Gore Scenario
OpinionJournal – Extra — Here’s a nice essay on Global warming saying that debate is indeed still active. The essayist is no slouch either.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.
found by Jeff Mele
A good article. Thanks.
I have to wonder about one thing and this doesn’t have much to do with the article, or the debate as to the existance of an issue or not.
My one problem is just because we’re not sure, why would one want to polute the planet in the first place? Is it all just money?
Hmmm. WSJ. Does this mean I can write a rebuttal with citations from Mother Jones? How is this any different than asking Bruce Chapman if there’s still any debate over the theory of evolution? đ
John, you are such a troll.
And the nature of this continuing debate is…? Whether the polar ice is melting? Seems observaable.
Whether ALL scientists agree that human activity is causing it? Granted there is room for debate as to the extent of human contribution vs. cyclical fluctuations. And there is a hell of a lot of room for differences of opinion based on who is paying who. But I’m not sure that is anything more than a exercise in give a “pass” to corporate America. Polar ice is still melting.
Whether Florida will be underwate once the polar ice has melted as much as it is going to? Could be the one major upside to this.
Whether climate changes will cause major shifts in global economics to the detriment of America? Who cares? America’s singular focus on now assures we deserve whatever happens.
Whether Americans are capable of acting in a way to try to slow the inevitable down? See “polar ice is melting” and “America’s singular focus on now” and the debate may still be on, but it doesn’t matter.
kballwg –
Not all polar ice contributes to rising sea levels. Melting of ice that is over water, as in the Arctic Ocean, does not cause a rise in sea levels. Only melting of ice that is over land, such as Greenland or Antarctica changes the level of the seas.
Twin spin cycle as the left and right go round and round. Too bad⌠the world as we know it may be in balance. The few people in the public who might care can’t decipher the truth from the BS.
One clue might be in evaluating the messengers. Those who prefer to believe the great ooga booga in the sky has all the answers may be less reliable in these times than those who subscribe to scientific methods.
Unfortunately it’s become fashionable – even among scholars – to genuflect before the pabulum of politically correct equal time provisions. Right then; weâll ascribe equal credibility to utterances from any orifice — whether flatulence or insight, all deserves a fairing airing.
Is this 2006? Do people still expect intelligence to emanate from an ass?
That’s melting too.
The dude’s logic is pitiful. Since people don’t understand science, we’ll leave science out of the discussion.
May be satisfactory for Friday night at the American Legion bar. Not for an event requiring science and understanding to counter superstition and ignorance.
I bet Mr. Lindzen really enjoyed his $2500 a day consult fee from the coal and oil industry back in the 90’s. No bias there!
As STA alluded to, it’s just wrong to pollute. Global Warming is just a way to muddy the waters.
Recent global warming news from the “National Academies of Science”.
Sure looks like a “scientific concensus” to me.
Another day, another skeptical article on global warming posted by John. And yet another article whose author and/or quoted authorities were previously/are currently paid for by the energy industry. I think it’s safe to assume John has an agenda he’s pushing, regardless of its credibility.
Now I simply wonder if you’ll be discreetly censoring this post even though it violates no posting guidelines–just like an earlier post I made on a different story relating to this topic…
Hardly back to square one. Does Mr. Dvorak post this sort of fertilizer just to get a rise out of readers? The thing that bothers me is that in the debate on global warming, such that it is, you can have 1000 actual climate scientists, the National Academy of Science and myriad other researchers on one side saying “Yes, global warming is real and that which cannot be accounted for by natural factors has been shown to be caused by humans” while on the other side you can have 10 scientists (and a bunch of politicians) getting funding from big oil who say “No, global warming is not real” and it gets reported as if both sides should carry equal weight.
Does anyone remember big tobacco and all the tobacco scientists pushing study after study saying that not only did not smoking not cause cancer, it might actually be good for you!? SSDD
Oh yeah, before I forget, you can get the skinny on what real scientists are saying at http://realclimate.org.
RealClimate.Org is not home to a bunch of left wing tree hugging doom sayers. It’s a place where you can get the straight poop. They even picked nits over Al Gore’s movie to see what he got wrong (not very much) and what he got right (most of it.) The WSJ opinion page is not the place to go for anything other than red meat for the right wing.
The Earth, although an insignificant mote in the universal scheme of things, is far larger and more complex than Humanity can conceive. Before we try to save the Earth, which probably can get by without our assistance, perhaps we should simply concentrate on preserving our species. Things like dealing with out of control population growth, massive amounts of pollution, deforestation, epidemics, war and conservation of resources would help us, and by extension, the Earth.
The Earth can and will outlast Humanity, whatever wounds we inflict will heal, and we will become yet another failed evolutionary experiment, like the dinosaurs.
Okay, if the argument of global warming is still open, where does the argument of the existance of gravity stand?
What is this guy, another Egyptian, because he sure is living in denial?
What’s so bad about being wrong about Global Warming when the suggested actions to prevent bring other benefits in addition to preventing “Global Warming”?
Wouldn’t it be nice to actually breathe in city air and not feel sick?
Actually Global Warming has many benefits. More trees growing, longer growing season, warmer climates in the north, etc. Keep in mind that the effect of warming according to these scientists models, has most of the warming happening at night, in the winter, and at the poles.
Actually Global Warming has many benefits…
See, kids? This is what happens when you huff auto exhaust for prolonged periods…
Cripes. And exactly who feels sick just breathing city air? Not that I do not prefer the sweet smell of a sea breeze.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT. Sloan, if you forget, was the man who made GM what it used to be, so his position at MIT is funded by gas-guzzling greenhouse gremlins.
John Kerry was FOR global warming before he was against it.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT
yeah, REAL good point skunky — you obviously can’t trust someone who holds a professorship endowed 50 years ago by some philanthropist who made cars, natch.
That’s why I don’t trust Stephen Hawking or Isaac Newton, that Lucas guy was a neoconservative fascist.
Actually Global Warming has many benefitsâŚ
See, kids? This is what happens when you huff auto exhaust for prolonged periodsâŚ
ABCD is right, OF COURSE global warming has benefits, as well as costs. The question is, what is the net? Elementary stuff, though it escapes most people. If you do not understand and accept this, you certainly are not thinking intelligently about global warming.
#18, AB CD, actually, no. While the average weather might be warmer, the weather patterns will become more violent. Witness what the warmer Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico did to hurricanes last year. Droughts will be longer an hotter. Tornadoes will become stronger and more deadly as superheated air hits cooler air more frequently.
And while plants use CO2 as a âfoodâ, humans don’t. The plants that would benefit the most from more CO2 are the noxious weeds, not the food crops.
Elementary stuff, though it escapes most people. If you do not understand and accept this, you certainly are not thinking intelligently about global warming.
Nice try. The operative word is “net”. Which, when summed, moves benefits into the neglible category. It is quite possible to consider multiple outcomes and still reject some of them. You can give 2 + 2 = 5 equal time and it doesn’t change the answer.
To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore’s movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
“… a likely result…”
Oh come on!
I’m not a Professor at MIT and I can do a Google search and find:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020606greenland.html
First sentence: “New measurements show that the flow of ice in the Greenland ice sheet has been accelerating since 1996 during the summer melt season.”
The next to last paragraph should scare the crap out of anybody with a brain, whether global warming is a natural cycle or not:
“…previous studies have shown that during the last Interglacial period, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere were relatively high, temperatures may have been higher than the present, and sea level may have been approximately 6 meters (19.5 feet) higher.”
#27: Oh, I can’t imagine he cares less about that. I think he just digs winding people up. After a while, this sort of thing turns into an ant colony — everybody pokes it with a stick sooner or later.
I hate to break it to the believers and nonbelievers but evan if it is true we can not change it. This is why it is such BS to think by lifestile changes are going to stop it. And yes it is all about money. there is just as much money to be made being a green I know many people who have made a career crying the sky is falling and telling other people if they would spend a little more and do with less it will be OK. EVERYBODY has an AGENDA
evan if it is true we can not change it.
And the basis for this claim is?
It’s really pretty simple.
The economy of the entire world is powered by chemically combusting oil, natural gas and coal that has been accumulating for about 100 MILLION YEARS.
Our current, brilliant strategy is to BURN IT ALL, so as to keep the economy humming along.
So far, we have only consumed less than 1/4 of the total and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 1/3. (280 ppm +/- 10 pre-industrial vs. 380 ppm now).
The dummies at Oak Ridge National Labs offiacilly report that:
“It seems clear that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing and that it is now in a range that has not been experienced in 20 million years.”
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NO PROBLEM!
Let’s just go Jurassic and warm the poles up to tropical temperatures – I’m sure that Beavis and Butthead will endorse that idea in the Wall Street Urinal.
If anyone wants to see what the scientists at Oak Ridge National Labs have to say:
“The Increasing Concentration of Atmospheric CO2: How Much, When and Why?”
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/other/Sicilypaper.pdf