January 28, 2007

There "aren't two sides to this debate," so what's the problem, eh??

SCSU Scholars reports on how Internet creator and fledgling documentarian Al Gore failed to show up at a scheduled interview about global warming. Maybe it's 'cause the interviewer, Bjorn Lomborg, is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. At first, Gore attempted "to change the terms of the interview 24 hours before the meeting," then he just backed out completely.

How come, Al? Maybe because there is ample evidence to counter your contentions?

Also, great minds think alike: SCSU's Janet writes the following:

Today, there is no doubt the planet is warming yet in the 1970's we were told we were entering another ice age. What is it? "Climate" is weather over a long period of time - not just the last N years - take your pick, whatever fits your agenda.
Posted by Hube at January 28, 2007 11:31 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

The WSJ did a smackdown for this on Al Bore last week. I have the copy- if you want I'll email to you or fax. Let me know if you want it.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at January 28, 2007 11:44 AM

Scientifically, Al Gore is in synch with the conclusions about global warming by a majority of the global scientific community. That is a fact!
Politically, the United States and Australia have been outliers with regard to taking action to minimize global warming, although Bush finally acknowledged it in his recent SotU speech. And that is a fact!
Isn't it about time that all of us face these facts and act upon them? What will it take to convince you folks, and the WSJ editorial writers?

Posted by: Perry at January 28, 2007 12:24 PM

Scientifically, Al Gore is in synch with the conclusions about global warming by a majority of the global scientific community.

The "conclusion" that the Earth is experiencing warming is about all Gore has right.

Add Perry to the growing list of folks who can't/refuse to address the global cooling scare of 30 years ago.

Posted by: Hube at January 28, 2007 12:48 PM

Ok, Hube. I'll admit, I too went a little overboard. But it is accurate to say that there is precious little debate. An overwhelming majority of scientists (and an even larger majority of neutral scientists) know this is happening.

As for the cooling issue, there are plenty of responses. One, there have been numerous articles discussing the differences between what the scientific community believed, and the few articles in the mainstream media (I think Newsweek in '71 and several others).

Second, do you not believe progress is made in science? That is, would you argue that because scientists were intitially wrong about smoking -- and then second-hand smoke -- that they're not wrong about those things today? Climate scientists in the 70's hadn't even discovered many greenhouse gases. I believe they knew mostly about Carbon Monoxide, but were focused exclusively on that.

Third, there's the issue of scope. Global warming studies are everywhere. Republican administrations commission them and they seem to come to the same conclusions as Greenpeace or whatever far left group you can name.

Fourth -- now it's your turn to answer another of my questions, since we're proceeding rationally. Unless I missed it, you have not responded to why it's bad to cut down on greenhouse gases when there are a multitude of indisputable and immediate life-saving health benefits to us, our children, and grandchildren -- even if global warming somehow turns itself around.

Posted by: dan at January 28, 2007 01:21 PM

Given the cyclical nature of global climate change (remember, Greenland is called GREENland because of its lush vegetation when it was first discovered about 1000 years ago), there really isn't anything to worry about from the temporary warming trend we are seeing.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 28, 2007 03:58 PM

You're being serious, right?

Posted by: dan at January 28, 2007 07:37 PM

Serious as a heart attack, dan. The period of about 1300 to 1850 is often referred to as the "Little Ice Age", and temperatures have been on the rise since that time. The Little Ice Age was preceded by a warmer period of about the same duration -- a warming trend NOT caused by factories and fossil fuels or any other human activities. That period was in turn preceded by a cool period, and so on and so forth.

In other words, we are experience part of a normal, cyclical trend.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 29, 2007 06:04 AM

Rhymes with Right is correct. When the left discusses global warming, they often do so using climate data gathered after World War II. That's 60 years worth of data. A drop in the bucket. When they do look at longer trends they love the "hockey-stick" chart developed by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes. The hockey-stick is widely disputed, largely for minimizing the strength and duration of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). It's prominence in the UN report on climate change is one of the reasons congress had problems with that report.

For reference, the MWP occurred between the 10th and 13th centuries. It had temperatures similar to those seen today and appears to be strongly correlated with solar activity. When Gore is complaining about the disappearance of snow on Kilimanjaro in an Inconvenient Truth, he neglects to mention that the same thing happened in Africa during the MWP when Africa's climate dried out.

The Little Ice Age lasted from the 13th through the mid-19th centuries. It is also strongly correlated to solar activity (the Maunder Minimum).

Now temperatures are warming up? Is it correlated to solar activity? Yes. Do you ever hear about that in the media? No, all you hear about is the Greenhouse Effect.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at January 30, 2007 06:57 AM

RWR, I thought Leif Ericsson named it "Greenland" to encourage his countrymen to settle there?

Posted by: G Rex at January 30, 2007 09:41 AM

Lomborg's point, if I recall, isn't that climate change is or is not occurring; his point is that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stave off 1 degree of change, or we can use it for food and water. Or to eliminate malaria. Or whatever need seems most pressing. In other words, he's looking for the most bang for the buck, and doesn't think Kyoto or other expensive items fit the bill.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at January 31, 2007 03:50 AM