Al Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?
Posted by: #9Al Gore wrote in the New York Times on July 1st, “This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.”
The former Vice President goes on to give a science lesson on Carbon Dioxide and the Planets of the Solar System. He manages to get almost everything wrong.
Mr. Gore’s “facts” are so egregious that a well thought out response titled “Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?” was written by George Reisman. It is well worth the read.
Excerpt:
No, Mr. Gore, it’s not the carbon dioxide. If you take the trouble to do an Internet search on Google for “carbon dioxide” + “Martian atmosphere,” you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is –63° C (–81° F).
But even putting this decisive objection aside, there is simply no informed or honest way for you to suggest that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth is or ever will be comparable to the amount on Venus. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, the atmosphere of Venus is 96 percent carbon dioxide. The atmosphere of the Earth, in contrast, is less than .04 percent carbon dioxide. That’s not .04, but .0004, i.e., four one-hundredths of one percent. To be precise, carbon dioxide is presently 383 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere. All of the brouhaha going on about the subject is over a projected increase to perhaps as much as 1000 parts per million by the year 2100, i.e., to .001 percent, which is 10 one-hundredths of one percent.
It is on the basis of such ignorance or dishonesty that you declare that
we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
It is a valid question, is Mr. Gore Ignorant or Dishonest?
Site Stuff
July 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
This just in.
Global Humidity is the real problem. From the new film “An Unappealing Hunch”.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Al Gore is just pushing more globalism…a UN tax and more global goverance to enforce his brand of greenness on us. Otherwise, I’m all for conservation and keeping lots of undeveloped land around. Another reason to stop the massive influx of “migration” into the the United States which is being allowed by the Bush Adminstration’s globalism.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Does Mr. Reisman realize that there is no intelligent life forms on Venus or Mars or consider that the temperature on Mars might have something to do with its distance from the sun?
As I see it, i have to believe one of two conspiracy theories…
1)98% of scientists hate technology and are spewing science to stop technology (because after all, people get into science out of a hatred of technology)
2)2% of almost exclusively industry funded scientists are generating science that is beneficial to those industries.
Which seems like the more plausible conspiracy?
July 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Manish, today CO2 is 383 parts per million. Are you telling me that the change from 280 parts per million to 383 parts per million is the cause of “Global Warming”?
What does you inner math intuition tell you? That is parts per MILLION.
The change of 103 parts per million of CO2 can alter the climate? Is it possible there is another reason? Maybe at the center of the Solar System?
July 9th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
98% of scientists know little or nothing about climatology. Some are chemists, some physicists, some biologists and some even metallurgists among many other disciplines.
So saying that 98% of scientists believe something to be true is not even a valid argument in itself.
100% of scientists thought Galileo was wrong.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
George Reisman is an economist so I guess he is in your 98% know little category as well.
He cites Ayn Rand as an influence. Set bit to ignore.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Metulj, how can an increase in 103 parts per million of CO2 alter the climate?
That is .000103.
That CO2 must be powerful stuff. Atmospheric crack.
Or maybe P.T. Barnum was right.
Que the consensusator…
July 9th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
The reason Mars is so much colder than Earth is twofold. First it is twice the distance from the sun and second is the lack of water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the the chief cause of the “greenhouse effect”.
Mars also has very low atmospheric pressure or density.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
These links are for the above.
http://www.mit.edu/people/goodmanj/terraforming/node5.html
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/atmosphere/Atmospheric_Pressure_on_Mars.txt
July 9th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I thought that the main driver of heat retention on Venus is the higher atmospheric pressure, which is 90x that on Earth. Is that not the case?
July 9th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Having failed to make a rational case for socialism, its adherents have come up with doom-saying pseudo environmentalism as a reason why we must adopt more socialism (i.e. more government power and encroachment upon property rights).
Now instead of “We should adopt socialism because it will make our lives better (which it never does) they can say, “We must have more socialism or we will all die!”
Come to think of it, that’s what socialists always say. Its just that now they have a different way of saying, “Convert or die” besides the simpler and more common one of holding guns to our heads.
For myself, I prefer the supposed “dangers” of Liberty over the provable and extremely deadly track record of socialism.
To Hell with all the arguing over details concerning molecules and their interaction with electromagnetic energy. First tell me the exact, ideal Earthwide average temperature and why you think that particular temperature is preferable to one that’s a few degrees higher or lower, and how your many years of highly detailed study of the Earth’s constantly changing temperature has led you to such a conclusion regarding an Ideal Temperature. (There used to be farming communities on Iceland, for example [or was it Greenland? Surely you Global Warming alarmists can tell me] and now its impossible due to the lowewr temperatures)
Then explain how less Liberty and more violation of rights translate to a better life, and show proveable details on how and when this has ever been the case.
Then we’ll have some basis for any further discussion.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
“how can an increase in 103 parts per million of CO2 alter the climate?
That is .000103.
That CO2 must be powerful stuff. Atmospheric crack.
Or maybe P.T. Barnum was right.
Que the consensusator…”
It’s all about the moles.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Manish, today CO2 is 383 parts per million. Are you telling me that the change from 280 parts per million to 383 parts per million is the cause of “Global Warming”?
My math tells me that that is an over 25% increase in the level of CO2 in the air. My math also tells me that it isn’t like we are talking about 100 degree shifts in weather, but shifts of a couple of degrees that could throw the balance out of whack.
As to whether 103 parts per million is too miniscule to matter, look at this water quality report as one example:
http://www.cabq.gov/progress/pdf/water.pdf
and realize that in many cases they are concerned about the level of things in parts per billion.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
My math tells me that that is an over 25% increase in the level of CO2 in the air. My math also tells me that it isn’t like we are talking about 100 degree shifts in weather, but shifts of a couple of degrees that could throw the balance out of whack.
It is a 36.8 % increase. Again it is minuscule. Comparing water to atmosphere is really comparing apples to donkeys.
Manish, why do you want to believe? Be analytical. It doesn’t add up. Lyle has many good points as to why this is happening. People want to justify old tired dogma.
Again, the CO2 increase trails the temperature increase. This is the worst snake oil ever sold. At what point do you begin to question this?
July 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Al Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?
The irony of that headline is astounding.
But, hell yeah, let’s debate the climate on Venus and Mars instead of Earth where we, actually, you know, live and stuff.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
One question no one seems to be addressing is which is cause and which is effect.
CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, and is released if they warm up. Is the CO2 level causing the rise in heat, or is it a result of the rise in temperature? I think there is an argument for the rise in CO2 being an effect, but no one has discussed that aspect.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I blame the mole!
July 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I speak for the sun-god, Ra! I will darken the sun if you do not submit to my will (knows of coming eclipse). See there! The Sun darkens! Now I command you to submit to my will! See now, all is dark, and you have brought this upon yourselves because of your pride and insolence– because of you failure to submit to my will.
(sun reappears from behind moon)
Now I have reawakened the sun out of mercy, but do not think that I cannot bring back the darkness! Submit now, you fools or all is lost!
Socialists (and everyone else) know that the Earth’s temperature is going to change, simply because it never stays the same. Its long history is one of extreme change, and, lets see, how can we take advantage of it? The people are plenty ignorant enough, so all we need is the right amount of alarmism, plus repeated doom and gloom, along with some guilt and some spreading of natural human paranoia and hatred, and they’ll fall for it!
Now we actually have people trained enough that when bad weather is bothering them, they’ll shake their fists at the sky, shouting, “Damn you, George Bush! Damn you, America! Damn you, capitalism! Damn you all to Hell!”
Its very sad.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
It goes way beyond dishonest or ingnorant with Al Gore. He has an ambitous agenda to take down capitalism and install a socialist government. He will lie,decieve, and extort to achieve it. He is hypocrite just like his Dixie-crate father.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
And now the thought-crimes begin.
A difference of opinion is treason? What do you make of that?
July 10th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Yeah, that’s about a 25% relative increase. Why wouldn’t that be signficant? The rise in global temperatures is completely in keeping with the substantial relative increase in CO2 concentration.
Anyone who thinks the sun is causing global warming is an idiot. It’s been shown repeatedly that that is NOT the case. Even the denialists like Singer and Lindzen are starting to not use that one so much anymore.
Dipshit: your inner math tuition is NOT scientific. That’s the kind of argument you’re resorting to now? God. Why Uncle tolerates you shitting up his blog with nonsense like that is perhaps the most astounding thing on the Internet today.
Tell ya what: go drink about 383 parts per million of arsenic and top it off with 383 parts per million of polonium, and let us know what your inner math tuition tells you about your fingernails falling out and your guts exploding.
The only thing that matters is that the overwhelming balance of evidence–OVERWHELMING–produced by the scientists who ARE actually qualified on the subject points in one direction.
100% of scientists thought Galileo was wrong? You really are an idiot. Show me ONE scientist who thought he was wrong. Hint: Renaissance era Vatican officials were NOT scientists.
In case anyone is even remotely swayed by #9’s moronic “that small amount of CO2 can’t warm the atmosphere” argument should consider this. The plain reality is that the temp increase that’s observed jives completely with what climate models tell us to expect.
In short, the nature of CO2 forcing on climate is well understood. The effect of a ~25% relative increase in CO2 concentration is completely in keeping with what climatologists tell us to expect.
Arguing against interest here, 280/380 is about 25% increase. On what do you base your assertion that that’s NOT significant? Because you just happen to think so?
Actually, no it’s not. The increase of over 100ppm in such a short time is unprecedented. You’d actually earn some respect if you tried something besides just pulling out of your ass whatever you think sounds good.
Another AM radio talking point long since debunked. The anthropogenic increase in CO2 concentration has no precedent in history, so pointing out that previous warming periods led CO2 increases is irrelevant–the reality is that CO2 and temp are TIGHTLY correlated, and even if it is true that CO2 has lagged, that doesn’t mean that a forced increase in CO2 concentration won’t have a warming effect.
Also consider this link. Scientists largely agree that there’s no merit to this lag argument.
What you’re talking about is known as a feedback; as the earth gets warmer and the oceans outgas CO2 and permafrost melts and releases CO2…yeah, the earth gets warmer (which necessarily indicates that yes, Virginia, increases in CO2 do warm the earth). That doesn’t change the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is indeed upping CO2 levels and thereby warming the earth.
Nice idea…but ignores the fact that we are spewing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Algor, like Billg, is a disgrace to the autistic community. It takes one to know one, and yup, I know a perseveration when I see one.
Al, quit trying to act normal. Yer not fooling anybody but Democrats.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:50 am
In case you missed it, observe here.
The important thing to note isn’t simply the increase in CO2 concentration, but the rapidity with which it has happened since the start of the Industrial Revolution. A rapidity which is unprecedented.
This is the death knell of the “CO2 lag” argument for skeptics. The problem with that argument is that there is NO historical precedent for the anthropogenic increase in CO2 levels in history. Never before have humans or any other creature taken carbon trapped below the earth’s surface and added it to the atmosphere in the form of CO2. Sure, as the avg temp of the planet has ebbed and flowed, CO2 concentrations have fluctuated (but always in tightly correlated fashion). That has NO bearing on the fact that WE are now the ones adding the CO2.
It’s simple physics–CO2 has a radiative forcing effect. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. The more CO2, the more heat is trapped.
Why is this hard to understand? Because it conflicts with #9’s agenda.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:01 am
It’s the mole’s fault!
July 10th, 2007 at 8:45 am
So I guess Tipper wasn’t writing down names of those that didn’t participate when she goes on her next PMRC crusade? Hypocrites.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Wipe the spittle off your lips PGP.
Let’s take this issue down to the bare bones. Let’s make an assumption that everything PGP says is 100% true and that the climate is warming due to anthropogenic causes.
What can we do.
Well, for one, the idea that it can be solved by changing light bulbs and drinking tap water is silly.
What we would need is a total restructuring of our society from the bottom up, from a carbon based society to the only thing that would allow us to keep a modern society, a nuclear based one. I support this regardless of the truth or fiction of anthropogenic global warming.
With a nuclear based society, electric cars would become much more practical and the widespread use of nuclear power would allow scientists to develop better and safer nuclear technologies.
This is the only solution that will work to reduce our burning of carbon based fuels.
What won’t work is the moral preening of elites like Al Gore saying that we all must cut back on our energy use, while the elites continue to waste energy and resources like they always have.
Sorry, if this is such a important issue, they should lead by example. Would it kill Al Gore or Edwards to live in modest homes like the majority of Americans and set an example.
The entire live Earth concert could have been done as an internet broadcast and thereby saved enormous amounts of energy.
Regardless, we are not going to significantly reduce our use of carbon based fuels by conservation. There is no political will to do this and it isn’t even possible.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:20 am
It is a .000103 increase in CO2. Calculate the volume of atmosphere this CO2 is distributed through.
Your point is that this gas is so refractive that this minuscule increase can trap heat from the sun and cause the temperature to go up?
That is what you are saying? And you are yelling and cussing people out because they don’t buy it?
Sorry, I am anti-socialism no matter what pretty package it is wrapped in. I do have an agenda. It is called science.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Any event or cause that prominently displays Madonna as a prominent mouthpiece is doomed.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:26 am
#9
From what I understand about the AGW argument,(correct me if I’m wrong PGP
) they believe that the Earth was finally balanced and that the Sun, volcano’s , etc. were part of the cycle in normal carbon fluctuations and that man came along and added that little extra bit of carbon to the equation, causing everything to cascade out of control.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Yosemite Sam sums it up nicely. You cannot conserve your way out of this. Note, I do practice conversation but do so for other reasons. I strongly believe in conversation. As I have written before my carbon footprint is smaller than the average American. But this trek the Pied Piper wants to lead us on is dangerous.
You cannot overnight abandon a carbon based society. Even if America did everything the Goracle preaches what other countries would join us? China? Russia? Anyone? It’s a Planet. Every country would have to do what he says. Hmmm? Think about that.
Even if wind and solar were maxed out completely Yosemite Sam is correct we would have to have massive increases in nuclear electrical production. Increases the Goracle will not allow.
In fact if you believe Al Gore you should examine the consequences of that belief. Gore has created the perfect storm. A problem with no possible solution.
Why would he do that?
July 10th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Yes Yosemite Sam, humans are the apple in this Garden of Eden. Everything was just right before we came along. First we invent fire then the automobile.
Gaia is displeased.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:02 am
There do seem to be some parallels with the biblical Garden of Eden. But, be that as it may.
We should not reject out of hand AGW because many of its advocates are Socialists and push more Socialism as the cure.
I’m somewhat dubious of the theory because I find it hard to believe that the biosphere of the Earth is so precariously balanced. But, that doesn’t mean that they are completely wrong.
What I find ironic is that environmentalists must share some of the blame for our continued use of carbon based fuels.
Our society would be nuclear based if they had not shut down the production of new nuclear facilities in the 70’s and 80’s. My home in NH was wired with radiant heating in anticipation of cheap nuclear power, but the environmentalists put the kibosh on that.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:13 am
PGP: “Why Uncle tolerates you shitting up his blog with nonsense like that is perhaps the most astounding thing on the Internet today.”
Now that’s funny; I have similar thoughts everytime I see your name at the top of an entry (not really: your posts on AGW are usually entertaining if not exactly convincing).
A few people here seem to be arithmetic challenged: (380 - 280)/280 = .357 = 35.7%.
But as to GW: so what? It’ll be a little warmer some places, a little wetter some other places, etc., etc. Guess what, it’s like that NOW, and has been forever as best we can tell.
I personally am not willing to scale back my standard of living one iota to stop it from happening and I won’t lift a finger to stop anyone elsewhere from improving their’s. If things change then that will just give us engineers new problems to work on.
Gore: “Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.”
Put simply, there are only a couple of things that humans could do that would “destroy the habitability” of Earth — and global warming isn’t one of them. As to the “prospects” of every generation that follows us: a damn sight better than those of just about _every_ generation that proceded us.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:20 am
“It is called science.”
Please post your credentials. Otherwise, KOOOOOK!
July 10th, 2007 at 11:34 am
BobR, your formula is correct but the numbers are 280 & 383.
As far as Al Gore is concerned he stepped in it with his column from July 1st. Gore writes, “As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.”
Then he goes on to discuss Venus and Mars which even further harms his point. There is a desperation creeping into the Save the Planet movement. The consensus has been shown to be fraudulent. People are jumping ship. And now Gore himself has started using Venus and Mars to save his sinking ship.
Hillary has an almost certain lock on the Democratic nomination. Gore the younger just got busted for drugs for the third time. Live Earth was a bust. The Draft Al Gore movement has stalled. These are desperate times.
Let’s review. A 000103 increase in CO2 in the past 100 years means this Planet has ten years until Auto-Destruct. The dreaded “tipping point”.
The only tipping point on the horizon is Al Gore’s political comeback.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Simply put PGP is a liar or an idiot. I won’t bother addressing his hysterical non-science until he tells us about the polar bears.
I have asked him repeatedly why he won’t expound on that hysterical screech from his side of the argument and now ask him why it died a quiet death as a talking point so quickly.
There are two sides to this argument. One side says it can predict the future based on model and assumptions that cannot even repeat the past that we know as fact.
The other admits the globe is warmer, but not as warm as it has been, both before and since the advent of humans on the planet. That side also notes that we just don’t know enough to validate any claims as to cause. Thousands of climatologists and earth scientists are on this side but are not recognized because that would destroy the phony consensus.
Now which side seems to be the most reasoned? Well, we all know which side it is,because they don’t need to scream and threaten to push an agenda.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Simply put: If more socialism is the answer, then it was a really stupid question.
If we want future generations to have a chance at a better life, we need to obliterate socialism in all its forms.
Carry on.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Dingle confronts Pelosi.
The gloves are off and now top Democrats are at each others throats over the Faux Global Warming.
Uhh. That will leave a mark. And to top it off, apparently Nancy Pelosi is not liberal enough so Cindy Sheehan is going to run against her.
Meanwhile over in Progressiveville it has been suggested that bottled water is destroying the Planet. How long before they come after our beer? Speaking of which, I am going to a couple or three. While I still can. You know somehow beer is destroying the Planet too.
Que the song…
You know what, Stuart, I LIKE YOU. You’re not like the other
people, here, in the trailer park.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
D’oh. I guess looking at the _article_ rather than PGP’s post would help :-).
Could be both ;-). Could be he just has a _hugh_ blindspot about GW — seems that much of the other stuff he writes is pretty level headed.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Sorry, I am anti-socialism no matter what pretty package it is wrapped in.
Oh piffle. You can’t even define socialism. I’ve heard you conflate it with both fasiscism and New Urbanism, fer crying out loud.
So here’s the challenge - define socialism. And no Wikipedia, please.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
BobR Says
“Simply put PGP is a liar or an idiot.”
Could be both ;-). Could be he just has a _hugh_ blindspot about GW — seems that much of the other stuff he writes is pretty level headed.
Ok, I have to give you that. I just don’t understand his emotional need for mass self-flagellation before the verdict is in.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Sorry, but dissecting idiotic arguments from the likes of Bob and #9 is just too tasty to not drool a little.
No argument here. Unfortunately for the 9s and Bobs of the world, the merit of the AGW position doesn’t rise or fall with Al Gore. He can be the biggest idiot he cares to be, it matters not from a scientific point of view.
Irrelevant. The point isn’t the absolute percentage of the atmosphere comprised by CO2. The point is that we’ve increased the relative volume of CO2 relative to the pre-IR by 1/3 (or as I pointed out, the difference between the pre-IR level and today is about a quarter). You’ve introduced zero evidence to suggest that .000103 isn’t a significant number, anyway. The plain reality is that computer aided climate models indicate that a relative increase of about a third in CO2 concentration is going to have the climate warming effect we’re seeing.
Your position here simply doesn’t jive with the available science on the issue. I can’t make it any plainer than that.
Climate scientists agree that increasing the relative concentration of CO2 by about a third should warm the planet by the amounts we’ve seen. In fact, you can’t explain the warming trends we’ve observed since the IR without accounting for the increase in CO2 concentration! As I’ve shown, you can’t account for it with cosmic rays, solar activity, or pixie dust. Without CO2 being accounted for, you cannot explain why the earth is getting warmer at the rate that’s been observed and documented.
The onus is on you to suggest why a 1/3 relative increase isn’t significant. The climate observations and models performed by scientists have shown that it should warm the planet by the amount that’s been observed.
What you’re missing (and it’s why Uncle more than happily tolerates me shitting on dullards like you and #9 from a great height) is that I can actually point to the scientific basis for my position. I support my positions with things like facts, observations, information from actual climate scientists, etc., and not just the shit I hear on Sean Hannity’s show. #9 bases his position–by his own fucking admission–on his “intuition”. His position is based on what he wishes was true. My position is based on what actually is true.
I find the notion that you find my posts unconvincing rather humorous; it rather begs the question, “gee, if an overwhelming majority of the actual scientists educated in the field of climatology isn’t enough to convince you, what would?”
You rarely get a coherent answer from a climate change skeptic on that topic, because your position is much like a gun banner’s position–it’s not based on rationality or a fact based body of information, but rather on your emotional attachment to the political but unscientific idea that we humans can shit the place up however we please without consequence.
You don’t see maroons like Bob and #9 objecting string theory or quark theory or atomic theory or gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease very often because there aren’t political realms to those issues. Yet despite the overwhelming majority belief in the scientific community about AGW, you continue to hem and haw. Why? Because you’re letting your myopic political agenda obstruct your ability to listen to reason.
If the only reason to worry about AGW was Al Gore and Sheryl Crow…yeah, I’d be skeptical too.
The problem is that I could give two shits what Al thinks. I do care what actual scientists think.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
As I said, arguing against interest. Taking today’s ~380ppm as a baseline instead of the 280 from the pre-IR level only hurts #9’s position–the relative increase in CO2 concentration is the only thing that matters.
We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that without CO2’s radiative effects, the planet would be uninhabitable. CO2 might only be 4 ten-thousandths of a percent of the atmosphere, but that small fraction is enough to drastically effect climate (to our benefit, we wouldn’t be here without it). He’s yet to explain why upping that concentration a relative third wouldn’t have the effect that scientists tell us to expect.
You base this opinion on what, exactly?
Frankly, I’m not sure what the hell you base any of your opinions on, because as per usual when this topic comes up, I’m the only person who actually links to what science is telling us.
Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events in the planet’s history. The various habitats and biological infrastructures our species depends upon for its very existence aren’t particularly well suited to rapid climate change. (Notice I’m linking to what those pesky scientists actually think and not just regurgitating what sounds good or talking about “my lifestyle” and being determined to not have to change it?)
If you can either A) point to something I’ve lied about or B) demonstrate that my understanding of what climate scientists are telling us, you might almost convince the peanut gallery that your ad hominem nonsense came from anywhere but your rectum.
You’re still here? Still pushing that nonsense? Let’s put aside that your entire premise here makes no sense (as we’ve already hashed out, actually it’s a 1/3 increase in relative CO2 content), where’s your evidence that that isn’t significant? Anything other than “cause I think so?”
Too bad you can’t clearly identify what they are. See below.
That’s a really tired talking point, and is demonstrably not reality based. Climate models have been shown to be pretty darn reliable. Let’s put it this way–the skeptics have failed to come up with a way to explain observed and documented warming trends without anthropogenic CO2 increases.
Whatever dosage of anti-schizo drugs they’re prescribing…it ain’t enough. Once again, we have your naked, unsupported assertion and I’ve got facts and links that demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement about the reality of AGW.
This is getting to be a bit too easy.
If you define “blindspot” as “being in agreement with what the scientific community overwhelmingly believes and not disagreeing simply because of an infantile political agenda instead of actual fact based reality based data”, then uh…yeah. Sure. Whatever. The denialists and contrarians represent a minority view. The only person with a blindspot that I can see is yourself and #9. We can disagree about the policy and political implications of AGW till the cows come home and that’s to be expected. But to deny that AGW is in point of fact the majority opinion in the scientific community is display a degree of separation from reality that I’d expect from a gun grabber or an evolution deniar.
If that’s your idea of a blindspot, I can’t imagine what you’d consider an informed opinion.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Brilliant, R. Neal, just brilliant, but I’ll go one better: why debate “global” warming rather than just discussing weather patterns in Knoxville where you, actually, you know, live and stuff.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Xlrq,
The point he’s making is pretty much on the money.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:33 am
So, have they finished cleaning up the leftover trash from those concerts yet?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Sebastian: perhaps so, if by “on the money” you mean “I can find two whole smug web sites that agree with me.” Otherwise, not so much.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:24 am
What’s smug about them? They’re simply pointing out the virtually unamimous position amongst climate scientists that the observed climate trends on Mars and Pluto don’t tell us much about AGW.
Am I smug when I point out that you’re going to have few scientists in agreement with you if you doubt that F=ma? Am I smug when I point out that you’re a going to have few scientists in agreement with you if you support Intelligent Design over the TOE?
Of course not. I’m simply pointing out that the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists trained in the relevant fields don’t share your position. It’s no different with the Mars-is-warming bullshit you seem to be falling for.
If it hurts your feelings that much to have someone point out that scientists don’t agree with you, this might not be your sport.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:03 am
9, if you are all about science and science is so important to you, you can’t just base statements on your intuition. You just can’t. You can’t just divide 183 by a million and say that’s an awfully small number, we shouldn’t be worried. It doesn’t work that way. Someone else mentioned water quality tests that are done in ppm or ppb, which you blew off because it was water not air. Well, the level of ozone in the atmosphere that is considered unhealthy is 85 ppb (as in billions). Should we divide 83 by a billion and say that is a really small number?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Scott,
Excellent point…which is why I suggested #9 consider 383 ppm of arsenic added to his drinking water and 383ppm of Polonium added to his Wheaties to give him a little perspective on that issue.
Some of the nerve toxins that SH was worrying us with were quite deadly at concentrations a lot less than 383ppm.
If #9 weren’t quite so sure that all those evil scientists were trying to dupe us to make us all socialists, he might realize that his homily-type reasoning doesn’t even pass the smell test.
We know that without CO2’s climate forcing, the earth would be a frozen, uninhabitable waste. We know that the earth’s relatively stable pre-IR mean temperature was a function of the CO2 concentration being a certain amount.
So let’s review:
Mean earth temp X is a function of CO2 concentration being N.
Why wouldn’t a concentration of(N+0.35N) have a different result?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:27 am
What’s not smug about them? Both entries are pure, unadulterated smarm. A site proving that global warming on Earth, Mars and Venus is happening independently of the sun would be interesting. A site merely asserting that as though it were an established fact is not.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I’m reminded of the princess bride…”you keep on using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It appears your definition of smug means “scientists telling us what they think.” I refer you to my above post. Am I smug when I point out you’re wrong when you claim the atomic mass of Cobalt is something other than 58.933200?
If your definition of smug includes scientists telling you things you don’t want to hear, then you’re really not grown up enough for this. Sorry.
Oh well. Grow up a bit and get over it. One of the perks of being a scientist is they’re not really under any obligation to not report their findings because you find them uncomfortable. They could be calling you a poophead while they do it, the plain truth is that there’s no set of observations about Mars or Venus that hurts the case for AGW.
Too bad for you that neither of those links–which you apparently didn’t read in the first place–is doing that. They’re merely pointing out that three years worth of climate observation in a small region of Mars doesn’t tell us much about what the effect of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere of the earth will do.
If that bugs you…well…call a whaaaaaaaambulance.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Oh, and for the record…scientists aren’t smug. I’m smug. Big difference. They’re just reporting empirical observations and drawing logical conclusions.
I’m the one pointing out that letting your irrational, emotional attachment to ideas like “AlGore sucks!” and “I can do whatever the fuck I please without consequences” isn’t very scientific. Your intuition and the seat of your pants aren’t useful scientifically nor are they wise tools for forming public policy.
If that makes me smug, well it’s a title I’ll wear gladly.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Both.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
JDI–assuming arguendo you’re right…so what?
Why not just call him a poopie brains? Anything that’s easier than thinking, right?
July 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
PGP, just show the evidence that link your data to your assumptions to you conclusions. That’s all. You never do that. You state some fact. Then you state assumptions that you haven’t proven are related to those facts and from there you draw conclusions without so much as one provable causal link.
When challenged you just get ugly on a personal level. That tells me you don’t have the proof, only the emotional need to feel superior to those you view as geo-rapists.
For instance, I didn’t know that CO2 was directional. But it must be if your premise is true. It can trap heat in, but can’t trap it out. Please explain that. Just explain that one thing, for a start. If you can we can move to your next point. “Because I said so.” doesn’t count.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
For instance, I didn’t know that CO2 was directional. But it must be if your premise is true. It can trap heat in, but can’t trap it out.
Yes, how exactly does this mysterious process work? Is the exceedingly small amount of CO2, 383 parts per million, or .000383 for those of you without calculators, equally dispersed through the atmosphere? Or does it form a ribbon around the atmosphere to trap the heat? Maybe it forms a barrier between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere? Maybe little bunnies are the cause? Aliens, could it be the work of ET?
How exactly does it trap the heat? Is this a refractive process, a radiative process, a reflective process, or just something from the Goracle Bible, ie realclimate.org, that isn’t really explained? Is it conduction or convection? Is it real or is it fantasy? Is it something the faithful accept on faith?
How does this miracle gas let heat through, but not let it escape?
Bonus points, what is the volume of the atmosphere? Scott you can help too.
But wait, there’s more. Maybe Global Warming is just a way for hippies to get even with rich middle aged men with bad hair. Yeah, take away their little red Porsche. That will fix the bastards.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Well, the level of ozone in the atmosphere that is considered unhealthy is 85 ppb (as in billions). Should we divide 83 by a billion and say that is a really small number?
Scott, why do you think I asked about the volume of the atmosphere? You and Sebastian-PGP keep comparing a human being to the Planet Earth. I appreciate you may believe in Gaia and think the Earth is alive, but a human being is much smaller than the Planet Earth.
If you want to play the math game work a little harder. It is about volume and dispersion. If you want to compare apples to hammers go ahead. But do not expect more replies on what is just goofy.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
The climate forcing of CO2 is pretty well understood. I’d be happy to link to information that will help you better understand it. Here’s a good explanation of how the GHE works, and why your question doesn’t really make much sense. The answer is that some solar energy is absorbed, and some is reflected back into space. CO2 isn’t “directional” at all. Hope that helps.
Sorry if you don’t like that I get testy with you and certain other folks, but it’s pretty clear that you guys have a very poor grasp of the basic science at work here…and yet you’re quite convinced the science is wrong. You’re basically saying you’re sure the AGW thing isn’t happening, even though you don’t understand it very well.
It kinda reminds me of Rep. McCarthy and the barrel shroud.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Oops, forgot the link above that I wanted you to look at.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Check the link I provided, it explains how the greenhouse effect works in layman’s terms pretty well.
Just a thought…seeing as you’re conceeding that you don’t understand how the GHE works, don’t you think it’s a bit silly of you to insist that AGW isn’t happening?
How does this miracle gas let heat through, but not let it escape?
Asked and answered. The atmosphere reflects some radiation, it absorbs some, and some passes through and is absorbed by the earth. A portion of the radiation reflected back toward space is captured and retained in the atmosphere. This isn’t hard, dude. But the fact that you don’t understand this process really sheds light on how un-meritorious your skepticism is. In short…you’re talking a lot of shit on a subject you don’t know jackshit about.
You really do have a very poor understanding of the basic physics here…but you’re convinced it isn’t happening. Even the biggest GW deniers don’t doubt that the GHE is real. We wouldn’t be here if it didn’t.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
This pic explains it pretty well.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Just a thought…seeing as you’re conceding that you don’t understand how the GHE works, don’t you think it’s a bit silly of you to insist that AGW isn’t happening?
I have purposely put a phrase in twice to test you and you have missed it each time.
You also used the wrong formula to calculate the percent change in CO2. A simple math calculation. Yet you are telling me I don’t understand. The picture you posted is laughable. It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis. In fact it is better used for that hypnosis than man-made Global Warming.
I concede nothing at this point. I appreciate your passion. We disagree. It is not a big thing. I don’t need to insult you or correct you. America will not approve Kyoto or any of the crazy Global Warming remedies. I think you know that. My interest is in how and why people believe this. I am fascinated by how many people believe in Man-made Global Warming.
This whole Man-made Global Warming thing reminds me of the “Spanish Prisoner” con. You have to want to believe for it to work. I don’t have that need. But obviously many do.
You do understand how arrogant it is to say that a certain place should have a certain temperature?
I would however be very interested in seeing the detail of how Man-Made Global Warming works. I have watch Mr. Gore’s movie several times and read much more of realclimate.org than needed.
Can you show how specifically the process works? For instance, why have studies not be performed using the mirrors on the Moon from the Apollo program. You would think that reflecting laser light off the Moon and calculating the timing would provide some clues as to Mr. Gore’s hypothesis. Where are the studies in infrared from satellites? Why all theory and and so little experimentation? Where are the breakthrough experiments?
Or is that not a fair question?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:09 am
This reminds me of when a girl says “there’s nothing wrong” when you’re supposed to know that something’s wrong. What sort of trick do you think you’re pulling?
It could just as easily be used to defend the cosmic ray hypothesis.
Assuming arguendo you’re right and I goofed on the math, what bearing does that have on the fact that climatologists OVERWHELMINGLY AGREE WITH ME AND DISAGREE WITH YOU? Me being careless with math (a mistake a later explained) doesn’t change the fact that YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE WELL ESTABLISHED BASICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAT NOT EVEN THE STAUNCHEST CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS WILL ARGUE WITH.
Get this through you thick fucking skull–even Singer and Lindzen and Gray won’t try to argue that the GHE isn’t real. Only a real idiot would do as much…thanks for showing us just how stupid you really are. It really is amazing that Uncle tolerates your presence, let alone your posting here. It’s the biggest blemish on an otherwise great blog.
No, it’s how the fucking physics of the GHE works. You really are an uneducated twit.
Can you point to anything that’s wrong with it? No. Can you point to anything it’s got wrong? No. You’re just being a fucktard. You really are an embarassment to yourself–your posting stuff that’s in direct contradiction to well established science. You might as well insist the sky might be red and e does not equal mc squared.
I can’t wait to see the explanation on this one. This is like Jessica Simpson insisting that Einstein didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to that whole relativity thing.
PS: It’s been shown that cosmic rays cannot explain observed climate trends.
It IS a big thing. You consistently post really dumb shit. You can’t even grasp the basics of the greenhouse effect but want people to think your skepticism about AGW has merit. It’s like somebody who can’t change a tire insisting he can do a turbocharger upgrade and a head gasket swap.
In short….you’re a retard and really annoying to listen to. Time after time, link after link, I show you how wrong you are…and you keep at it.
I don’t want to be your friend. I don’t want to make nice with you. I certainly have no interest in being nice to someone as willfully ignorant as you are. Go fuck yourself.
As though someone as misinformed and willfully moronic as yourself could do either.
No. Who the fuck ever did any such thing?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:36 am
For the record…you do realize that A) you’re dumb enough to admit in public that you doubt the veracity of the GHE (something as well established scientifically as atomic theory, the periodic table, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, etc) and B) when you say something like “that pic is laughable”, you actually need to bring some evidence to the table to indicate why?
You putting 383ppm of Polonium on those Wheaties yet? Let’s talk about some of the shit you got wrong. Like the idea that CO2 has to reflect all of the sun’s radiation into space for the GHE to happen (stupefyingly ignorant on your part). Or more importantly the idea that increasing the relative concentration of a key GHG by a third (since as you pointed out so carefully the formula) is somehow “miniscule”. You failed to address any of the posts by me and others showing how ridiculously misinformed your objection here was.
If CO2 concentration XYZ results in global mean temp A, why is it hard to understand why CO2 concentration XYZ+35% is going to be substantially different?
You can’t even grasp the basics of the greenhouse effect when they’re shown to you in simple layman’s terms…but you want to us to think you’re anything but a blathering idgit on this subject.
Sorry, but I simply don’t suffer fools like you very well.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Another energizer bunny thread I see.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Oh piffle. You can’t even define socialism. I’ve heard you conflate it with both fascism and New Urbanism, fer crying out loud.
So here’s the challenge - define socialism. And no Wikipedia, please.
Sorry Rachel, I missed that. You do deserve a response.
Man-made Global Warming is socialism. Soylent Green is people. Same idea.
See, I told you so.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“Man made Global Warming” as you call it is socialism, eh?
I guess these guys are all Marxists, right?
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Cause every one of them has endorsed the IPCC findings.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Ok, it’s boring now.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
More non answers. Try this, establish a green house without the solid enclosure, in other words, only atmosphere and the universe beyond your greenhouse. When they glass in the planet your SWAG might work.
SWAG=swinging wild ass guess
July 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Man, you guys aren’t even trying anymore. No links to contrary information, no actual indictments of any of the information I’ve provided, just the naked and unsupported suggestion that we’ve provided “non-answers”…whatever that means.
You really don’t get it, do you? Sad. It’s really not all that hard to understand that the atmosphere retains heat.
This really is like somebody who failed pre-algebra in the 7th grade insisting that multivariable calculus is bunk.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
You don’t want to go there. Your understanding has already been demonstrated. That was more than a math error.
Provide one experiment that proves the hypothesis. It is a stretch to call it a theory.
Just one. I can read realclimate.org on my own. When you have something beyond what you can parrot make your case.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 am
You’re absolutely right. We just don’t get it. It is very difficult, nay, impossible to get a grasp on no substance.
You have been asked politely to post any proof whatsoever of your position. You have yet to do so. You have been the beneficiary of alternate theories and explanations, which you have refused to address or refute. Your total argument seems to be “All the people that make me feel superior posted this and I have linked to it. You all are so ignorant that you can’t see that popularity of opinion makes truth.”
You are absolutely correct again, I can’t see that popularity of opinion in a few hysterical sufferers of inferiority complex makes their position true.
None here have disputed that warming is taking place, you are one of the few, though, that think you are omniscient. Funny how that works, you know what and /or who is causting it , but you don’t know how you know.
NO Thank you. I’ll wait for the science to catch up.
The earth has been much warmer, relatively, than it is now. Explain why the planet isn’t dead as per your prediction based on current conditions.
The ignorance is on your part. To hold the position you now hold it is necessary to ignore millennia of history, contradictions in evidence, and the deep divide between those who make a living off this farce and those who are actually studying the climatological changes on Earth. NO, my friend, the ignorance is on your part and you are a willing ignoramus.
You have yet to answer the question of whether or not global warming is a bad thing. Tell us about the polar bears. You remember, those poor little animals that had about 3 weeks in the limelight about how they were drowning due to global warming. Tell us about that, while you’re at it tell us about the sudden disappearance from the media of that particular issue. You might even go on to examine the great European starvation in medieval times and tie that to climate. Or haven’t you yet been told what you believe about that?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
[...] local membersof the global warming denialist club:Bill Hobbs, Terry Frank, Mark Rose, Glen Dean, Say Uncle #9 … to name a few. Spread It Around: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where [...]