ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, June 26, 2006

Another Inconvenient Truth - Algore Gets Another Smackdown

Now with more tasty scientific goodness!

Algore's first smackdown is here.

Here's the latest smackdown in the Wall Street Journal, from Richard Lindszen an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. (So, he's probably just some right-wing mouth-breather bankrolled by Exxon, right?):

There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming

[...]Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim -- in his defense -- that scientists "don't know… They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template -- namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. [ed - Just to make this very clear, he's referring to journalists here] Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -- especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky.
Will count the days, hours, and minutes until I get a comment about Lindzen being an Exx-con.

Well... as with the first smackdown, there's very little that you can argue with. Unless, of course, you are an Algore discipile, unwilling to hear a rational and fact-based position which is counter to your dogma in the church of communism environmentalism.

It seems that the more Algore & his enviro-fetishists push their claims (based on evidence that amounts to "we're not sure... but we can't think of anything else"), the more that scientists that are working to develop actual scientific data are coming out to attack Algore on his idiotic new film.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (4)
Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

Although I am not an Al Gore disciple - I am an intelligent educated and free thinking individual
Are you threatened by this? – You shouldn’t be

I have spent FORTY years learning about the environment - and the natural cycles of the Earth and Solar System.

The opinions and simple minded slow wit you choose to illustrate here clearly demonstrate how easily led the common fool can be.
I cannot fathom for the life of me what your motivation could be

There is a clear consensus among the educated that this is a serious issue – perhaps the most important issue to face mankind - Ever
This consensus has existed since the late seventies. Over the years it has grown to an overwhelming majority.
You don’t have to like Al Gore, see his movie – or jump on any bandwagons to understand this.

The relationships are simple to understand – and the implications are compelling
Virtually EVERY study completed in the last few years has indicated that not only is this a problem – but it is a problem which is accelerating at a faster pace than expected. Much faster
I read these studies & reports every week

Any simple minded sod can find search Google and find someone with a differing opinion to any issue
Did you know that the world is flat?
And that we never landed on the moon?

Why would you look so hard to find an opinion or opinions out there that will let you justify not doing the right thing?

Why would you want to be associated with that mentality?
Again the logic in this escapes me

Yes I do believe that global warming is a problem – and an imminent one at that
This is not a political conclusion – it is a purely empirical one.

Ten years – one hundred years – what difference does it make?
When you find out you are doing the wrong thing – you stop
You don’t ask “how long can I go on before the consequences catch up to me…”

Unless of course you are a criminal – this is the basis of criminal behavior.

Ayman said...

word up homie!

Monterey John said...

Bobbb, anyone who describes themself, as opposed to be described by others, as intelligent and free thinking, leads me to conclude you are neither.

If that seems ad hominum, I suggest you re-read your comment.

Bobbb - Citizen of Earth said...

You seem to have missed the point entirely

For one thing I am described by many others as intellegent and free thinking - what makes you think I am not?

For another who cares WHAT you conclude about me?
To come to that kind of conclusion after reading one sentence could lead me to believe that you are rather slow witted and shallow minded - but I would withhold any such opinion until I can actually learn somthing about you.

I gather you did not like my comment about this blog or this movie. but instead of putting your knowlege of the subject out there to illustrate your point of view, you chose instead to look for a way to discredit me - and or my opinion of myself.

I will gladly argue your points against this science - one by one
I will do so knowing full well that I will be arguing with an attourney

For now - after having re-read my comment - I stand by every word - including my attempts at self glorification.