Taking Al To The Woodshed

A spanking from the New York Times (what the heck is up with that?) for Al Gore on his hyperventilating pomposity on global warming! Oh, sure, they give his defenders the last word. But this, from the Times, is harsh, indeed. Saint Al of the Massive Megawattage has been called out - hard - by actual scientists who think he's radically overstated (some are all but calling him a liar, frankly) the concept of global warming as a man-made phenomenon.

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.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

……

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” (Emphasis added)

Which is, of course, the one really, really big elephant in the room. There have been really large variations in temperatures in the past. Man could not have been a factor in any way, shape or form in those. Unless those neolithic humans and their stone tools were a heck of a lot more efficient at screwing with the temperatures than we can imagine today. Flint tools cause global warming. Who knew?

Frankly, I have had the true believers flock here. I have had the Koz Kidz speculate as to whether they could "turn" me. (Short answer - no.) But none really want to address that one big elephant. They try to obscure it by saying the rate of change is different but still don't actually step up and talk to the elephant. Or discuss publicity stunts gone wrong, either. Personally, I think the burning of oil for energy is stupid in the long run. Starving people to fuel vehicles is even more stupid. There are things that can be doing - incrementally - to make it better. But the Gorezilla's mammoth energy consumption while pontificating is not - at all - helpful. (That he also buys his "carbon offsets" from himself while consuming gargantuan amounts of electricity also makes him a flagrant hypocrite.)

(Prediction - in the long run, Gore has done serious damage to the movement of the First Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of Global Warming®. Despite his Oscar. Or maybe because of it.)

• 

  By Jose, Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 8:34 am

  I am not a geologist, climate scientist, or even have any specialized scientific training. But I do drive a lot in our Interstate Highway system. And when I drive through a cut which the highway engineers have made through a hill in order to keep the roadway with minimal ups and downs I can see on the exposed sides layers upon layers of different types and thickness of sedimentation. In fact, they typically look like layer cakes. In my scientific innocence I assume that each one of those sedimentary layers was caused by a significant variation in precipitation levels. And, given how long these periods must have lasted to produce each one of those layers they could only be characterized as a long geological record of periodic climate changes before homo sapiens even evolved.

• 

  By skywalker49, Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 1:33 pm

  Following the energy crisis of the 70’s the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph. The price of oil dropped and OPEC always tried to manipulate supply to drive up the price. If you live near or visit So. California, you will notice that driving speeds are in the 70 to 80 mph range. Given, that in the final analysis, the price of crude oil is determined by supply and demand, reducing the speed limit once again would reduce demand because less fuel is required to power an automobile at 55 mph, thereby lowering the price and at the same time, reducing emissions of CO2. Seems like we Americans could make this adjustment.

• 

  By cfaller96, Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 2:58 pm

  gaius said:
  Which is, of course, the one really, really big elephant in the room. There have been really large variations in temperatures in the past. Man could not have been a factor in any way, shape or form in those.

  Just out of curiosity, have you seen the film, Gaius? Because what you’re talking about is dealt with in the film. I’m just wondering if you saw it and decided not to believe it, or just didn’t see it.

  Also, what would “turn” you? Can you provide a framework as to when you would be convinced that Global Warming is real, dangerous, and man is the cause?

  If you can’t come up with a scenario where you could be convinced, then I don’t see the point in providing any scientific evidence to you- do you? The world will move on and stop trying to convince every single skeptic, like the skeptics that refused to accept the scientific evidence of:

  - a round Earth
  - an Earth that revolves around the Sun
  - an Earth that’s been evolved over millions of years, not “intelligently designed” over a few thousand years

  And on and on.

Other Links to this Post

1. Sensible Mom — Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 9:27 am

2. Blue Crab Boulevard » Hurting The Cause — Monday, 26 March , 2007 @ 7:00 am