It’s been all quiet on the Al Gore front recently, as Climategate and the falsehoods in the IPCC report undermined the credibility of global warming hysteria–that is, the attempt to panic us into dismantling our economies, radically redistributing wealth, and empowering unelected international bureaucrats and a scientocracy to control it all. Now, in his distinctively haughty style, Gore has finally come out of hiding to pitch the same old fear in the New York Times. From his column:
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it. Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.
But we have reserves that Gore and pals don’t let us tap! And once again, we see the global warmists’ love for the Chinese tyranny. And get this:
But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.
I don’t think he would be relieved at all. He’s a true believer, who is also making a bundle off of this whole thing. And get the language: It would be “criminal” not to do what Gore wants done, despite the entirely reasonable doubts about the validity of the existence and/or extent of the warming problem.
I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate.
Oh, only two “mistakes.” Please. And the “mistake” about the Himalayas–that the glaciers would be all gone by 2035–was intentionally not corrected before Copenhagen for the very reason that it sowed panic.
But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.
That’s simply not true.
Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.
And that’s very misleading. There has been no statistically relevant global warming increase for 15 years. Scientists don’t know why and want to figure that out.
And it’s all our fault for engaging in a little caveat emptor:
Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution. The political paralysis that is now so painfully evident in Washington has thus far prevented action by the Senate — not only on climate and energy legislation, but also on health care reform, financial regulatory reform and a host of other pressing issues.
Obamacare has been rejected by 60%+ of the American people. Global warming is only seen as an important issue by about 28% of the American people. Gore and his co-believers are losing the debate. That’s not gridlock, that’s democratic guidance.
And here comes the religion part:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
Redemption? Hardly a scientific or a public policy term. But Gore has always pitched his advocacy around “meaning” and “purpose.” Moreover, from what are we to seek redemption for having done? Building the most astonishing prosperity ever dreamed of by humanity? I’m sorry: I’m not sorry.
Do we need to transition to cleaner, more efficient and renewable sources of energy? Of course, just as we transitioned from horse and buggy to automobile. It will be progress. What we don’t need is hysteria and a handover of freedom to technocrats out of the Al Gore School. What we don’t need is to dismantle the very prosperity that will result ultimately in the transition that Gore wants.
February 28th, 2010 | 11:49 am
Thank you for defining hysteria… “global warming hysteria–that is, the attempt to panic us into dismantling our economies, radically redistributing wealth, and empowering unelected international bureaucrats and a scientocracy to control it all.”
The indisputable facts are that the earth is warming due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2. The political debate is what to do about it. The side of the debate that wishes to do nothing is smearing the science and scientists to further their (your) political agenda. Well played. Conservatives always win these arguments, and will this one, to the further detriment of America and the globe. But don’t imagine that it impacts the scientific reality of global warming.
It’s not much of a threat but my great-great-grandchildren will tell yours, “We told you so”.
Additionally, why would the hoaxers propose a scientific review of their data and conclusions?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WARMING_PANEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Are these the world’s worst hoaxers, or what?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 28th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Smearing has come, it seems to me, from the Jones side. Indeed, it was counterproductive to the AGW side since it tried to keep out counter views, which is contrary to the scientific method. It has helped destroy credibility. I don’t think the whole thing is a hoax. But I do think it has been scandalously hyped and politicized by the hysterics.
February 28th, 2010 | 12:30 pm
Thank you for the NYT link to ex-VP Gore’s essay, otherwise I would have been unlikely to read it. Gore acknowledged “at least two mistakes”, it falls to you to point out other credible mistakes.
Gore went on: “In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.”
and “It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.”
Why do you hysteria promoters not cite those admitted mistakes by the IPCC?
You call Mr. Gore haughty and hysterical, yet accuse others of smearing? Professor Jones purported smears were in private emails, not screamed on blog headlines or on FOX “News” shows.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 28th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I think linking is important, Jeffrey. It allows people to see the original and form their own views. Calling him “haughty” is not a smear. That’s how he comes across. And he is definitely hysterical. Have you seen his movie? I have.
February 28th, 2010 | 12:48 pm
“From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.”
Al Gore first attended divinity school and dropped out. Then, he attended law school and dropped out. Now, he is claiming that stopping climate change will bring a religious experience!
Are you going to have any other doctrines in your church, Al???
February 28th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
The truth matters not, fraudulent science fits the orchestrated political agenda. I think every alarmist knows that CO2 plays a minuscule to no part in a warming planet. They also know that spending trillions on reducing CO2 will not produce a notable change. Everybody is in this for the riches. “Oil for food” was just a drop in the ocean compared to the “Pay for Activity & Breathing” carbon tax.
This is a regime stealing from 99% of the people and dividing amongst the 1% who fervently defend the fraud.
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Feb 15th, 2010
The so called “independent” investigation into the climategate emails scandal has descended into farce before it is barely off the ground as a third member of the six man panel has been revealed to hold strong views on human induced climate change.
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming.
PS: The United Nations should have to have non – connected independent PHD scientists analyze all of the IPCC Science Data, for the panel investigation to mean anything near to being an official reliable base to begin new measurements and Data that any type of document or legalized agreement could be made from and considered legitimate!
February 28th, 2010 | 1:47 pm
“Are these the world’s worst hoaxers, or what?”
No one said they were very bright.
Yes, conservatives have one this debate. Thank God for Climate change.. if it never took place we would not be sitting here and the earth would still be a snowball of ice, or covered in lava.. take your pick. The reality is that drastic climate change has happened with or without man and there are so many variables there is no way for scientists to ever prove Al Gores insane rantings.
My great grandchildren will thank me for not allowing the communist boot of green police to take away their freedom, wealth, and quality of life.
February 28th, 2010 | 2:08 pm
Jeffrey, the reason for the review is that they are backed into a corner and really have no choice but be warned, if there’s any hint of a whitewash this will hurt them even more in the eyes of the voting public.
The AGW movement is a dead man walking.
February 28th, 2010 | 2:26 pm
Jeffery: “The indisputable facts are that the earth is warming due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2.”
– or, as actual SCIENTISTS believe, that increases in the earth’s temperature precede, not lag, increases in carbon dioxide.
February 28th, 2010 | 3:07 pm
[...] me just point out the line that jumped out at me when I read this post at Secondhand Smoke: From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an [...]
February 28th, 2010 | 8:25 pm
I will be scared too, because of the dangerous gases we as humans have released into the air as a result of our so called ” Industrialization,” natural habitats are being lost and beautiful animals are being extinct. We need to protect our world and also our ozone. If we start receiving direct sunshine from the sun, We will perish. It is our responsibility as humans to all gather around together and solve this problem once and for all. These natural disasters are coming from a reaction to something { our lifestyle and activities on the earth }… Thanks.
February 28th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
Jeffery is completely correct and FAR, FAR more tactful and respectful than I.
Global warming is a fact. What will happen in 50 years is as good as the best model, though.
You folks have NOTHING to worry about. There will be no change, no meaningful policy, etc, etc.
Do you REALLY think in a country as scientifically ignorant as the U$A, that sound science plays any role in policy and society?
What are you people hysterical over?
CO2 levels will continue to increase, sea levels will continue to rise, animal migration to cooler latitudes will continue, agriculture will suffer, war and violence will ensue over resource shifts in a society with increasing economic bifurcation. Since modern conservatives in the U$A seem to love war, killing, and violence, they get will ultimately get what they want.
Conservatives should therefore embrace global warming effects while continuing to deny.
February 28th, 2010 | 10:39 pm
“Do you REALLY think in a country as scientifically ignorant as the U$A, that sound science plays any role in policy and society?”
David describes anyone with data that contradict his dogma as “scientifically ignorant.”
February 28th, 2010 | 11:41 pm
Who does Gore’s factchecking before he runs his mouth? Somebody’s asleep at the wheel. Our primary source of imported oil is Canada. Very unstable region, that. Saudia Arabia (the only Middle Eastern country to place in the top five) and Venezuela are fourth and fifth respectively, both trending on the decline.
Moreover, Canada’s production has increased and is projected to continue increasing.
Maybe Al flunked geography.
February 28th, 2010 | 11:52 pm
Collegey Goyl: Don’t expect him to answer questions about minor mistakes like that. He’s too important to have to actually defend what he asserts.
March 1st, 2010 | 1:36 am
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
March 1st, 2010 | 10:29 am
Wesley,
Former VP Gore is haughty and hysterical because you think he is haughty and hysterical. Got it.
Panama,
You are correct, over billions of years the earth’s surface temperature has changed. You are also correct that the evolution of a CO2-containing atmosphere and the greenhouse effect keeps the earth from being a giant iceball. You are incorrect in equating the current relatively rapid warming caused by human-derived atmospheric CO2 to the other events. A ten degree increase in the earth’s mean surface temperature over the course of a century (a really, really short time geologically speaking) will be catastrophic to human civilization.
bmmg,
You are correct that in the earth’s long history temperature increases precede CO2 increases! Reasonably predictable cyclic changes in the earth’s orbit changes the solar energy absorbed by the earth, causing warming, releasing CO2 and other GHG from ocean and land reservoirs (e.g., tundra) sustaining the warming for millenia. Over the past million years or so, atmospheric CO2 levels of around 200 ppm coincide with ice ages while levels around 280 to 300 ppm coincide with warmer interglacials, lasting tens of thousands of years each, all consistent with the greenhouse effect. We are currently in one such interglacial. Current atmospheric CO2 has increased to about 385 ppm since 1900. The concern is that this will increase the retention of heat by the greenhouse effect.
March 1st, 2010 | 12:11 pm
Let’s return to the basis of your many articles about global warming “hysteria”.
global warming hysteria – (1) the attempt to panic people into dismantling economies, (2)radically redistributing wealth, and (3) empowering unelected international bureaucrats and a scientocracy to control it
You (and the others) maintain that the motivation behind the global warming establishment (IPCC, most professional climate scientists, most world Academies of Science, most national governments and Al Gore) is to dismantle western economies as currently configured, redistribute wealth (to third world nations?), and to establish a New World Order government of non-American bureaucrats and scientists to control it. The ‘it’, although not defined, I’ll assume to be the New World Order.
Do you really believe that the concerns of many thousands of professional climate scientists are driven by a desire to take over the world?
Concerning (1) panic, what statements have been made that are untrue? The IPCC says it is 90% certain that continuing what we are doing will increase mean surface temperatures between 1.1 to 6.4 degree C. Please read the IPCC 2007 synthesis report
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
What proposals attempt to (2) radically redistribute wealth? Isn’t a cap and trade system a reasonable proposal to limit CO2 emissions?
What is the proposed structure of this New World Order to (3) control ‘it’self? Even the reliably obtuse RNC insists that any efforts to limit CO2 must be global in scope.
Here’s the crux for conservatives. Who should bear responsibility for a catastrophic increase in earth’s temperature driven by CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels? The current CO2 was largely added by Americans and Europeans. Future emissions will come from Americans, Europeans and the emerging economies in Asia (with about 1/2 the worlds population).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 12:28 pm
No Jeffrey. I contend that the UN, people like Gore, etc., have that motive, and have hyped the science, spreading lies and exaggerations, and tried to panic people into going their way. Indeed, the head of the UN said we needed world governance to handle the problem. I think that a clique developed that tried to stifle heterodox thinking and began to think it was responsible to save the world. I think for some, global warming became close to a religion. I think it was latched onto by anti humanists. In contrast, I think many bench scientists are trying to find out what’s what. Indeed, they have been the most hurt by the intense politicization by the political scientists, internationalists, and etc.
March 1st, 2010 | 3:31 pm
Pretty good summary of what we see in today’s discourse (and media). From The Daily Howler:
“Routinely, interest groups seek out trivial errors, or trivial misstatements, by some person or group they oppose. … They will then screech, howl, rend their garments and wail, claiming that these trivial errors discredit some very large body of work. (Interests groups may even seize upon a few snowstorms, proceeding to screech about them!) And alas! If the interest group is backed by sufficient power, journalists and news organizations may defer to their screeching and wailing. Instead of questioning the basic idea that a few errors could undermine a large body of work, they may advance this peculiar dream logic…”
Do a few errors undermine a large body of work?
March 2nd, 2010 | 5:33 pm
bmmg:
I do not operate off dogma. I practice no religion and have no faith – even in science. I operate based on evidence and data; including the evidence supporting the conclusion that science is a superior philosophy to those of religion, business, politics, law, etc for discerning the truths of Nature.
My conclusions are based on an analysis of the data presented in, among others, the following referred peer-reviewed journals:
Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, JACS, NJEM, Lancet, and JAMA
As this data is constantly contested and scrutinized (notice not in the case of the IPCC – a political report), I evaluate this aspect of the process to provide confidence levels in my analysis and conclusions.
Over the weeks, I have posted numerous peer-reviewed, referred articles with data and evidence demonstrating global warming (average global temperatures have rapidly increased, by comparison, over the last few decades and this coincides with significant rises in CO2 which is released en masse by combustion of hydrocarbons, of which coal, gasoline and natural gas consist of) is a fact.
If you have any data to suggest the earth is, in fact, on average cooler, why not do so?
Now, please explain to me what my dogma is. I have never heard of such dogma till now. I am amused and would like to be enlightened. Thank you.
Many bench scientists and medical scientists are confident that global warming is real and man’s fossil fuel usage has contributed significantly to this phenomenon.
March 2nd, 2010 | 10:55 pm
what if one fact was missed … or you missed one fact OOOOH I would fall right off of that pedestal. was greenland ever farmed? If it is permafrost then what about the graves? How did iceland derive its name? Shouldn’t all of the sciences get together and make sure that the data is congruent? It might help out with a lot of questions.
MY plants love CO2 ! And they love to supply me with O2 . Works well doesn’t it!?
March 3rd, 2010 | 12:27 pm
bmmg, Wesley,
Rationalists welcome credible data. By all means present the data refuting global warming. As it stands now, the available body of evidence overwhelmingly supports CO2-driven global warming, although by its nature, the scientific observation of the natural world does not rule out the appearance of data inconsistent with the theory tomorrow! The difference between scientific endeavors and every other human endeavor is that data drives the science agenda rather than the other way around. It is highly likely that the mean surface temperature will increase by several degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century.
This may not sound like much but the outcomes will likely be loss of polar ice, Greenland ice sheet and glaciers, rise of sea levels, disruption of growing seasons, disruption of flora and fauna ranges, disruption of fresh water supplies – all in a politically unstable globe with a growing population. Would this happen without human derived CO2 emissions? It’s possible but unlikely.
Can human civilization adjust? Of course. Will there be massive disruptions? Certainly. Will global warming end by 2099? Of course not. It will likely worsen. What will be the effect of a 20 or 30 degree increase?
The globe emerged from its latest ice age about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago and mankind survived (of course there were only a few million humans, no cities, little if any agriculture, mostly bands of migrating hunter-gatherers).
When will our current “warm” period (interglacial) end? That’s unknown but fortunately we may be in an especially stable interglacial (50,000 yrs).
Our species was near extinction some 70,000 years ago because of the eruption of Mt. Toba in Sumatra. We survived.
It seems you’re trying to have it both ways, threading the needle that global warming may exist but that current evidence is inconclusive; that current concerns (hysteria! to you) are unwarranted but that you can be convinced by more data.
In my experience this is just another rhetorical device. True conservative believers/followers are not persuaded by evidence or data. Conservative leaders may or may not believe what they tell their followers, and I can’t speak for you.
March 3rd, 2010 | 3:32 pm
recommended reading:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo807.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo801.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact