16 1 min 14 yrs

Got to hand it to the Rev Al Gore, he has some brass neck. I was reading his latest pronouncement that those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.

Or who think that they invented the internet. Or who believed that the movie "Love Story" was based on their romantic life. Or who think the melting snows of Kilimanjaro have anything to do with global warming. Or who think that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Or who conclude that low lying pacific atolls have been evacuated when there is no evidence of this.

The list goes on. Gore is a fantasist and much closer to the flat-earthers than he knows!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

16 thoughts on “THE DEBATE IS OVER…?

  1. If we accept Gore is a poor messenger does that mean GW theory is a poor message? of course not.

  2. Mahons

    If we accept Gore is a poor messenger does that mean GW theory is a poor message?

    George Orwell said "just because something is in the Daily Telegraph doesn’t mean it’s not true"

    So it’s fair to say that just because Al Gore said it doesn’t make it nonsense. ut it does make it more likely to be nonsense than if somebody with a better record of truthfulness said it.

  3. No, I think if Al Gore said it, then it IS by definition total nonsense, because he’s a hypocritical lard-ass.

    PS, anyone want to buy a light grey wheelie bin and two "recycling" boxes, one green, one red? If you do, let me know, as I have no use for them.

  4. Many of the Global Warming fans have done their cause –and the larger cause of environmentalism–a grave disservice by the hectoring and disrespectful attitude to the other side.

    Except they’ve never really conceded that there could be any legitimate other side.

    There can be no debate, no conversion of skeptics when the Gores of this world can’t admit that there is anything to debate about.

  5. Phantom,

    "Many of the Global Warming fans have done their cause –and the larger cause of environmentalism–a grave disservice by the hectoring and disrespectful attitude to the other side."

    Respect needs to be earned and there are too many examples of outright dishonesty and scientific illiteracy on the other side of the ‘debate’. Too many smears of working stiff scientists.

    "Except they’ve never really conceded that there could be any legitimate other side."

    There are never two sides in science and there is no debate in science. There are only scientists, the scientific method, and evidence. People who care about the science are trying to work out what’s going on, not saying it’s all wrong because Al Gore is fat, Hansen is cooking the books, or "CO2 is only 0.000000% LOL!".

    These people who claim to be ‘skeptics’ are not skeptics, not scientists, they are not part of the process I described, nor are they part of any debate. Their only goal is to pretend there is one. But like creationists you will not see them make any contribution to any debate should they get one. All they want is the appearance of legitimacy.

  6. But Frank, Gore isn’t a scientist either. He is a politician offering policy prescriptions. Unsurprisingly they are pretty much the policies he believed in before he had ever heard of global warming.

    It would be like Gerry Adams claiming the only solution to Global Warming was a United Ireland. Nobody would call that science.

    He is a polarising figure in the debate and makes it less likely that public opinion will be moved from its current position which is disbelief in the proposition that by giving more money to the government we will save the planet.

    If the issue is carbon then the role of science should be to come up with workable alternatives and the role of politicians and economists is to facilitate the implementation of alternatives without causing either panic or poverty.

  7. I have just finished reading the chilling stars which posits an alternative explanation for global warming, past and present.

    The AGW theory has had my vote until now, but after reading the book I think the debate has still a way to go. Well worth reading anyway.

  8. Peter,

    How do they deal with the objection that there has been no recent trend in cosmic rays (i.e. 30-50 years or so)?

  9. Henry,

    "But Frank, Gore isn’t a scientist either"

    Not that it matters, but Gore’s interest in the science goes back decades and his grasp of it is pretty accurate (ask the scientists).

  10. Frank

    The book contains an updated addendum written at the end of 2007 which deals with recent objections. I think you should read it.

    They make a good case, without being in any way polemical. Which is not to say that they are 100% correct, but they do set out clearly the research in various fields which still needs to be done.

  11. Peter I will read it on your recommendation (though the idea of lining Calder’s coffers doesn’t appeal!)

    To my mind the lack of trend in cosmic rays should be devastating to their argument w.r.t recent warming (which of course doesn’t mean that the rest of it isn’t right).

    Another problem I have is that if they are saying climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than the range of estimates so far – which they would have to in order to say it’s unimportant – then how do they explain the evidence for those estimates?

    On the other hand if they are just constraining climate sensitivity to be on the low end of estimates so far, that is very different to saying that CO2 doesn’t matter. Their theory would then amount to just another natural forcing we can’t do anything about, like volcanos. CO2 would still be changing the climate. For that matter CO2 may still be a problem even if AGW was 100% wrong, due to acidification of the oceans.

  12. Frank

    They totally accept the case for limiting use of fossil fuels on grounds of scarcity and pollution.

    A large-scale experiment is being prepared at Cern in Geneva to thoroughly test the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence low-level cloud formation. It is expected to be completed by 2010. Obviously if the theory had no merit the Cern people would not have agreed to the significant investment involved.

    The book emphasises that astronomers and astro-phisicists will have as much a role as climate scientists in researching the space aspects. Perhaps that is one reason why climate scients have been so hostile, as they see their role being usurped by other branches of science.

  13. Peter,

    That’s not what I meant. The theory could have merit (cosmic rays could affect cloud cover) but still not explain recent trends. Cosmic rays entering the earths atmosphere are measured and they don’t have a trend for the last decades, but temperature does. So it’s all very well to say that changes in cosmic rays could change the climate, but according to those measurements there were no changes.

    It’s as if it were a murder mystery, and along comes Svensmark to say that the guy could have been killed by a knife in the back. Off he goes to prove that a knife in the back could kill someone.

    What the climate scientists are saying is that’s all very well, but this chap doesn’t have a knife in his back. Furthermore he has 30 bullet holes in him.

    Anyway, I went looking for the book at lunchtime but no sign of it. I pass a bookshop on the way home so I’ll drop in there and see if they have it.

  14. Frank

    The first chapters cover the recent behaviour of cosmic rays in detail.

    Well worth reading. I got my copy in Waterstones.

Comments are closed.