets would most efficiently solve most problems, they argued. Laws and regulations interfering with the operations of the market carried a faint odor of the discredited statist adversary we had just defeated.

Comment: Translation-the collapse of communism was a bad thing.


This period of market triumphalism coincided with confirmation by scientists that earlier fears about global warming had been grossly understated. But by then, the political context in which this debate took form was tilted heavily toward the views of market fundamentalists, who fought to weaken existing constraints and scoffed at the possibility that global constraints would be needed to halt the dangerous dumping of global-warming pollution into the atmosphere.

Comment: How coincidental. The fact is that this whole GW scam is the perfect excuse to bring back communism.

Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.

Comment: Please don't remind us of your double-faced attitude toward tobacco. While you were fighting the tobacco companies, you were telling the farmers during your campaigns how you "picked it and shucked it" or whatever you did.

Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.

Comment: Here we go-can you say Fox News and talk-radio?

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.

The pathway to success is still open, though it tracks the outer boundary of what we are capable of doing. It begins with a choice by the United States to pass a law establishing a cost for global warming pollution. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation, with some Republican support, to take the first halting steps for pricing greenhouse gas emissions.

Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation.

Comment: Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. Three weenies.

I hope that it will place a true cap on carbon emissions and stimulate the rapid development of low-carbon sources of energy.

We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.

Comment: Mr Gore. I knew Winston Churchill. I worked with Winston Churchill. (Well, not really). You Sir, are no Winston Churchill. Really.

"Al Gore? Doesn't he run that "Carbon Credit" outfit in the US?

16 comments:

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Which scientists? How about 97% of active climatologists? (The people who actually are experts on this issue - unlike pundits.)

Here's just one source for that.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

I don't know who this outfit is, but it appears from their site that they have a pro GW agenda. So I should trust their 97% number?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

For the love of Thor, Gary, you'll read and quote everything with an ANTI GW agenda without even once considering that maybe it's not trustworthy, but whenever something doesn't fit your pre-established world view, you suddenly start wondering whether it's reliable.

Until you can prove otherwise, I don't think that there's any reason to not accept those figures. Maybe they just have a pro-science agenda - and perhaps the science doesn't go the way you want it to go.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I did a little digging. Eos is the publication of the American Geophysical Union. If we can trust Wikipedia, then they are a "nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries."

Of course, I'm sure that they don't know as much about Earth sciences as Sean Hannity though.

Gary Fouse said...

Pro-science? Or pro-let's establish one big, socialistic world order?

Gary Fouse said...

55,000 members in 135 countries, eh? That's a lot of members. Lance, go back and take a look at their articles on GW and tell me how much balance they give to the argument.

55,000 members. That sounds like E Anglia University numbers to me.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Pro-science? Or pro-let's establish one big, socialistic world order?

Gary, that's crazy. I don't even know what to say beyond that. That doesn't even border on being rational. A lot of money stands to be made (you know, capitalism) from all of these new, green technologies. Your conspiracy theory continues to completely ignore this very important detail. When you say this stuff, you remind me of a 9/11 Truther.

Lance, go back and take a look at their articles on GW and tell me how much balance they give to the argument.

And I take it that you looked at them? What do you mean by "balance"? If they're publishing evidence, then what do you want from them? Non-evidence too?

Gary, do you even understand the first thing about science? I'm not trying to be rude, but you really don't even seem to have the basics down. This, however, does not stop you from having strong opinions on scientific matters though.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

In all these exchanges, you have never addressed all these scandals like E Anglia University, the erroneous studies that nevertheless received Nobel prizes, numbers switched, dissenting opinions suppressed.et al.

And you blame me for being sceptical?

Well, waht the hell does all that matter. All that matters is that the Cincinnati Reds won the 1919 World Series.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

In all these exchanges, you have never addressed all these scandals like E Anglia University, the erroneous studies that nevertheless received Nobel prizes, numbers switched, dissenting opinions suppressed.et al.

I have, actually. I've stated that while all of these things make the various individuals and organizations look bad, it's all still a small drop in the bucket compared to the body of evidence that's out there. None of it changes the fact that the average global temperatures are rising at a rate higher than they ever have in the past. None of it changes the fact that the glaciers are melting - even if it's not as fast as some people would have us believe.

If we found out that Roman Centurians didn't have those brushes on the top of their helmets, would that suddenly make all of Roman history a hoax?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

And one other thing - regarding the "dissenting opinions". Who are these people? Are the scientists with expertise in climatology?

I got pretty curious when I saw that one big list of "scientists who deny man-made global warming". However, a little digging revealed that they hardly had any climatologists. They pretty much included anybody who had a BS. One guy was a dentist!

Who are these dissenters, Gary?

Gary Fouse said...

"The Names, Mr Fousesquawk! Give me the names!"

"Sir, have you no decency?"

lance, If you want the names of the dissenters, I suggest you contact Phil Jones and or Rajendra Pachauri. They are the ones who kept their dissenting opinions suppressed.

But really, you can find them just as easily as I can.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Well, I already did some looking, but I'll see who else I can find. From what I can tell, the deniers are mostly people who don't know what they're talking about. I'll look some more, but realize that since you're the one who's making the claim, don't you think it would behoove you to have the specifics?

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

I see you have already passed judgemnent on the deniers. "They don't know what they're talking about."

Why is the burden on me? I am not the one claiming that the world is coming to an end unless we pass draconian measures that will turn our lives upside down and transfer wealth to the 3rd world etc, etc, etc.

Why is the burden on me? I didn't uncover all the scandals that are coming out.

Seems to me the burden is on Gore, Pachauri et al.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I see you have already passed judgemnent on the deniers. "They don't know what they're talking about."

I have yet to hear from a denier who seems to be able to even articulate what the case for global warming even is - including you. I am eager to hear from one who doesn't meet that description.

Why is the burden on me? I am not the one claiming that the world is coming to an end unless we pass draconian measures that will turn our lives upside down and transfer wealth to the 3rd world etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, but you're the one who's making the claim that "people want to pass draconian measures that will turn our lives upside down and transfer wealth to the 3rd world etc, etc, etc."

Gary Fouse said...

"Yeah, but you're the one who's making the claim that "people want to pass draconian measures that will turn our lives upside down and transfer wealth to the 3rd world etc, etc, etc."

Lance, follow the news. Read what they wanted to accomplish at Copenhagen. Look up the IPCC. See what their agenda is.

That is a fact!!!

Lance Christian Johnson said...

No, it is your interpretation of a selection of some facts.