92 Comments

1. Old Dad:

Roger,

You’ve got to write that novel, I’m begging you.

Bobos meet Babbit. The environmental guru as Gantry.

You’d lose a lot of friends, but it would be hilarious–and what a great flick it would make.

Who would you cast as the flim flam man? John Goodman?

Jun 30, 2007 - 12:38 pm 2. Sandy P:

As a member of the bourgeois, I am offended you are comparing me to them.

The bourgeois just brought down the Senate phone systems and reminded them who they work for.

We’d be much better off if they did think like the middle class, not our quasi-ruling betters.

Jun 30, 2007 - 12:45 pm 3. Jabba the Tutt:

The subversive of liberal conventionalism uses ridicule. That’s why Mark Levin at the Landmark Legal Foundation and his nomination of Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize is so brilliant. Since this nomination, I haven’t heard much about Algore’s nomination.

Jun 30, 2007 - 1:10 pm 4. Lem:

I don’t believe Al has ever spoken at Oxford.

I wonder why they have never invited him to do his dooms day pitch there.

Are they afraid of embarrassing his Alnes?

Jun 30, 2007 - 1:31 pm 5. Connecticut Yankee:

Lem– His Al-ness hasn’t yet been given an honorary degree by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science yet either (unless Roger knows something I don’t).

Jun 30, 2007 - 2:55 pm 6. Jim C.:

Let’s be a bit careful here. The Heartland Institute has some background that the left is going to bring up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

That doesn’t make this article wrong, but it’s going to be attacked.

Jun 30, 2007 - 3:02 pm 7. Captain Hate:

Weird Al has always been about half as smart as he thinks he is.

Jun 30, 2007 - 3:14 pm 8. navyone:

Other than Joe Lieberman, is there any Democrat who is serious about terrorism? I can’t imagine Al Gore (whose name I heard recently as a potential candidate) being the sort of commander-in-chief who leads our country in a time of crisis.

All I can think of when I ponder Al Gore is him screeching: he played on our fears! (when referring to George Bush.) And what precisely is Mr. Gore doing when he talks about climate change?

Does Al pray for hot days to back up his shoddy science? Do the Democrats pray for defeat in Iraq and death to our guys over there so they can win an election?

Jun 30, 2007 - 4:01 pm 9. Ripper:

While you’re at it, could you mention that Al Gore has NOT won - in fact, has never been nominated - for an Oscar(tm)?

The NYTimes parses around it, saying he’s “a heartbreak loser turned Oscar boasting Nobel hopeful globe trotting multimillionaire pop culture eminence.”

But he didn’t produce, direct, edit, write, shoot or do makeup for the film. He did the frigging voice over.

Jun 30, 2007 - 4:06 pm 10. MikeD:

“Does Al pray for hot days to back up his shoddy science? Do the Democrats pray for defeat in Iraq and death to our guys over there so they can win an election?”

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does a bear deficate in the woods?

Jun 30, 2007 - 4:15 pm 11. ClericalGal:

The reason Al Gore is being listened to about climate change is because his supporters hate the President and still believe Florida was “stolen” in 2000. If there were no controversy about the Florida results, Gore would be avoided like the plague.

Jun 30, 2007 - 5:15 pm 12. navyone:

“Does Al pray for hot days to back up his shoddy science? Do the Democrats pray for defeat in Iraq and death to our guys over there so they can win an election?”

Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear defecate in the woods?

1. Let’s see, the Pope is indeed Catholic.

2. Does a bear really defecate in the woods? Er, yes? Maybe. Hmm, don’t know for sure, I am not acquainted with any bears. I do, however, work with some Marines. I probably should ask them their toiletry habits with respect to marches through wooded areas. That should adequately answer the second question for me.

Jun 30, 2007 - 7:36 pm 13. Buddy Larsen:

I’d feel better about Gore if I thought he believed himself. But he’s insincere, operating just for effect, IMHO. As such his latest offensive is even more offensive. Cynical and avaricious. Bad for the country. But what else is new, three quarters of our pols are bad for the country, feh.

Jun 30, 2007 - 8:46 pm 14. Boris:

Well, the “article” you have so much confidence in is no article, but an opinion piece by the highly suspect Heartland Institute. Let’s take a claim from the article and see how it holds up:

“For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, ‘Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.’”

That’s an odd sentence to appear in a scientific article. Well, it’s not terribly hard to check the ref, even though the author is rather vague (Journal of Climate publishes two issues a month.) Anyway, here is the full citation:

Fowler, H. J. and D. R. Archer “Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin.” Jounral of CLimate. 19:17 (September 2006). 4276-4293.

The quote from the “article” does not appear in Fowler and Archer. A little googling shows the origin of the quote as–wait for it–a Heartland Institute Article. Written by the same guy! So he quotes himself in this editorial and pretends he is quoting the science itself.

And from the abstract of the real science:
“The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas.”

The abstract goes on to say that changes in the Indian monsoon are thought to be responsible for the regional cooling.

But note the premise that Himalayan glaciers are growing is wrong. They are growing somewhat in the west, but there is wdiespread decay in the east. This is in line with the World Glacier Monitoring Service, which not only confirms glaciers are melting, but shows the rate of melt has increased slightly since 1994.

You don’t have to trust Gore on global warming, but at least go to the scientists rather than think tanks who use such dishonest tactics. If you look at the positions of every scientifc organization and every academy of science you will see what scientists truly think–and Gore represents their position quite well.

Jul 1, 2007 - 6:20 am 15. Buddy Larsen:

Well, we need to make sure that those glaciers quit melting on one end and growing on the other. They just just quit it, and stay still. And right now, or I shall hold my breath and stamp my feet!

Jul 1, 2007 - 6:52 am 16. Captain Hate:

There are plenty of scientists that disagree with Weird Al, Boris; I’d provide links but I’m not sure how to do them in a way that Roger prefers.

Jul 1, 2007 - 7:35 am 17. Buddy Larsen:

CH, two names from last week: Nils-Axel Morner and Kevin Trenberth.

Morner, world-renowned sea-level specialist, said that the IPCC sea-level measurements were deliberately skewed. Do a search, see it all.

Trenberth, IPCC signatory, says that the computer modeling is worthless.

BWe all know how to search last week’s news–so there’s two big names from just the last week.

Simple thought, no rise in sea level means something to GW (let alone AGW), and scary computer-modeled predictions that are inherently worthless are just fake disaster movies.

But search those two guys.

Jul 1, 2007 - 8:07 am 18. Boris:

Well, Buddy, I’m familiar with Dr. Bob Carter’s misrepresentation of Trenberth’s comments. Here’s a post I wrote on another blog:

“The good Dr. Carter is fond of quote mining and misses the point of Trenberth’s post entirely. Consider some other things Trenberth says:

“The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate…”

He points out that GCMs are spotty at forecasting regional change. But they are valuable in forecasting global temperatures, which is what they are used for. Your claim that Trenberth says they are “useless” or “sheer bunk” is inaccurate.

Further: “A consensus has emerged that �warming of the climate system is unequivocal� to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.” … “How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?”

It is also important to remember that the key metric for future warming on a global scale–climate sensitivity–is derived from known physical laws and results from clmate models match those from direct observation and paleoclimate reocnstructions.

Trenberth’s post in question: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html#more
”

As for Nils-Axel Morner, he provides no references, no proof backing up what he says. Perhaps this is why his interview was relegated to a Lyndon LaRouche publication.

If you want to accept blindly what people say in the papers, fine. But the anti-AGW side has a proven track record of dishonesty and obfuscation, as the examples I’ve noted here show. I trust the primary scientific literature and not what someone with an agenda has to say.

Jul 1, 2007 - 8:24 am 19. navyone:

“If you look at the positions of every scientific organization and every academy of science you will see what scientists truly think–and Gore represents their position quite well.”

Every scientific organization? Every academy of science? I don’t think so. Climate science is big business. They are competing for large grants. Those that go against the grain are shunned and not given these monies.

Dr. William Gray, a Colorado State University meteorologist, a preeminent scholar of modern tropical cyclone science said in the NY Times: �The people who have a bias in favor of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn’t so. These are natural cycles.”

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which houses small weather stations with various sensing tools (1221 total stations) was just discovered to have placed these in highly suspect areas, ie: next to air conditioner units outside (Forrest Grove, OR), near all-cement structures (Roseburg, OR), etc. Check out surfacestations dot org. for more info.

The consensus on global warming is that there is no consensus. The science is not over, at least not like Al would like us to believe.

Jul 1, 2007 - 8:30 am 20. Boris:

“Every scientific organization? Every academy of science? I don’t think so.”

Yes, every one that studies the climate. NOAA, AMS, EPA, NAS, NCAR, NASA, AGU, Royal society, The national academies of the G8 nations and many, many more.

I notice people don’t seem to want to talk about the editorial in question. Telling, perhaps.

Jul 1, 2007 - 8:45 am 21. Buddy Larsen:

Well, I didn’t say “sheer bunk”, Boris. See how easy it is to get confused? Trenberth’s message seems to be that the public needs to understand the limitations of modeling’s predictive power. This is an understanding that Mr. Gore and the pro-AGW set has not emphasised, to say the least (thus the newsworthiness of Trenberth’s statement).

As far as Dr. Morner, anybody can search, read his CV, and his work. His critique of IPCC sea-level measurement got a pretty good amount of press coverage, considering how arcane the topic. If Larouch was among this coverage, okay, but is it honest to imply that Morner is an obscure kook acting under a far-right aegis?

We all need to beware agendas, even our own, unconscious though they may be.

Jul 1, 2007 - 8:58 am 22. Buddy Larsen:

Well, Boris, the SunTimes article lists a number of Gore-errors and/or erronoeus presentations. You’ve attacked the Himalayan glacier reference. what about the others? So, what’s “telling”?

Jul 1, 2007 - 9:05 am 23. Boris:

Buddy,

As I said, my response was from another blog that did use “sheer bunk,” so I’m not confused at all. You said “worthless,” which is just as wrong.

A lot of Trenberth’s post deals with the need to create better models that can predict regional change well. For their purpose, predicting global temperature anomaly for doubling of CO2, the models are worth quite a lot.

Jul 1, 2007 - 9:07 am 24. Buddy Larsen:

“…the models are worth quite a lot”

Well, okay, Boris, if you say so. Who am I, a lowly non-scientist, to argue with “…NOAA, AMS, EPA, NAS, NCAR, NASA, AGU, Royal society, The national academies of the G8 nations and many, many more” ?

Tho, there is this, which reminds us that appeals to authority are often enough misused to have earned a definition as a logical fallacy.

All I’m trying to say is that, as a consumer of news, I’m seeing an awful lot of worthwhile people warning against a hugely expensive and state-power increasing boondoggle.

Jul 1, 2007 - 9:23 am 25. Boris:

Buddy,
Notice how long it took me to debunk the first claim. I don’t have time to debunk them all. If you still want to believe someone who quotes himself and misrepresents the research, no problem.

Otherwise, go to the primary literature. I don’t cite Gore. I make my decisions based on the science.

As for Appeal to Authority, we do it all the time. Would you trust someone from the Heartland Institute to diagnose your medical problem?

Jul 1, 2007 - 9:26 am 26. Buddy Larsen:

Well, I would if I had a hatchet stuck in my forehead.

Jul 1, 2007 - 9:30 am 27. navyone:

Boris,

The very first organization you site, the NOAA, was the one I sited with highly questionable scientific practices. Check out surfacestations.org

And as to all scientific organizations, a simple search reveals that there is not consensus.

For example, Dr. Reed Bryson, of the Institute of Environmental Studies and an University of Wisconsin at Madison professor emeritus (known as the father of scientific climatology) didn’t see Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Bryson said: “Don’t make me throw up. It’s not science. It is not true.”

Climate science is alarmist science that crushes dissent. Go to the wikipedia page on it. Parts of it are written like an emotional 8 year-old girl wrote them. Not that there is anything wrong with 8 year-old girls. I just don’t care to hear their expert opinion on anything other My Little Pony, soccer, and elementary school.

I like the last sentence in this wiki paragraph:
“If we spend 1% of our resources on this problem now, we may save as much as 20% of our resources soon. We should try to solve the problem of global warming.” sniff, sniff.

Jul 1, 2007 - 10:55 am 28. Buddy Larsen:

Not to flog it, but Trenberth’s saying–after the IPCC has with great global fanfare predicted changes via the current modeling–that we need to develop better models that can predict changes, is a bombshell, whether or not we choose to be deaf to it.

As far as using the well-understood CO2 vs temperature plot to reify the whole report, that strikes me as a sort of fig leaf, all due respect.

One might as well say that the climate gets hotter whenever its temperature goes up.

Sure, that would be a valid finding, but the only question it would needfully answer is whether or not the report was a waste of time & money (since the beginning of time, most everbody has been complaining about the weather–for free).

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:23 am 29. Boris:

navyone,

Consensus does not mean universal agreement. We don’t wait for every last person to agree before we act on something.

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:28 am 30. Buddy Larsen:

There IS an awful lot of activism evident across Wikipedia. I love it–but it has to be read carefully. Britannica it ain’t.

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:31 am 31. Buddy Larsen:

Boris, a jury does.

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:32 am 32. Boris:

That we need better models for regiional changes and precipitation changes is not a bombshell at all.

That the models we do have are very good at predicting global temperature changes is also not a bombshell.

And, again, why would Bob Carter (I am assuming this is where you got Trenberth’s name) misrepresent his words? Why would Jame M Taylor, the Heartland Institute, etc, etc, etc.

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:36 am 33. Buddy Larsen:

No, never heard of Bob Carter before your mention, nor Taylor before the link. The names are from TV news–Trenberth’s recent statement, along with Morner’s, got play on FoxNews–Brit Hume’s show, IIRC–in a segment on IPCC reactions. I was at my desk, and searched the news reports. Both seemed fairly substantial obstructions to ‘consensus’ claims.

And I don’t understand why the qualifier ‘regional’ is so important. Isn’t everything within one region or another?

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:49 am 34. Buddy Larsen:

IOW, how can the regions need better data, but not the whole that is comprised of them?

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:50 am 35. Buddy Larsen:

I know, I’m being an annoying dunce, but really, Gore, and IPCC have so oversold themselves that they’ve managed to convince an awful lot of people that the issue is totally bogus.

THAT’s the problem with arrogantly trying to frighten and stampede the herd. If it doesn’t work, you’re left sitting silly in the saddle, whooping and hollering while the steers flick their tails and munch grass.

Jul 1, 2007 - 11:59 am 36. Boris:

That’s a valid question. The answer is that we know macro effects better than micro effects. GCMs look at the global energy balance and replicate the observed effects of the upper atmosphere, the way CO2 behaves to hold more heat in the system. Since this effect is global and well understood (our understanding of radiative transfer starts getting modern in the 1950s and was a direct result of WWII military research on the upper atmosphere) we can predict global results, or essentially how much heat will be retained in the system.

How that heat is dispersed is more difficult to predict because you have more parameters, from coeans to clouds. But each ocean oscilation is different, and high tropical clouds have different effects from low mid-lattitude clouds. We need more detailed observations of these things to understand how the extra heat will be distributed around the world.

Jul 1, 2007 - 12:00 pm 37. navyone:

Boris,

I am going to pit you against yourself:

“Consensus does not mean universal agreement. We don’t wait for every last person to agree before we act on something.”
vs.
“If you look at the positions of every scientific organization and every academy of science you will see what scientists truly think–and Gore represents their position quite well.”

Your second statement indicates universal agreement, your first statement indicates there is not. I commend you for your proactive thinking, but scientists who doubt global warming are being drowned out by the “progressive” media. There is not a universal consensus, not even close, among the serious scholars. There is one, however, among the chattering classes who own big houses, fly private planes, and buy carbon offsets. I personally would not want to be aligned with that crowd.

Buddy, wikipedia has its place. Underneath the entry “death” (I was researching diseases), someone wrote: Chuck Norris is one of the leading causes of death worldwide.

Jul 1, 2007 - 12:10 pm 38. Buddy Larsen:

..as to why they would WANT to stampede the herd, well, if you’re a hammer everthing’s a nail.

‘Deriving demand’ for your product is natural whether you’re a a big-gov policy-making grant-receiver or a shoe salesman spreading the word on bunions.

Jul 1, 2007 - 12:11 pm 39. Buddy Larsen:

Well, I’m all for science, Boris. I love the weather, and weather research, and I’m all for conservation and green living and taking great care with our resources and environment.

I just see Kyoto promoters, and the Al Gores of the world, as parasites exploiting folks’ noble virtues and love of nature.

I hate to see backlashes against those good things, and backlashes are created by such exploitation. IPCC is a UN baby, and the UN has, if you haven’t noticed, over the last decade or two been anything but an honest organization promoting the good of mankind.

Jul 1, 2007 - 12:23 pm 40. Buddy Larsen:

what is Kyoto , if it doesn’t include Brazil, India, & China (among others)?

The stock answer is that it will “lead the way” and “level the playing field”.

Okay, the former is admitting that only wealthy nations can afford to be green, and the latter is saying that we should idiotically level wealth down, rather than to simply continue the current trend of levelling wealth up.

Quantify that wiki “1%” (assuming that it isn’t, as everything else on that side of the debate seems to be, a fraction of the truth). One percent of our $14 trillion GDP is $140,000,000,000.

For a hundred forty billion bucks, taxpayers don’t get to wonder about where it’ll go, to whom, and for what?

And then there’s the question of the world’s poor, only now beginning to industrialize their way out of hand-to-mouth desperation. Is it time they give up building infrastructure so they can buy credits, on the basis of that IPCC report?

I don’t want to go into some Indonesian village and tell ‘em that world growth is over, because the west is happy “as-is”.

Jul 1, 2007 - 12:55 pm 41. Boris:

“There is not a universal consensus, not even close, among the serious scholars.”

I’m sorry, navyone, but this shows you do not know anything about the scientific literature. There is widespread general agreement. If you can’t recognize that fact, I don’t know what to say.

“I just see Kyoto promoters, and the Al Gores of the world, as parasites exploiting folks’ noble virtues and love of nature.”

So you say, Buddy. I’ve shown how entities like the Hertland Institute pollute the discourse with flat out misrepresentations. If anyone is a parsite, it’s someone like James M. Taylor.

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:10 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Well, I know zip about Taylor. Reputable newspaper, though. And Taylor’s bullet points aren’t self-generated, they refer to scholarly articles that’ve appeared in the lit. I guess we could read each of the articles, and try to see for ourselves whether or not Taylor has misrepresented them.

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:16 pm 43. AlanC:

Al Gore is the true Harold Hill.

He’s a con-man from the word go. He found / made up a big problem and is now busily separating the rubes from their money via his megabuck speeches and his “carbon credit” scam.

I chuckle about this BS about how oh we can predict the global climate but we can’t predict local or regional climate.

Exactly what is global climate but the sum of all “local” climates? All those temperature reading are local. There is no such thing as a global tempreture. And if you think there is answer these two questions. (that means you Boris)

1) What IS the global temperature?
2) What is the optimum global temperature that should be maintained?

This computer modeling is bunk. Until you have a model that can take a complete data set and generate observable results it isn’t worth anything. I’ve created a lot of models in my career and proving them is not easy. And, until they are proven they aren’t worth more than any other guess.

The most obvious flaw in all the models are their use of different proxies and their inability to suitably account for the heat island effect.

There may in fact be some overall warming. Since the climate has never ever stood still we are either warming or cooling. But, we have no real idea of what the mechanism is. And we have no idea if it’s a good or bad thing.

There’s a ton of money to be made by screaming that it’s a bad thing. There’s none to be made by saying that it’s a good thing.

Gee do I detect a motivational driver here?

YOU GOT TROUBLE! YES YOU GOT TROUBLE! WITH A CAPITAL ‘T’ THAT RHYMES WITH ‘G’ AND THAT STANDS FOR GORE!

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:20 pm 44. Buddy Larsen:

No one is disputing “climate change” anyway. That’d be ridiculous–change is constant. The topic is whether or not Al Gore is overselling the “A” in “AGW”. And further, that if there IS an “A” in the equation–that we should “do something” before we have the foggiest notion of the cost-benefits of the ’something”.

That of course brings us full circle to the absolute need for confidence in the data–and, since it’s science that few understand–in the data interpreters and presenters.

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:23 pm 45. Boris:

This will probably be my last post, because osme people think Gore=Science and once you get into the political realm and all the prejudices therein, there’s no meaningful discussion.

“1) What IS the global temperature?
2) What is the optimum global temperature that should be maintained?”

We don’t know the global temperature exactyly. But that doens’t matter because we are interested in the global temperature anomaly, that is the change and rate of change in T. That the Earth has heated is undisputed in the literature and derives from several different and independent lines of evidence.

As for changing global temps, We have built quite a society at about the currnet temperature, and increaing this tmep too much will cause disruptions in all kinds of things, especially the growth of crops. Add in sea level rise and extended desrtification and drought, change in local weather patterns (which as we know are unpredictable now) and you get the picture, don’t you?

If you are really interested in learning, you could drop your unfounded prejudice against the IPCC and read the AR4, including all underlying literature. This might take you some time, but at least then your opinion will be informed.

Oh, and we do understand the mechanism of warming. It is CO2 and its infrared properties. This has been understood for over a hundred years, and better defined since the 1950s. Why do you pretend this research does not exist?

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:45 pm 46. Buddy Larsen:

Lessee, what was the time lapse between Gore’s “Saddam is a deadly danger to America and he must be brought down!” and his “Bush played on our fears and lied us to war!” ?

Couple years?

Anything happen in those years besides he lost the 2000 election? Nope. And now, we’re all ’spose to believe him on the “ten year tipping point to climate catastrophe” ?

Why not wait awhile longer, and see if whatever he says next might make more sense to us?

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:50 pm 47. Buddy Larsen:

Boris, re your last para–no one disputes the properties of C02 or its relationship to air temp. Asking the question “Why do you pretend this research does not exist?” just makes us look dumb, to anyone who hasn’t read the thread. I object.

Jul 1, 2007 - 1:55 pm 48. Buddy Larsen:

I keep hearing the number “.04%” as man’s contribution to atmospheric C02. So, does this mean that if the human race had never existed, the atmospheric C02 level would be 99.06% of the current level?

If so, then the problem is that, all else equal, C02 levels could get “too high” in the future, and that humans would be responsible for that?

If so, then we either have to (1) die back and/or revert to an earlier economic era (draconian gov’t control), or (2) just “deal with it” (so, the Gobi grows, but Canada gets another growing season, et cetera).

Jul 1, 2007 - 2:18 pm 49. Blogengeezer:

I posted a recent study done on the ‘Core Drillings’ from the bottom of the Canadian Fjords. It does seem to cover some of the reasons involved in Climate Change. Thank you Roger.
http://daflikkers.blogspot.com/2007/06/sunspots-may-be-real-cause_29.html

Jul 1, 2007 - 2:36 pm 50. Buddy Larsen:

Well, I’ll say this for Mr. Gore–it’s bona fide genius to tie yourself to the weather.

The old canard used to be, “Everybody talks about the weather but no one does anything about it.”

Now it’s addended “…except Al Gore.”

Jul 1, 2007 - 3:34 pm 51. navyone:

Boris,

You wrote: I’m sorry, navyone, but this shows you do not know anything about the scientific literature. There is widespread general agreement. If you can’t recognize that fact, I don’t know what to say.

I will say it again, there are scientists doing work that is outside the accepted paradigm. For example, there is one theory that cites the rising temperature on Mars as a result of a hotter sun. The sun surely is beyond our atmosphere and thus not subjected to human foibles such as SUVs and styro-foam Happy Meal containers.

I do recognize the fact that when I pointed how your alarmists fears are now contradicting with each other, you attacked my intelligence. And although I am the first in my family to graduate non-Phi Beta Kappa, I am pretty sure my schools/science classes trump yours.

This is a highly politicized issue. Be open to the idea that there is not a consensus. I am. Try leaving the ranch over at Daily Kos and seeing the other side.

Also, other than your widespread misspellings, I like how you write. It is clear you have read a lot on the topic.

Jul 1, 2007 - 3:58 pm 52. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

I think Al Gore goes best as the Elmer Gantry character. I’d reserve “Babbitt” for those individuals who very carefully model their political and philosphical beliefs on those that are expected in their social and especially their professional circles.

Jul 1, 2007 - 4:32 pm 53. Genius:

Boris, what is your definition of global temperature? How would you calculate it?

Jul 1, 2007 - 10:25 pm 54. Buddy Larsen:

Here’s another question (it requires a bit of a leap, because we’re so conditioned to politics):

How did AGW become a left/right issue? If the planet is in danger, wouldn’t it transcend politics? Why is every single leftie trying to shout down questions with epithets (”right wing deniers”) and false claims of “consensus”?

Wouldn’t you think there’d be a few righties who are convinced of ‘consensus’? And a few lefties with questions?

This is supernaturally weird.

Jul 2, 2007 - 8:25 am 55. dclydew:

Well, I’m not a scientist or a liberal and I think that global warming has probably been hyped well beyond whatever evidence we may have. At best, I think that we have some evidence that points to a potential climate change, its connection with human activity, I think, is probably still out for debate and research.

However, the article linked here is very, very poorly done. It’s a sterling example of exactly the same sort of BS that its accusing Gore of. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle “unscientific”. James Taylor and the Heartland Institute have a philosophical and political interest in Gore being wrong. Taylor, in the linked article quotes himself (without making that clear) and his actual credentials are in the realm of Law and politics, not science… in fact, based on everything I could find on the fellow, his only foray into world of climatology, was to bash Gore and the Global Warming group. However, to read the article, one would assume that he actually had some validity as a scientist.

I often see folks (particularly our host) around these parts claim that they don’t want to hear about Global Warming from politicians… they want to hear from Scientists. Yet, when the chance comes to stab at Gore, a half-baked politically driven editorial from a Free Market Think Tank somehow makes for good reading.

Global Warming may or may not exist, but I think this does indicate that some individuals may be less critical of information that supports their point of view, than of information that goes against their point of view. This may be ok for the average Joe on the street, but is this the sort of bias we want in New Media? It doesn’t seem that different from the MSM in some respects (Don’t fact check if it agrees with your agenda).I think that scares me more than global warming or Al Gore. Is it too much to hope for integrity these days?

I know I get accused of expecting too much from humans… but sheesh!

Jul 2, 2007 - 8:34 am 56. Luther McLeod:

OT - but dclydew, I hope you read my last response to you down below. I was not being accusatory or critical. Just pointing out that expectations must, at times, be tempered by appreciation of human fallibility.

Jul 2, 2007 - 9:16 am 57. Buddy Larsen:

D, I glanced back at the article (does the Chicago Sun-Times have a rep for junk science? I don’t know), and see that it’s very short, simple sentences, with the method being to link Gore quotes to articles in the lit.

The article has a dozen paras, and mentions and/or quotes half again that many experts and publications and organizations that’ve also commented on the particular topic at hand.

Now you say it’s “very, very poorly done”, “BS”, “unscientific”, “(has a)philosophical and political interest in Gore being wrong”, “a half-baked politically driven editorial from a Free Market Think Tank”, et cetera.

Then you close asking “…is this the sort of bias we want in New Media?”

Well, of course not–but whose bias are you talking about?

the article’s bias is a simple comparison of Gore assertions side by side with counter opinions from the lit. What is the flaw that sets you off so?

Do any of the 12 paras in the article show the sort of slanted bias that would normally earn such a list of characterizations as yours? Which ones, I wonder. All of them?

Lastly, I’m honestly befuddled; what would the article need to add or delete in order for it to be “fully-baked”?

Jul 2, 2007 - 9:21 am 58. Buddy Larsen:

Is there something inherently wrong with being “a right-wing free-market think tank”?

If so, doesn’t that mean that there’s something inherently right about being a left-wing regulated-market think tank?

I mean, as long as we’re framing things that way, that would be the automatic reciprocal, wouldn’t it?

And one other thing, small thing, you mention that the author is a lawyer, not a scientist, and then assert “However, to read the article, one would assume that he actually had some validity as a scientist.”

Well, not me. I never assumed that at all. In fact it’s clear throughout that he is only comparing statements; Gore’s vs credentialed experts.

Your claim that the autheor is making a false claim is itself a false claim, all due respect.

Jul 2, 2007 - 9:36 am 59. Buddy Larsen:

The only thing I can figure, as far as where the anger comes from whenever Gore is challenged, is that somehow some people are “in on” a notion that Gore isn’t to be taken literally, that his words are only means to an end, and that therefore it’s unfair to take them literally.

If I’m right on that, then the only rejoinder would be that some of us are dumb, and not sophisticated enough to be “in on” that game, and that ergo Gore should perhaps do precisely what the Sun-Times article was written to suggest that he do: Tone it down a bit, and no fibbing.

Jul 2, 2007 - 10:08 am 60. dclydew:

Buddy,

Here’s a few points to support my post.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.”

Here we have Gore vs. Science (specifically American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate”). However, the quote (complete with non-scientific terms like “global warming alarmists”) was NOT in the Journal (Google it if you like). It was, in fact, written by the author of this article (in a earlier article). So he, not only mis-attributed a quote, but he mis-attributed his own quote and gave it scientific support by attaching it to the AMSJ.

That is Bad.

Next we find the claim that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are melting from some cause other than global warming. While I couldn’t find the reference he quotes in Nature (There is no Nov. 23, 2003 article, but I checked both the 20th and the 27th and couldn’t find a damn thing) there are a number of articles (including one in National Geographic) which comment on the same study. Interestingly, they all quote Douglas Hardy, who apparently has been the climatologist studying Mt. Kilimanjaro since 2000. In these quotes he’s noted as saying: “There’s a tendency for people to take this temperature increase and draw quick conclusions, which is a mistake,” he then concludes in almost every quote I could Google: “The real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved.” Since I can’t find the Nature article in question, I can’t determine how much or little James Taylor modified the quote… but it seems strange that out of the numerous quotes from the study group (all of which seem similar to the one I supplied) that Nature would have not included the conclusion… or that Mr. Taylor would have innocently chosen the single quote that supported his position wholly.

Is there something inherently wrong with being “a right-wing free-market think tank”?

No, in fact, I’m a proponent of Free Markets (as in Free, no government involved). Hell, compared to most conservatives, I’m probably a proponent of More Free Market than they would like) However, I do assume that a person who works for a Think Tank will likely be biased toward whatever their focus is. When we investigate further and find that this fellow does a lot of work with Exxon, I must doubt his neutrality on this topic.

My point in bringing up Mr. Taylor’s credentials, is that if we’re going to be serious about climate change and state that we don’t want political BS, we want scientific fact… then we can trust a “Free Market Think Tank” no further than we can trust Mr. Gore’s “Liberal Think Tank”. Mr. Gore may misrepresent the scientific evidence (I think he does), but you don’t rebut it with more bad science.

I’m honestly befuddled; what would the article need to add or delete in order for it to be “fully-baked”?

Well, honest and verifiable quotes for one. For another, look at the style:

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

This statement is true in some sense and false in some sense. Mr. Taylor says that “Many of the assertions made… have been ‘refuted by science’” Yet, what he means is that there is some contradictory evidence to Gore’s claims. In the cases of tornados, hurricanes and the desert expansion, we see an issue of statistics (as Twain said, ‘There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics). We have some statistics which (when taken by themselves) support Gore, we have some statistics which (when taken by themselves) don’t support Gore. Thus, we could fairly say “Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have come under fire” or “Based on some reports, Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have been called into question”.

The difference is that the original statement was made with an agenda in mind (discredit Gore and Global Warming), just as Gore’s movie has an Agenda in mind. If we want REAL debate on global warming and if we want REAL scientific evidence to be brought forward… then we must eschew BOTH Al Gore and James Taylor. Both men appear politically motivated, both men seem to use the evidence that supports their view (and disregards the rest).

I’m not trying to support Gore here… I’m trying to point out the danger of bias on both sides (and the greater danger of seeing the other sides bias and missing the bias on your own side).

Like it or not, evidence exists that supports the claim that the climate of the earth is changing. SOME evidence supports the theory that its connected to human activity. SOME evidence supports the theory that its natural. HOWEVER (and this is very important), none of the evidence refutes either theory… yet.

Anyone who claims otherwise is probably selling something.

Jul 2, 2007 - 11:03 am 61. dclydew:

?Your claim that the autheor is making a false claim is itself a false claim, all due respect.

I didn’t say he was making False Claims, Buddy. I am saying that he appears biased and seems an unlikely person to provide us with a non-politicized view of Global Warming. Particularly based on this example of his writing (and others if you care to Google his work).

Jul 2, 2007 - 11:13 am 62. David:

As a working scientist, Boris, you clearly do not read the literature. Someone mentioned that Mars is warming, that is true as is Europa, Triton, Pluto, and most likely Jupiter.

Last year an organization collected over 17000 signatures of scientists who do not buy into the antropogenic global warming theory.

Interestingly enough there is not a clear correlation between carbon levels and average global temperature, but there is an interesting correlation between the solar cycle and average global temperatures.

If you want to read contrarian scientists see:

http://motls.blogspot.com/

Follow the links to find 1,000s of Astronomers, Physicists, and Climatologists who think Al Gore is full of poop. (you can skip the string theory stuff if you want)

Jul 2, 2007 - 11:17 am 63. Buddy Larsen:

That was pretty damn good, D. Much better than your previous, which with the invective sounded a little off. No, your clarification by and large reads fair (all I can judge on this debate–being no scientist–is who is or isn’t using hortatory tecniques).

I tried to find the offending self-quoting evidence, but couldn’t. But here is Heartland’s climate site.

Yes, it clearly publishes AGW rebuttals over AGW claims. Obviously this (note Milton Friedman badge) site would not be rebutting AGW if there were no AGW movement trying to make new law.

So we can at least acknowledge the difference between offense and defense. After all, the Law does, very much of it is to distinguish between attacking and defending. Heartland appears to be defending the populace against the creation of new taxations, programs, bureaucracies, regulations, torts, et cetera, which will surely flow from an AGW panic.

Of coure, if there should be a panic, that’s a horse of a different color. Whoa, here we are back at square one!

Jul 2, 2007 - 11:44 am 64. dclydew:

Buddy,

I understand what Heartland is doing, but I find it a nonstarter. Refuting Bad science with Bad science is not Good. Refuting Bad Science with bad editorials is not Good. These sorts of BS propaganda bits don’t defend, they attack… and the supporters of GW don’t see it as a defense, they see it as an attack (and one that’s obviously biased). That’s not gonna win converts, its going to solidify their position.

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:01 pm 65. Buddy Larsen:

You DO know, don’t you, that, according to a news report over the weekend (sigh, yes, Fox), big law firms are busily preparing for a Dem 2008 sweep by hiring GW specialists, creating GW dep’ts, all in anticipation of a flood of lawsuits–which will, if the past is prologue, include tort claims by individuals who will claim to have been harmed by industrial activities.

That is, by the companies doing business in the country.

Unless the courts man up and fight it off, this will put a screeching halt to economic growth (and America’s gift to the world, upward mobility).

So, be safe, sell your stocks and bonds early, put the proceeds in gold–that least productive of all assets–’cause we’re headed for the dark ages again, whoopee!

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:04 pm 66. Buddy Larsen:

D, your 12:01–the site seems to point to articles and events in the news, rather than to editorialize tabula rasa. maybe i should dig deeper.

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:08 pm 67. Buddy Larsen:

D, the way the entire left fell in behind Gore recently, I don’t think we need to concern ourselves with fears that arguing with them will “solidy their position”. That’s their distinguishing characteristic–all positions are always permanently solid.

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:16 pm 68. Buddy Larsen:

–there’s the Town Without Pity, the Man Without a Heart, and the Movement Without a Doubt–

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:29 pm 69. dclydew:

Buddy,

All of that is beside the point of my original post. If we want scientific discussion about Global Warming, then we should seek scientific discussion about global warming. We should not use idiots on one side to debunk the idiots on the other side.

I think the Liberal movement and the Conservative movement, at this point are both full of hooey and equally dangerous in different ways. The liberals will probably through our economics into the Dark Ages and the Conservatives will probably through our civil freedoms into the Dark Ages.

It’s moments like this when I consider Realist Anarchism as a possibly sane option… sigh.

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:47 pm 70. dclydew:

Throw not through…. sheesh

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:48 pm 71. Buddy Larsen:

ha ha–stepped on yer profundities didja?

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:51 pm 72. Buddy Larsen:

…but Realist Anarchism sounds cool–what’s our platform–to never have a platform?

Jul 2, 2007 - 12:53 pm 73. Buddy Larsen:

…kidding aside, that lead Heartland article–about CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act–that’s worth a read. It’s not KKK hooey at all–it’s a legit point-of-order backgrounder, in the framing of the proper debate you rightfully request.

Jul 2, 2007 - 1:00 pm 74. Buddy Larsen:

yep, once AGW is written into law, every soul whose quality of life has been affected by the weather is going to have a federal civil rights case against whoever has emitted carbon. Lord of the Flies, here we come. Aunt President Hil will have to roll up her sleeves and establish order!

Jul 2, 2007 - 1:08 pm 75. dclydew:

Buddy,

..but Realist Anarchism sounds cool–what’s our platform–to never have a platform? I meant it a bit tongue in cheek.

Realist Anarchism comes from “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”. One of the characters, “The Professor” discusses his political position which is quite similar to American libertarian/conservative in his views of what the government should be able to do. However, he says that philosophically, no man should be under the control of government. He further states that unfortunately, humans act like idiots and most people need some level of government. Thus he took the position of Realist Anarchist, not anarchism for ALL, but just anarchism for himself. So basically, Realist Anarchists would obey the law if it didn’t get in their way, or as long as it wasn’t any trouble. However, once the law crossed their purpose, they would disregard it as irrelevant and do whatever they had intended to do. This didn’t mean that he was without ethics (as further discussion showed), but rather he felt that only his ethics applied to him and any ethics imposed by others were (in themselves) unethical.

I don’t honestly think its the best choice, but it does seem better than the bullshit that passes for politics at this point
From a philosophical position, for me, I think that small (very small) federal government with power only in national defense and interstate commerce seems best. I don’t think the government should be weighing in on science, religion, movies, talk shows (or what they say on talk shows… or what people say at all in fact) or video games… or paying for our health care. Yet, that’s apparently untenable at this point. So I get to choose between a party that will probably screw the evolution of our economy, or one that will probably screw the evolution of our social/civil rights and freedoms.

It’s sad, but it seems true to me.

Jul 2, 2007 - 1:26 pm 76. Buddy Larsen:

D, did you catch this, the other day?

Jul 2, 2007 - 2:12 pm 77. Buddy Larsen:

Centenary (of) a modern sci-fi giant
June 30, 2007 12:35 am

PRINCE WILLIAM County–When Robert A. Heinlein opened his Colorado Springs newspaper on April 5, 1958, he read a full-page ad demanding that the Eisenhower administration stop testing nuclear weapons. The science-fiction author was flabbergasted.

He called for the formation of the Patrick Henry League and spent the next several weeks writing and publishing his own polemic that lambasted “Communist-line goals concealed in idealistic-sounding nonsense” and urged Americans not to become “soft-headed.”

(snip from my link just above)

Jul 2, 2007 - 2:29 pm 78. navyone:

I still do not see a consensus in the global warming debate. Yes, there is this consensus that there is change going on, but this is a non-issue. Change is the only constant, to quote a bumper sticker. The reason behind the change is the issue. Fluctuations are simply part of nature.

I apparently called out a bona fide scientist over his refusal to see this. I still maintain that my pre-med classes give me a good perspective on the science behind the global warming debate.

It is an interesting issue. The science is not completed. Not what Al would like us to believe, but there are still a lot of facts left to be discovered.

Jul 2, 2007 - 5:01 pm 79. Buddy Larsen:

navyone, a good-willed climatologist is in kind of a bind these days–mighty tempting to over-dramatize nature when defending one’s sphere of influence. I imagine Boris gets tired of people telling him just to take two aspirin and call back in the morning.

Jul 2, 2007 - 7:41 pm 80. Boris:

Buddy,

Interesting idea about whether right wingers have accepted that there is a consensus. I’d point you to McCain, Newt Gingrich, Schwartzenegger, the governor of South Carolina, Rupert Murdoch, and a whole host of others. AS fort lefties with questions, I would go with ALexander Cockburn of the Nation. He’s just as cranky and worng as senator Inhofe on this topic.

navyone,

I dudn’t mean to insult your intelligence, but there is a consensus. A good resource to learn more is Spencer Weart’s History of Global Warming. It’s a fascinating read on how the science has developed over the last century. And you can read it for free online.

David,
I don’t read the literature? Apparently you aren’t aware of Fenton et al’s study in Nature that showed Mars is warming due to albedo changes. I know of no published study that shows Mars’ warming is due to solar irradiance. This would be a strange argument since there is no upward TSI trend and we are currently at the 11 year solar cycle minimum.

Jul 2, 2007 - 7:43 pm 81. Buddy Larsen:

Boris, exceptions prove the rule–you must realize that the issue breaks almost perfectly along political hardlines.

Rather than deny it with such a stretch (and is that tiny handful of righties onboard for AGW, or onboard for GW and ‘more study’?), why not offer a suggestion on why the near-perfect political split on this most apolitical of questions, “how to measure”?

It’s almost like a real estate negotiation–buyer and seller are arriving at different appraisals of each facet of the property.

Lastly, say “hi” to Natasha for me, wouldja?

Jul 2, 2007 - 9:05 pm 82. dclydew:

Buddy,

Thanks for the link, I really enjoyed it. I agree with the entire writeup and consider Heinlein to be pretty close to my own politics. Free market, Fight when necessary (fight to win), government keeps its nose out of people’s lives and religion mostly seems like a snare and a racket (Good ideas managed by not so good humans and used to manipulate the masses).

I wasn’t very active politically before I read Heinlein, and it was his influence that pulled me toward conservative politics. However, once I got here I realized that modern conservatives seem more interested in other people’s business than I cared for. Reading Robert Anton Wilson led me to examine the libertarian position, but modern Libertarians also seem to be confused about their politics. Finally, I decided that Anarchism might be the way to go, until I was invited to an Anarchist protest… protesting the fact that the federal government was not going to continue to fund a campus library. WTF?

I have since begun to think that political philosophy has been replaced by political party platforms and that most people seem to have begun to see political parties as ‘tribes’…. Whatever position the Tribal elders take, the rest of the tribe takes, providing an Us vs Them mentality which seems pervasive across the whole political spectrum in the US. Anarchists clamoring for Bush to be impeached for War Crimes? Liberals protesting the overthrow of a Dictator? Conservatives pushing for invasion and the export of democracy?

It’s enough to make you think that the Illuminated Seers of Bavaria are actually controlling everything

Jul 3, 2007 - 7:40 am 83. Buddy Larsen:

er, sorry for the Rocky & Bullwinkle reference–I keep forgetting how old I am–”Boris & Natasha” were two characters in the ‘toon.

ANYhoo, on the topic, see this Ipos poll from a couple weeks ago. A large poll, over 2,000 adults. Considering Gore’s (and the UN’s) all-fronts offensive, the assertion of ‘consensus’ begs yet another question–does ‘consensus include the public? I hope ‘consensus’ doesn’t mean, a consensus of AGW proponents. That would be ridiculous.

Jul 3, 2007 - 7:43 am 84. Buddy Larsen:

oops forgot the link

Might as well paste Instapundit’s quote:

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

Jul 3, 2007 - 7:50 am 85. Buddy Larsen:

D, right with ya there, the old labels are gone topsy. Those Bavarian Seers need to call a meeting of the Marketing staff–
:-\

Jul 3, 2007 - 8:04 am 86. dclydew:

Well, I’m not sure I trust any poll to be accurate, nor do I trust our fellow citizens to have any idea on the topic of Global Warming (unless they’re educated in a related field). Basically, either there is Global Warming (caused by humans), there is Global Warming (caused by nature) or there is not Global Warming. No matter what answers the American people poll… one of those things are true and the poll numbers won’t change the facts (unlike political polls, where facts apparently are based on the people’s opinion…).

I think we need to remove politics from this madness. I think we could best start by forcing the opposing sides to work together and have grant money based on proposed tests/research, rather than results, political affiliation, or philosophy on the subject. I think that our government could implement something like this (assuming that our government can do anything without screwing it up). It should be simple enough for a group of impartial scientists to be placed on a board and tasked specifically to review proposals based on their merit as a scientific experiment, not anything else (no access to the names of researchers, only to the proposals). Government funds get split among the top X% of sound experiments.

Idiots keep weighing in. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t know a damn thing about climatology. Yet, people listen to him and many seem to base their views on what he blathers about. The same for Al Gore. We need less idiots and more thinking individuals on the issue.

Finally, we have to come to terms with the possibility that either A) The planet is going through a cycle which may have serious repercussions on our way of life, B) We are actually damaging the planet with carbon emissions and may have to take an economic hit now to avoid economic disaster later, or C) Global Warming is a load of bullocks. None of those three options will sit well with at least half the population at this point. However, like it or not, I think we’ll need to settle on one of those answers in the end.

Jul 3, 2007 - 12:12 pm 87. Buddy Larsen:

well, I appreciate your disdain, D, for which you have been given much reason.

Small point, my poll-quote was not to imply that people in general are climate experts, but that the pro-AGW ‘consensus’ claim is, uh, ‘problematic’.

Anyway, sunshine is coming upon the issue (literally, in a sense), and the stampede is I think over. The case will have to be made on data, now. Unless we have another 1974-type sweep in 2008. If that happens, then anything is possible. hell, probable.

Jul 3, 2007 - 6:19 pm 88. Luther McLeod:

Hell, ordained.

Jul 3, 2007 - 8:45 pm 89. Captain Hate:

“er, sorry for the Rocky & Bullwinkle reference–I keep forgetting how old I am–”Boris & Natasha” were two characters in the ‘toon.”

There will be hell to pay when Fearless Leader finds out he wasn’t mentioned! You think Moose and Sqvirrel had problems….

Jul 4, 2007 - 6:57 am 90. Boris:

“Small point, my poll-quote was not to imply that people in general are climate experts, but that the pro-AGW ‘consensus’ claim is, uh, ‘problematic’.”

You keep moving the goalposts. It’s a scientific consensus. No one is arguing anyhting about public opinion. How can public opinion be swayed when there’s so much misrepresentation of the science?

As for the data, read the IPCC report.

Oh, and I know moose and squirrel.

Jul 4, 2007 - 6:58 am 91. Buddy Larsen:

I guess we’re all moving the goalposts, Boris. You never claimed ‘general’ consensus, and I never claimed I knew the first thing about the IPCC Report, which I might as read in Linear B as English.

I’m just trying to figure out (1) why so many scientists scattered through the institutions of the world seem to find fault with the IPCC Report, and (2) why so doing makes them immediately vulnerable to aggressive charges that they are either kooks, frauds, or liars working for Exxon (which is presumably either too evil or too stupid to worry about the climate, since the usual ‘greed’ charge is belied by the fact that corporate profits & dividends–paid to widows, orphans, pension funds & rich folks alike–are only average among American big-cap industrials).

Jul 4, 2007 - 10:35 am 92. Buddy Larsen:

Need data that doesn’t smack of political orthodoxy. Where we’ll get it in this 100% politicized era, I dunno.

Jul 4, 2007 - 10:42 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: