Gore to throw insults on 60 minutes
27 03 2008 |
There will be a story featuring Al Gore and his climate views on CBS 60 minutes this weekend. Normally I don’t pay much heed to this program, but Gore is publicly calling those who question the science “…almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat…”.
To me, a person who has at one time been fully engaged in the belief that CO2 was indeed the root cause of the global warming problem, I find Gore’s statements insulting. In 1990 after hearing what James Hansen and others had to say, I helped to arrange a national education campaign for TV meteorologists nationwide (ironically with CBS’s help) on the value of planting trees to combat the CO2 issue. I later changed my thinking when I learned more about the science involved and found it to be lacking.
I’ve never made a call to action on media reporting before on this blog, but this cannot go unchallenged.
The press release from CBS on the upcoming story on Gore is below. You can visit the CBS website here and post comments:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml
See the video clip here
But let’s also let the producer, Richard Bonin, know (via their communications contact) what you think about it, as I did when Scott Pelley aired a whole hour long special telling us Antarctica was melting. They did no follow up.
The Noble Laurite would never commit to a forum where his view could be challenged. After all, those who believe the climate is affected by natural forces, are “fringe elements, flat earth believers, moon landing conspiracists, holocaust deniers”. I don’t expect 60 minutes to be at all subjective by letting any opposing view point be heard.
Where did The Alliance for Climate Protection get $300 million to throw away on ads? That’s a mind boggling number.
You will notice that she did not ask him how much profit his carbon credits business is expected to make. I am trying to get that business compared to Enron’s rise and fall.
If my wife can’t get me to watch the Adams programs (it is thought that I am a decendant, I am very interested in that history) what hope is there y’all will bet me to watch 60 minutes.
Not going to happen.
There is no chance that anything useful will be aired without fatal flaws.
This is the same network that reported the “forged but accurate” memos from Bush’s days at the air national guard.
Even worse, CBS cancelled Jericho - twice!
So don’t expect much.
In response to Frank Ravizza: I DO expect CBS to be SUBJECTIVE, not objective- I made it a point to never watch any CBS “news” stories back in the 1980s, after they did that scurrilous hit piece on General Westmoreland- A. McIntire
It’s too bad the show will not be on tomorrow. We’re getting 8 inches of snow tonight and another snowday from school so I would have time to watch it.
This is pathetic. Al Gore has refused every offer to debate the evidence, and yet feels entitled to insult those who disagree with him.
As an aside, it only just occurred to me that a large proportion of the people going into environmental science are already going to be favorably disposed to the notion of man as destroyer of nature, and so favorably disposed towards the man made global warming nonsense, even before they look at the evidence (if they even bother)
When the IPCC and friends figure out the role of clouds in climate and understand how to model it for the coming century, then and only then will I become a believer in their prognostications. In the meantime, they are hacks, and true believers, but still hacks.
I’m sorry to see CBS and others in the TV media giving only one side to this multifaceted question.
John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee
A $300 million ad campaign? Sorry but I’m calling shenanigans. That is allot of money.
I would love to do the auditting on that.
No, no not “carbon credits”. Indulgences. Wipe away your carbon sins for a few florins.
He’d burn the heretics at the stake but, your know, CO2…
More apt, BarryW, would be to focus sunlight through giant lenses on the heretics.
=========================
I would like to know if the financial books for The Alliance for Climate Protection are open for public record. If they are closed (as I suspect they are), then him giving it money is realy just a tax shelter. Anyone know if the answer to this one?
This CBS froofraw and the $300m ad campaign are just more fuel for the fire. Let the boobs and flatheads caterwaul. They will, in due course, get gobsmacked by the facts on the ground. (It’s beginning to happen already.)
All this nonsense is a repeat of panic cycles from the recent past (Population, Pollution, Cold War, Resources). They faded away fairly quietly. But then, none of them really got the same the publicity this GW shindig is receiving. As a result, it will not be so easy to cause the elephant to tippytoe away quietly stage-left.
But in order for society-at-large to learn the lesson properly, it is necessary that the hooting and hollering be long and loud. What Gore is doing is going to result in a grand intellectual self-imollation. I advise that we stand well back and enjoy the bonfire–while carefully staking out our position on the blogosphere and elsewhere.
We will sit back and grin as we archive the juicier quotes for future use. We are not going to meekly turn the page when the wheels come flying off this jalopy. Not this time! We are going to strike a blow for empiricism, interdisciplinarianism, and traditional scientific method and against the “new scientism” that is going to echo for decades.
This object lesson alone may prove worth all the $trillions that these chickenheaded chuckleheads blow on this foolishness. Fortunately (for the lives of millions), India, China, and Africa (so far) are more or less ignoring the claptrap.
In the meantime, sticking a few pins in CBS is well advised. We have to make them aware of our objections beforehand, so they won’t be able to accuse us of being Johnny-come-latelies. We must deploy ourselves in proparation for a devastating “told you so” stern-rake.
But be of good cheer, Rev. This is going to be fun. One of those “bigger they are the harder they fall” deals. Think “elephant off the Empire State building”. And (like it or lump it) your role in the New Enlightenment–mankind’s Restoration of Reason–is not going to be forgotten!
Unlike Anthony I have never bought into the belief that CO2 was the root cause of global warming, nor have I bought into the belief it is any more a problem than the climate of 1998, 1987, 1978, 1856, 1432, etc. However, like Anthony, I consider myself a dedicated environmentalist. I too am offended and insulted by the statements Mr. Gore makes regarding those who disagree with his AGW views.
I want to see money spent solving a real problem, not a rallying cry. Right now I see Mr. Gore and the media engaging more and more in a form of doublethink. Perhaps we call it doublescience. With apologies to Orwell, doublescience is:
To tell deliberately create data while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact or datum that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.
I truly fear that focusing on the “global warming” rallying cry is going to end up discrediting environmentalist causes when the incredibly alarmist and dire predictions don’t pan out.
KB: Har! Har!
No, no not “carbon credits”. Indulgences. Wipe away your carbon sins for a few florins.
“Further sins require further expense.”
kim (18:55:00): I’m with ya. Burning heretics at the stake is so 20th century.
Come to think of it, I don’t suppose it would be that hard to fit spits around the concentrator tubes on the new solar thermal plants that are beginning to spring up like weeds in the southwest desert. Metaphorically speaking, it could lead to a beef jerky Renaissance. In fact I have a whole Bubba Gump menu working out in my head. How about this: Nattering Nabob Kabobs. Jamaican jerked deniers. Honey baked heretics. Blackened rednecks. Grilled Inhofe, tomato, and cheese melt (with or without jalapenos, of course).
Is it just me or is Al looking older and angrier? Perhaps because not even scientists at the IPCC believe his claims?
Eagles up!
Document how much this has cost you personally and what Albert Gore claims as his achievements.
I smell a personal lawsuit in the future…
A very sad day for Television News Journalism.
I agree with John G. this may cause great damage to environmental concerns and it will certainly make laughingstock of many institutions that have jumped on the band wagon for monetary reasons. The great concern is will the fall out against “real climate scientists” include those that were truly telling the truth and will it overpower other scientific disiplines.
History shows that times of global cooling are generally times of loss of knowledge as the priorities change to more survival mode. In this case it appears that there are some “scientists” that are causing this distrust almost intentionally while chasing the glory and the treasure.
It amazes me that these folks ignore any data less than 8 years old. while telling us that the decision must be made now using the best data available. I think that we are in trouble because we are being led down a warm path to the deep freeze.
John the only differences is that there may be dire consequences but they will be from lack of fuel and food.
I pray that I am wrong but I am convinced that we are headed for hard times.
Bill Derryberry
Wow - there’s an amazing amount of activity on the 60 Minutes/CBS discussion forum, there’s no way good comments are going to get noticed by anyone at CBS. I think Email is the way to go, but I imagine the piece is in the can already. I’m going to send my “Science, Method, Climatology, and Forgetting the Basics” essay via USPS mail to Stahl, and anyone else who needs to Learn the Basics. Except Gore, he’s a lost cause.
Then maybe follow it up with the March 2008 global temperature average assuming things stay cool.
Imagine the witch hunt this guy would carry out on people like our host Mr Watts and similar sites such as Climate Audit etc, as well as those of us that support them, if he got the presidential nomination. I’m sure Macarthyism was worse, but it would be ugly, what with their total and utter intolerance and zealotry.
Re: Alan D. McIntire
Sorry, I mistyped. I believe I mis-spelled noble ‘laureate’ if you really want to be objective. I don’t typically watch 60 minutes. It’s bad for my blood pressure.
“In 1990 after hearing what James Hansen and others had to say, I helped to arrange a national education campaign for TV meteorologists nationwide (ironically with CBS’s help) on the value of planting trees to combat the CO2 issue.” Say it ain’t so! Ah, that’s okay, we all have skeletons in our closets. I once attended a Greenpeace rally in an attempt to impress an activist female. It didn’t work.
I think Al is getting a little desperate as the AGW scare just isn’t catching on. From a recent poll released on 3/20/2008:
“Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. ”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Global_Warming_Gas_Tax_Poll_0308.html
Think about it. A crisis of epic proportions that may end life as we know it and half of all Americans won’t even pony up a penny a gallon. You have to love the common sense of the common man.
Perfect timing! There are more than a few voices who are calling on the ssssuper-delegates to anoint Gore the Democratic nominee.
we all have skeletons in our closets
I helped plant a tree on Earth Day #1 . . .
(Maybe I’ll hunt it down and kill it someday?)
Al Gore is the last person I would have chosen to ‘trumpet’ the cause of global warming, or as Goerge Bush was advised to term it, Climate Change. He is a politician turned actor and no one should doubt his “Inconvenient Truth” was a brilliant piece of propaganda … and let’s face it, that’s all that it was.
But propaganda is used by all politicians, both from the Left and the Right, the Republicans and the Democrats, the communists and the fascists, the neocons and the liberals, whatever.
Problem is, while concern for the planet should be our basic concern, it is dictated by politics. The planet has one border, the troposphere … and if it is threatened, we should do something about it. All countries around the world are taking ‘climate change’ very seriously, regardless of their political persuasion. So too are businesses (big and small), different cultures with differing religious affiliations, and so on. Even George Bush is changing views; at least that is what is being presented to the rest of the world.
Now I may be wrong, but it seems to me (and many around the world) that a lot of people, particularly in the US, are opposed to the concept of ‘climate change’ purely based on their political, sociological or ideological preferences – not based on the science per se.
Make no mistake, whoever wins the next presidency (Rep or Dem) will do much more in engaging with the world community in tackling the war on the so called weather of mass destruction … China will follow.
I like this site, for its genuine questioning of the science. However, I see too many people ridiculing the science ostensibly because of their political bent … this is both irrational and illogical.
If Anthony was to do a survey of his following, I would not be surprised that the vast majority would be Republican. Just an observation from the land downunder.
@Evan Jones:
That’s the right attitude…recognising these people for the charlatans they are, while taking them on as a serious threat and optimisticallymoving forward with full confidence. No doubt Gore is using this as an opportunity to rally the AGW troops. With $300 million propoganda campaign expect the next months to get real ugly.
Concerning Gore:
Put the pieces together:
1. the Mann curve
2. The censored TAR
3. His propaganda piece: AIT
4. His recent intolerant comments
He’s the main link in the axis of Kooks - with the UN and radical tree-hugger groups. This lunatic is armed with $300 million! Neither underestimate him, nor the reserves he’s got in the pipeline. He’s got the MSM on his side. This is a man who does not tolerate (he even despises) one of the pillars of our democracy: opposition and opposing views.
He’s the kind of stuff dictators are made of.
If he were to become president, he’d certainly take over all national weather and climate institutions in the USA. He’d sick the IRS on those that threaten his cause. I’m sure, Anthony, you are on that hitlist - congratulations!
Gore’s backed by kooks who are calling for Nuremberg type climate trials.
This is going to get real ugly, very very ugly.
Don’t underestimate this, people. This is gravely serious.
You may laugh now, but you won’t be in the future.
I don’t know why FoxNews is just sitting around on their fat fannies and don’t retort. Whatever.
I asked earlier for a brainstorming session for countering this zealotry, but I guess this idea only went through emtpy heads between deaf ears.
Welcome to Gore Democracy:
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjJmZDYxZThlMzNmNzYzZmIzMGExNWY0Mzg1MGRiZTY
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080327.html
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HansenNews.JPG
“But in order for society-at-large to learn the lesson properly”
Unfortunately, these sorts of lessons tend to be forgotten pretty quickly. The sad truth is that manias, hysterias, and other fads have afflicted mankind for thousands of years.
The one difference that gives me some hope is that more and more, technology lets dissenters have a voice.
The issue is clear. This steamroller will be hard to stop even when the world cools much more than it has in the last three months. The agenda is too important to the UN and others and the MSM will just do what they are told. The fantasy award winner and dynamite prize holder will cling onto the 98 million dollars he has accrued through propagation of the lie. There will need to be more than just “public awareness” of the weather changes afoot to stop this particular leviathan from hurting millions via starvation due to bio-fuel production and deprivation through taxation. The words Malthusian and eugenics are central to this issue and the concepts are held in such high regard that the inertia is difficult to re-channel. Sorry to appear gloomy.
In case anyone hasn’t seen this wonderful CO2 laid bare paper:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf
The Great and Powerful Gore… (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). C’mon Toto… pull that curtain down.
I agree with John Goetz: My greatest concern here is also the potential backlash against the entirety of environmental concerns because of this massive overhyping of AGW. I too am a life-long environmentalist/conservationist of the practical variety; like Anthony I was (and remain) a great supporter (and practical doer) of treeplanting as a general environmental benefit, and was doing this well before AGW was even on the radar.
There are still lots of good reasons for protecting and renewing our forests and planting and conserving trees in general:
- Biodiversity
- Soil conservation
- Urban pollution control
- Urban heat control (UHI!)
- Wind shelter
- Renewable supply of building materials
- Sustainable food crops
- Sustainable energy sources
- Beauty
All of these stand even if AGW turns out to be a storm in a teacup. So promoting treeplanting is not a “skeleton” in Anthony’s cupboard; he should be proud to state that he is a practical environmentalist _and_ has severe doubts about the wilder projections of AGW. Given the current climate, that takes particular bravery.
“I helped to arrange a national education campaign for TV meteorologists nationwide (ironically with CBS’s help) on the value of planting trees to combat the CO2 issue.”
Unless those trees were being planted in the tropics they actually were a net contributor to GW.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tropical-forests-cool-earth&ref=rss
What will happen when some group/person starts a lawsuit and brings down the ex V. President Mr Al Gore ( any wiggle room here)
From what I understand about the law, if a person/company etc, makes a statement, or product that effects the wellbeing of an individual/group that individual/group has the right for regress under the law. The bases for the above has already started with law suits in London on the ‘facts’ in the movie.
Now if some unknown would kindly donate $300 million to Anthony, perhaps he could have a NBC party?
Anthony,
On the MMS data that we talked about, Mosh advised that you looked into it and it’s on another tab. I can’t find, can you help please?
REPLY: I will later, full up with another project at the moment
Since January 2008 world rice prices have doubled. I wonder what event could have occurred in that month to trigger such a catastrophic rise in rice prices? As I indicated in an earlier post in Anthony’s BLOG the news is not being reported.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/snow-and-storms-at-easter-in-europe-and-usa/
The AGW playbook storyline must be preserved even at expense of millions of human lives. The 60 Minutes love-fest with the Al Gore is just another example.
Read the story referenced below. This is the type journalism we should expect as an all out effort is made to convince us to give up our freedom, what little of it still remains.
Evil requires the sanction of the victim (Ayn Rand). The Al Gore’s of the world can only win if we sanction them.
Mike
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto032820080525305933&referrer_id=yahoofinance
Jump in rice price fuels fears of unrest
By Javier Blas in London and Daniel Ten Kate in Bangkok
Friday Mar 28 2008 04:15
Rice prices jumped 30 per cent to an all-time high on Thursday, raising fears of fresh outbreaks of social unrest across Asia where the grain is a staple food for more than 2.5bn people.
The increase came after Egypt, a leading exporter, imposed a formal ban on selling rice abroad to keep local prices down, and the Philippines announced plans for a major purchase of the grain in the international market to boost supplies. Global rice stocks are at their lowest since 1976.
On Friday the Indian government imposed further restrictions on the exports of rice to combat rising local inflation, with traders warning that the new regime would de facto stop all India’s non-basmati rice sales.
The measures include raising the minimum price for selling abroad non-basmati rice by 53 per cent to $1,000 a tonne. Exports of premium basmati rice are likely to continue, although volumes could also suffer as the government also increased the minimum export price and scrapped export tax incentives.
While prices of wheat, corn and other agricultural commodities have surged since late 2006, the increase in rice prices only started in January.
…..
Rice prices have doubled since January, when the grain traded at about $380 a tonne, boosted by strong Asian, Middle Eastern and African demand.
That explains the hysterical CBS reporting on that .01% of the Antarctica ice shelf collapse. No matter that it’s the end of summer down there and such things happen quite often; no matter that the overall Antarctic ice has been increasing beyond anything ever recorded before, CBS and others see their credibility going down the toilet and are pulling out all plugs to save it.
But $300 million?
WOW! Where did all the money come from - the Google Boys? Soros?
That’s what I’d like to know. Follow the money!
I just went over and read the coments at CBS. most of the folks are not being kind to Gore. ( I don’t blame them.) I would coment but you have to sign up for News alerts and I just don’t care for CBS. I wonder if they will recall his NPP if the temps drop and we inter a nasty cooling phase in history. Hmmmmmm what a thought.
Bill D
I’d normally take Gore’s hyperbole to be indecorous and unwarranted. However, after reading some of the ‘analyses’ on solar activity here, I’m thinking he’s pretty accurate in his description.
This article in the Harvard Crimson shows that event environmentalists don’t think Al Gore practices what he preaches, see The author refers to people like Al Gore as “Hypocritical enviro-advocates”. Clearly Al has an alterior motive here, and if he doesn’t buy into this, why should anyone else?
I also found this interesting statement in a (and perhaps scary) section in a mostly unrelated article, but it seems quite appropriate; see by Gary M. Rubman. Sorry this is a little long …
—
Following the publication of his book, Earth in the Balance, the liberal media anointed Al Gore an environmental expert and political spokesman for the scientific community … When one carefully examines Gore’s writings, though, it is shocking to see the clear parallels between his views and those articulated by the Unabomber in his 35,000-word manifesto, the epitome of scientific mistrust and the leading advocate for returning society to the Stone Age. As syndicated columnist Tony Snow recently wrote, “Gore, like the Unabomber, distrusts unbridled technology. While Gore prefers to concentrate power in the hands of a wise and gigantic government, the Unabomber prefers anarchy.”
Interestingly, one of the books found in the Unabomber’s cabin after his arrest was a dog-eared copy of Gore’s Earth in the Balance, complete with copious notes in the margins and underlined sections. For some reason, federal investigators decided to leave this off of the evidence list released to the media. Could it be that Gore recognizes the similarities and is embarrassed by the fact that he is the leading defender of the same eco-hysteria as the Unabomber? The answer is obvious.”
—
Mike
REPLY: The link didn’t get added correctly, you may just want to paste it in and press submit.
… and still more… Gore.
PS. Link stolen from Instapundit
I totally agree with Gore’s statement and I don’t find it insulting.
Actually I think this will in the long run, benefit those of us who are “deniers”.
Here’s why, Gore is essentially “drawing a line in the sand”. As it becomes more and more apparent that we are now entering a cooling face, his arguments, cause, and statements like this, will just show how off base he is.
I see on some of the local forums here in Michigan, more and more people are questioning global warming scams, as we saw another 2-3 inches of snow here last night, after getting 9 inches last friday.
I almost liken Al Gore and the current AGW scam to the “unsinkable Titanic”. We are just gaining speed, and there can’t be any “mini ice age” out there that could possible stop us now, so “full steam ahead”. The only question will be, as the AGW scam slams head on to a solar Minimum induced mini ice age , and starts sinking fast, is how many of them will jump ship to get on the lifeboats, and how many will sink with the ship.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml#ccmm
It seems that skeptics are dominating the comments 80-90% anyone care to do a tally?
I wonder if CBS mainstream media realize that the public may be turning?
I think this article is a very good article on science and the aggressive attitude among AGW too many (almost all?) supporters.
Daniel Muniz in NationalSummary, “Case Settled? Global Warming Myths: Part 1″:
http://www.nationalsummary.com/Articles/Science_Tech/science_tech__warming_myths_1.htm
If I were a scientist, I’d feel insulted. Since I’m a simple rube who just dabbles in math, science, and common sense, I am fine with being called an idiot by the likes of Gore.
I’ve done a more rigorous trend analysis of the GISS temperature anomalies from my month-end analysis. I’ve used varying trending periods and techniques to try and figure out where we’re headed over the next few months. Reasonably speaking, it looks like 2008 will end up the 9th or 10th warmest on record, but could be as low as the 17th warmest. Using 30-year trend line changes yields an unreasonable predictor value of the warmest ever. That should help indicate the validity of using 30-year trend lines. The interesting part of the analysis is that if 2008 is the 9th or 10th warmest year, it is perfectly consistent with a continued trend of declining rate in warming, or even cooling. But we all know that it would not be viewed in that light. I still have more rigorous testing to do on the predictive value of varying trend lines, so for now I just present the results as a point of interest. The anomaly values “predicted” are actually threshold points. If actual anomalies are lower, it indicates more rapid cooling than the n-month trend lines would suggest, and vice versa.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/a-follow-up-to-the-march-2008-temperature-analysis/
I seem to remember that Gore was a theology student for awhile. I’m sure that 500 years ago he would have been one of the top inquisitioners. Wait for it. He’s going to come out with the 21st century equivalent for the non believers.
Gore’s statement is about right. It isn’t really a political issue, Mr. Watts, you simply have a problem understanding elementary physics. You may find it “insulting” to have that pointed out to you, but it’s true nevertheless. I’d suggest you get yourself some basic undergraduate physics textbooks and work your way up from there.
I looked at the article and started to read the comments. What a futile effort. I should have know better, anyone who uses CBS for their news is lost. One poster stated the list of “proof” of AGW, the usual suspects of .7 degrees of warming, warmer oceans, unprecendented Cat 5 hurricanes and a host of other babble. Thanks for the link anyway.
Al Gore just looks old, tired, and slimy. He gives me the creeps just to look at him, and his voice sounds like fingernails on a blackboard. Physically, he’s repellent. Mentally and emotionally, he is riddled with holes like Swiss Cheese.
Think about it. A crisis of epic proportions that may end life as we know it and half of all Americans won’t even pony up a penny a gallon. You have to love the common sense of the common man. Although encouraging to hear, there’s a bit of a disconnect, I’m afraid. If they had instead asked, are you in favor of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, or of passage of Senate Bill 2191, known as the Climate Security Act of 2007, many would probably say yes, not realizing those would affect their wallets in much the same way by driving all prices up, in addition to energy.
Once again I am reminded of my limitations. I again remember in the run up to the 92 election remarking publicly that the Donks’ VP candidate seemed more “Presidential” than the ‘Bama Gov. D’oh!
I wonder if CBS mainstream media realize that the public may be turning?
VG, I suspect their response will be similar to that of many Kerry supporters following the 2004 election: “how could so many people be so stupid?”
I like this. Every time Gore opens his mouth, he sounds more desperate.
Live Earth was a failure. Heck, they blamed climate change for the low turn-out in Johannesburg — it had snowed there the week before the event for the first time in 25 years. And yet somehow humanity was responsible for that as well.
The foundation under his anthropogenic climate-change fantasy is cracking faster than an antarctic ice shelf.
It’s not a “tiny, tiny minority” anymore. The skeptics are growing in number and he knows it. This is the only way his pea-brained mind knows how to respond.
That’s a sword that can cut both ways. Once this AGW house of cards collapses, imagine the “radically cut emissions no matter what the economic impact” crowd facing trial for several million counts of attempted murder.
Heck, let’s just plea-bargain it down to a day in jail at hard labor… for each count, to be served consecutively.
Relax, sit back, and enjoy.
Give him enough rope……………..
In the video, Al Gore claims that there are a few scientists who disagree with AGW. In fact there are many. Following are three separate lists of scientists who disagree with AGW:
60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treaties. The letter states :“The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Ref http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the world in entirely the wrong direction” Ref http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
19,000 scientists signed a petition stating:“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Ref http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
Each of the above letters or petitions contains a list of the signatories who disagree with AGW.
Now let me ask; where is the list of scientists who do agree with AGW?
And “Nobel” too
Astroturf,
This may come as a surprise to you, but most people who seriously question the AGW-by-CO2 are some of the most versed in physics people you will find. In fact, it is physics that undercuts the AGW/CO2 arguments. Everyone, including skeptics, accept that CO2 presents spectral interactions with long wave radiation. The truth, though, is no one, absolutely no one, knows to what degree it influences our climate.
And I will be willing to bet that Anthony’s knowledge of physics far exceeds either your’s or Gore’s.
I helped to arrange a national education campaign for TV meteorologists nationwide (ironically with CBS’s help) on the value of planting trees to combat the CO2 issue.
Planting trees is a good idea for many reasons besides combatting global warming (e.g., if not for trees where would birds sit? Lol!). Likewise, aggressively pursuing energy options alternative to fossil fuels is a good idea for many reasons. For example, it appears one common assumption shared by many here is that oil is available in abundance if not curtailed by tree-huggers and the like. Certainly tree-huggers have had an effect, but I would say the magnitude of the effect is over-stated. It was easy for them to prevent drilling in deep, off-shore waters, or in ANWR, because it didn’t make much sense in dollars and cents. Now the argument is that it does. And if we were to just drill for it the price of oil would drop. The problem is, if the price of oil drops, then the companies that did the drilling couldn’t recoup their costs. Thus, the only way drilling makes sense is if the price of oil remains high. And in that context tree-huggers, while something of a nuisance maybe, are irrelevant. It also stands to reason that if the price of oil remains high, other alternatives become more attractive. Increasing energy productivity becomes very attractive. In fact the economics in general become attractive for all sorts of reasons. Mitigating GHGs is just another benefit. To paraphrase James Carville once again, it’s the technology stupid.
If Anthony was to do a survey of his following, I would not be surprised that the vast majority would be Republican. Just an observation from the land downunder.
OZDOC, if you were a little more observant, you’d note that there are probably more Brits, Germans and Ausies who comment here than there are Republicans. Most of us here, though, regardless of nationality or political persuasion, would love to get the politics completely the hell out of this discussion.
As to the validity of your “observation”, I’d call it more of a Conservative vs. Liberal issue (Evan Jones being a notable exception) rather than a Republican vs. Democrat issue, and, if you stop to think about it, THAT is very telling.
AGW skeptics are often called paid tools of Exxon. I wonder how Lesley Stahl would react to the charge that CBS simply wanted some of that 300 million dollar advertising budget? Waving around that kind of money would certainly attract a lot of ethically challenged advertising salesmen eager to get a piece of the action.
Apparently, the Goreacle senses impending doom and is launching a last minute “surge” to try to turn the tide of battle. It’s probably too late for him. As the temperature falls, so will Gore’s prospects.
Let me get this straight. In his Paper on UHI, Dr. Peterson claimed that we dont find UHI in the temperature record because ” climate stations are located in cool urban parks, following siting guidelines”
So, Anthony decides to check this claim. Guess what? he finds out that Peterson was wrong.
And now Gore says that people like Anthony are flat earthers?
The FLAT EARTHERS in this debate are the people who claim, like Peterson and Parker and Hansen, that Climate stations are well sited.
They never even checked.
REPLY: Here’s the Los Angeles Weather Station, the GISTEMP plot shows nicely that siting is indeed an issue. Of course there are many more. My personal favorites are Lampasass, Texas and Baltimore, MD which are both part of the USHCN “high quality” network.
“This may come as a surprise to you, but most people who seriously question the AGW-by-CO2 are some of the most versed in physics people you will find.”
The question is, what’s their evidence? That’s how science works, you see, that’s how it differs from politics. Can you put up any evidence at all (that means scientific papers)?
“And I will be willing to bet that Anthony’s knowledge of physics far exceeds either your’s or Gore’s.”
You’d lose that bet. Since you bring it up, I have a Ph.D. in physics and 15 years research experience in the subject. It’s obvious from Mr. Watts writing that he has no science education at all. It’s all a political opinion to him.
It isn’t a liberal vs conservative thing unless you define liberal as democrat. I’m as liberal as the come…liberal as in freedom to live my life as I choose sans religious zealots et al. I’m an animal loving, tree loving, forest loving, bike riding for fun, hiking and camping liberal….that doesn’t believe for a second that we are in any crisis or that the earth is any danger from wonderful CO2.
I agree lets take politics out of the discussion. It isn’t about that. It’s about shady science and people with an agenda. It’s about control of a populace.
(e.g., if not for trees where would birds sit? Lol!).
You’d be surprised. it turns out the upper notch in the “K” on K-mart signs is a favorite nesting place for spotted owls.
I also like trees. But even places without them can be bird havens.
After the clean air act began to have real effect in New York, huge numbers of birds have flocked to the city, especially crows, sparrows, gulls, and hawks. (The only new arrivals I hate are the starlings.) Pigeons have become far more robust and healthy–and have taken on a wide variety of colors: Brick reds, sandstone yellows, chocolate browns, creamy grays, and everything in between.
Central Park has become one of the “top ten” bird sanctuaries (whatever that means) and is overrun by ducks, swans, egrets, robins, and many other birds.
A clean city has all sorts of nooks and crannies of the sort favored by birds.
It’s obvious from Mr. Watts writing that he has no science education at all. It’s all a political opinion to him.
Give the man some credit. He’s a weather forecast veteran of around what, 30 years? He is the one who discovered and documented the massive degree of microsite violations, not GISS or the NOAA..
Besides, it is ultimately the laymen who will determine the policy related to this issue, not the Ph.Ds. (And heaven forefend government-by-postgraduates!) It is up to the experts on both sides of this controversy to help inform our decisions with honesty and openness, not to impart writ. It is also the obligation of experts to listen to, answer the questions of, and, yes, even learn from the layman side of the fence.
Consider that the vaunted Club of Rome–composed of a multitude of scientific experts–was entirely ubdone by the common-sense theories of an informed layman who was bucking the “consensus”. And that alone had a major positive effect on the everyday life of all of us.
Why does anyone give the former VP any consideration? This is a man how has an extremely long distance relationship with truth, or has everyone forgotten?
“No Controlling Legal Authority”
“I walked point in ‘nam”
“Love Story was written about Tipper & me”
“I discovered Love Canal”
“I took the initiative to invent the Internet”
His credentials?
Stan: I’d count myself as at the liberal end of a Liberal party in a Liberal region of a Liberal country (compared to the US, anyway), but that is irrelevant to the science.
AJ Abrams: Whether you believe some people have seized upon this as an attempted means of control is also politics, and is also irrelevant to the science.
As Anthony’s alter ego said, “Just the facts, Ma’am”. The key question in my mind is simply this: Is the Earth warming more than the basic heat physics predicts for the given amount of CO2 increase (positive feedback) or less (negative feedback), or maybe just the same. With the all the variables around dodgy measurement, multi-decadal cycles and chaotic ocean oscillation systems it seems at best undecided. But after 25 years in the computer business I sure as hell know I don’t trust a computer model to tell me; and after several more years than that in the life business, I don’t trust the media or politicians to tell me either.
I seriously doubt if Mr. Astroturf has a PHD in Physics. A good science education makes one very careful about what one says and a PHD usually is not afraid to use his or her real name.
Until Mr Astroturf uses his real name so we can check his credential assertion ( another unprovable assertion at this point ), he can safely be ignored.
AstroTurf
Here is - by an engineer who has spent his working life using the wonder gas - which is plant food (vital for life on this planet), NOT a pollutant and definitely not at optimal levels(preferably 1200ppmv as opposed to the dangerously low current level or under 400ppmv).
The best gift the developed world can give to the developing nations is free fertilizer. We should be praising CO2 not condemning the miracle that it is.
But then again these people (like Gore and JP Morgan and DuPont and Maurice Strong and on and on) would like to “limit” humanity in both numbers and reach. AGW is just a pawn in their game. A game that will kill millions through starvation through crop/earth changes to provide unnecessary bio-fuels and then tax the rest of us so hard that no-one will have the will (or money) to look to the stewardship of this planet. Nice people.
Their is a that would satisfy everyone.
“AJ Abrams: Whether you believe some people have seized upon this as an attempted means of control is also politics, and is also irrelevant to the science.”
No it isn’t. In fact, that is ludicrous statement. Control can be political but isn’t a subset of it. Control happens outside of political realms, such as religion and even on a micro social level, such as family dynamics. However, I agree about it being irrelevant to science, as I have already said in that post. My comment about control was about MY personal issues with the topic in addition to the scientific issues.
My first thought on the screencap at the top of the story……..
“And, you know, the thing about a shark… he’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll’s eyes”………….
The arrogance and condescension of “Dr.” Gore is staggering, IMO……..
A letter I sent to CBS:
’susan.marks@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘ed.harrison@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘kjorgensen@cbs.com’; ’sljacobs@cbs.com’; ‘khfisher@cbs.com’; ‘andrea.ballas@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘beabseck@cbs.com’; ‘diane.ekeblad@tvc.cbs.com’; ’sue.lamphear@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘colleen.sullivan@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘bonnie.lefkowitz@cbs.com’; ‘kee@cbsnews.com’; ‘ian.metrose@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘dlmcclintock@cbs.com’; ‘kev@cbsnews.com’; ‘phil.gonzales@tvc.cbs.com’; ‘bbyrd@cbs.com’; ’smg@cbsnews.com’; ‘gdschwartz@cbs.com’; ‘cender@tvc.cbs.com’
I am a Vice President of Engineering at a high-tech company. I started studying on my own about global warming maybe seven years ago. I had an open mind and was curious to learn about the pro’s and con’s of the arguments. Recently I have come to the conclusion that there still is no “PROOF” that the recent warming of the Earth has anything to do with man. I have an extensive engineering background having taken course in Calculus, physics, chemistry, Engineering etc. I find the below statement insulting easily provable as being wrong, and just plain silly:
…almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat…”.
I would think an organization like CBS would try to investigate the issue beyond having Al Gore pontificate about his beliefs.
Did you know that the Earth has not warmed in since 2002? Did you know the Oceans are cooling recently? Did you know there is record ice in Antarctica? Did you know the ice is back to normal in the Arctic? I am sure you viewers didn’t know any of that and on top of that will be given a serving of pure propaganda by Al Gore. Please check the link out I provide below by one of your competitors and follow the links he provides:
http://community.myfoxcleveland.com/blogs/andrebernier/2008/03/27/More_Climate_News
If CBS doesn’t provide balanced coverage of this major issue I feel I have no other recourse then to stop watching your network at all and inform any one that I can that your network is not interested in the truth.
Best Regards,
If you have a phd in Physics and have spent 15 years studying this topic and still side with Gore, Then you are no Richard Feynman.
The first sign of a Zelot is to silence others.
Besides everyone knows the real answer to life the universe and everything is the number 42. It’s to bad Dougles Adams is not here to have fun with this.
Until the next ice age cheers.
The question is, what’s their evidence? That’s how science works, you see, that’s how it differs from politics. Can you put up any evidence at all (that means scientific papers)?
Funny you should say that, AT. That’s exactly what we skeptics say about AGW, only it’s AGW that is the hypothesis, so that is where the burden of proof lies. THAT’s how science works.
Alarmists are simply more disinformed than us skeptics.
Says a lot about our media today, doesn’t it?
Sadly life has become a battle to keep from becoming disinformed.
Astroturf,
“You’d lose that bet. Since you bring it up, I have a Ph.D. in physics and 15 years research experience in the subject”
Great!!! You wouldn’t mind providing a link or something to your research then!
“Besides, it is ultimately the laymen who will determine the policy related to this issue, not the Ph.Ds.”
It doesn’t split that way. Not all politicians are uneducated morons. Some do know something about the subjects they’re legislating on. Then again, some don’t.
“It is also the obligation of experts to listen to, answer the questions of, and, yes, even learn from the layman side of the fence.”
Hey, great point, I don’t know anything about brain surgery, but I reckon my opinion’s as good as any brain surgeon’s, so get be a power drill and I’ll have a go. The brain surgeon should learn from the layman, right?
You couldn’t make this up.
If someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about, they simply have nothing useful to contribute to the subject. That’s the brutal truth. You may find that “insulting”, you may find that “arrogant”, but it remains the brutal truth.
60 Minutes has lost any and all credibility through it’s past stories on, for instance,exploding gas tanks in which they used igniters and missing gas caps to ensure the crash vehicles burst into flames, and the deeply flawed and misleading report on Bush’s service record that while quashed got alot of coverage. Lets not forget the complete fraud of the 60 Minutes Audi 5000 “sudden acceleration” dishonesty that almost bankrupted a fine automaker. This is junk science to boost ratings and sell advertising time while ringing the alarm bells for the gullible. I ‘d say Al Gore would fit right in to this type of “journalism”.
REPLY: FYI, The “exploding gas tanks” was NBC. The used small model rocket engines if I recall.
Stan: I’d count myself as at the liberal end of a Liberal party in a Liberal region of a Liberal country (compared to the US, anyway), but that is irrelevant to the science.
Paul, I wholeheartedly agree, and my comment wasn’t meant as a slam on Liberals, nor did it have anything to do with the science. It was merely an observation about the debate itself. The political Left (not limited to the U.S. either) has seized on the issue, and, IMO, subverted the science in the process. The fact that Al Gore is one of the leading spokespeople for one side of this issue should raise a big red flag for anyone with an even remotely open mind. I’m not wishing for a coming ice age just to get even with them as some here are, but it would, indeed be poetic justice if Nature had the final word.
As I read this, it is snowing in downtown Seattle. The first time in March in the 9 years I have looked out this window.
Political views mean squat when I am looking at scientific raw data. I just like doing it. Finding patterns where no one else has looked is a very cool thing to do. The guys that have been looking at patterns here and showing us the results are doing what comes naturally to traditional investigators, looking at raw data with unbiased eyes. Astroturf seems the one bound by politicalturf chains. Which brings me to an important point: I would sure like to have the raw data that “published” ivory tower scientists use in their papers. Why not let us have a crack at it? Many scientific paradigm shifts have occurred in the past because of some new un-credentialed person from across the scientific iron curtain making noise.
And before someone says I am just an armchair republican conservative man with 6 children, a gun, and another on the way (gun that is), I’m not only a liberal, but a woman who will probably vote for Hillary. I love nature, done the nude hot springs thing, love no-imprint camping, and have hiked over many trails in the Cascades. I have also been bitten by the sun itself. Lip cancer. No one can tell me that the sun has no affect on global temperature when its rays have managed to find little ol’ me and burn my lip. The scar on my lip compels me to at least give it serious thought.
As Anthony’s alter ego said, “Just the facts, Ma’am”. The key question in my mind is simply this: Is the Earth warming more than the basic heat physics predicts for the given amount of CO2 increase (positive feedback) or less (negative feedback), or maybe just the same.
So far as I can see it is not warming at all now. Possibly it’s cooling. CO2 feedbacks seem to be quite negaative (acc. to the AquaSat data).
Probably CO2 has had a small effect, but the main drivers seem to be oceanic (PDO/AMO) and major solar minimums, which have a big cooling impact (250 out of the last 1000 years have been solar minimum years). Those two factors show the best actual correlation with what is known of surface temperature measurement.
I do historical models (storyboards) and I don’t trust models either. They can describe the past fairly well, but are terrible predictors of the future.
After the clean air act began to have real effect in New York, huge numbers of birds have flocked to the city, especially crows, sparrows, gulls, and hawks.
I guess Beijing has something to look forward to — after they clean up.
I also like trees. But even places without them can be bird havens.
Who woulda guessed.
Central Park has bec