by Judith Curry
I was going to try to ignore Al Gore’s 24 Hours of Climate Reality, but I am starting to get queries from journalists.
In case you have somehow missed it, check out Gore’s web page. WUWT plans to provide a blow-by-blow account of the event. Josh is promising cartoons.
Here is my response to the journalist’s query:
If the intent of Al Gore’s telethon is to garner broad support for climate and energy policies such as proposed by the UNFCCC (e.g. the Kyoto protocol), I anticipate that this effort will backfire and energize the opposition to such policies. As a scientist I find the mantra “remove the doubt, reveal the deniers” to be objectionable and antithetical to the scientific process. Just today, Physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaver explains his resignation from the American Physical Society, objecting to the word “incontrovertible” in the APS statement on climate change: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” Gore’s effort will further polarize an already inflamed and politicized debate surrounding the science and policy response to climate change. The climate change issue is in dire need of a critical assessment that includes a much better assessment of uncertainty and areas of ignorance than has been hitherto provided by the IPCC. Uncertainty is key information for decision makers in assessing the risks and in developing a range of policy options. Robust solutions require a real understanding of the full range of possibilities in terms of outcomes and their associated uncertainties.
I may have more to say on this as the event unfolds and reactions are published.
Josh has been hard at work, his tip jar is here.
Well said Dr Curry.
Your comments about Gore’s efforts backfiring strike a particular chord with me – I first became sceptical about CAGW about five minutes into watching ‘An inconvenient Truth’….
Anteros,
In Hebrew there is a saying that goes something like this:
“Intended to curse and ended up blessing” (and vise versa).
Al Gore’s last-ditch effort to renew climate fears and the resignation of Nobel Laureate Professor of Physics, Dr. Ivan Giaever, from the APS because of APS blind endorsement of AGW fears
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/resigned-again/
Fits nicely, “as a blessing,” to the conclusion of this 50-year video summary of my research career (1961-2011):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.doc
Despite frustrations after Henry Kissinger, Mao Tse-Tung and Chao En-lai meetings in Peking on 9-11 July 1971 [See documents declassified in 2003*], for the sake of society we now need to:
1. Acknowledge these benefits from the secret 1971 meeting:
_a.) Nationalism and racism were reduced,
_b.) World peace was enhanced, and
_c.) Nuclear war was avoided.
2. Avoid retaliation for harm done, and
3. Restore:
_a.) Integrity to government science, and
_b.) Citizens’ control over our government.
*Henry Kissinger’s summary of events of 9-11 July 2011
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-40.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Same here.
The film alerted to me to the fact that all the uncertainties that I had been cautioned about when being taught Climate Change hadn’t been resolved at all – merely swept under the carpet. That remains true in 2011.
Keep beating them over the head with the “uncertainty stick”, Dr. Curry!
“I first became sceptical about CAGW about five minutes into watching ‘An inconvenient Truth…”
There was I thinking that you skeptics spent hours and hours reading through hundreds of scientific papers, carefully weighing all the evidence!
But, your method is just so much quicker! You don’t like Al Gore. Right? So if he thinks AGW is a problem then it can’t be, can it?
Even judges couldn’t stomach his propaganda.
You don’t have to be a scientist to recognise when someone’s talking rubbish
“You don’t like Al Gore. Right?”
Wrong. I don’t have a problem with Al Gore at all.
Not being American, his politics are also an irrelevance to me.
But I felt deeply uncomfortable watching his film because his evidence for predicting a Catastrophe seemed so feeble.
My subsequent reading (40 or so books, and all of Science of Doom’s articles – which I thoroughly recommend) has kept me sceptical of Catastrophe..
AGW may in fact be problematic, but Al Gore’s advocacy is counter-productive to his cause
You don’t say which books you’ve read. Let me guess a couple of them. Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”? Andrew Monford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion”? Science of Doom articles eh?
If so, it sounds a bit like reading Playboy and trying to get an accurate view of the arguments of women’s role in modern society.
So, yes, at least you are right about AGW possibly “in fact be[ing] problematic”.
Forget about what Al Gore thinks. Forget about the film “Inconvenient Truth”. and start reading some science.
Skeptics who read journals are no less skeptical. Conversely, the lay versions of the skeptical arguments are accurate at their level. Skepticism is not based on ignorance.
Tempt- Have you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion”. If yes, I wonder if you care to discuss the parts you disagree with.
tempterrain
This thread is about Al Gore. Get over it.
It is painfully obvious that most rational skeptics of the AGW doomsday prophesy have not based their skepticism on Al Gore’s Oscar winning “AIT” flic alone, but on a critical review of IPCC’s AR4, taking many published studies and publications on the subject into account (there certainly are enough data out there raising serious doubts on the doomsady prophesies in “AIT”)..
However, for many “AIT” was a catalyst to start making a “reality check” on the claims of potential disaster.
Max
Why do you bother to post when you post only ad hominems?
Science of Doom is always scrupulously careful to not get involved in argumenst about the likely extent or consequences of AGW. I don’t think you can draw conclusions either way from his posts, which I agree are excellent.
FWIW –
IMO, Gore is a self-serving blowhard. Always was, and always will be. He’s a politician so I can’t understand why anyone would think otherwise. I understand a distaste for him at a personal level, and that there may be valid criticisms of his approach to the debate of the science related to climate change.
But the underlying mechanics of the extreme hatred of Gore are, obviously, heavily political. It would take a stunning level of naivete for anyone to argue otherwise.
And it stretches credulity that Judith would not acknowledge the political nature of Gore-hatred, in fact jump on the bandwagon, and yet claim to be interested in “building bridges.” What kind of bridges is she interested in building? I assumed that she wants to span the abyss of politicization and link the valid science (that may or may not exist) on the opposite sides of the climate debate. Unfortunately, the only bridges that she’s building with posts like this one will be between her and those who are overtly political in their approach to analyzing climate science.
Joshua,
You ask what kind of bridges Judith is interested in building. Maybe this kind?
Temp:
Or perhaps this bridge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Akashi_Bridge.JPG
Roy Weiler
I love video of that bridge collapse. You know, as one of those examples of how we’d all be better off with “engineering level” quality in climate science.
Judith seems well on her way if building such a bridge is her goal.
tt,
Of course the engineers who designed the bridge thought they had considered all the possible failure modes as well. Hmmm….
The interesting thing is that with the advent of computer aided engineering, these types of failures started to occur.
Engineers began using computer simulations to calculate stress and build with as few materials as necessary to reduce time and cost. What they found was the obvious, that a computer will only answer what you ask it and structures built to close tolerances began to fail under everyday circumstances; i.e. snow accumulation, wind gusts, etc.
A reminder of the limitations of computers.
http://www.amazon.com/Engineer-Human-Failure-Successful-Design/dp/0679734163
You seriously think that those “kinds of failures” only began to occur after the use of computers in engineering and design?
You seriously think that errors in calculating stress, and errors resultant from efforts to limit costs, didn’t exist before computer adided design?
Have you ever worked on an old building?
Bridges have been failing ever since the log broke. Galloping Girty failed because structural improvements turned the deck into an airfoil. They found a limiting factor they did not know existed, and progress is like that.
“Joshua | September 14, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
You seriously think that those “kinds of failures” only began to occur after the use of computers in engineering and design?”
——–
No, they happened before of course. Computers in engineering didn’t cause structures to start failing. Early misuse of them caused some pretty spectacular collapses of large structures not possible before computer aid. “The Tacoma Narrows was not one of them”.
The point I was making was not accounting for all the variables. Earlier large structures like the Empire State Building and Brooklyn Bridge were “overbuilt” because of uncertainties and limits of engineering.
And yes, these failures lead to progress when one realizes the mistakes made.
Actually Joshua that was a failure of management. The bridge was built to the standards established by the accepted science. Of course the advisory engineer Condron who advised that it be built wider was ignored.
You also should investigate why the amazing films were made and how they were made. And you should do some research on the state of the science of the phenomena of aeroelastic flutter at the time.
Set hP,
Yes you are quite right about computers and bridges. Probably the most famous of bridge collapses in the UK was that of the Tay Railway bridge in the late 19th century.
http://www.technologystudent.com/struct1/taybrd1.htm
Apparently, the true cause of the problem was hushed up at the time. The true reason was a batch of defective abacuses (abaci ?) used by the bridge designers. These were subsequently outlawed from future designs and with a legal requirement was introduced for every calculation to be performed using a approved set of 7 figure log tables.
tempterrain
That bridge was obviously not constructed with an “engineering quality” design.
Judith’s bridge may have a better design (and a much better intention), but could it be a “bridge to nowhere”?
Max
That is the original Narrow’s bridge. Aka Galloping Gurdy.
The reason it failed was not because anyone miscalculated the strength or mechanical properties of the bridge. It’s that they designed it to withstand wind conditions far beneath the actual conditions (strengths, and directions) that wind can take on a bad day through that area of the Puget Sound.
So, it wasn’t an error of designing the bridge to fit within known limits, it was an error in knowing the limits the bridge would have to fit within and modelling the air currents wrong.
The new Narrows (and new new Narrows) are all designed with grates to let the air raise through the bridge; and even then the wind on a bad day can be so strong, that if someone accidentally drives over the grates it can flip their vehicle or trailer.
Joshua,
Whatever one thinks of Gore personally, or of his film/book, people who have met him say that he honestly and genuinely believes AGW to be a real threat. And whatever his flaws I can’t think of a single comparable prominent figure on the “skeptic” side who has as much credibility on the subject, which admittedly may be damning with very faint praise given the quality of the opposition.
Andrew –
I often have a hard time drawing distinctions between someone’s credibility on one subject and their credibility on other subjects.
I found plenty of reasons to question Gore’s credibility throughout his career, and my guess is that his lack of credibility crosses different areas of focus. But even further, I have no way of assessing what he honestly does or doesn’t believe. I tend to stay away from that kind of assessment unless I know someone personally.
Anyway, I think that in one aspect of her argument, Judith is correct; there is little doubt in my mind that due to his political identity, Gore’s influence in the climate debate is likely to be counterproductive. But that is true, for the most part, independent of anything that he does or doesn’t believe, or does or doesn’t say, about the science. He is most likely to be counterproductive, IMO – because of the overt political influences that overlap onto the “anti-consensus” side of the climate debate.
That Judith could decry the counter-productivity of Gore’s input into the debate, even as she diminishes the counterproductivity of the politicization of the debate from the “anti-consensus” side seems to me to be shockingly naive.
Andrew:
It is a shame you feel that way. If Gore “honestly and genuinely believes AGW to be a real threat” why does he have multiple energy consuming mansions, fly to ‘green’ events in a private jet, and charge $170,000 for each speaking event? These are not the actions of a believer, they are the actions of someone who wants to make money.
At best he is an so-so actor, at worst he is a new Ponzi scheme.
Roy Weiler
“And whatever his flaws I can’t think of a single comparable prominent figure on the “skeptic” side who has as much credibility on the subject,”
I wonder if any of you will be involved in Gore 24 hr thing. I have zero interest but if you have such a high regard and are going to watch it.
I would like a short summary of what Gore said which had any merit deserving an hour or 24 hrs of your time.
Perhaps before this, you mention something that Gore has ever said which was worth the time of listening or reading it?
What science did you become enlightened about from what Gore has said. What did you get, not what you imagine is good that other people to hear.
aa,
If Gore is a sincere believer in AGW he hides it very well.
Aw, c’mon, Andrew – don’t be so fawningly naive.
Gore is a clever politician.
Since forced retirement from active politics (as the self-proclaimed “next president of the USA”) he has carved out an attractive niche as savior of the planet from human-induced climate disaster, amassing a fortune of a reported $100 million in the process, and picking up an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize along the way..
Too bad for him that his carbon trading scheme has not worked out to amass him an even greater fortune.
But maybe that is why he is pulling out all stops now, in a last-ditch effort to keep the failing momentum going again.
Max
It only reveals your own political agenda if you assume you know Gore’s true beliefs or his true agenda.
If his interest was merely to increase his fortune, there are myriad better investment vehicles than betting on the 90% probability that GW is 51% or more A.
For example, he could invest in oil, like his Republican counterpart politicians did.
Joshua,
Sure, I don’t deny that Gore’s political affiliations will be unhelpful (to say the least) when trying to get his message across to a certain audience. It’s a shame but a fact none the less. When I refer to his “credibility” I don;t mean so much on a personal level but rather whether the message he is trying to put across is a fair reflection on the underlying science. On that basis I think he comes off very well in comparison to prominent “skeptics”.
Roy Weil,
AIUI Gore gets most of his electricity supplies from renewable schemes and donates any profits from his climate related activities to his non profit organisation the Alliance for Climate Protection. He was already a wealthy man before getting involved in climate issues, he hardly needs the money. What do you think he should be doing in order to be consistent with his principles?
gbaikie,
Personally I have not got any of what knowlege I have about climate science from Gore and I’ve never seen his film or read his book. I won’t be following his 24hr thing either. For people who want to det a fairly detailed insight into the issues behind AGW there are better sources to go to but as far as I can tell he does a pretty good job of communicating to the general public who want a more basic explanation (his political baggage which I mentined above notwithstanding).
Here’s a fairly detailed article on Gore’s environmentally-related investments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
Max,
As I pointed out above Gore would be wealthy regardless of his climate related activities. If you have actual evidence to back up your claims about his motives then let’s see it.
I can think of plenty of figures on the sceptic side who could stop Gore dead in his tracks – try Steve McIntyre, for a start.
If you want more, I’m happy to provide a list.
Conversely, if you want to look for more Alarmists as equally ridiculous as Gore there are many to be found. Try the hysterical Joe Romm, for a start.
Mosher –
http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/suspended_animation/
You need to do more research. For this Google is not your friend. You have to go to primary research not magazines. I’ll suggest the local stacks. But sticking to google for you..
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tnbhistory/Machine/machine3.htm#2
“At the time the 1940 Narrows Bridge failed, the small community of suspension bridge engineers believed that lighter and narrower bridges were theoretically and functionally sound. In general, leading suspension bridge designers like David Steinman, Othmar Amman, and Leon Moisseiff determined the direction of the profession. Very few people were designing these huge civil works projects. The great bridges were extremely expensive. They presented immensely complicated problems of engineering and construction. The work was sharply limited by government regulation, various social concerns, and constant public scrutiny. A handful of talented engineers became pre-eminent. But, they had what has been called a “blind spot.”
That “blind spot” was the root of the problem. According to bridge historian David P. Billington, at that time among suspension bridge engineers, “there seemed to be almost no recognition that wind created vertical movement at all.”
Perhaps we can talk about blind spots in climate science.
Focus too on deflection theory. Who knows perhaps you might see a similarity between deflection theory and AGW which excludes natural variability.. perhaps because its too hard to study..
or perhaps you can look at the funding. The original design call for something like a 10+ million dollar budget and the government cut that nearly in half.
The lesson of bridge is not what you think.
1. incomplete theory
2. not enough money
3. a small insular group of individuals who thought they knew better
hmm.. sound familar
As a non scientist I don’t normally comment on this site as the topics usually exceed my capability, but sometimes the hackles are raised.
This moral high ground that you think you are standing on is rapidly sinking under the rising sea of public scrutiny. The increasing public awareness and concern with scientific issues through mediums such as the internet is something that you will eventually have to learn to respect instead of berate, if you wish to retain any credance.
Not obvious but intended as a responce to tempterrains earlier comments
You have a mean fastball when you feel like throwing it Dr. C. . What a breath of fresh air. Would it be hopelessly non-p.c. of me to say “You go, girl!” :>)
And a “Hear! Hear!” from here!
:)
Gore is in denial. I’ve only looked at the claims for two Portuguese speaking sites, Cape Verde and Rio de Janeiro. It was very easy to debunk his claims:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-al-gore-in-cape-verde.html
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-hours-later-in-rio.html
He also talking a lot about droughts. Debunked seriously, especially the one that is going on in the Horn of Africa. Mother Nature is also helping in the case of Cape Verde: it really is getting green!
But I feel that the worst one from Gore is the fact that he ignores that Portuguese exists as a language! Besides English, Portuguese was the only language spoken in more than one of the 24 Climate Reality locations worldwide. Portuguese is the seventh most natively spoken language in the world. And even for Cape Verde, he is managing to have a Spanish presenter…
No wonder he’s got his Climate Reality wrong!
Ecotretas
http://ecotretas,blogspot.com/
As the eminent Bishop of Autun once said “they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing”.
I think Gore should give back all the
bribesdonations he has taken from China.Well said indeed. It will be interesting, possibly even amusing, to see how the press handles this “extreme event.” Perhaps on tiptoe, as it is sure to bring forth torrents of ridicule and a flood of derision from the opposing camp. The scene has an almost biblical cast to it, but that is Gore’s style.
Speaking of derision, my headline would be “Aging Activist Beats Dead Drum.” But that is just me.
Dr. Curry,
Your response is very clear and cearly on target.
I look forward to seeing and hearing what other climate scientists have to say.
Your response reminded me of this interesting post at the Air Vent:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/naughty-step/
It is just a shame that Gore couldn’t hold the thing in Texas to break the drought.
I wonder if during the presentation, Al is going to lead some jazzercise routines for the overweight greenies out there. ;)
Andrew
Wont he delegate that to Jane Fonda?
Well, she’ll sure as hell look better than Al in the process.
She may still be goofy in the head, but she doesn’t look bad for a 70+ year old lady (while he just looks like an overfed ex-pol).
Max
Barbarella once burnt a white sauce and the nutty flavor ensuing was remarkable and unique, at least failing numerous disgusting attempts to reproduce the magic. Gore, too, is trying to rediscover a lost, wondrous, flavor. Barbarella sheds tears for him.
==============
Judith can you help me understand how “a much better assessment of uncertainty and areas of ignorance” is of any relevance to climate policy at this point? A practical example would be useful. Because from where I sit, your position (i.e. that uncertainty is greater than IPCC and Gore say it is) suggests a more aggressive mitigation response is needed rather than the opposite.
You are sitting at the wrong end of the telescope.
Why not just say “you’re wrong”. Clinches the issue in only two words.
Well, why then is al gore trashing the doubters? Doubt should imply more reason for action, by your logic. Somewhere in a previous thread (can’t find it now), i discussed the fallacy behind “uncertainty increases the urgency for action”
Ah yes, the old standby – the “But, they did it first” defense.
Heck of a way to “build bridges,” Judith.
Joshua,
Do you really believe ‘bridge building’ will occur with someone like Al Gore? Gore’s whole campaign is to compare any ‘doubter’ of CAGW to racists of the 1950’s era, blocking civil rights legislation. I’m sure you read the Rolling Stone article… I did. Do you honestly believe Al Gore is building bridges using this type of comparison? Calling me an ‘environmental racist’ isn’t going to win my heart.
I also find it interesting that Marlowe would now suggest ‘uncertainty’ as a reason to ratchet up the urgency to take action while all along the IPCC has been trying to reduce ‘doubt’ and claim ‘certainty’ to advance urgent action. You can’t have it both ways… the public will laugh at the folly. The same thing happened with the big cold winters the last couple of years… before we were told…’weather was not climate’, now it is. Before we were told we should never expect snow again, no more sledding, warmer winters, children would not know what snow is in the future. Now, cold snowy winters are exactly what AGW looks like!
These 180 degree shifts do not go unnoticed by the general public. For some reason the ‘Al Gores’ and ‘Marlowes’ of the world think they will.
John,
What we are seeing many in the AGW community in this demand to rush into uncertainty is to demonstrate the old pilot’s belief that “There are old pilots, and there are old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots”.
John –
I usually find your responses to me quite reasonable – so I’m kind of surprised that you’d read my posts and still feel you need to ask me that question.
But even though it seems to me to be unnecessary reiteration of my perspective: No, I don’t think that Gore’s role is conducive to the kind of “bridge building” that Judith seems to be interested in.
Not in the least.
But that doesn’t change in the least my assessment of Judith’s input. Posts like this one, IMO, are basically just serving up red meat to partisans. OK, it is what it is.
But for someone who is interested in bridge-building to put up this kind of post, and then even further to offer the kinds of rationalizations that she offers for the vast asymmetry in her conclusions about the political influence in the debate, seems highly contradictory.
I assume, John – that you missed this comment?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112036
Joshua,
Am I wrong (or Judy) to think by listening to or reading Al Gore’s rhetoric to walk away thinking he is not ‘trashing’ doubters? Where is that assessment wrong? Al Gore is using a strategy to shame doubters into the right position. If you are not with AGW, you are a doubter (denialist) and are to be labeled ‘environmental racists’. By Gore’s reasoning, a doubter is to be thought of as the worst scum the planet can know… A doubter is against the planet, shows no compassion for the planet by the very act of challenging the AWG hype. The doubter wants to maintain status quo and all doubters are to be lumped together as a single ‘denier’ class.
Really Joshua, I know you don’t endorse Al Gores bridge building strategies. But I fail to see where Judy went wrong in her assessment.
Joshua,
I did not see that comment yet… but I was aware of your position already, see above comment.
John –
You ask this:
Here is what I wrote elsewhere in this thread:
To which I added this:
that overlap onto the “anti-consensus” side of the climate debate.
That Judith could decry the counter-productivity of Gore’s input into the debate, even as she diminishes the counterproductivity of the politicization of the debate from the “anti-consensus” side seems to me to be shockingly naive.
And to that I will reiterate – just on its own, Gore’s role would be counterproductive – but to isolate the counterproductivity of his role from the counterbalancing negative and political influences fails to be comprehensive, IMO, and makes even less sense if your intent is to “build bridges.”
Just as Gore’s input will in effect feed animosity and inflame partisanship, so does Judith when she writes posts like this one, fails to acknowledge the political influences on both sides of the debate, fails to call out Ross McKitrick for calling Wagner a “groveling, terrified coward,” etc.
Joshua,
I will leave it that we agree Al Gore is ‘counterproductive’…. however I have a much better term for him I would like to use. :)
The urgency is in the distribution of certainties and uncertainties to my mind rather than the total. The certainties come first and substantiate a need for urgency. The uncertainties fail to negate that and reliance on them is sheer gambling.
A key certainty in my mind is that the human forcing is going to end up being about 5wm-2 within just two centuries. The risk is that 5wm-2 in two centuries greatly surpasses anything that the planet has been through in millions of years. I would call that a certain danger.
Sure we can wheel the uncertainties and speculate that this danger might be misplaced – there may be some yet undiscovered large natural forcing that renders the ~5wm-2 insignificant, or maybe the whole concept of forcing is wrong, or maybe even such an unprecedented forcing for millions of years will have no ill effect.
But those arguments are quite weak, and reliance on those uncertainties in the face of that danger is really sheer gambling.
I guess that’s the problem Gore and others have with skeptics – is that quite a lot of them try to pretend there is no problem, no danger, that they aren’t relying on uncertainty and gambling. They would have everyone believe that the 5wm-2 forcing is known to be insignificant, or a non-issue.
lolwot: Apparently you do not understand that we do not buy your conjecture regarding human forcing, certainly not as a certainty. I regard your claim as preposterous. This difference between us defines the uncertainty that matters most.
There always has been, and always will be dangers regarding weather/climate. The issue really is one of degree and what you believe should be done as a result of the perceived risks or dangers.
Do humans impact the climate/environment? Certainly- again it is a matter of degree and your perception of whether that impact is perceived to provide a benefit that is worth the potential harm.
People around the world want and need energy, cement and fertilizer and see the benefits from those things as far more beneficial than the potential harms based on what can be demonstrated.
There is also no reasonable alternative that will actually be enacted. The long term solution is adaptation through the construction of proper infrastructure and long term technology development.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/28/uncertainty-risk-and-inaction/
Bing is your friend :)
Marlowe,
That’s a good question. Its one she used to answer as follows:
” Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes.”
That makes sense to me and you’re thinking the same too?
But we are both wrong, apparently. Judith read something in some leaked emails from a guy called Prof Phil Jones at UEA, the UK, which explained why such arguments are erroneous.
Mind you, I’ve seen the same emails myself and I’m b*******d if I can see which one she’s talking about. I have asked her several times now and still no answer.
Maybe you’ll have better luck!
tt,
If you read those e-mails- and i doubt if you did- and you had normal reading comprehension abilities, which perhaps you don’t, you would not honestly make the claim you do about not being able to see the problem.
Marlowe, so your suggestion to someone who is lost would be to go faster?
He was on PBS/NPR, “Talk of the Nation” this afternoon spamming. Gore “Factoid” of the day;
“20% of human CO2 released will remain in the atmosphere 20000 years from now”
No dissent of course, no skeptic calls taken. PBS then advertises the links on the public dime.
“I was going to try to ignore Al Gore’s 24 Hours of Climate Reality”
This is a responsible leadership reaction? How about denouncing the radical agenda that is the real motivation of the Gore posture? I’d settle for admitting there really is a distinct partisan agenda from responsible parties in the science community. How is “silence” justified?
“How about denouncing the radical agenda that is the real motivation of the Gore posture?”
You mean that AGW is hoax promulgated by the New World Order to usher in an era of World Government by the UN and enslave good patriotic God-fearing Americans?
Judith can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d say it would be somewhat difficult for her to say that. If she did, her colleagues and students would think she was stark staring bonkers!
You deny there is an eco-left associated to the “Consensus”???
Y or N? You can weasel after the Y or N.
cwon14 – I fully support the scientists that are showing us that climate change is caused by man and I’m a right wing voter here in UK (Conservative Party).
cwon14 – do you deny that there is an ultra right wing associated with the denial of climate science?
It appears that you don’t support scientists who are skeptical in this area. Would you continue to support the Conservatives if their policies did not favor AGW sympathies? Just checkin’.
AND that is the problem!
You Grownups have given us a legacy of politicized science..
No.The scientific consensus has no connection to any political philosophy.
Different political grouping will have their own ideas on how to interpret that consensus. These range from enthusiastic acceptance by those who have always felt that humanity was placing an unacceptably high burden on the Earth’s ecosystem, to what seems to be outright denial from those who are most in favour of unrestrained growth and which they feel can carry on in exponential fashion indefinitely.
Judith
I agree that Gore’s political symbolism and overall approach to the debate are counterproductive.
Unfortunately, however I find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to apply a similar scrutiny to the political orientation of the Heartland Institute, for example, or the inflammatory nature of the activities of someone like Anthony Watts.
Why is there such a vast asymmetry in your scrutiny of the politicization and inflammatory contributions from the different sides of the climate debate, Judith?
This time, you can’t even use your standard (and IMO, woefully insufficient) response that you only care about the input from scientists.
riiiiiiiiiiiiight . . . Anthony Watts = Al Gore in the climate debate (i.e. former VP, Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, etc.)
Better analogies would be Inhofe (hoax) and Santorum (junk science). Gore is needed to balance these types of politicians.
Analogy!!!! Inhofe puts his views in the congress, as the his constituency elected him to do. we have 534 other “smart, great,wonderful” people’s reps in congress to counter that. This guy is going to scare kids and brain-dead people on the TV for hrs. “analogy” That!!!
Politicians are scary enough when they try to deregulate polluters who pay to keep them in power.
Jim D,
Extremists are much more scarier when they falsely claim that politicians and industrialists like poisoning citizens
Reread the decision of the Supreme Court carefully before using the word “polluters”. The definition of “Pollution” was written into the Clean Air Act by Congress; the law was “Broad”, “Sweeping”, “Capacious” and covers everything airborne (frisbees to flatulence as Scalia put it). It was the EPA (under Carol Browner) that decided it was a “dangerous” pollutant over the objection of Alan Carlin.
Justice Stevens. 2007. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. April 2. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Under the CAA definition, Jim D., you yourself are a polluter. As am I and everyone else. :-)
Balance …
“Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee. And it took several years after Nancy Gore Hunger’s death for Mr. Gore and his parents to stop growing tobacco on their own farms in Carthage, Tenn.”
As they say, “actions speak louder than words”. Thanks for the reality check on Gore’s motivations Bruce.
Jim D,
I will await Joshua t condemn you for the ‘but they did it too’ whine.
But I am confused:
Are you codemning Inhofe for pointing out the hoaxes that AGWrelies on?
I am not aware of Santorum’s view and do not follow him, but are you implying that Santorum is pointing out the junk science behind many of Gore’s claims?
You seem to be supporting the idea of a fraudulent profiter like Gore getting a free ride.
Why would you do that?
Plesae be clear.
Right….we get to smear conservative interests and defame skeptics while the IPCC and consensus player pretend they aren’t cut from the same political cloth as Al Gore. “just science doing it’s job”….(apply laugh test)
Speak to the point, AGW activism is deeply tied to the left. So are many of the key players around the IPCC and the Consensus. You know but refuse comment.
Why pander to social/professional peers at the expense of a simple truth that in no way implicates your direct science work or views? If you can’t address the obvious why would others trust you on the most sublime claims regarding the actual climate “science”?
Silence and obfuscation are politcal acts as well.
Judith –
Anthony Watts has quite a bit of influence in the realpolitik of the climate debate. What is interesting is how in these pages, your denizens and you, yourself, talk about the diminishing political viability of the “consensus” viewpoint and yet you maintain your defense that the political influence on the “skeptical” side of the debate is insignificant.
You have spoken about a widespread “crisis” in the public view of climate science, yet constantly seek to diminish the viewpoint of those who promote the belief that a crisis exists.
You frequently speak of the influence of your “denizens” on your perspective, yet fail to acknowledge the abundantly evident political influence in many, many of the opinions they express at Climate Etc.
You decry the “gatekeeping” of the “climate establishment” that reportedly keeps out alternate scientific analysis, ostensibly because of tribalism, yet then you, yourself, downplay the overt tribalism on evident display from the very same people who promote that alternate perspective on the science (interestingly, for example, it appears that Glaver has a strong rightwing political orientation).
You fail to make any comment of substance when it is pointed out to you that someone as influential in the debate as Ross McKitrick calls Wagner a “groveling, terrified coward.”
The inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments are striking.
Johsua,
Util you admit that the believer side is heavily influenced by and active in politics, you will come across as a whining voice withno credibility.
hunter –
Despite your rather constant statements otherwise, I have always maintained that both sides are politically influenced, and influenced by tribalism of other sorts, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning.
My contention has been, all along, that the notion that there is a “vast asymmetry” in the political influence is not only a counterfactual, but more importantly, suggestive of an unrealistic approach to human nature and how people reason in the face of controversy.
Just like your constant claims about my being a “believer,” without having any notion of what I do or don’t believe, your claims that I don’t acknowledge a political influence on the “warmist” side are unfounded, and are an overt display that you draw conclusions that have no basis in supporting evidence. What is most interesting about that display is that I have pointed out your errors numerous times now and you seem completely incapable of reevaluating your understanding of my perspetive, regardless..
Joshua,
Are you at least kidding yourself?
Judith,
You’ll forgive me I hope if I say that your reply was unresponsive to my question. Let me try and be a little bit clearer. If our ignorance of ***important*** parts of the climate system are more uncertain that is commonly accepted, and we assume that society’s risk aversion is such that we want to avoid disastrous outcomes, then doesn’t it follow that we would take more aggressive action since our ability to rule out catastrophic outcomes would be lessened?
FWIW, I –along with pretty much everyone else that doesn’t inhabit WUWT– think that enough about climate science is sufficiently well understood to warrant significant policy intervention. I strongly disagree with your suggestion (unless I’ve misunderstood) that a different treatment/expression of uncertainty about climate projections is of any policy relevance at all at this point.
I realize that communication of climate science uncertainty is your particular bete noir, but just because all you have is a hammer, doesn’t mean that everything is a nail.
Marlowe,
Your assumption seems to be that only one side of the equation is disastrous. That is grossly mistaken. Using your rule, if I were on the highway and drove into a fog bank, I’d slam on the brakes…after all, only one potential disaster exists, right?
Marlowe, the uncertainties in question increase our ability to rule out catastrophic AGW outcomes. They increase the likelihood that CAGW is false.
And I have to say, Judith, that it is particularly ironic that even as you decry the vast asymmetry in political influence on the different sides of the climate debate, you are apparently unaware that the cartoon you posted is the legacy of a nakedly political, and false, meme used to attack Gore.
There is plenty to legitimately go after Gore about on the basis of the science, but ironically you wind up identifying yourself with an angle that is derived from a deliberate distortion of what Gore said – for the specific intent of political exploitation of a falsehood.
http://www.salon.com/technology/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=110
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/04/gore/index.html
Just like Gore’s advocacy, the attacks against Gore are overtly political in nature.
By posting the cartoon above, you are making it clear that either you are (1) knowingly identifying with a political orientation in the climate debate, or (2) making claims about a “vast asymmetry” in the political influences on the climate debate without having taken the time to comprehensively look at those political influences.
And there’s also these:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710
http://consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html
come on, Joshua is being cereal.
If anthony watts goes on a 24 hr tirade on TV with unsubstantiated exaggeration of our current knowledge base and ignoring the uncertainties in our understanding, we can ridicule him the same way.
For Gore, it is not good enough to have an ignorable cable TV channel ( Current ). now he has to do an all day telethon!!!!!
Where’s Jerry Lewis now that we really need him?
Who needs Jerry Lewis when we have Joshua?
Roy Weiler
Maybe Lady Gaga can stage a reunion between Al Gore and Bill Clinton during the Gore-a-thon.
Well, Dr. Curry, you’ve just guaranteed that the dying, bankrupt, fascist “mainstream media” are certainly not going to quote you about Algore’s futile and fatuous fulminations, haven’t you?
we’ll see . . . I’ve been doing ok re MSM hits as of late :)
Dr. Curry:
If you do hit MSM with this one please link!
Roy Weiler
I sometimes get confused…is it those damn fascists or a global communist conspiracy??
Ian etc.,
The answer is both, or as Blaise Pascal might have “thought”:
“Les extremes se touchent”.
Sorry, I don’t have the French doo-hickies on my key board, so I can’t do Pascal’s quote full justice. But the CAGW hustle is more along the lines of the make-a-buck crowd getting in bed with the make-a-gulag crowd. Not the first time we’ve seen that sort of thing–Google “wiki non-agression pact 1939.”
It’s all about spheres of influence and who’s going to stab whom in the back first.
“Because from where I sit, your position (i.e. that uncertainty is greater than IPCC and Gore say it is) suggests a more aggressive mitigation response is needed rather than the opposite.”
Huh?
pokerguy,
This is the Robert Rationale – the less we know the more agressive the response we should have, and the more we know the more agressive the response we should have.
Andrew
It used to be the Judith rationale too!
At least she can learn better, as a true scientist should. New information=change in understanding.
Roy Weiler
I don’t know where you are sitting. it must be a really interesting place. but to say, “when we don’t know the extent of the problem”, no sane person goes around killing everything in sight saying ” aggressive response is better”.
cwon,
That stuff really drives me insane. Gore could literally say anything without fear of a follow-up question, much less a response from some competent skeptic.
Al Gore: “The Co2 emitted into the atmosphere from a single automobile driven for just one year is enough to kill 3 sleeping babies.”
Credulous liberal panel member: “My God. So it’s even worse than we thought.”
AL Gore: “You have no idea.”
Aw, heck. The CO2 emitted by a single sleeping baby in the course of one year is enough to kill hundreds of other sleeping babies.
Ever heard of CO2 narcosis? It’s the reason why pillows can and do cause “crib death.”
Imagine how many sleeping babies are killed by Gore opening his mouth ;-)
Imagine how many brain cells die when they are stuck inside the head of someone who thinks Gore is anything more than a cheap shallow opportunist.
Another lesser hyperbolic quote;
On the Canada pipeline;
“It’s the equivalent of making every Prius in America that same footprint as a Hummer”.
The sniveling host eat it up.
Then of course there are the PBS Zombies calling in;
“Should we just give up on “Deniers” and focus “educating” children?
Gore; “Yes, children are much more open to accepting science”.
You think my 1984 references aren’t accurate? We’re living it friend. I could only think of the children who turned in their parents for dissent in Hitlers Germany. That’s where it’s going in his mind. These are the full-moon nutters and there are more than a few on this board.
At 5:27 PM on 14 September, cwon14 had observed:
Or (to be precise) more easily gulled into the uncritical acceptance of “Cargo Cult Science.”
Haven’t surveys demonstrated that adults with formal training in scientific method – those of us with undergraduate and graduate degrees in the “hard” sciences particularly – tend far more reliably to be skeptically dismissive of the preposterous assertions of the AGW alarmists?
Only the scientifically illiterate and the haplessly naive can be suckered by Algore’s child-molesting tactics.
Did he really say that?
That would mean about 60 million dead babies in America alone? Gore is a nut – worse than a TV evangelist.
As usual Dr Curry displays the central beacon of her approach to climate science and the global warming issue-scientific integrity. I am a non-scientist who simply wants to know the best science has to offer about this subject. I can always count on Dr Curry for the best guidance in how to view this entire matter.
I feel much the same way. I simply want objective and dispassionate analysis of evidence devoid of the politics and advocacy. This site is the only one I know of that comes anywhere close. I also agree that policy should be based on a range of options reflecting the uncertainty of the science and not one that assumes one outcome.
“Gore; “Yes, children are much more open to accepting science”.
If this weren’t so sinister it would be funny.
The irony is I grew up in a very unionized, left-wing education culture and I and many of my peers became the Reagan majority.
I note the same pattern in AGW propaganda which is most intense at the middle school levels in public schools today. Try as they might AGW gets constant negative feedback even among young teens with marginal science training. The pompous self-serving green culture is very well understood in my community. In part it’s because there is a well-educated and conservative counter balance to the educational eco-left that exists in public schools. I would fear if the social weighting of authority was more tilted toward big education which is common accross the country.
Schools are reeducation camps to this crew. Even today Gore was going on about how children can inform their parents on the importance of climate issues. Listen to the gruel if you can stand it;
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=140471055&m=140471046
For all our tax dollar, NPR has terrible technology. It takes work to play their clips.
“Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/14/140472519/al-gore-its-an-honor-to-be-attacked-on-climate-change
What party do most of the warmers vote for Dr. Curry? Why is that?
Dont worry, in another two or three years only toddlers will belive Gorescience.
Not being American I just wonder what it is about Al Gore that creates so much dislike. The mere mention of his name sends some of you guys into paroxysms of rage! Is this the same Al Gore who got more popular votes than George Bush in the 2000 elections?
Maybe he wasn’t such a bad guy then? Or he’s just a sore loser who has decided to wreak his revenge on the US by using the climate issue to wreck, ( or further wreck? ) the US economy?
That must be it. And if there’s one good thing about what Al Gore is saying its how he just proves you have been just so right about the AGW hoax all along. If Al Gore says it a problem , it just can’t be, can it? It just stands to reason.
Dunno, perhaps something to do with killing sleeping babies
Well with Gore’s flip-flop from right-to-life to pro-abortion, perhaps he finds sleeping babies problematic.
He also had an adulterous affair and his wife didn’t like it.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/64600,people,news,affair-with-laurie-david-blamed-for-al-gore-split-curb-enthusiasm
Andrew
I think it was the way he said ‘lock box’.
“Not being American I just wonder what it is about Al Gore that creates so much dislike.”
tempterrain,
This may come as a suprise to you, but not everyone in the world thinks leftist politicians are akin to heroes. Some of us think they are just politicians.
Andrew
Not being American, I dislike what Gore proclaims because of the hyperbole, exageration and his seeming hypocracy. I was nodding my head vehemenantly watchin ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ 5 years ago, even went on to help give presentations of ‘Australia’s Inconvenient Truth’ at community halls. Now, after much reflection, I s’pose I sit somewhere within the ‘lukewarm’ position. He doesn’t send me into paroxies of rage, just a shrug.
mostly it’s because of Man-Bear-Pig
tempterrain,
I would say the Al Gore is a very visible symbol of the Orwellian statist control culture that is a product of social decline and despair. I believe you identified yourself as in the Euro Zone and should understand social rot and decline very well from that experience.
“Is this the same Al Gore who got more popular votes than George Bush in the 2000 elections?”
We’re a representative democracy, which worked out to a degree in this case. In the end society chooses social suicide in most history narratives. Our recent history is no different.
Although he has made money on green fraud, subside and waste (consider his links to the defunct carbon exchange in Chicago which he sold high to fools) I don’t think greed is the primary motivation. It’s about global human domination via global government rationalization and an excuse to advance that agenda. He’s a thug to boot and you see the similar ilk well represented in the climate change political nucleus as well as here on this board. So when vent at Al Gore they are thinking of the whole sactimonious and arrogant political gene pool that he crawled out of. He’s a very personal face of the IPCC and consensus subculture that is essentially the same but is much smarter (more evil) in hiding itself. I think even less of that group.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/if-al-gores-chicago-climate-exchange-suffers-total-failure-does-the-msm-make-a-sound/
G’day CWon14,
Euro zone? Not even close!
Lucky git :-)
Ah! Down under. Even worse than the EU until the next election that is!
–> “Is this the same Al Gore who got more popular votes than George Bush in the 2000 elections?”
The votes of the productive really are more important than all of those who live off of the hard work, sweat, blood and voluntary sacrifice that the productive devote to the task of bringing value to society. To think otherwise only gives wings to the ideology of liberal fascism and the tyranny of a Leftist majority.
tempterrain
“Not being American” I have simply observed that Al Gore has amassed a neat sum of $100 million in his new self-appointed role of savior of the planet from human-induced global warming, at the same time having a personal carbon footprint that is larger than that of the three small cities nearest to his home in Tennessee put together.
This may have turned some individuals off on the motives of this ex-politician.
Max
tempterrain – you ask why so many skeptics seem to really dislike Gore, Tamino has a possible answer “There are plenty of fools, both in government and the citizenry, who are still wallowing in denial, but you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who isn’t aware of the issue. Most of the credit goes to Al Gore. And that’s why the deniers hate him so much.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/climate-reality-success/
tempterrain,
I’ll give the issue you’ve raised a shot, from my personal perspective:
Historical view of Al Gore: Wooden, humorless, freakishly lacking in personality, nice-guy, lovely wife, good kids, well-intentioned, honest, sincere. A good family man, Eagle Scout sort of guy lacking the mean streak required to reach the very top of the hill–and that a good thing.
Al Gore and the CAGW deal: Tipper out. Lonely guy living in beach-front, Norma Desmond splendor (Al’s last line in the script, “Rosebud”). Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize right out of the Cracker-Jack box (about as earned as those sashes, star-burst medallions, and chokers that grace Europe’s cretinous, Ruritanian elites). Greenshirt groupies. Breathtaking, undisguised devotion to make-a-buck enviornmentalism. Preposterous carbon-piggy hypocrisies. Not aged well–gotten fat, don’cha know.
I don’t hate Al Gore. tempterrain. Rather his weird transformation gives me the creeps.
It’s success. It’s the same reason they hate Hansen, Mann and a handful of other mild-mannered nerds: their crime is just that they communicate the facts well. It’s not personal: hatred and abuse is just the default skeptic response to anyone that stands in their way. The more cogent and effective they are, the more hated. It’s as simple as that.
“they communicate the facts well”.
Facts?
Has he jumped the shark yet ?
“remove the doubt, reveal the deniers”
Is this supposed to be a challenge to incite whistle-blowing on professional environmentalist loons?
Awesome! I like how you’re able to attack something before it even happens. Good job! I’m sure that will improve the quality and civility of dialogue and understanding.
Cunc:
That could be the mantra for CAGW mitigation!!
Roy Weiler
Perhaps you should see wome of the run up to Gore’s effort?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oyW-1PRtJdE
Now to me and I will bet manyothers, this video offers a good chance to see what Gore is flinging at us. But the creators, in the spirit of 10:10, are actually trying to push a different view.
The wonderful thing about calling someone “polarizing” in that you can then blame them for your own hostility. It’s Gore’s fault that deniers hate him so much. The fact that deniers will rant and rave and rail against him before he says a single word just proves how polarizing he is!
Spot on, Dr. Curry! How did Josh get that photo of me?
Gore-a-Thon is much too close to “Gore in a Thong”
And that is a real nasty thought.
Poor Tipper.
♫ Gore on film
two minutes later…
Gore on film ♫
(think Duran Duran)
Andrew
What strikes me about the whole event is the lack of demonstrable scientific expertise in many of the presenters. I look at the nearest presenter to me (Victoria B.C.) and find that the person leading the discussion on this topic may or may not have an undergraduate degree from a second tier Canadian university and his major achievement was successfully training to present the “An Inconvenient Truth” slide show to diverse audiences.
In a city with a renowned School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, the home of Dr. Andrew Weaver, IPCC author and internationally recognized expert on the topic, you bring me a clearly photogenic but otherwise completely unknown undergrad from Montreal. Heck, David Suzuki lives a stone’s throw away at least he has a publication record (admittedly primarily on Drosophila genetics and popular science but beggars can’t be choosers).
Okay, I admit I may be going into ad hominems here but still if Al gore is going to appeal to authority at least he can go through the effort of getter someone who gives off an aura of authority to do the job.
Al tends to confuse topics like politics, Hollywood and science.
Are they going to have weather updates for every presenter? This could be global Gore effect.
The Gore effect is in full form!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/its-official-noaa-shows-the-gore-effect-hitting-america-today/
Roy Weiler
I hope everyone realizes that this whole C02 global warming hysteria will ultimately do more harm than good when the backlash hits against all the good policies and regulations that have actually cleaned up the environment.
Essentially telling people that you can basically regulate “air” based on a highly complex “theory” dependent on a large hypothetical chain of events is over reaching.
It wil burn people out and turn them off to more useful ways to maintain and protect a clean environment.
http://climaterealityproject.org/
“Only last week a woman was sitting in her flooded kitchen…..it’s about people.”
Hang on to your barf bag….it’s down hill from here.
More moisture leads to drought.
Ambien sales are being threatened by this broadcast.
“Anyway, I think that in one aspect of her argument, Judith is correct; there is little doubt in my mind that due to his political identity, Gore’s influence in the climate debate is likely to be counterproductive. But that is true, for the most part, independent of anything that he does or doesn’t believe, or does or doesn’t say, about the science.”
The attempt to somehow explain the widespread antipathy to Gore’s hysterical climate alarmism on the basis of his political party is simply wrong. Simply put, he’s a pontificating jerk. Granted, it took the Supreme Court to ultimately give the Presidency to Bush, but it never should have been that close. That was his election to win, and he turned people off so badly…including plenty in his own party…that he lost to a guy he should have easily beaten. It was by any measure a pathetic performance.
Dr. Curry,
Algore and his friends are all agreed that they should describe climate science as high school quality physics. Given some of the really bad studies out there and the rampant lack of quality control by the global warming hockey team, do you think this effort to impugn high school physics is fair?
Of course, Boulder Colorado! The hub of right wing activity!
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20110914/NEWS/110919921/1077&ParentProfile=1058
It’s snowing in Aspen, I love it.
I just got done covering everything I care about in my garden because of a freeze (not frost) warning tonight. The Gore Effect strikes again.
/leave my habeneros out of this, Al!
Cwon14 and TerryMn,
I think these posts can be described as the “It’s cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, so what’s the problem?” type of argument.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm
tempterrain
Maybe it’s the recorded fact that there has been no statistical atmospheric warming since 1998, and no warming in the upper ocean since reliable ARGO measures were installed in 2003, despite CO2 increase to all-time high levels.
Ever think of that?
Max
Dear Mr Gore…
You are fooling yourself if you think us kids can’t see…AGW lives in models ONLY
Heh, it’s ‘we kids’, kim and glad to see ya’.
==================
Thank you…I should change my name a little so people don’t get us mixed?
Can I speak to Sybil?
Sorry, I don’t know her
I was just taken back 40 years to my psych class
Please and TNX, kim. I always double underline, so keep your name or delta nomen, stp. You have promise, but mind your Mama’s gramma.
============================
Three years ago I tried to tell Andy Revkin the modelers were trying to keep their toys on circular tracks on the ceiling.
===================
When I did my report on the AGW hypothesis, I started with the first statement, “CO2 is a well-mixed gas”. I used Specific Gravity [ SC ] values to show CO2 is 1.5 [SG] and air is assigned 1.0 [SG].
Gravity says the heavier will drop.
Carbon dioxide molecules are significantly heavier than air molecules, so their effusion rate into the cup is much less than the effusion rate of air out of the cup.
So has anyone proved “CO2 is a well-mixed gas”, yet?
Kim :), CO2 seems to be well mixed, compared to H2O vapour which is very high in the tropics and low at the poles. CO2 is in the 300-400 ppm level if you look at global distribution maps and such.
Hiyas Kermit….
When I look at the maps such as http://i.imgur.com/74VQy.jpg
It looks fairly well dispersed but not “well-mixed” .
The hypothesis goes on after that, “CO2 then acts as a “blanket” to “trap” the heat our planet receives from the sun..
That “blanket” looks very “holey” ?
Our savior, Gore
Could sometimes bore
With his warnings of impending doom.
But to his horror
It warms no more
And he’s running out of wiggling room.
Forget for the moment the vaiidity of the argument that the climate reality project is promoting.
My problem with the campaign is that it lacks imagination. I’m not so sure that having uninteresting presentations and twittering about a 24 hour gimmick is the right way to inform people and get them enthused. I’m also not sure if Al Gore is the right person to appeal to those who would be worried about the impliacations for the type of government policy on energy that follow from the conclusions asserted by the project. Few of the campaigns have actually had much impact, even before Copenhagen. My view is that the most effective promotion of the need to take mitigation action on energy, transport etc is the fact that sceptics are keeping the issue alive in the media, which activists are using to piggyback their opposition.
“Keeping the issue alive in the media” (including the blogosphere) is an opportunity to expose the weakness of the underlying science supporting the IPCC AR4 report, which had previously been accepted as the “gold standard” scientific report on climate prior to Climategate and ensuing revelations.
Truth loves light.
Al Gore is just shooting himself in the foot with his “Gore-a-thon”, as very few observers take him seriously, and most see this as a giant PR-action to keep a faltering message of impending doom alive.
Max
Where is your evidence quantifying those who previously considered AR4 to be the “gold standard,” but feel otherwise due to “climategate and ensuing revelations?”
Look around you, Joshua.
In 2007, when IPCC AR4 came out, the MSM was gobbling up the new report as the “gold standard”
The words “unequivocal”, “consensus” and “irrefutable” were bandied about, with most journals and media outlets jumping on the CAGW bandwagon.
Polls showed that a majority of the general public trusted the scientists and accepted the premise that AGW could represent a serious potential threat.
Then two strange things happened:
– Climategate and later revelations exposed a group of scientists behind the CAGW scare as simply humans with hidden agendas and the science as questionable
– All those thermometers out there, even those next to airport runways, AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots, began showing that global warming had stopped for now
To make matters worse, the new ARGO measuring devices showed that the upper ocean was also not warming.
Kevin Trenberth referred to this unexplained “lack of warming” as “a travesty”.
Then there were a couple of unusually harsh winters throughout the northern hemisphere (which a few CAGW supporters tried to blame on AGW), a climate “flop” at Copenhagen followed by a second “flop” at Cancun.
As a result of the above events and the high level of politicization of climate science, the general public trust in climate science and climate scientists has been lost.
Some scientists (such as our host here) are trying to re-establish this trust through open dialog. But she recognizes that it will be difficult to do.
It’s a different world today than it was in those heady days of Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes, Joshua.
If you are unable to see this, too bad for you.
Max
Joshua’s claim that “deniers” are political tribe members is wrong. The only support of catastophe AGW comes from the left while skepticism comes from both sides. That it comes with greater frequency from the right is a serious misrepresentation of the nature of the skepticism.
It’s perfectly reasonable to accept (limited) AGW as a statement of “close enough to be largely factual” and be vehemently opposed to political measures that do little more than waste money or otherwise harm industry and/or the economy.
It is also perfectly reasonable to oppose highly political solutions that increase governmental power (and corruption) and expenditures in representative democracies (such as the USA) where a majority of the voting population want to see the governmental budget decrease. This is especially acute in the current economic climate.
It is also perfectly reasonable to question political measures that require any sacrifice whatsoever on the part of the western economy when up to half of the world’s population (i.e. China and India) will do as they damn well please, up to and including INCREASING emissions thus making up for what the west sacrificed.
Any political solution that doesn’t have the Chinese and Indians begging to join is doomed to fail by definition. It is not possible to enforce compliance with ecopolitical fantasy at the point of a gun, either. If AGW is a worldwide problem then it requires a worldwide solution.
Joshua and his ilk seem to lump scientific skepticism and realistic political objection and geopolitical stragegy with denialism and denounce the lot of it as being a political tribe problem.
Good heavens.
I don’t think the first point you make is true (at least not outside the USA). Much of the policy and economics support comes from, or is supported from the right as well – if you look at the UK, the conservatives are pressing ahead with the Energy Bill with commitments to considerable investment in CO2 mitigation. There is cross party support on commitments to renewable energy and CO2 reduction targets. The same is true accross Europe. Even in the US, the people Joshua referred to as “deniers” are more likely to come from the Republican and tea party side of the political spectrum, although I agree, a type of general scepticism about the details and consequences of specific policies can be found in every political cohort.
On the other issue, the Chinese are engaged in reducing emissions, on the basis of self interest (but as part of a complex package of technological fixes and improved carbon “intensity” measures) while India are trying to couple sustainable resource use with high economic growth strategy, at least that is the new rhetoric.
I agree 100% that if it is a global problem, it needs a global solution, and that doesn’t just mean setting a target at some future COP event, or blaming one country, industry or lifestyle.
China builds a new coal-fired power plant every week, adding 7 GW/year of new capacity.
~70% of China’s total energy demand comes from coal.
China has large coal reserves, roughly 15% of world reserves. It also imports significant quantities from Australia.
So far, China has “committed” to keep its future increase of CO2 emissions below economic growth rates.
This is no real commitment, as the industrial nations have all had higher GDP increases than increases in CO2 emissions.
IOW their “carbon efficiencies” have increased over time and are far higher than that of China today (EU roughly 6x, USA/AUS/CAN roughly 4x).
If anyone seriously believes that China will in any way reduce its rates of industrial development in order to assuage a “rich white man’s” obsession with CO2 emissions, they are seriously fooling themselves.
Max
A ‘Precious Conceit of the Western Elite’. I’m commonly misunderstood because both ‘precious’ and ‘conceit’ are used with archaic meaning.
=============================
kim
maybe “elite” as well?
The Wall of BRICs runs West, and hey, South, too.
=================
random –
Since you refer to what I do and don’t think, allow me to make it clear what I do and don’t think so you won’t repeat your mistaken impressions:
I think that there is a spectrum of beliefs on climate change. All terminology to describe that spectrum are inadequate, but I generally think of the range as being something like:
skeptical convinced to “believers” on one side.
skeptical un-convinced to “deniers” on the other side.
Both sides have those who approach the science skeptically, examine the science, and reach different conclusions (the skeptical convinced and skeptical un-convinced). No doubt, there are a variety of influences that affect how people in these two groups interpret the science, and political ideology is among those influences, but at least they examine the science carefully and confront the data that conflict with their conclusions. The majority of the people who fall into these groups can be identified by their political orientation – the skeptical unconvinced are on the left, primarily, and the skeptical un-convinced are on the right, primarily/ This how we can see that political orientation is often a contributing influence on how the “skeptical” on both sides interpret the science, and why it is important to acknowledge the political influences, but there are exceptions on both sides: For example, Kerry Emanuel identifies as a “small-government conservative.”
Then there are the “believers” on the “pro-conssus” side. They would be people who are overtly ideologically (be it politics or other drivers) and accept the “pro-consensus” view regarding “CAGW” without considering the debate about the science, because they have a political agenda that is advanced by a reality of CAGW. People in this group consider anyone who doesn’t accept the “pro-CAGW” viewpoint to be deniers. These are folks on the left – I would imagine completely without exception. I think that the input of people who fall into this group is generally counterproductive.
Finally, there are the “deniers.” These would be people who are overtly ideological driven (be it politics or religion or other drivers) and who conclude that the “consensus” viewpoint is merely the product of a conspiratorial cabal among leftists. to advance an anti-capitalist, statist agenda. People in this group consider anyone who doesn’t reject the scientific validity of a belief that near-term action is needed to mitigate the impact of AGW as “warmists” who are only driven by a leftist ideology. These are folks on the right – I would imagine completely without exception. I think that the input of people who fall into this group is generally counterproductive.
I am fascinated that anyone is surprised that political orientation has a significant impact on what positions one takes on a political issue. CAGW is at its core a political issue. Decarbonization, whether it is necessary or not, is a massive political and economic undertaking. So I for one am not “Shocked…shocked” at the gambling at Rick’s.
I also fail to be amazed that those who think there should be governmental control over the energy economy are almost exclusively leftists, and those who oppose such central planning are primarily conservative.
I also fail to be amazed that those who pride themselves as being above the fray, the independents and moderates, generally find themselves in the middle on climate politics as well. Why would this political issue be any different?
By the way, if it weren’t for the political drive of the CAGW activists, most of us wouldn’t be here engaging in this debate. If I wanted to study radiative forcing, I would have changed my major in the 70s. It’s all well and good to pretend the climate debate is an intellectual, academic exercise. But the reality is that the CAGW activists, most of whom are mainstream progressives, took us to the edge of the economic abyss at Kyoto and Copenhagen. And they have not given up, as evidenced by virtually all of the governments of Europe, Australia, and the U.S. (at least until November 2012). The U.S. EPA is doing its damndest to push the U.S. economy over that cliff after the Congress refused to do so.
So cry me a river about the politicization of a political debate. Its like Rodney King whining “Can’t we all get along” after getting his butt kicked for drunkenly resisting arrest.
Who has expressed surprise, Gary?
And btw – nice Rodney King reference. Quite an interesting analysis that refers to the King beating as him :getting his “butt kicked for drunkenly resisting arrest.”
Very few statements can lay bare the political underpinnings of the views of some “skeptics” on climate science as effectively as you just did.
Judith – I hope you read Gary’s post.
You just cannot resist the politics of personal destruction can you?
How is it the “politics of personal destruction” to highlight Gary’s posts as being an example of how some people approach the climate debate?
I have no reason to assume that Gary isn’t a fine fellow.
The personal destruction going on in this thread is predominantly directed towards Al Gore – and of course there are the inevitable ad homs thrown my way:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112105
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112129
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112081
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112101
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112092
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112142
Personal destruction? Joshua is about as destructive as a gnat. And as annoying at times. But not destructive.
Joshua,
When you try so hard to be the center of attention, posting more comments than any other commenter on this site (except perhaps your evil twin Robert), how can you object to …getting attention?
Someone whose entire schtick is criticizing the positions of others while rarely adopting one himself, should grow a thicker skin. If you want to be Don Rickles, you have to expect some heckling.
Ooops. Looks like I posted the links to ad homs too soon.
Allow me to update:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112105
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112129
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112081
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112101
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112092
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112142
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112316
Another update:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112105
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112129
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112081
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112101
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112092
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112142
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112316
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112320
I deleted a few of these. others either had some content or were benign attempts at being humorous. You shouldn’t be surprised at getting such comments, given the quantity and types of comments you yourself post.
Dr. Curry,
Your are of course welcome to delete anything on your blog.
The wisdom of leaving Joshua’s spew up for all to see is a great advert for skeptics everywhere.
Thanks,
hunter
Judith –
I hope that you didn’t delete them on my account. I’m quite amused by posts like those, and I find them informative and useful in making explicit just exactly what the views are of many people who are active in the climate debate, and more specifically, some of the active denizens at your site.
In fact, I think it is rather amusing that you randomly deleted those posts because I linked to them. Such comments occur quite frequently at your site – why would you selectively delete those few when you allow so many others to remain online?
I’m not surprised in the least. I have no idea why you think that I would be. I entirely expect ad homs and the like in response to my posts – (which do not contain ad homs, I might add). My opinions that my posts elicit the kinds of responses that they do is quite simply because they represent a viewpoint that is not shared by the majority of your “denizens.” As such, I think that if I express my viewpoints, those types of responses are inevitable.
There are some people who hold different views than mine who respond to my posts in a completely different fashion than the type of responses exemplified in the posts I listed. The types of responses you deleted, IMO, are far more instructive about the types of people responding than they are about any attributes that apply to my posts.
If you feel differently, so be it.
A J Curry thread re the role of religion etc can be looked up and you will find precious little ACTUAL influence.
What you tend to term as ‘denier’ is itself counterproductive, since there are very few actual deniers — i.e. those who arrogantly presume man cannot possibly have an effect on the environment. The overwhelming majority of anti-consensus views are in fact not disputing the fact of man’s effect but rather the degree, and therefore are against the draconian big government / big brotherish solutions (whether taxes or regulatory attempts or whatever) that seem to be the lingua franca of those supporting the consensus view uncritically.
From this perspective it becomes rather clear that in the USA the actual politics involved are driven almost entirely from statist/leftist end, and not some sort of even spectrum as you seem to want to believe. There is no even handed yin and yang. It is almost entirely attempts to dictate vs reaction to the attempt. No attempt to dictate terms? No reaction.
There are two points here: 1) who’s pushing, and 2) who pays.
Pretend for a moment to be Jane Goodall at a preschool. If little Josh doesn’t try to take Britney’s toy from her, Britney doesn’t react, doesn’t have feelings one way or another. Britney doesn’t have an agenda by herself. She’s happy to be left alone and plays with her toy. Josh isn’t part of that world. But when little Josh decides to take her toy, Britney reacts to this. There is no yin and yang. There is aggression and reaction.
Similarly skepticism isn’t a thing unto itself;it exists solely as a reaction, and the degree of skepticism in pure Newtonian fashion is equal to the force being applied. Anyone can play. Try raising the price of home heating by $10 a day to combat AGW and see how many people paying for home heating profess some skepticism. Compare this to the support and lack of skepticism you get from those who don’t pay for home heating.
What’s amazing about ecopolitics is that those who have guaranteed incomes tend to be a great deal less critical of AGW claims than otherwise. Academia doesn’t buy into the science and political solutions because they are correct and teachers are way smarter than private sector engineers (they wish!), they buy into it because they aren’t affected: they get a paycheque regardless, and if the helpful solution causes inflation the cost of living clause nullifies any real financial pain.
Weirdly big government and tax increases are rarely supported by those who don’t have a guaranteed income. Fancy that.
When you factor in who is supporting AGW and why, you see a far different picture than your wishful thinking “spectrum.”
There are two really beautiful aspects about that post.
The first is that you make a broad statement – apparently based on some belief in quantifying evidence – yet you provide none. How many “deniers” are there who are motivated by religious and/or other ideological perspectives – rather than a comprehensive examination of the available data? And how do you know how many “skeptics” believe that anthropogenically generated CO2 cannot have any impact on the climate? If you read these threads and those at places such as at WUWT – you will find that quite a few “skeptics” think that in fact, anthropogenic activity cannot have any effect on climate.
The second is that you say that political ideology drives very few “skeptics,” right before launching into a libertarian diatribe – complete with (I must say, rather odd) story about Jane Goodall and “little Josh” at a preschool?
Beautiful.
Josh
What Random wrote seem quite an accurate evaluation of the current situation.
What you (or many in the AGW movement) choose to call a “denier” seems to be anyone who opposes what you believe is happening– at the rate you believe, as well as those who believe the action plan you propose to resolve the reported problem to be far to expensive for the problem.
Personally, I do not recall ever reading an AGW supporter proposing a CO2 mitigation plan that made sense from the perspective of the US’s national interest. If you have suggestions, I’d be interested in reading them and evaluating whether they seem prudent.
Clearly you are so blindly partisan that you have lost all sense of perception. It happens.
WUWT readers vary wildly but almost none are deniers who think man can’t affect the environment.
What seems to be commonly scoffed at (and rightly so) are suggestions and laughable claims such as the notion that the current TX drought has a detectable human component to it. Wow, just think — indefensible, unscientific, and utterly preposterous claims are met with skepticism rather than being lapped up Pavlovian fashion. Amazing.
Rob –
Actually, I think that I’ve been quite clear that your characterization of my viewpoint is inaccurate. I have been very explicit about this many times, but allow me to refer you back to my response to random just a few nests above this one:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112266
I’m not sure how to be more clear than that. And I’m honestly confused that some people, who seem interested in reasonable dialogue (as opposed to some others) continue to mischaracterize my views.
And you will note that I was pretty specific in my comment above – in that I said that I have seen evidence that quite a few “skeptics” dismiss any evidence that anthropogenically emitted CO2 could affect climate. In fact, I read many comments from “skeptics” that ridicule that very concept. But even as I read such statements often, I also often read statements that no, or every few, “skeptics” hold such a viewpoint.
What I’m saying is that the characterizations of what “skeptics,” writ large, believe, and what I have seen expressed by sketpics seem to be at odds.
As such, I’m asking for some data that quantify the categorizations that you make of what #’s of skeptics believe what.
Personally, I think that the question of CO2 mitigation is riddled with uncertainties at all levels, and that it is inextricably linked to political and other ideological influences. I am somewhat agnostic about the advisability of some, if not all, CO2 mitigation plans due to those uncertainties. But I reject analysis that is based in broad-scale political ideology – such as that presented above by random. By the same token, I would reject analysis that is simply based on an assumption that any plans for CO2 mitigation are necessarily validated by because of the political opposing linkages between “skepticism” and rightwing political ideology or religious ideology.
I’m in favor of discussions based on a comprehensive and open approach to cost/benefits analyses. I see legitimate critcisms of cap and trade and a carbon tax that raise important points, but I also see criticisms of plans based on those concepts that is clearly ideologically biased.
Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough comprehensive cost/benefits analyses to draw any hard and fast conclusions myself. In the meantime, I do generally believe that those who can most afford to do so should help fund research into alternative technologies – and that a progressive carbon tax is a reasonable approach. In that sense, I would agree with much of what Roger Pielke Jr. has to say on the subject – even if I don’t agree with all of his conclusions about the economic costs of CO2 mitigation policies.
Joshua,
Good luck with the rationalization. You need to keep in practice, and it clear you do just that.
There is political cross over, I would suspect it is a little greater on skeptics but then again the vast majority of the actual consensus takes the 5th in fully disclosing their political IDs. As for the conservatives in England decided to embrace suicide co2 policy, it’s a long story.
It’s what is going on in the U.S. with global eco-left policy that is my main concern. England, EU and Austrailia will have to correct themselves but the U.S. should lead them as we did in the 80’s.
AGW is an eco-left enclave, if most conservatives reject it for that reason it’s no surprise. The idea that it’s really a science debate corrupted by politics was always a silly claim. The IPCC is a political process and the science was always a manipulated after thought. Like economics nothing will ever be supported outside political acceptance and there will never be a numerical solution to chaotic systems even if we know more and more about many of the variables. The slight of hand is when political consensus gets subbed as science consensus and all the gate keepers who are in large part eco-left partisans (IPCC, Media cartels) if by silence alone play along. Dr. Curry is a contributor by failing to report the political IDs of her peers and glossing over the specifics of that reality.
Joshua is a twit partisan and only identifies reactions to his narrative that are naturally counter-partisan in nature. The idea that denying AGW was/is a partisan device and we should all just focus on science and trivia cherry picked science papers isn’t close to a rational explaination of the past 30 years of this topic. Call it data Eutopianism if you think that’s how this gets settled. It’s those sceintists that stood by and watched “science” turned into a partisan club (as in smashing over the head conservative/private interests) of the eco-left that are most to blame. “I only want to do the science” while ignoring all the social abuses of the greater process that are far more transparent than carbon cycles or cosmic ray impacts. There are millions of Joshua’s in the prol AGW state, there are only a few hundred in the actual consensus who are generally part of a social elite and better educated. They helped manufacture this condition and have no excuses. Dr. Curry’s of the world and the peers she doesn’t comment on are far more of a problem then the idiot mob members she subsidizes through silence about the consensus politcal nature. Get on her back and just ignore Joshua if don’t enjoy beating up on his inane insights in general. He’s partially correct in this case but of course misses the obvious and essential bigger picture.
There, I defended Joshua and will now go and burn the clothes I’m wearing on my lawn. Right on top of the tire I burned after watching the gore-a-thon for an hour or so last night.
I think if you were to look in terms of who gets a guaranteed income vs those who do not, the distinctions become clearer. It ought to be no surprise that unions and such in the US support tax increases etc. since they have “cost of living” clauses raising their income level. To them a tax increase is simply absorbed and no big deal.
To private sector employees however a tax increase is usually a drop in income level because there are no guaranteed annual raises, and MOST private sector workers do not get annual raises at all. A tax increase isn’t simply absorbed, it’s an income reduction.
Whether right or left the crux is how they make a living, and in the US unions and academia and public workers etc are synonymous with the political left, therefore in the US issues like these tend to track more left/right than you might otherwise think.
e.g. I can almost guarantee that Dr Curry is an Obama supporter and is a supporter of most ‘lefty’ ideals since her income from academia is divorced from marketplace realities. A tax increase for her isn’t the same thing as a tax increase for me. For me it’s less take home pay. For her it’s slightly less take home *increase.*
If you think this sort of thing doesn’t affect attitude toward the state at a fundamental level,you may be looking at the wrong thing.
That’s getting close to hitting the nail on the head RE. There are always people who can cross over their self-interest, even if they are a minority. Dr. Curry have yet to cross the Rubicon and people don’t get the social aspect to the left-wing political system.
There are most certainly people, who consider the climate change an extremely – or indeed potentially catastrophic – risk to the extent that rapid strong action is essential. What should they do?
They notice that most of the people do not care. They know that scientific papers written in the best scientific style with all caveats emphasized do not change the situation. They believe sincerely that this situation must be changed rapidly – meaning in a couple of years, not decades. Do they really have other alternatives than those chosen by James Hansen or Al Gore?
For me as a scientist this leads to presentations that I don’t like at all. The facts are interpreted simplistically, uncertainties are forgotten or hidden, and evidence on some few details are interpreted as sufficient evidence for initiating the proposed policy changes. All that’s terrible, but I understand that many people have concluded that to be the only approach that might produce the result they consider essential.
Assuming that they are right, they have chosen a risky strategy. They have raised the interest using claims that cannot all survive further scrutiny as they have chosen to use simplistic arguments and forget uncertainties. In that approach it’s unavoidable that some or claims are soon found to be in error and many others questionable. If that approach the war must be won fast enough or the risks of the strategy start to pile up. That’s what many (including myself) have called counterproductive even for their goals.
All the above is about politics and influencing policies. A quite different issue is the connection to science. From that point of view problems started to pile up from the first case, where trying to be influential was considered more important than being open and honest in the way scientists should be open.
Coming back to influencing policies, the largest problem of the approach is that the urgency is introduced in a way that makes it impossible to find best policies. There has been attempts to create something like a panic mode, but we all know that people do not find best solutions, when they are in panic. Neither has the international UNFCCC community been able to find best solutions, when it has been pushed to panic mode (the panic mode of such a community is quite different from that of a large number of people in a burning house, but equally irrational, it’s like a panic in really slow motion).
Pekka,
Mistakes have already been made by the belief in a warming planet.
Reserves of salt were estimated too low in English communities and ships were caught in the ice when Ice breakers were lent out for other missions.
An early winter is already started in the northern states of the US with heavy frost in many areas. This has stopped the growing season early.
Oh, by the way, science HUGE mistake kingpin is the belief of this planet in inertia. This was the starting point to many theories from gravity to the Laws of relativity. No measuring of size difference or speed changes on the sun or planets or how motion can change density by different speeds in circular motion.
Like a lot of things, you can more easily answer the question what shouldn’t they do that what should the do. They shouldn’t exaggerate, they shouldn’t cut corners, they shouldn’t resist transparency, and they shouldn’t just make up implausible-bordering-on-impossible scenarios. By doing so, they’ve done enormous damage to their credibility, and aroused the suspicions of a lot of people who otherwise would have given them the benefit of the doubt.
In an attempt to “communicate”, they’ve made themselves look like doomsdayers on the streetcorner wearing sandwich boards proclaim the coming apocalypse. And calling people asking question childish names isn’t helping the cause.
Judith,
The Nobel Peace Prize has really suffered a huge tarnishing when a politician can use it for milking millions of dollars from an unsuspecting public and the skin color of a president is considered as a winner of the award.
Both Gore and Obama have made the prize a laughing stalk to the advancement of science.
So here we are on the merry-go-round again. Do you think Santer is right and we have only 4 more years before non-warming becomes the climate equivalent of the spaceship not coming – and Al Gore starts handing out Kool-aid? I bloody well hope so. I have tried to spare them the disappointment without any success at all. Not from any sort of identification or engagement. They are for the most part pissant progressives with no imagination, compassion, knowledge, empathy and with the sense of a turnip. Not even quoting realclimate – the website where the deluded and self important inform the smugly ignorant about all things climate – disturbs their conviction. Warming interrupted – much ado about natural variation? Some of us think that 20 years of no warming from 1998 is – well – hilarious.
‘What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910′s, 1940′s, and 1970′s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability.’
‘The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming.’
Some of us have been talking about it for yonks. Kim (aka Sybil) has been wandering around the Burning Man festival for decades in flowing robes like some ancient prophet muttering – ‘the world is cooling how long for even Kim doesn’t know’ – and ‘would you be interested in a quicky?’ Both apparently on the basis of statistical probability.
My own background is in engineering and environmental science – more environmental science these days. I was quite happy in my little world of hydrological and hydraulical ponderings. I wish I was back there and not here trying to convince space cadets that there are implications for global warming – or not – in Pacific variability. The only reason I am is that we have already lost a generation where we could have been making real progress in environmental conservation and restoration – as well as in human and economic development. We might even have been able to reduce some black carbon and develop some technologies.
The space cadets have an ideological nexus between catastrophic climate change, limits to growth and cap and trade. I am hoping we can defeat this and move onto a new and productive trajectory before I turn into Kim.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
Chief,
Much of science is surrounded in confusion mostly based an a scientists conclusions to a band of consensus morons. Publishing idiotic work and praising them as facts for reference.
Many areas were never considered as they fall into the territory of mathematical measuring(who does that?)or mechanics which are in the area of engineers and mechanics.
This is also out of the range of scientists as established theories are protected to the point of religion. No looking at anything which many disrupt their gravy cart of funding and being experts in fantasy, while simple measurements can blow the whole area to crap on a cracker.
Oops, moderated appropriately. Let’s try Turd on a Timber.
====================
The Gorebellied Fool.
H/t Shakespear, or some other bot by the same name.
===============
“…we have already lost a generation where we could have been making real progress in environmental conservation and restoration.”
I have to disagree with that. Since my youth, the environment of the U.S. has improved significantly. Real pollutants (not political pollutants like CO2) have been controlled and reduced. Air is cleaner, industry is cleaner and more efficient. The water ways are vastly improved.
Nor has this improvement has been limited to the U.S. Where there has been freedom and economic growth, man has generally chosen to be a more respectful steward of his environment. No international t5reaties, no NGOs, no UN conferences, will improve the environments of China, Africa or other countries trying to claw their way out of the 18th century.
Send billions to corrupt, kleptocratic governments for them to clean up their environment, and those funds will end up in the same places the billions for economic development have gone…Swiss bank accounts and the climate industry (the analog of the poverty industry), with no discernible benefit to the populace, or the planet.
The best we can do is protect our own national environments and support the expansion of free markets and democratic governance.
It really depends on whether you live in a big city, smaller city, or rural area, but for most of the country, the bulk of tangible improvement took place in the 1970s, and nothing that happened since has had any observable effect.
And the “bad old days” are also exaggerated. Everybody “knows” the Cuyahoga river caught fire. Except that it didn’t. The newspaper accounts of what really happened don’t support the narrative. So much about how bad things use to be is just urban legend.
In Australia the wave of extinctions continues – mostly to do with feral species and fire regimes.
Pollution is a problem for polluters – and standards have improved considerably – but is not the major environmental issue by any means.
These sort of programs are worthwhile – http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/removing-rats-restoring-islands – strategic rather than broad brush.
The Cuyahoga river didn’t catch fire? Which news reports are you referring to? Unless you consider combustibles at the surface as distinct from the river, it caught fire many times.
Cuyahoga River Fire – Ohio History
There must be a typo, surely?
It isn’t the ‘gore-athon’, it is the ‘bore-athon’ …
The UK Court found “inconsistencies” in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth
Court Transcript
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF
PROFESSOR ROBERT MERLIN CARTER
WITNESS STATEMENT OF
CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON
The more I investigate “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, the more I find natural variations dominating changes, and discoveries of new climate physics that were not included in IPCC reports.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
How to create a “climate skeptic”:
Send him/her to a “Gore-a-thon”.
“Both Gore and Obama have made the prize a laughing stalk to the advancement of science.”
I’d say it’s those who decide on the winners who are the laughingstocks. Obama should have had more sense than to accept his. Frankly, I was surprised he took it. He’s disappointed me countless times since..
Of course there was no chance at all the self-seeking, self-aggrandizing, self-appointed prophet of doom was going to turn his down. I’m certain he thinks it only his just due.
The Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with
a) science
b) the Nobel Committee.
It’s a separate award, that borrowed/appropriated the name, by the Norwegian Government.
The Peace Prize is a real Noble price, but of course not a science prize. The Nobel Prize site tells:
All Nobel Prizes are awarded in Stockholm, Sweden, except for the Nobel Peace Prize, which is awarded in Oslo, Norway. The founder of the Nobel Prize, Alfred Nobel, was a Swedish cosmopolitan. In his will, he declared that the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded by a Norwegian committee. When Alfred Nobel was alive, Norway and Sweden were united under one monarch, until 1905 when Norway became an independent kingdom.
The one prize that’s not a real Nobel prize is The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
“It’s dead, Jim…. Someone tell Al.”
Most of the speakers seemed prototypes of liberal insecurity wrapped up in the usual arrorgant and sanctimonious exteriors. It’s small wonder they could never debate so they depend on chanting orthodox slogans. It’s the nature of mob culture.
There are the pony tail hippies, the New Age looking groupies, the Ivy league flunkies who don’t want of need a real job, the angry academics looking for authority and approval. The anti-industry subcurrent is on full display as well; Koch brothers, big oil, “greed” while they ignore who is rent seeking and grasping at power in their own movement.
Most look a little embarressed quite frankly, many have terrible public speaking skills. Al himself should stick to tweeting, he’s a broken record an “old 45” (younger people can ask their parents and grandparents what that is) at that. As for the “goal” of “convincing” skeptics how does calling them names, condescending to them at every turn (liberals smart conservatives stupid), refusing to debate science, mixing in the usual partisan hatred convince anyone?
“It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria … Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It’s not safe to camp there. They’re fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape … That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality.”
(“Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the
Arctic government of Nunavut”)
There are about 300 polar bear shooting per year. The population reports have doubled in the last 40-50 years.
Eco-left is an emotional state of existence. This is just one of the many clues.
How about when they embrace leaders who recommend “de-populating” the world as a global policy? 600-700 million I’ve seen quoted as “optimal”. How does a political culture that presents itself as champions of “social justice”
get attracted this kind of social elitism? Beyond celebrities being arrested at the pipeline protests at the WH how many do you think are jobless and dirt poor? Who is impacted more by $8 per gallon gas projections, Jim Hansen or the idiot followers in them mob he encourages?
Indeed. Progressivism is Eugenics in new rags, Fabianism with a new mask.
“There are the pony tail hippies, the New Age looking groupies, the Ivy league flunkies who don’t want of need a real job, the angry academics looking for authority and approval. ”
I had to smile at this because in some ways it describes me. No pony tail, no new age mumbo jumbo, and not an angry academic. But my primary political identification is liberal, and I admit to a certain amount of arrogance when it comes to many conservatives in this country. I simply can’t abide Bachmann, Palin, Perry, et al, and I have a deep seated bias concerning the intellectual capacities of their supporters…Note that this does not included serious conservative thinkers. They have a legitimate and sometimes persuasive point of view. I don’t claim to have anything like all the answers..
And yet at the same time, I agree with cwon in much of his characterization of the holier-than-thou, NPR listening, MSNBC watching, Greenpeace supporting fools who really think they’re talking about something vital when they discuss the need for using a certain kind of light bulb. I find the whole crew acutely embarrassing, and I certainly understand the antipathy many conservatives feel for them…
pokerguy,
If you can stomach it, see the remake of the movie “Strawdogs”. It offers extremist 2 dimensional parodies of rednecks, conservatives, intellectuals and actors all mixed into a nice violent mix designed to push everyone’s buttons until the nice Harvard grad writer regains his honor by offin’ the rednecks.
So arrogant liberal finally gets his cred by killing off the breeders.
Whenever an entire society is generally split in two camps with many related subsets but left vs. right is a larger theme you are going to get embarressed by the nuances of your own general group. That’s very different then pretending, because it might be embarressing, you aren’t linked politically to a group in question.
Al Gore and Dr. Curry vote the same way from all I can see. So does most of the consensus, it’s time to fess up to those consequences and resolve the question in the debate. It’s important the media bias and alliance be discussed as well.
My own paradox values are even harder to fit; I’ve had long hair, been to a No-Nukes concert, lived most of my life in liberal Mecca’s, like Pete Seeger’s music but think he should have been sent to prison for treason. Libertarian is my main under current, didn’t vote for Reagan but realize now he was the best President in our age (I didn’t vote democratic either). I was a member of the Sierra Club as well, they hated my anti-government nuances especially.
So I crossed over many cultures without it impacting my core opinions through out my life. There just is more elitism, bigotry and arrogance in the liberal status quo. It’s Orwellian in scale, AGW is perfect indicator. I do feel bad for the poorer classes who get sucked into the culture on false choices but it’s pompous and comfortable peers preaching (dictating) to them or anyone who listens that get most of my contempt. There is also the gutless hypocrisy of the gilded elite who live completely isolated (as much mentally as anything else) from the masses they pretend to advocate for. In the real world they are far more likely to exhibit greed, dishonesty, selfishness, egomania and of course arrogance. Not that you can’t find these sins in any group. There is just something about liberal sanctimony and the blindspot that motivates me to speak. They are huge all over this forum and topic.
There is also the idiotic non-business sense that our affluent society has been able to afford this elite. People can get a job in education or through government funding, student loans or just inherited wealth and maintain the most inane economic value system, often for life. Sometimes for many generations. That’s all over the group in question and this topic. Nothing sums a current strain of this as does “Green Energy” and the clown painting Unicorns for public consumption in the White House. Plenty of this culture here as well.
Heh. The primary distinction between Palin, Perry, Bachman et al. and the liberal heroes is that the former have actually proven their ability to make things work and resolve problems instead of exacerbating them.
I guess you academics just love exacerbation; it’s so much more exciting!
Brian H,
Exacerbation is much more lucrative for people who are paid to study problems.
The AGW community has created a perpetual motion money machine based on hyping climate fear.
Meanwhile, the oceans continue to cool and there is no end to the cooling in sight. That is according to Dr. Spencer.
And, Dr. Pielke, Senior notes that in a period when the oceans are cooling there is no global warming. Phil Jones of CRUgate infamy admitted that much. Jones said there has been no significant global warming since 1995.
No surprise: we have raw data for a lot of places — data that has not been manipulated by feckless ideologues — that shows no global warming for 100 years.
Trenberth cannot bring himself to admit the truth but he does concede that we can’t find the warming. Of course, it’s a travesty that Trenberth can’t prove humans are causing global warming but instead demands that America prove it isn’t causing global warming–turning science and nature on its head.
This, of course, is why the boffins of Japan liken the climatology of government scientists to the study of ancient astrology. And, of course, reality does not dampen superstition and ignorance of reality.
In schools and across society the real ‘hot’ topics the secular, socialist Education Industrial Complex must acknowledge and take responsibility for are the delusions that it has sown. But, schoolteachers would rather accuse Governor Palin of murder in Arizona than face the truth at home.
All the while, schoolteachers murder the scientific method in the dropout factories across America. But, this is how a hoax dies. Real scientists understand that we have satellite data. We know the oceans have been in a cooling trend.
A society that pays schoolteachers to preach climate porn instead of truth to its children should fail. And, meanwhile, the Earth may experience continued global cooling for decades to come.
Nature will have the last say not schoolteachers. Meanwhile, both China and Japan are buying coal. Both China and Japan are expanding their nuclear power capacity while Western civilization is going into debt and America is printing the heads of dead presidents on pieces of paper and paying cash for clunkers. This is how society dies.
Wag, there’s a potential technological Alexander’s Sword for that Gordian Knot.
Check out LPPhysics.com . On a shoestring, it’s over an order of magnitude closer to energy-breakeven, with a tiny dispatchable generator module, than any other known research project. If successful, within about 2-5 yrs it will render the entire energy/emissions issue moot (i.e., irrelevant and of no consequence.) The critical point/proof should happen by winter’s end. Have a look, and don’t despair!
:)
So, Dr. Curry is now an expert on the efficacy of public advocacy campaigns too? And Dr. Curry believes science is done by press releases announcing resignations? Tell us, oh wise Dr. Curry, what is wrong with the APS statement that observed warming is “incontrovertible”. A real scientist would at least attempt to refute something before claiming it’s not incontrovertible.
You seem to be stuck on fallacy.
Good luck with that. Perhaps WD-40 can help?
A real scientist would at least attempt to refute something before claiming it’s not incontrovertible.
So what part of ‘Nobel Laureate’ doesn’t jibe with the concept of “real scientist” in your world, troll?
winnebago: The point is that “incontrovertible” is a ridiculously strong claim to make in the physical sciences. The slightest doubt refutes it. It is easy to argue that the inaccuracy of the Jones-type surface temperature statistical models is greater than the estimated warming. If so then it is at least possible that the warming has not occurred. This possibility refutes the claim of “incontrovertible,” which means not open to question. I have studied these models at length and I have serious questions about their accuracy.
The APS say the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible. This is a statement that temperature is rising is incontrovertible. It says nothing about why. If you complain that we don’t know that global temperature is rising, I guess you are quibbling with the meaning of ‘is’. Taking any climatically meaningful interval, thirty or fifty years or a century, this statement is factually correct.
Context clues, Jim D.
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
Global Warming in this context means AGW.
Andrew
I am quibbling about the attribution of most warming in the last 50 years to CO2. Most warming happened in 1976/77 and 1997/98. So a warming trend happened between 1978 and 1996 – 19 years. Take a long enough period over the instrumental record and the trend is < 0.1oC.
Here is the trend with ENSO removed by a couple of methods.
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/ensosubtractedfromtemperaturetrend.gif
Here is the connection between cloud and ocean heat content in the satellite era.
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/Wong2006figure7.gif
I am quibbling about the meaning of a ‘climatically meaningful interval’. We have had intervals where temperature was increasing and intervals where temperature declined for coherent reasons.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and not warming since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
The simple statement that temperature is increasing glosses over much subtlety and is therefore misleading.
Has the APS said that such attribution is incontrovertible? If so, do you have a link?
Are you quibbling about words as usual? The unstated assumption is that the warming is anthropogenic in large part at least.
Carbon emissions at 4% of natural fluxes is not critical. But after economic growth of 3%/year for the rest of the century – if that were possible using fossil fuel technologies – 50% may very well be.
The problem is the commitment of space cadets to the ‘consensus’ statement of the problem. This ‘consensus’ is incorrect as will become evident as the world cools over the next few decades. To insist that this is not the case is to misunderstand the science of the big cool ‘V’ in the central and eastern Pacific.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2011/anomnight.9.15.2011.gif
That space cadets insist it isn’t so – is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I think it is part and parcel of green over-reach. The need for catastrophic climate change to justify limits to growth.
Their statement is that:
It seems that they aren’t saying that AGW is incontrovertible.
So here we have a moving target.
On this thread or another thread today (I forget which) – I was told repeatedly that most “skeptics” accept that the Earth is warming. I was also told that most agree that GW is affected to some degree anthropogenically.
Yet Piaever – a prominent “skeptic” resigns because he thinks that GW is not incontrovertible as the APS states – and for that other skeptics applaud him. And just below I am told by skeptic Brian H. that GW is not incontrovertible.
The only thing that I can conclude is that in addition to not listening to what “warmists” say very carefully, some “skeptics” don’t listen to what other “skeptics” say very carefully. Perhaps for them, it is simply enough to express vitriol against pissant leftists and AGW cabals, and none of the details matter a bit?
Joshua,
I realize nuance mustbe tough for you, but have you ever heard of a “big tent”? Generally, orthodoxy doesn’t allow one, so that might be why you’re having a little trouble.
John –
I understand the concept of the “big tent,” and I agree that well describes the “skeptic” camp.
And included in that camp are people who contradict themselves, and who make categorical statements in contrast with the available information, and who draw conclusions on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
So we really aren’t in disagreement after all.
Since I don’t understand what the hell your point is…how can I disagree?
I had to google this – the name is Giaever
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
I have no essential problem.
The ‘dying of the thermometers’ refers only to selection of a quality controlled set of representative sites. It doesn’t mean anything statistically other than greater control. There is no 1.6oC rise in 1990.
A rational discussion with space cadets is not possible – and I guess that goes for some sceptics.
Joshua,
What Dr. Piaever properly points out is that cliamte science makes large claims about very little.
He did not state temps had not warmed.
He stated that the number offered by cs as a degree of increase is small and not really different from noise.
In other words cs is making a great deal about very very little.
That is subtle, and a brave soul such as yourself will find subtlety an uncomfortable concept, but there it is.
JimD,
Now you have entered the arm waving phase.
Even the warming itself is subject to some doubt. Check out the Great Dying of the Thermometers, and ponder the 1.6°C instantaneous step-jump in reported averages, in 1990.
Well said Dr. Curry,
I tuned in for the closing remarks and for a bit around 3pm PT.
I was surprised to note how few views had occurred and was even more surprised to discover that 1.6M of the 8.6M occurred in the last 2 hours. I guess everyone skipped the middle or simply weren’t aware or interested in the broadcast.
source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-24/#more-47334
Not to be picky but there appears to be a discrepancy between the counter on the 24 Hours of Climate Reality page (8.6M+ views) and the count from the service that streamed the program (484,371 unique views).
It would be pretty funny if they used falsified view data but there’s probably a simple explanation for it.
Stats
Total views (all shows): 532,843
Total viewer hours (all shows): 16165 days, 21 hours, 28 minutes
Total unique views: 484,371
I wonder how those spats compare to WUWT’s Gore-athon-athon?
Interesting question Dallas, I would not have take the time to view a single 24 Hour segment had it not been for the posts on WUWT. I would not have been aware of the event.
John from CA–
I wouldn’t be surprised most the views were in the first hour and the final hour. I’d be surprise if very many people watched the full 24 hours. I forgot all about the thing, then saw Josh’s final cartoon at WUWT and went over to watch during the final hour. While watching, I
* wrote a blog post.
* turned the sound up so I could do other things warmed up some dinner (hubby is away on a fishing vacation) ate
* loaded the dishwasher start it running.
* checked netflix to decide what movies to watch and
* etc.
I’d post my fuller reactions, but clearly, since I wasn’t paying much attention, it’s likely I would misinterpret things I heard. I did get Josh’s cartoon joke about the red herrings though.
I do suspect Judy is correct and this is more likely to backfire. The reason is that it is just too long to pay attention. The supporters are all sitting seperately in their own homes– and twitter and facebook don’t entirely overcome the degree of isolation on something like this so it’s not going to achieve much sense of community. Scientists contacted by journalists are generally going to have to admit they didn’t watch most of it . Detractors are going to mine the 24 hours for every possible misstatement, bit of spin you can find.
But even better for those countering Gore’s messages: everyone will be able to embed Josh’s two dozen funny cartoons each with a message that can be grasped in 30 seconds. I would not be surprised if Josh ends up selling t-shirts or a calendar.
I like the way the miss america contestant stepped in to help the scientist answer a sea level question.
Hi Lucia,
Just saw your post.
I have to agree, it was extremely difficult to force myself to watch Al close. The appeal was so thin on content, emotionally charged, and frequently pure hokum.
The one panel segment I watched was fairly good but they ducked answering questions related to impact over time and instead took the “its accelerating at an alarming rate” approach (Greenland Ice Sheet and Sea Level Rise).
NASA: 4cm rise by 2100, 24 Hour Panel: 20 foot rise if the Greenland ice sheet melts. It was difficult to take them serious after the obvious alarmist spin.
But, I only watched a small portion, perhaps other segments were better.
How’s this for the goodly nature of the eco-left?;
Judith,
Can’t believe you’re referring to Ivar Giaver who said that an increase from 288 to 288.8 K shows an amazingly stable climate. As does a body temperature change from 310 to 311 K I guess. How ignorant do people need to get before you decide not to approvingly refer to them?
I see the light – the human body analogy makes perfect sense.
Analogies are dangerous in scientific argument, because they are false by definition. In this case, however, it is useful to note that the body is also an amazingly stable system, because of powerful negative feedback mechanisms. So too for the climate. The question is what those negative feedback mechanisms are and how they work?
But claiming that a 0.8K rise somehow makes the climate sick is pushing the analogy too far. Conversely one can note that a one degree fever in humans does not portend a 6 degree fever.
And in the body, fevers are good things. They are a weapon being wielded against bacteria intolerant of higher temps, with a view to killing them and returning to normal.
Gaia is different. When she warms, we humans proliferate, we don’t die off. Gaia uses cold and ice sheets to reduce our numbers.
do I need to give a sarc alert?
Bart: I agree with Ivar. The local temp can change 20C in a day but the average does not change 1C in 100 years. That is an incredibly stable oscillator. But then chaos is a form of stability.
And ignorance is apparently in the eye of the beholder, at least in your case. Your lack of understanding is not my or Ivar’s ignorance. There are more accurate ways to express disagreement.
Bart,
That is a particularly poor comparison.
It is mind blowing off base and suggests that you very distracted.
Perhaps you can reconsider this and get back on it?
Well, Nobel laureates in physics aren’t typically on the list that I would would call ignorant on a topic related to measuring temperature. Stability is in the eye of the beholder: as a physical system, this seems stable; in the context of socioeconomic systems some may judge this as unstable or dangerous, those are value judgments.
Our ability to measure global average surface temperature to an accuracy of 0.1 or even 1 degree is something that is legitimately questioned. Look at the differences in the 3 main surface temperature data sets for the last decade, there are substantial discrepancies. Calling people ignorant who question analyses of complex systems with undocumented and unknown errors is not at all useful. If the climate community cannot convince someone like Giaver that we have correctly estimated global temperature change to within the stated error bars, then that should motivate the community to try to understand why Giaver is not convinced and to improve the analysis or at least the documentation of the analysis, and almost certainty to improve the uncertainty and error analysis.
I assume that next we will hear that Giaver has gone senile, or that he is in the pay of big oil/coal?
Dr. Curry,
Your closing question will turn out to be prescient.
Judith can I take your continued refusal to address my questions as a sign that you agree with my position; namely that how scientists present/communicate uncertainties in climate projections are irrelevant to current climate policy discussions?
Marlowe,
No response does not mean someone agrees with you.
You could. Are you sure that you want to do that?
If the climate community cannot convince someone like Giaver that we have correctly estimated global temperature change to within the stated error bars, then that should motivate the community to try to understand why Giaver is not convinced and to improve the analysis or at least the documentation of the analysis, and almost certainty to improve the uncertainty and error analysis.
I’m not convinced by this argument. I suggest you try to understand why and improve your analysis.
“Well, Nobel laureates in physics aren’t typically on the list that I would would call ignorant on a topic related to measuring temperature.”
This one obviously is. He asks “how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?”, so he doesn’t have any clue.
“Our ability to measure global average surface temperature to an accuracy of 0.1 or even 1 degree is something that is legitimately questioned.”
Even 1 degree? Legitimately questioned? Seriously, Judith?
“Calling people ignorant who question analyses of complex systems with undocumented and unknown errors is not at all useful.”
But Giaever doesn’t say anything about undocumented and unknown errors. He basically claims that since he doesn’t know how it’s possible to measure temperature, it’s not possible. And you approve his words, like you approved Salby’s nonsense before.
“If the climate community cannot convince someone like Giaver that we have correctly estimated global temperature change to within the stated error bars, then that should motivate the community to try to understand why Giaver is not convinced and to improve the analysis or at least the documentation of the analysis, and almost certainty to improve the uncertainty and error analysis.”
The climate community cannot convince anyone who, like Giaever, is willfully ignorant and refuses to familiarize himself with the basic literature. Really, it’s not that hard to understand.
“I assume that next we will hear that Giaver has gone senile, or that he is in the pay of big oil/coal”
Judith, this guy doesn’t even believe in the ozone hole and acid rain. But yeah, maybe it’s again the climate community’s (or Mike Mann/Phil Jones/Gavin Schmidt/Al Gore specifically) fault.
Thank you
agn: I have long questioned the ability of the area averaged surface statistical models to estimate (not measure) global temperatures to one degree. So it is legitimately questioned, unless you think my questioning is not legitimate.
To begin with there can be no error bars, because we are dealing with averages of averages of averages, many of which include extensive interpolation and extrapolation, and statistical sampling theory provides no mechanism for estimating confidence intervals in such a kluge.
Even worse the samples are highly unrepresentative. This is a convenience sample so it violates the basic probabilistic postulates of sampling theory. Then too the instruments are largely inaccurate. Many of the measurements are not even of air temperature, but rather of water temperature. Then there is urban heat island effect and local heat contamination. It has even been claimed that the concept of global average temperature is physically meaningless.
We have no idea how accurate this junk is, and no way to tell. We do know that the statistical models showed steady warming in the 1980s and 90s while the UAH showed none at all. That is enough to tell us that the Jones type statistical models may be completely wrong. Given their mathematical vacuity it should not surprise us.
I am not claiming that the estimates are not accurate to one degree, just pointing out that it is a legitimate question, which is Giaver’s point. In short, incontestability is an absurd claim in this context.
“I have long questioned the ability of the area averaged surface statistical models to estimate (not measure) global temperatures to one degree. So it is legitimately questioned, unless you think my questioning is not legitimate.”
You’re correct. I don’t think your questioning is is legitimate.
“It has even been claimed that the concept of global average temperature is physically meaningless.”
Heck, it has even been claimed that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, and the backradiation is physically meaningless.
“We have no idea how accurate this junk is, and no way to tell.”
Aren’t you a little too harsh on that poor guy Roy Spencer?
agn: You did not respond to any of my substantive points. This has nothing to do with Spencer. We are talking about the 150 year area averaged statistical models, HadCRU, GISS, etc. Do you even know how global temperatures are estimated by these models? The math is atrocious. It violates the basic principles of statistical sampling theory.
Plus I forgot to mention that they purport to estimate the average temperature of the entire atmosphere, not just the surface boundary layer, but using a hodge podge of measurements from just that boundary layer (plus the sea water).
The scientific tragedy is that we have an entire community using the mean value line from these junk models as though it were a set of measurements, trying to explain what may not even exist.. The supreme irony is that the so-called decline that Mann et al went to such great lengths to hide may be the correct values. It certainty makes the statistical models questionable, which is the issue on the table here.
As for the meaningfulness of the measure, that is from McKitrick and Essex. Have you even read their argument? What is your answer to them?
“You did not respond to any of my substantive points.”
I’m tired of mole-whacking, and I’m more interested in reaction of Dr. Curry to your revolutionary ideas.
“This has nothing to do with Spencer. We are talking about the 150 year area averaged statistical models, HadCRU, GISS, etc. Do you even know how global temperatures are estimated by these models? The math is atrocious. It violates the basic principles of statistical sampling theory.”
“As for the meaningfulness of the measure, that is from McKitrick and Essex. Have you even read their argument? What is your answer to them?”
OMG, you must reaaaaally hate that Spencer guy!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/
agn, “This one obviously is. He asks “how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?”, so he doesn’t have any clue.”
Why is this so hard to understand? Globally for the whole year includes the maximum amount of weather noise. If you compare NH Jan, Feb, Mar, the hard winter months to the hard winter months in the southern hemisphere you get a better indication of CO2 radiative feedback. The southern hemisphere only has less weather noise, so it would be better to determine CO2 feedback. Do you think that the Global Average Temperature average is some exceptionally valuable tool?
Perhaps. But one thing we know for sure – you have stated no problems with McKitrick calling Wanger a “groveling, terrified coward,” and apparently you have no problem with “skeptics” promoting disinformation about Al Gore as part of a political campaign against him that has been on-going for years.
On the assumption that despite appearances otherwise, you really are interested in a comprehensive analysis of the political dimensions of the climate debate, I’ll repost.a few links (with one addition – at the top).
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
http://www.salon.com/technology/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=110
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/04/gore/index.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710
http://consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html
I’d say probably neither but his opposition would most likely be motivated by his political viewpoint rather than detailed scientific study.
Bart, so what is your defn of a stable climate?
Al Gore did not claim that he invented the internet, he claimed that he took the initiative and promoted its advancement. This has been recognised by the Webby Awards for which Gore received a 2005 lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the internet.
Not is only is Josh really not very witty or funny (to be kind), and not exactly a great cartoonist, Josh is wrong.
The lettering’s not bad, though. Not great, but not bad.
J Bowers,
Gore said what he said, and the plebes recognized it as part of his pattern of bloviating his own importance and misrepresenting his roles in decision making and events. What he said is well summed by what is attributed to him,and it has stuck and will stick for the reason that it reminds us to not trust the hypocritical money grubbing self promoting con-artist.
Even the extremely pro-democrat cartoonist of Doonesbury, Gary Trudeau, used a throne and crown as an icon for Gore when he first rose to national prominence in the 1980’s.
That a pro-Gore group would give Gore an award is completely irrelevant.
Internet of lies: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he “invented” the internet.
Note the word “invented”. Josh is wrong.
Yeah, we all know that. But the guy is such a trajicomedic figure that the distorted attribution seems to fit rather well. But dangerous, very dangerous, as some people actually buy into his BS.
Ah, so it’s okay to tell porkies about someone so long as a distorted attribution fits them rather well. Thanks.
Pointing out that Gore cliams he helped create the internet by pushing some legislation is accurate.
It sums up his narcistic world view rather well.
He thinks pushing some scraps of paper along is what made it happen.
Not the CERN and DARPA wonks who did the actual work. Not the DoD who wanted a nuke resistant, redundant system to maintain C3 and preserve the nuclear deterrant.
He thinks he is the one.
Just like the tall tale he told of visiting Texas fires- when he never came it is all just political bs designed to shore up a personality that is at best unpleasant.
Summing it up by quipping that Gore claims he invented the internet, when in the context of his other big lies about climate, tobacco, and his overall arrogance is just fine.
What some of the creators have to say about Al Gore and the internet.
Yes, Gore said what he said and it’s not what you said he said. Yet you still insist on seeing it as a misrepresentation and a reason to mistrust him despite the fact that people who really did what you said he said he did have actually said that he did what he said he did.
Glad to have cleared that up.
Al Gore did not claim that he invented the internet, he claimed that he took the initiative and promoted its advancement.
And even this is evidence of dubious merit. Gore voted and did his best to kibosh advanced military funding and claimed republicans wer pushing coporate welfare etc and otherwise was completely clueless and in the way. And then when the right wing military technical investment started trickling into the private sector as it always does Gore piles on to the crowd wanting to commercialise. Next thing you know he’s claiming he knew it all along.
The man is opportunistic trash, a flim flam man who capitalises on the ignorance or apathy of the voter (particularly left wing.) We *all* got to see what he was made of in 2000 when he did everything he could to foment street level revolution in FL and attempted to steal an election.
And yet there are people who still listen to this piece of classless, treasonous filth.
Anyone with doubts is either stupid, venal, or mentally ill. I’m 60 years old, have had a good life, and would I think accept some fatal cancer diagnosis or something similar with a fair amount of equanimity except for two things: I don’t want to leave my family and I don’t want to miss out on the global warming denouement, at least insofar as it’s possible to have one…
There’s no doubt in my mine this whole sorry mess….a mass delusion really…will be exposed for what it is. The question is when and how. I hope I’m around.
Nature News Blog has a post on comments from invited experts on the Gore-a-thon (including moi)
http://bit.ly/qDHZvA
Von Storch has some interesting comments
Thanks,
Von Storch comments were very insightful.
The comments that pointed out the use of Twitter accounts may explain the discrepancy between the counter on the 24 Hours of Climate Reality page (8.6M+ views) and the count from the service that streamed the program (484,371 unique views).
Not that its a big deal but its a bit deceptive if true, it looks like the Twitter hits were included in the viewing stats.
Stream Stats:
Total views (all shows): 532,843
Total viewer hours (all shows): 16165 days, 21 hours, 28 minutes
Total unique views: 484,371
Its probably worth pointing out the percentage of unique views in relation to total views. I guess I’m one of the very few who watched more than one segment in 2 different sessions.
I’m aware of my own climate biases if course, and how I’m subject to all the problematic cognitive tendencies those biases imply, so I do my best to dampen my emotional response when reading material from the other side. But how can a reasonably informed person read some of those without wanting to lose breakfast. I forced myself to read (truthfully skim) most of Von Storch who does agree Gore’s exaggerating (“over-selling”), but how does that become OK? Because it’s POLITICS? Gore is no longer a politician. He’s an EVANGELIST. I don’t know about others, but I don’t want someone convinced he’s filled with the golden light of DIVINE TRUTH to be influencing public policy. I can’t think of anything more dangerous.
More than anything else, I think Al Gore’s in need of a good psychiatrist.
Looks like the GoreaBoreaThon was a bigtime floparoonie according to the amount of UK news coverage. Bar a typically sycophantic plug last night on the BBC World Service, a splendidly vituperative piece by James Delingpole in the Telegraph and even a not quite sure about it bit in the Grauniad it made no impact at all. Zip, zilch, nada. l’AlGore zero points.
I guess he’ll just fly home in his private jet to his huge beachside property and wonder why the public are so fickle as to ignore the Great Director and Prophet. Poor Al.
Interestingly also, WUWT – already the busiest climate website – reports its busiest day since Climategate. Looks like Josh’s cartoons attracted more people than being hectored and lectured by alarmists and hypocrites.
Mr Gores exact words…”I took the initiative of “creating” the Internet”
I think a little research will show it was CERN who created the means we know as the Internet.
Albeit Mr Gores bill provided funding toward that cause…it was American taxpayers who footed the bill – unless Mr Gore is a country unto his own?
Actually, even though he is wrong about AGW, Gore’s bill regarding the internet did help it and history will show this as his greatest accomplishment. But the internet was not really created by CERN either, or any single entity, DARPA is probably more important than CERN, and the IETF, is probably the most influential entity.
CERN created the Web, around 1993. The Internet is much older. DARPA did the heavy lifting. CERN was not involved.
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an “Interagency Network.” Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This “Gore Act” supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation’s schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid
growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political
support for its privatization and continued support for research in
advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
Vint Cerf
WorldCom
Alan M. Gaines
Senior Science Associate for Spatial Data and Information
National Science Foundation
nice statements, by atleast one government employee, sucking up to the VP, rewriting the history.
I am old enough to have worked with punch cards from 1972. Those days, the Great VP was, a reporter and later a law school student at Vandy. ARPANET was developed between a private defense contractor, UCBerkely & MIT. By second half of the seventies, other universities clamoured for their own network and got EduNET. Al Gore Jr. got elected to the house in 76. In 1977, we were using edunet to send jobs over to IowaState University (Ames ) and U. of Illinois(urbana-champaign ), to run complex computer programs on those big, govt funded, mainframe boxes, courtesy the EduNET. Crediting that to Al ‘the inventor’ gore is a bit much. His involvement with the committee that financed all the sci&tech activities did not start till mid eighties or so. He might have been been the inside driving force for the creation of NSFNet.
nandhee,
Excellent historical review.
Gore and historical reviews seem to always end up in Gore looking like a fraud and deceiver.
I find the whole “I created the Internet” deal a distraction. Whether he did or did no play an important role in the history of the Internet has nothing to do with his current incarnation as a latter day Moses-wannabee leading his grateful tribe out of the wilderness.
That said, that he became such a laughingstock around the Internet issue certainly speaks to character. People see him, rightly, as a self-important, self-aggrandizing blowhard. There are a lot better ways for him to describe his role…whatever it was….than “I took the initiative of creating the Internet.”
That he became such a laughingstock around the Internet issue certainly speaks to the character of his attackers who chose to distort what he actually said and did.
I have no problem in what he did.
I do have a problem with grandstanding his contribution.
Would you agree that, Mr Gore is an accomplished speaker?
If so….
He knew exactly what he was saying and why.
He’s a politician.
Public figures are there to be attacked. The right attacks the left and the left attacks the right. A great deal of the time these attacks are unfair to one degree or another. Sometimes they’re outright lies. “Obama’s a terrorist.” “George Bush is a war-criminal” (oh wait, that might be true:>)
But true or not, the other side attacks in order to expose genuine areas of weakness and vulnerability. In Gore’s case, is there any doubt what those areas are?
Whether you are niave enough to believe the spin/attacks says more about you than their target – on either side.
Stick to what they actually say rather than other folks’ interpretation of what they said. Try using your own mind rather than have somebody else make it up for you.
‘I am weeping in dismay and overwhelmed with grief about how such an oppressed and powerless person as the ex-Vice President of the United States has been so cruelly misjudged and maligned by those evil evil bloggers. Without them his reputation as one of the most modest, self-effacing and witty speakers – a true stateman, a gentleman and a man of creative genius second to none would be intact. And we would count ourselves fortunate to be born in the same era as him and to hear his wisdom first hand and at such length!’
Dear Albert. Please can I share the cheque with Joshua and Louise? ‘Services to Hagiography’ will do on the citation. And thanking you ever so for this opportunity to be of service to Your Inestimable and Magnificent Worship.
(Overseas readers may be unfamiliar with the quaint British habit of satire in our public discourse)
Try again, Latimer.
I’ve called him a blowhard, and I’ve never ascribed any of those attributes to him from your quote.
I’ve merely pointed to the partisan motivations behind the distortion of what he has and hasn’t said.
Try to stick to what I do and I don’t say as you defend against distortion of what Gore has and hasn’t said.
Just wanted a share of the cheque…not to pinch the entire thing. And despite your evident high self-regard, you are not always front and centre of my mind when contributing my wit and wisdom here. Sorry if that comes as a shock and a disappointment to you.
Gore has chosen to become a public figure. He chose to run for the highest office within human’s construction. He is not noted for his shy retiring character nor his lack of reagrd for his own abilities.
supposed He chooses to lecture the rest of the world us on our bad habits while justifying his own similar actions on the grounds of necessity. In UK we call that hypocrisy. And hypocrisy among political ‘leaders’ is not an attractive trait. He deserves as good as he gets, and as far as I can tell, is very good at dishing it out..less so at taking it.
He would probaby make a quite effective (but limited) local MP in our Parliament, but such a relatively minor role would hardly satisfy his giant-size ego.
And Joshua, I am surprised that with your track record as Witchfinder General for all contributors to this blog – especially our host, that you have suspended your razor sharp abilities to detect inconsistencies when it comes to Big Al. I would have expected you to wish to expose his hypocrisy – not to work so hard to conceal and defend it.
Very very curious….
“That said, that he became such a laughingstock around the Internet issue certainly speaks to character. People see him, rightly, as a self-important, self-aggrandizing blowhard. There are a lot better ways for him to describe his role…whatever it was….than “I took the initiative of creating the Internet.””
Absolutely
Never let the facts get in the way of a prejudged opinion
The facts are: This is the whole statement:
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html
Notice the lack of I “created” education.
I “created” economic growth
I “created” environmental protection
Mr Gore knew exactly what he was claiming when he stated, “I created the Internet”
How come you read “I took the initiative in creating the internet” to say “I created the internet”?
I think there is some issue with your reading comprehension if you think these are identical. Read Joshua’s post above to ensure your education gets a leg-up http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112624
I don’t think there’s any doubt about the meaning. One can argue his *intention* as in, “oh, he didn’t really mean it,” but all we have are his words. Again, it wouldn’t have resonated to the extent it did if he weren’t known as a serial bloviator. Didn’t he also say he was the inspiration for the protagonist in “Love Story? :>)”
I think he’s a blowhard.
The fact is that there has been a coordinated effort for years to discredit him for partisan purposes. I have provided links above that document that effort.
To only focus on one aspect of how people perceive Gore’s personality is also nakedly partisan.
“To only focus on one aspect of how people perceive Gore’s personality is also nakedly partisan.”
Right. It’s unfair to focus on the fact that he’s a serial jerk, as if that’s not a defining characteristic.
You can focus all you want on the fact that he’s a “serial jerk.”
And you can ignore how your own political biases might affect your assessment – it’s your right.
But to ignore a coordinated effort to discredit him – through both deception and distortion (documented in the posts I linked) by overtly political entities – is nakedly partisan.
Whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.
Ok. If there is a ‘coordinated’ approach, who does the coordinating?
Name actual names of walking talking people who have been teh eoordinators. Wittering on about ‘shadowy forces’ and ‘Big Industry’ will not be good enough.
To really cooridnate siuch a campaihgn needs organisation and money. Somebody must provide it. Soembody must sign teh cheques. Somebody must write the e-mails. Somebody must decide how to attack him. So name names.
To really cooridnate siuch a campaihgn needs organisation and money.
Not really, it just needs enough people willing and ready to jump on a bandwagon. It helps if they are not particularly bothered about whether the things they repeat are actually true.
Nope. If it is just jumping on a bandwagon, it is not coordinated.
Or perhaps the word ‘coordinated’ was not really meant. Look it up.
LOL “I took the initiative in creating the Internet”
Is even a worse claim.
That is saying no one else took any initiative before him. It’s been clearly shown [ even by Josh ] that others clearly took the initiative long before Mr Gore.
Maybe, it’s your reading skills at fault?
http://www.salon.com/technology/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=110
I said I have no problem in crediting what he did. :)
I have a problem in what he preaches and what he actually does.
I live not very far from his home in Tennessee…I CAN actually see his commitment to AGW at work :(
Supporters will happily point out that he off-sets with carbon credits and that he uses green technologies –
Ya’ll seem like well educated folks – Why not tell him it’s usage [ consumption ] no matter how one buys into schemes – that he should be addressing in his personal life?
OK – so then please explain why you left off the introductory clause of his sentence, and enclosed a truncated form of his sentence in quotation marks – in such a way that distorts the meaning of his statement?
What would the motivation be behind that? You didn’t know his entire statement, or you deliberately wanted to distort what he said? If it is the later, then your action stands in contrast to the comment from you I quoted above.
If it is the former, then perhaps you should look into the political history behind the deliberate partisan distortion of what Gore has and had not said.
The links I provided would be a good place to start.
Do you understand the meaning of the word ‘initiative’? Try looking it up.
And while you’re at it, try to do some research on what this:
Might mean.
Once having done that, you might choose to not leave that clause out when you quote Gore, complete with quotation marks.
Sheece.
Note the introductory clause of his statement – which you conveniently leave out in your excerpt bracketed by quotation marks, with no ellipses.
In point of fact, Gore did take “the” initiative, relative to other members of Congress to develop the Internet.
The distortions of that statement are minor compared to the ubiquitous distortions of what he has said on that issue and on a number of issues.
I mean seriously, kim – you’re impugning someone else’s reading skills?
Here, I’ll give you yet another opportunity.
kim – you’ve earned a “just wow!!!” on that one.
You seem to have a problem following along.
I did use the whole statement:
kim☺ | September 16, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Reply
The facts are: This is the whole statement:
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html
Notice: He used the “initiative” claim in “MOVING” economic growth, education etc BUT NOT the claim of “Creating” those
That’s funny, kim.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112658
A truncated form of his statement, enclosed in quotation marks.
But you have provided an answer, and I thank you for that: It wasn’t out of ignorance that you quoted him incorrectly.
LOL it’s obvious to me, you can not admit I quoted the whole statement Mr Gore made – First … and gave a link to the actual interview.
Something no one else did. :)
I’ll stand by my statement – until you can tell me why he didn’t say ” I took the initiative in creating environmental protection, education , economic…….etc. But in these used the word “moving”.
He KNEW exactly what he was claiming :)
So, you quoted him in entirety at first, before you enclosed a truncated quote in quotation marks?
How often will you continue to make my point for me, kim?
And in a ducking response, you hang your hat on the semantic claim that in being instrumental in the creation of the Internet, he didn’t actually create the Internet.
Duck, duck, or goose, Kim?
ducking and bobbing
kim parries and thrusts with might
to cool or warm air?
Once again:
And in a ducking response, you hang your hat on the semantic claim that in being instrumental in the creation of the Internet, he didn’t actually create the Internet?
And with that, I will well after the fact admit that we’re beating a dead duck, er, horse.
it ducks like a duck
walking and talking aside
duck, duck or a goose?
LOL you debate like someone I know at Penn State :)
So, you have no answer for this?
I’ll stand by my statement – until you can tell me why he didn’t say ” I took the initiative in creating environmental protection, education , economic…….etc. But in these used the word “moving”.
Hey, Joshua, kim with a grimace is not I. Lotsa promise, I see.
==============
Hiyas kim.
I think, he might be in the bathtub shooting ducks :)
Battery-powered console, I hope.
===========
kim-
That’s funny!
I thought that the arguments that “kim” was presenting were unusually unsophisticated and laughably bad – but I didn’t put it together that an imposter was posting under your nic.
===============
LOL Shows how much you attend to detail.
Much like your debate skills :)
Waiting:
So, you have no answer for this?
I’ll stand by my statement – until you can tell me why he didn’t say ” I took the initiative in creating environmental protection, education , economic…….etc. But in these used the word “moving”.
Actually, I already responded on point.
But if you want to continue to “stand by” truncating a quote misleadingly, and bracketing it in quotation marks, please, be my guest.
It’s quite instructive.
LOL Another non answer.
I’ll try to make this easy for you…why did he make two complete sentences. In the first he said this:
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet” Using the word “creating”.
In the second sentence he clearly abandons the word ‘creating’ and uses the word ‘moving’
” I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
He KNEW exactly what he was claiming in the first sentence…evidenced by the fact, of separating the sentences into two separate claims.
The whole statement:
““During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
PS: Would it hurt your ego to know you’ve been ‘schooled’ – by a kid? :)
“And you can ignore how your own political biases might affect your assessment – it’s your right.”
You’re so sure of yourself. Maybe your own biases are at work. I’m a liberal democrat, and have been for 40 years. I voted for Gore, jerk or not. Held my nose and did it despite my personal dislike for the man. My feelings for the guy have nothing whatever to do with my politics.
I have no doubt that my political biases come into play.
I actually didn’t vote for the man because I was tired, at the time, of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils like him (the ensuing years of Bush have since altered my voting habits).
So I admit my error, apologize, and amend my statement to:
And you can ignore how your own biases (partisan biases w.r.t. the climate debate) affect your assessment – it’s your right.
If you ignore the full context, political and partisan, behind the rhetoric behind the public view of Gore, you are willfully reflecting naked partisanship.
“I took the initiative in creating the Internet” is perhaps marginally less creepy than I created the Internet, but that’s about the best I can say for it. And the only reason it’s not quite so awful is his meaning is a little more obscured.
But that said, I also see KIm’s point. One could certainly argue that it’s even more self-aggrandizing. “I not only created it, I took the initiative to do so.” What’s he implying there? That he had the initiative and others didn’t?
Either way, it’s nauseating.
Perhaps you also would benefit from looking at his entire sentence, not his statement in a truncated form that you enclosed in quotation marks?
I’ll direct you to these other posts of mine:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112663
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112624
And I’ll direct the same comment to you that I directed earlier to kim:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/gore-a-thon/#comment-112676
Well Joshua, all I can say is it seems you’re holding out for a world we’re never going to have. As a species, people *are* biased, even nakedly so. It’s part of our psychology. We seem to have an instinctive need to see the world in terms of “us vs. them.’ Even the enlightened among us (after all there must be some) must struggle continually for some sort of objectivity.
I’m in complete agreement with most of what you say there, pokerguy.
But you’re mistaken with respect to what I am holding out for. I’m only asking that people look at their own biases, and call me on mine.
And Pokerguy:
You might also look at the links I’ve provided for the full context behind the rhetoric on his statement about that also. From one of those links:
Ironic it is that Dowd and Rich would have been the ones who, out of political partisanship, used facile logic to discredit Gore – isn’t it?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710#gotopage2
Mr Gore discredits himself – no one else needs to.
Maybe you missed this post:
kim☺ | September 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Reply
I said I have no problem in crediting what he did.
I have a problem in what he preaches and what he actually does.
I live not very far from his home in Tennessee…I CAN actually see his commitment to AGW at work
Supporters will happily point out that he off-sets with carbon credits and that he uses green technologies –
Ya’ll seem like well educated folks – Why not tell him it’s usage [ consumption ] no matter how one buys into schemes – that he should be addressing in his personal life?
kim –
Not knowing him personally, I assume that like all politicians, Gore is self-serving and a hypocrite (well, like all people – but particularly like politicians).
I have never spoken to Gore. It’s ridiculous to think that I ever will. And even if I were to, I doubt that anything I said to him would affect his behavior.
I am not a “supporter” of Gore – so maybe you should address your comments to someone who is?
My point is that the distortion off what he has and hasn’t said – as well illustrated by your unarguably inaccurate quotation above – is motivated by partisanship, and has been for years.
To fail to account for that simple fact is nothing other than naked partisanship, let alone to, yourself, distort what he has and hasn’t said, is naked partisanship.
Show some accountability, kim. You’ll feel better.
LOL Accountability – We are discussing Mr Gore, are we not?
How do you figure my partisanship?
Am I a Democrat – Republican – Libertarian – Conservative – Liberal – Progressive?
Assumptions can be dangerous in debates. :)
Bereft of all else
with arrowless quiver, kim
says “He did it fiiiirrrrrssssst.”
You sure you aren’t the person I know from Penn State?
Have you ever seen me and him/her in the same place at the same time?
Speaking of which–has anyone ever seen Robert and Al Gore in the same place?
LOL A non answer again?
Sure seems like the same debate tactics used by them. I dono?
Yeah.
In denial of the facts.
If Mr Gore actually believed in AGW…He would reduce his consumption.
IMO Mr Gore is nothing more that a politician who promotes Global Marshall Plan of economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Marshall_Plan
Hey Joshua,
Thanks for all that. I have no problem buying the explanation provided. Seems he’s been treated unfairly on that one. But what politician isn’t treated unfairly? I have a hard time working up much sympathy for the guy, especially given his current role of AGW Cassandra-in-Chief. I’ve have a lot more respect for him if he’d simply stand still and answer some questions. His refusal to engage with skeptics (deniers, a new species of “racists,” anti-science flat-earthers all) much less actually debate is exactly what it looks like. Cowardly.
By the way, I sorely miss Frank RIch.
Don’t misunderstand, pokerguy,
I have no sympathy for Gore.
None.
In fact, if anything, I feel the opposite, and regardless, he’ll do just fine by himself no matter where my sympathies lie.
And I think that his role in the climate debate is counterproductive (at least at this point if not always).
I just think that it is important to examine the full context for the partisanship on both sides of the debate.
Yeah, right, sure. No doubt you are making striong points about Gore’s hypocrisy on his own blog?? A link to these remarks would be nice for us to see. Just in case we had nasty suspicious feelings that your trumpeted adherence to objectivity and fair dealing was a tad one-sided.
Latimer Adler
You wrote:
Here is a Gore remark from early August:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/70992/bullshit-al-gore-calls-out-climate-change-deniers
Sort of puts it all into perspective, right?
Max
Actually, Gore’s Big Whine is a great acknowledgment of the success of skeptics in subverting the groupthink, AKA “agreement”, that he so yearns for.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. And relieved!
Yet another thread successfully hijacked by diversion and repetition of irrelevancies ad nauseum.
Sometimes I think Joshua is trying to do for Climate Etc with his keyboard what his namesake did for the walls of Jericho with trumpets.
:)
Gary M,
That would mean Joshua is a……….?
But yes, it is fascinating that Joshua has the compulsion to dissemble or spam to death any thread that might point out problems in theAGW community, all the while whining about how ‘but mommy other people did it’ and while he is above any political influence, all denialist scum are wicked members of the VRWC.
Blow hard, and blow long Joshua. Your lungs are likely to be of Olympic performance standards by now.
AFAIK Joshua has yet to qualify for London Olympics 2012. Which is probably all to the good as he would not feel cmfortable with our lack of awed deference to the rich and powerful that he feels is so essential in his homeland.
“I just think that it is important to examine the full context for the partisanship on both sides of the debate.”
But what does this even mean in practical terms? My sense is you’ve assigned yourself the impossible job of trying to defend Al Gore without actually coming up with any decent reasons for doing so. Hence, a lot of hifalutin, essentially empty rhetoric.
During my public service
I helped create knowledge
and communication…
(Now I’m saving the planet)
A planet saved
is a hundred million earned.
In case anyone missed all 24 of Josh’s cartoons — which are great.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/the-gore-a-thon-on-wuwt/#comment-745044
I know this web site provides quality dependent
posts and other stuff, is there any other website
which provides such information in quality?
Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Finding the time and
actual effort to generate a great article… but what can I say… I put things off a lot and don’t seem to get anything done.