Al Gore – Global Warming Expert
Okay, I admit: the title of this post is meant to be sarcastic.
Just 24% of Americans consider Gore an expert on Global Warming. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 adults found that 47% say he is not an expert on the topic.
In fact, just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is talking about when it comes to the environment and Global Warming. Thirty-one percent (31%) say he does not know what he is talking about while 33% are not sure. Women, by a 2-to-1 margin, say Gore knows what he is talking about. Men, by a similar margin, say he does not.
Roger L. Simon uses these stats to back up his claim that Al Gore is hurting the global warming cause more than helping it. He makes a good point when he writes the following:
Gore’s problem may stem from the attitude inherent in his remark before a Congressional Committee quoted further down in the Rasmussen article: “Global Warming is ‘not a partisan issue; it’s a moral issue.’” Wrong, Al. It’s neither. It’s a scientific issue.
Although that’s a good point, the fact that most Americans don’t consider Al Gore to be a global warming ‘expert’, doesn’t automatically mean that he hurts the cause he has dedicated himself to. Like it or not, he got global warming on the frontpages of all major newspapers, and more and more people are convinced that something should be done.
Personally, it seems to me that science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity increases global warming, I support Gore in his attempt to change U.S. policy on this matter, but I do not consider Gore to be an expert either. In fact, just about no politician is an expert. What politicians have to do, is to listen to what experts, read scientists, have to say about matters like global warming, and act on their advice.
Now, despite some claims by the American quite far-right, most scientists support the idea that global warming is increased by human activity and that something should be done. Experts, meaning scientists, do the research, they conclude things and… when politicians are persuaded that what the scientists claim is indeed most probably true, then politicians have to try to implement policies in line with what the scientists have concluded and they, politicians, have to convince the citizens of a nation that the government (and they) should act.
Edit
H/t Iconic Midwest.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “Al Gore – Global Warming Expert”
But Gore, unlike someone like Senator James Inhofe listens to the experts and is passing along their message. Inhofe, Limbaugh and others on the right just pass along selected distortions of the science.
What bothers me the most is to hear about the great “global warming hoax”. It certainly would not hurt us to take some of the measures suggested by Gore- energy efficiency and independence would help to keep us out of global entanglements that we cannot win, and leave a cleaner planet for our children and offspring. We need to be a leader in the technologies that would accomplish these goals, not a bunch of camels with our heads stuck in the sand.
Gore is to be congratulated for taking on a politically unpopular issue and educating so many with his documentary. If we manage to get past naysayers like Inhofe, we could actually get back to our past record of superior innovation in something other than weapons systems that no one is using. Perhaps the cause will become more popular when our national leadership changes in ’08.
When have the Rush’s of this world been right about anything?
I agree it’s debatable about whether we will really affect much by trying to meet the current goals that are being discussed, but what surprised me are the solutions that Gore has suggested:
Implementing a far stricter Kyoto
Cutting payroll taxes and raising carbon taxes
Creating a distribution system based on internet infrastructure where individuals could buy/sell their own energy
Focus on getting India and China to curb emissions through economic incentives
Raising CAFE
Only the first and last ones are anywhere close to “big government” (and even the Kyoto-type protocol — well one that was actually in the spirit of it instead of the garbage that was produce — is based on free market principles of buying/selling carbon credits).
The payroll cut/carbon increase is favored by economists all over the ideological spectrum as having the best chance to create innovation and behavioral change. So he’s on board with the “experts” on that one.
The distribution system sounded like a really unique idea I’d never heard of before. If it were implemented people would be buying off the grid and power companies would be just one (major) source. It would be getting rid of monopolies (and monopsonies — which Gore actually said in Congressional testimony, I wonder how many Senators even knew about that) and would encourage people to design homes much more efficiently. In fact in many parts of the country I think people could actually make a profit by utilizing solar/geothermic power. This is like a free marketer’s wet dream.
I do think that Gore should downscale his life and start living in a house that is really off the grid with its own power generation, but other than that most of the criticisms about his proposals are just smears. There are some bad things about them but overall they are great imo.
The problem is that Gore is a Democrat, so he can’t be talking sense, or can he?
Of course Gore, not being a scientist, cannot himself be an expert on the topic. What he is doing is conveying to the public the findings of experts on this issue. But I’m quite sure the GOP will use this poll to further mock Gore and deliberately spin the poll as saying the public thinks Gore doesn’t know what he’s talking about on global warming and therefore doesn’t believe his claims. But the poll didn’t ask whether or not the respondents shared Gore views on global warming, nor did the poll say the public doesn’t believe what Gore is claiming. But get ready for the rove spin machine to take effect.
I’m sure there is a little jealousy, now that Gore has pulled out of his post-2000 funk and managed to distinguish himself in this area, while Bush is reviled by most of the civilized world, and is the goat of his own party! There will be an onrush of pseudoscientific studies against Gore’s presentation, giving warming deniers more red meat for their arguments. While we fiddle, Rome burns!
K. Ritter said:
> What bothers me the most is
> to hear about the great “global
> warming hoax�. It certainly
> would not hurt us to take some
> of the measures suggested by
> Gore- energy efficiency and
> independence would help to
> keep us out of global
> entanglements that we
> cannot win, and leave a
> cleaner planet for our children
> and offspring.
What we see time after time is leftist interjection of politics into science, and this is wrong. (It is even more harmful in practice when put into policy.)
Perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not, you mentioned something that is real and is a legitimate objective for action — air pollution, which does harm people as well as the rest of the environment. But even then, costs must be assessed as well as benefits when deciding what to do about pollution. (It might be cheaper for the federal government to buy and replace everyone’s current motor vehicles with newer vehicles, that are cleaner than older vehicles, than it is to attempt comparable reduction in air pollution using existing government programs.)
Air pollution might be a legitimate basis for levying a carbon tax on fuels — or a tax on whatever other component of the fuel that was identified as a pollutant (*** NOT *** a source of “greenhouse gases”). The tax could even be earmarked for pollution abatement or cleanup.
Be aware that some things are simply impossible or are not practical. We cannot escape dependence on petroleum overnight, for example.
Global warming is a moral issue in the sense that it is humanity’s behavior that is the primary cause, and this can be modified. Large corporate interests may not see it in their interests to do so but in the long run it is in everyone’s interest.
Aside from that, I think we need to move beyond Al Gore and focus more on the issue itself.
“Leftist interjection of politics into science”,lol???
How about: Insisting that intelligent design be taught instead of/along with evolution?
Disallowing a federal govt scientist from agreeing with global warming studies because of ideology?
The far right interferes with science regularly when it denies the existance of global warming and evolution. I really don’t care if we are educated by Al Gore or Donald Duck! The main thing is not to stay in denial when 90% of the world’s scientists are in agreement. The right’s insistence on denying its existence is what made this a political issue in the first place.
If you want to discuss the ACTUAL influence of politics on science during the reign of the current Administration, let’s do it.
The Bush Administration’s chosen “science” witness at last week’s House hearings on global warming was tasked with refuting the scientific consensus on global warming cited by Gore (and many others, by the way).
When he was asked about his personal views on specific issues, he admitted under questioning that he believes in intelligent design, not evolution.
It’s a sad day when our government’s carefully selected science “expert” could actually be testifying for the Bible thumpers in the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920s. And it tells us something particularly disturbing about the current Administration’s attitude towards science. Nuff said.
Of course, Gore himself is not a climatologist. What Gore brings to the table is an expertise in combining the best scientific theories available concerning the future of our climate with actual governmental policy. A climatologist has no expertise in implementing national and international policy, nor in swaying public opinion. Gore does have this background. It is that combination of skills which are his great contribution to the issue.
Gore also brings along his large personna. It is doubtful that any climatologist would be heard as well as a former Vice President. I think he makes a good spokesman because of his knowlege and dedication to his cause.
Michael, I have to give a hat tip to Iconic Midwest who pointed out on his blog that the statement above is a bit…odd. I guess what you were trying to say is something along the lines of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but proven to be very likely isn’t really enough to say that no one should question it, is it? And where in the scientific method does it say that we aren’t supposed to constantly question scientific theories and see if they hold up to scrutiny?
If the evidence is strong enough to stand up to that scrutiny, then why politicize it by calling people flat earthers, junk scientists, or deniers? That behavior in itself (which Gore engages in, for example, when he says the media should not be covering the debate because it isn’t neutral to cover anything that questions the consensus opinion) leads me to be skeptical of all of the claims.
There are plenty of scientists who question this (including some who were put on the IPCC list of the ‘consensus’ scientists even though they protested that). And the most recent dissent or questioning has come from the far left, not the far right.
K. Ritter said:
> How about: Insisting that intelligent
> design be taught instead of/along
> with evolution?
*wince*
> Disallowing a federal govt scientist
> from agreeing with global warming
> studies because of ideology?
OK, so the Right does what the Left often does, just once in a while.
And…
> The far right
These people (Bush administration, and for that matter most of the Religious Right) aren’t even far right.
> I really don’t care if we are educated
> by Al Gore or Donald Duck!
I do. I also do not want politics offered as “education.”
The question remains: Why should ANY politician be the spokesperson for this issue? Having Gore in the debate over issue simply ensures that it will divide among partisan lines. If you wanted to look into the issue of alleged links between uterus cancer and abortions, what do you think the effect would be of having Pat Robertson be the spokesperson concerning the “science” on that issue? It would be silly to have him be the expert on that issue. No rational inquiry on the issue could even get started – regardless of the nature of the evidence. Therefore, it is equally silly for Gore to be at the forefront of this issue. The problem is, the Democrats don’t see Gore as “biased”, so they don’t understand the reaction Gore automatically gets in some quarters. Get the political figures out of the way on this issue.
I don’t know if the nay sayers realize the immense importance of what ‘consesus’ means in the scientific community.
Since this deals with projections for the future, every step of the methodology can skew the results. Absolute certainty is impossible, and no scientist can or would claim it.
There are rivalries among scientists and differences of philosophy. When there is broad international consensus, across all the divides, that has enormous significance.
The naysayers pick at this lack of 100% certainty, in the same way that they pick at the theory of evolution.
Evolution remains a theory, because you can’t reproduce its history in the laboratory.
The same is true for global warming.
If it’s absolute certaintly you want, adopt a religion. But if you want to get at the probability of something being so, look for scientific consensus.
Michael: Personally, it seems to me that science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity increases global warming
Now, you are making a stronger statement than even the IPCC makes. Of course you also use the term “personally” which might mean that as a layperson (I’m assuming you are not a climatologist) what you have heard and read has made this particular impression on you. That is fine in everyday language.
Science needs to be more rigorous than that IMO.
domajot: Evolution remains a theory, because you can’t reproduce its history in the laboratory.
As stated this is simply untrue. One can in the lab watch genes at work in everything from bacteria to mice. What we can’t do is go back and replay our own (human) genetic history, which is what religious types (of a particular viariety) get their knickers in a twist about.
You are also mistaken about the “value” of consensus. The drive for “purity” has most often been used to supress free inquiry and expression. I myself take a very Popperian view of science, and as such I dislike the unfalsifiability of the computer modeling used to justify sweeping social and economic changes.
domajot,
Part of the problem in trying to discuss this is that any doubt leads to a label of being a naysayer. That implies that the person asking questions believes that the hypothesis at the basis of the theory is FALSE. In actuality, there are many, many people who simply don’t know if it is true or false, and the reality is that (as you’ve stated) the scientists don’t KNOW it either. I do understand the concept that evidence can support a hypothesis strongly enough so that a theory becomes accepted, but even if the AGW hypothesis is at that point (which I don’t think it is) but even if it were….that still doesn’t mean that someone shouldn’t ask for explanations before agreeing to political solutions that are extremely costly (and that could prove to be useless or even harmful if the theory ends up being wrong).
In other words, asking someone to explain why we should believe that reducing CO2 will lead to a decrease in temperature trends (when the historic record doesn’t show it ever happening that way: the temperature changes upward and downward always precede the CO2 changes), is not the same as saying that we absolutely don’t believe that CO2 has an effect. We’re just saying, that apparently it is not the primary driver, so we’re asking someone to show us what is known about it’s effects to the extent that they hypothesis is verified.
And likewise, asking whether or not the most extreme changes in our energy use could actually effect total CO2 levels enough to have any significant effect (given that we know that human contribution to CO2 is only one small part, and that other greenhouse gases also have strong effects, etc), is not the same as saying that we know that we COULDN’T effect a change. We’re just sayin’…
And finally, asking people to consider priorities and cost/benefit shouldn’t be cast aside either. Everything has a cost and the policies needed to effect these changes would have huge costs. Given that even the most avowed climate change experts know that they aren’t 100% certain, we should be permitted to ask: what if they are wrong, and what will be the missed opportunity cost of money that could have been better spent?
Rick Horton-
You are right, of course.
I meant that you can’t reproduce the path from primordial ooze to modern man in one sweeping show.
CStanley-
For any proposition, there are those who agree, they say ‘aye’. and those who disagree and say ‘nay’.
I started to use pro and con, but ‘cons’ didn’t come out right.
You have to use some shorthand to identify the two sides.
Rick Horton, CStanley, et al
I recognize the questioning. But at some point we just have to make a move.
We can argue all day about the meaning of concensus, and we can argue about it until it’s too late and there is no longer any point.
There are always valid questions about everything. But the questions should not suffocate the BROAD SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL consensus that man’s life style should be altered.
This is not, and should not be treated as, an American political debate. This is an issue for the world, and we have to choose our role. Do we want to be among those who work to improve the lot of mankind, inspite of quibbles, or not?
And why is that? It is because most of the civilized world prefers to appease, rather than fight the global jihad. Whatever one thinks about how the war in Iraq was conducted, Bush is correct in that we need to take the offensive with regards to our enemies. Unfortunately Europe hasn’t learned from its own history of appeasing evil, such as the actions of Neville Chamberlain, which rather than leading to peace, led to a far greater war. I know this is off-topic, but I’m really sick of people who feel that the rest of the world’s opinion regarding our president and our country is at all relevant. The left is far more interested in being popular than in doing what’s right.
DLS- If a climatologist told you the same thing Gore is saying, you would say that there are many that disagree with him. The fact that Exxon-Mobil was hiring scientists to do studies to disprove this should tell you something. If 90% of the scientific community tell me something, whether it is through someone like Gore or through a different spokesman, I tend to believe it. He does have a lot more expertise in this area than the run of the mill politician, and as far as I know is not running for office again. Even if he were, he would have hung an albatross around his neck, because there still are so many deniers in the US. It would make more sense for him to minimize the cost of the changes that are needed. I can understand not liking Gore or disagreeing with him politically, but even you must see that he is sincere.
CS,
You are called a naysayer because that’s what you are. Same with Iconic Midwest. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
You dissemble by saying:
Simply put, all scrutiny is not created equal. There is honest scrutiny and then there is what the deniers engage in. Consider one of your other statements:
In another thread where this subject was brought up I mentioned that realclimate.org had an article on this subject that linked to a peer reviewed paper. I’m not sure what happened to the link that I created to it but here it goes again. I pointed out that there is no reason to assume that natural phenomenon should parallel man made ones. No denier ever answers those criticisms of their logical fallacies.
Frankly the arguments of the deniers remind me of nothing so much as the strategies of the creationists and IDers. Your satement about not believing it doesn’t have an effect, you just don’t believe the climatologists’ estimate of its effects is like their statements about not denying that there’s microevolution but that doesn’t prove anything. Just as many of the deniers still cite old ideas that have been discredited such as the satellite data disagreeing with surface measurements the creationists still deny that there have been fossils discovered of transitional organisms.
And then you say this:
What’s wrong with this? One major thing. Since deniers constantly deny that the negative effects of global warming would be what climatologists say are the most likely consequences their arguments about cost/benefit analysis consistently underestimate the costs of doing nothing.
And then there’s
No, you’re not just sayin, you’re muddying the waters on purpose by engaging in an intellectually dishonest version of debate.
Al Gore isn’t an expert on Global Warming and he’s never claimed to be one. He’s an environmental advocate who’s extremely well educated on the subject. Because of his political background and his status as a celebrity of sorts, he’s a much better spokesman than most of the professionals in the field, who wouldn’t want the job, anyway.
Just as Angelina Jolie isn’t the foremost expert on refugees, Michael J. Fox isn’t an expert on stem cell research and Bono isn’t an expert on global poverty. These people draw attention to important issues. For better or worse, this is what draws people’s attention.
Most of the people being polled, likely couldn’t explain the basic elements of the science. Asking them whether Gore knows what he’s talking about is a bit pointless. A more interesting poll would be one that asked climate experts whether Al Gore knows what he’s talking about.
While we are on the subject of cost-benefit analysis and the supposedly enormous costs of taking strong action to prevent further global warming (note that the Stern Report, written by the former Chief Economist for the World Bank for the Blair Govt, estimated the cost of strong action to forestall the worst of climate change at 1% of global GDP if started now…) what is the cost of inaction if something like the worst case scenario occurs later this century?
The field data right now is not exactly reassuring. I am talking about the rapidly disappearing Arctic and Greenland ice sheets, as well as the Antarctic data on temperature increases, as well as the very hard evidence on ocean acidification (which, because it is from human-caused CO2 emissions, is not subject to a hell of a lot of debate). Those who are not familiar with climate science (for detailed discussions see realclimate.org) might argue that these changes are “natural” cycles. The only problem with this thread of argument is that there is no evidence in the climate record of such very rapid changes. Ask an Inuit (they have an oral tradition that stretches back more than a thousand years) if they have a term in their language for bird species from the south that are showing up in their backyards right now (hint: they don’t). So all the talk about the Medieval Warm Period is just that, talk, not exactly comparable to the pace of change we are seeing right now, today, in the real world.
By the way, the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is often compared numerically to a 90% probability in first year law school, so it is more or less identical to the standard used by the IPCC in its February report. Scientists speak in terms of probability, rather than certainty, in dealing with highly compex natural systems with many variables. If we need to wait for 100% certainty in analyzing the climate, we will wait forever.
Forget for a moment about Al Gore – please! He is a flawed messenger, no doubt. Consider, instead, what we will face later this century if the Greenland ice sheet melts (20 foot rise in global sea levels), or if the Antartic ice sheets melt (add dozens of additional feet). Then we can talk about a cost-benefit analysis that considers the potential cost of doing nothing (also known as the Business As Usual scenario). 100 million Bangladeshis will be homeless if sea levels rise more than a foot or two. That’s a real (i.e. potential) cost that we might want to consider, as a start, in crafting energy policy.
Jim,
What is intellectually dishonest is that you never answer my questions, you just point out how you believe I’m a denier for asking them.
If you have a link that actually answers this legitimate question (I’m sorry if you think this is muddying the waters, but it’s a completely relevant question):
In the history of natural climate cycles, has there EVER been a time when a drop in CO2 preceded temperature decline?
If yes, please show me a link to this information.
If no, then a follow up question:
Why are we to believe that if we decrease CO2 emissions now, that it would CAUSE a drop in temperatures (or cause a drop in the rate of increase)?
You continue to cite the idea that human caused climate change does not necessarily follow the same patterns as natural changes, but then on what are we basing the modelling? If we’re not assuming that our human generated CO2 will do what the naturally generated CO2 does (but will do it to a greater extent), then what are we assuming?
Jim, there may be a perfectly acceptable answer to these questions, and if so, I simply want to hear it in order for all of this to make sense to me.
I’m sorry that you think that I am “like all of the deniers” or that you believe I’m a partisan. Perhaps you are going to continue to focus on that and continue not answering my actual questions. If so, then perhaps there is someone else who will provide the answers because the fact is that I’m not a denier, I just truly want to know. If the answers are there, if there is evidence that really does support the hypothesis that efforts to decrease CO2 emissions really will help curb global warming, then I will become a believer (though I’ll continue to assert that there is no such thing as ‘consensus’ and people can and must continue to question).
However, since so far no one has actually showed me the answer to these questions, and since asking the questions provokes this outcry about partisanship, ‘muddying the waters’, etc, I can’t help but suspect that the answers aren’t as clear cut as many people would like us to think that they are. Please, please, stop telling me that 90% of all scientists believe this or that the rest of the world believes it and that’s why we should believe it. Can’t someone explain in layman’s terms WHY they believe it? If not, why can’t you explain it? I admit to not knowing all of the jargon and background information to understand the complexities, but I’m sure I could grasp the basics if someone would just EXPLAIN the damn theory and be willing to answer actual questions about it.
Stop telling me that the questions about the theory are “junk science”. If they are so, then a simple answer to the question will show why the theory holds up to scrutiny. When the responses to such questions always hinge on casting aspersions on the people who ask them, it makes me suspicious that perhaps the theory doesn’t hold up so well. If I’m wrong, then prove it.
BTW, Jim, you continually criticize “global warming deniers” by comparing them to Creationists or believers in ID. Well, perhaps your way of dealing with that latter group is to say that they are wackos and I’m sure it’s true that there are people in that group who won’t listen no matter what you say. However, isn’t it better for scientists to give factual information that supports the theory of evolution, rather than resorting to name calling? Isn’t it true that if someone says “I don’t believe that there’s enough evidence to support the idea that man evolved from apes” that you could calmly point out a number of facts that do give support to the theory, and that you could explain the concepts in a way that could be understood by the average person with at least a high school education?
And if you were to do that, reasonable people would hear what you were saying and if they previously didn’t understand evolutionary theory and were wondering whether or not the ID’ers ideas had any merit, they would hear what you said and realize that it made a whole lot more sense and was supported by the evidence.
If that is true, then why isn’t the same thing true about climate change theory? Why do you have to resort to saying that “all scrutiny is not equal” rather than just answering what you believe to be dumb questions? Just answer the thing and be done with it.
Kim, Oil companies know a lot about the energy industry but you complain all of the time about the Bush administration letting them write their own legislation and I agree with you on that complaint. They have knowledge, but they also have a huge conflict of interest. The same is true for Gore because he profits from carbon offsets and from the policies he’s promoting, as well as profitting from the lecture circuit by promoting fear of catastrophic global warming. That is why we should have a jaundiced view of what he is saying and scrutinize it very carefully.
Mikkel,
When you bring up the type of policies that Gore is promoting, you seem to be saying that conservatives should automatically embrace them because they aren’t all traditional liberal big govt solutions. Well, shouldn’t we also examine the actual proposals and determine whether or not we think they will be efficacious and cost effective rather than having a knee jerk reaction of “well, this is a market based solution and therefore as a conservative I should support it”?
CS-
Unless you and I are trained scientists in the field, we fully understand neither the questions nor the answers. We can have only partial understanding.
We must rely on evaluating the logic of the presentation and decide whom to trust for a higher level understanding.
It’s in the nature of science, that it seldom produces 100% guaranteed answers.
The remaining questions are part of science.
In the same way, when a doctor pronounces a diagnosis, it’s rare that he is 100% sure. He is giving his best estimate.
You present questions as if having them is prima facie evidence of error in the theory. Also, if you truly want scientific answers, you shouldn’t be asking them from a bunch of amateurs; read the scientific papers for answers.
Climatology and global warming are not new; they’ve been around for decades. The current scientific majority consensus wasn’t hatched yesterday; it’s the product of mountains of scientific analysis over many, many years.
The consensus at present is that action needs to be taken now, or we run the risk of waiting too long.
If you want to stand with your questions, that is your prerogative.
I choose to side with the scientific consensus and support the call for action now. Why? Because I trust broad scientific opinion more than I trust questions.
I wouldn’t delay treatment for a disease that has received the same diagnosis from 2 doctors on the basis that I, a non-doctor, have questions about the nature of my disease.
domajot,
I have tried to read the technical literature and I haven’t found the answers I’m looking for. I’m asking for someone else here who might have expertise or understanding of this field of science, to either address the questions or direct me to specific articles that give the answers (if such answers exist). Being pointed to a website with hundreds of articles doesn’t help because I don’t have endless time; there are people who comment here who do have some training in this field or related ones, who agree with the AGW theory and should be able to explain it to others and provide some links to evidence.
CS asks:
No, it’s not relevant in that natural cycles don’t necessarily reflect what happens when people get involved in altering the chemistry of the atmosphere and the environment at the same time. You criticize me for saying so because somehow you think that it invalidates the models. Read this article from NASA. It goes over the basics in a readable form including modeling the environment. The models don’t have to depend purely on the past. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known for over a century. It is verified. In fact speculation on its effect on our climate goes back to the famous chemist Arrhenius as the article points out. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Or are you trying to deny that fact? It is not the strongest one but it is the one we produce in the greatest quantity. If you cannot comprehend a fact so basic as the idea that reducing the amount of a greenhouse gas in the system would help ameliorate the problem then no article no matter how simplified is capable of reaching you.
I linked to an article on realclimate. While the site might have hundreds of articles I only linked to one specific article that pointed out that to think that to believe that an 800 year lead in a period of increasing temperature that lasted for 5000 years is a fallacy. It cited the peer reviewed paper that pointed out the 800 year lead time that deniers love to point out. What they don’t like to hear is that the same paper points out that the lead time cannot be considered to logically lead to a conclusion that CO2 does not contribute to warming.
While you are forced to admit that the energy companies have a conflict of interest so do people like Al Gore. This claim is closely related to the accusations that all scientists who claim that AGW is true do so to get their research grants. This is of course similar to pointing out that since a mouse and elephant both have four feet and a tail that they are virtually identical. Energy company profits are in the billions for each of the multinational oil companies alone.
You lecture me on how I should address reasonable people. Show me the reasonable people. Your statements, the questions you choose to ask and the way you ignore the facts that are pointed out to you do little to persuade me that you are one.
Jim,
I’m not trying to lecture you, I’m just responding to you in this way because conversing with you is so frustrating. Any question that I could possibly ask in order to try to understand this is going to be interpreted by you as a “denier’s question”. I’ve repeatedly explained that I simply want to understand but instead of a straight explanation you have to criticize the questions. Just once I’d love to have an exchange with you where you didn’t suspect me of having ulterior motives.
I DO understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it contributes to warming. But if it is not the initial cause of the warming, and scientists don’t know all of the factors that cause the initial warming, then there is reason to ask whether or not the CO2 levels matter as much as the models are saying they do (and if there is an answer to that question, I simply want to hear it…I am not interested in trying to distort, even though you probably still will not believe that). Those other factors, assuming we’re not doing anything to affect them, could easily cancel out other effects if we manipulate CO2.
AND…even if CO2 is a major contributor to the warming, it doesn’t necessarily follow that a decrease in CO2 would lead to cooling or reduction in the rate of warming. Is it not plausible that once the warming occurs, other factors are also causing feedback effect and if we don’t know enough to address those other factors, then it’s possible that even great reductions in CO2 will not cause a downward trend in temperature? Putting accelerants on a fire cause the fire to flare up, but when you stop adding them, the fire doesn’t cool or go out automatically because other fuel is there to burn. Why is that question so illogical that it (in your view) could only come from someone who doesn’t want to see the truth? It’s just a question and if someone will answer it I’ll stop asking.
Now, the NASA link you provided: it’s a good straightforward primer, but really didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, and it raises the same questions I’m asking without answering them (stating the large effects of water vapor and other gases, that there is disagreement about how water vapor and cloud cover affect the models, and that temp and CO2 levels don’t have a strictly linear relationship). The info about the accurate predictions of the GSIS models was interesting and I’ll have to look into that further because this article listed two predictions that proved accurate but then doesn’t give details about what their future predictions are or on what basis they’re making the predictions.
Finally, Jim, on the issue of conflict of interest, you are comparing apples to oranges. Each individual scientist has a potential conflict of interest. You state the billions of dollars at stake in the oil industry, but scientists who accept funding from them only have that amount of funding at stake, not the billions. Likewise, the scientists who form the consensus on AGW have at stake the funding of their research (and any reputable ones who dissent have at stake their inability to get funds through govt and traditional means, and their inability to get published in biased peer review journals now that it’s been established that you must be a quack if you dissent from the status quo). If you’re going to talk about the billions that the OIL industry has at stake, the counterpart on the other side would be the sum total of the environmentalist lobby, which is quite considerable.
CS,
This site does a pretty good job of addressing most, if not all, of your questions.
Jim,
Well, thanks for the link Jim but it’s sad that they have to choose a name like that for the site instead of just a straightforward description of it as a site for information. I’ll try to keep an open mind and read it despite being immediately turned off as usual by the name calling and propaganda quality.
The facts are good and provide clear explanations, CS. What can I say? Maybe they launched it soon after a certain book by a blonde hyper-conservative pundit came out.
C. Stanley,
Sorry, but reputable climate scientists are not part of the “environmentalist lobby.” Having met some of them, I can tell you they take great pains to avoid making statements they can’t back up with peer-reviewed data, and for the most part are indeed inherently conservative in their conclusions.
The idea that climate scientists, marine biologists, and a host of others who conduct research that is germane to the discussion of climate change are somehow biasing their conclusions and/or conspiring to get research funding, or better yet, working with liberal groups and/or Al Gore to influence US public opinion (which I am not claiming you have stated) is simply delusional. But unfortunately it is the stuff of which many discussions on the right, as in Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, and even George Will, are made of. And, unlike the media in the EU, Australia, Asia, and most of the rest of the world, the US media still treats this issue like a “he said, she said” political debate, with equal weight afforded to “both sides.” I suggest that if you want to follow what the rest of the world is saying about this issue, try http://www.climateark.org. You can ignore the editorializing and simply read what this site’s search engine pulls up, which is every article in English on the web that mentions climate change/global warming worldwide. You will quickly realize that we (the US) are totally isolated on this issue, and I would assert that it is not necessarily because we are correct or are being well-served by our media’s treatment of the complexities of the issue either. Just one person’s opinion!
Unfortunately the scientific “experts” on the side of the denial industry could literally fit in a one-room schoolhouse. It’s the same bunch of folks, and I could provide you with the list if you like, but apart from Richard Lindzen (who has not published much in years) they are not exactly authorities in their fields, to say the least. Several are well past retirement age and probably about as mentally active as Reagan in his last year as President.
While the handful of environmental groups that lobby extensively on AGW (with the exception of Greenpeace, which does engage in polemics on a wide range of issues) are also engaged in fundraising, their efforts are not even remotely comparable (as in, less than 1% in the aggregate!) of the profits of Exxon-Mobil, which made tens of billions in PROFITS in the last year (I think the figure was 46 billion in 2006). So to conflate/equate the two sides as somehow “balanced” is more than inaccurate – it’s factually incorrect.
Your argument on feedback loops and assertion that cuts in CO2 emissions may not be productive might turn out to be correct in time. But the consensus (sorry, there it is again!) is that emissions cuts over time will lead to a reduction in the degree of warming, not a cessation of warming in the lifetime of anyone now alive. If your argument is correct we are in for a very nasty ride indeed. But I will be putting my time, money and energy (more than a bit of the latter two) on the bet that renewable energy, efficiency, and cuts in emissions are worth trying. I would rather not be paying good money to the Saudis for their oil so that they can finance schools to produce young men who hate us. But again, perhaps I am a minority on this site?
ewoc,
The problem I have with your logic here is that the current proposals amount to putting all of our eggs in the carbon basket. I have no problem with the idea of ending our oil dependency and I think we need to do that for a whole host of reasons, so I’m not trying to fight that general concept. What does worry me though, is that people like Gore seem to have dug in their heels on the issue of CO2 being either the major, or a major, driver of climate change and I’m concerned that we may well be missing the bigger picture.
So when I hear people from the “denier camp” making statements that do logically challenge the role of CO2 (not challenge it as in, it doesn’t have an effect at all, but in the sense of not being as significant as some are suggesting), I simply want to hear the science that would rebut those arguments. It really, really concerns me when those questions are asked without satisfactory answers being given, or worse yet, when people are ridiculed or have their reputations impuned for asking the questions.
And I do think there’s a point to be made about cost/benefit as well as how policies will affect global development. Kyoto exempted developing nations because it was recognized that impoverished economies can’t handle that type of regulation; but then partly due to those exemptions, Kyoto would have way too small of an effect. So how could we possibly balance those interests? Do you have any thoughts on that? It may not be a reason to do nothing, but in my mind it’s certainly a reason to pause and reflect on whether or not what we’re trying to do will really have any benefit anyway.