I wrote my recent post on Al Gore primarily to contest the characterization of this crusading environmentalist as a thinking man. He may have reached his conclusions about the threat of global warming based upon sound science, but in leading a movement to impose strict government controls on carbon emissions, he conducts himself not as a rational man of ideas, but as an emotional man of convictions.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the science of global warming. I do claim, however, to be aware of the debate within the scientific community on anthropogenic global warming and to what extent it can be mitigated by government action. Indeed, in that post, I cited a piece by Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of Meteorology at MIT, who has long contested the notion of a scientific consensus on global warming.
Our critics, however, are quick to dismiss his work and the other atmospheric scientists who have views similar to his own so they can make the case that the science is settled. Far from it.
That Gore, no environmental scientist he, would so readily dismiss the work of serious scientists like Lindzen confirms my point that he is not a thinking man. This ready dismissal makes me wonder why so many of Gore’s followers are so insistent than the science is settled? To be sure, in many many disciplines of the natural and social sciences, many issues have long been settled. This is not one of them.
One would think that thinking men would be eager to engage those who, through the scientific process, have reached conclusions at odds with their own. And, if they are thinking men, confident in their arguments, wouldn’t they welcome the chance to debate those who have reached such conclusions? If the science behind those conflicting conclusions is so shoddy, it should be easy to debunk.
A task a thinking man would welcome.
Gore can be dismissed in three words “Man-bear-pig” There are just some episodes of South Park that really hit the spot.
“One would think that thinking men would be eager to engage those who, through the scientific process, have reached conclusions at odds with their own.”
You are not be consistent here. You admit the obvious, Gore is not a climate scientist. Yet you keep insisting that he must debate dissenting scientists (what I assume you mean by ” those who, through the scientific process, have reached conclusions at odds…”).
Dissenting scientists are debated ALL THE TIME. By other scientists. Thus far they have lost all those debates. Thats not my judgement – it is the judgement of those doing the arguing, the climate science community. If the dissenters had valid points, they would be accepted. They don’t, so they aren’t. It really isnt any more complicated than that.
I guess we should be asking – why is it that you keep insisting that a non-scientist debate the dissenting scientists? Why do you refuse to accept the verdict from the debate amongst scientists from both sides, that happens all the time?
No, Tano, I’m not insisting that Al Gore debate dissenting scientists. I am saying one reason it’s silly to call him a thinking man is his refusal to debate.
You am would be too, perhaps? I ain’t never seen none like that before, nairnone.
Lord Monckton isn’t a scientician and he relishes a debate with the perfidious rotund one.
“I am saying one reason it’s silly to call him a thinking man is his refusal to debate.”
So if he doesn’t debate dissenting scientists, who do you want him to debate? Even more to the point, WHAT do you want him to debate?
Whether anthropogenic global warming is real? That would be a waste of everyone’s time – its a scientific question, and if you want an informative debate, ask two scientists to debate. Unless of course you hope to find someone who is a better BSer that Gore, and just have it be some Crossfire like shouting match.
Now if you have some policy wonks who accept the notion of anthropogenic global warming, but who have different policy ideas for how to deal with it, then you might have an interesting exchange – because that is Gore’s field.
But again, those types of debates, between similar pairs of opponents, happen all the time. Why does it have to be Gore?
I am beginning to suspect that you might have a Palin-like obession with this guy.
Tano, let me repeat, the issue is calling Al Gore a thinking man’s thinking man. And the evidence suggests he’s not.
You have yet to contest that point.
And because the issue is Gore, that’s why it has to be Gore.
This whole dumbass bit you have of trying to cast Algore as a nobody schlub isn’t working. He’s made himself the high priest of the religion of Global Warmism. He’s the public face and chief propagandist.
THAT’S why. I hope your taxpayer funded job doesn’t require you to think or write because you suck royal ass at both.
Gore’s whole climate schtick is based on whether you think his claims are fact, opinion or a belief.
A “consensus of scientists” who share the same opinion or belief is hardly different from the flat earth society. What Gore and his tribe of climate worshippers do not have is any particular affinity for facts.
Their data is so skewed based in part on discredited computer modeling that objective climatologists simply reject it out of hand. When the scientific method is applied to the “facts” Gore and his consensus of scientists rely upon, the “facts” soon morph into hypothesis and discredited method.
Gore has worked hard to have his “science” declared law and to banish any who would contest him. He will not debate. When is work his “fact checked” it crumbles.
Gore has made himself fabulously wealthy peddling his climate disaster tales. Loads of people are unemployed right now and it would seem a perfect time for the entrepreneur spirit to kick start the green revolution. The problem is, for all their wit and piety, Gore, GE, and the consensus of scientists haven’t got a single product or method that is worth pursuing. Short of painting every roof and every road white, there is not much out there that has been proposed.
So, Al, the pied piper of doom, keeps charging people to follow him as he winds around in circles and stomps around the planet leaving huge carbon footprints.
No, he is Chicken Little with a coop full of consensus scientists all running around screaming “Look at me, look at me, I am right, you are doomed, the truth is inconvenient, we are lost, get with the program.”
Supposedly, that is the model for the thinking man’s thinking man.
Tano,
Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that Jenny McCarthy shouldn’t have to debate anyone when she goes on Larry King or Oprah with her “Vaccines Cause Autism” crusade, because she’s not actually a scientist, either?
Wesley.
I actually have never heard of that person. But the way to shoot down idiot theories like that is to have responsible scientists discuss the matter. I would not be interested, nor would I find it very enlightening, to hear a “debate” between two advocates or media personalities. All you get then is duelling propaganda, with the “victory” going to the one who is better at shoveling the BS. And, of course, you also tend to advantage the nutso minority side but setting up the debate in the first place – giving the impression that it is, on some level, an equally valid alternative interpretation.
But Algore is the public face. He’s the media go-to guy on global warmism. Just as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the media go-to guys on race (for some reason). That’s the thing, he and the liberal douchebag left have put him front and center, so he would be the one.
Dan, the reason why Lindzen is dismissed is because he’s wrong. His critiques never hold up; I already pointed out in your last post that his comments on Oreskes didn’t wash and his summary of satellite data was spurious. His own IRIS hypothesis is unsupported by the available evidence and his own experiments. He’s simply wrong. Yes, he has a lot of degrees. Great. But that doesn’t preclude him from being in error. He is. Constantly.
Every major scientific society on the planet involved in climatology work — disagrees with him. Everything from the Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Brazil to our own National Academy of Sciences is on record that the consensus of the research is that global climate change is occurring and its anthropogenic in nature. That’s reality.
Besides the fact that Al Gore isn’t a scientist and isn’t qualified to debate, there is about as much to debate in AGW as there is in the fact of the Germ Theory of Disease, Thermodynamics or Evolution: i.e. nothing. Whether we can do anything about the damage of AGW is another question entirely, and that’s one of the things climate scientists are debating.
. Again, Dan, respectfully, because you aren’t an expert on the science of global warming you can’t turn around and claim there’s a debate on the subject — not when the experts involved in the subject say thatclimate change is real Neither you, nor I for that matter, have the education, experience, or expertise here. There’s a limit to your knowledge and a requirement to be humble in the face of one’s limitations.
Yes, we as a country can argue over the economics involved in trying to mitigate or reverse the damage that’s been done. We can evaluate if altering the lifestyle of some 400 million Americans is going to do much in the face of AGW when you have 2billion Chinese and Indians pouring out even more of the gasses involved than we are. There’s an excellent debate here over government initiatives versus private industry. But denying the problem exists is like arguing the Earth is flat: it’s ludicrous.
Spoken like a good little lemming, “Neither you, nor I for that matter, have the education, experience, or expertise here. There’s a limit to your knowledge and a requirement to be humble in the face of one’s limitations.” The EXPERTS SYNDROME.
#13: “Yes, we as a country can argue over the economics involved in trying to mitigate or reverse the damage that’s been done. We can evaluate if altering the lifestyle of some 400 million Americans is going to do much in the face of AGW when you have 2billion Chinese and Indians pouring out even more of the gasses involved than we are. There’s an excellent debate here over government initiatives versus private industry. But denying the problem exists is like arguing the Earth is flat: it’s ludicrous.”
Jody, if there’s an excellent debate about the economics involved, then why won’t the Democrats allow such a debate to occur? The cap and trade bill passed in the House in a vote that took place after the Democrats only allowed three hours of debate. The bill was over 1200 pages and included a 300-page amendment that Waxman finished up at 2 a.m. the night before. The bill contained “place-holders” for provisions to be added after the vote stating God knows what. EPA lawyers said the bill is “fatally flawed” and an unfavorable EPA report was suppressed. Not a single representative had read the entire bill before the vote and yet the House passed it anyway. So, Jody, what good is a debate if liberals use their power to ensure that it never occurs?
Eh. A search of Teh Google shows that there are plenty of people from across the spectrum debating cap and trade. This op/ed from Wednesday notes that the bill might even be dead. You give the Democrats far more power than they have.
Oh, I see, Jody. The power of “people across the spectrum” to talk about whether cap and trade is a good idea is MORE powerful than the liberal screwball majority in Congress that can actually make it law. That is easily one of the most idiotic arguments I’ve ever seen posted on this blog.
I’m still waiting for the Democrats, who control both houses and the Executive, to make much of anything a law.
Then you haven’t been reading this blog very long, have you?