How much longer is the world going to listen to that lying hypocrite, Al Gore, spewing specious scientific hypotheses and trying to explain away obvious flaws in the political scam that is global warming?
“We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change”
“It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”
There is little or no physical proof that what Al Gore says is true. Only the output of crude computer models which may have flawed assumptions, poor programming and heavily manipulated input data. A digital representation of the analog message “Repent, the end of the world is near.”
A plea for energy dependence from the former Vice President and democrat party representative who fought energy independence for decades?
“Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.”
The answer, of course, is clean, sustainable, cost effective nuclear energy – which has been fought by the socialists, leftists and communists to deny the United States further ability to develop nuclear weaponry and thus maintain its status as a superpower.
Gore attempts to explain away the ongoing controversy over errors and revelations of malfeasance or worse …
It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.
Gore conveniently forgets that the IPCC claimed that their publication was “peer reviewed” and representative of a “consensus” of thinking on global climate issues. The peer review process is designed not to verify, corroborate or lend credence to the submitted article, but to prepare it for publication by eliminating the obvious errors and omissions that would be recognized by the author’s peers; as well as to improve the article’s understandability, readability and clarity. Obviously not something the IPCC’s report really achieved.
Many of the errors were known prior to the report’s publication and ignored in order to maximize media attention. And as we have seen from the released emails, the peer review process was covertly subverted by threats and coercion, implied or real, by some of the top climate scientists in the world.
As for the “make work” aspect of the Freedom of Information requests, perhaps someone should tell Gore that science is supposed to be open and aboveboard. That many of the articles appearing in the journal featured science that could not be verified or replicated due to the lack of access to the underlying data and/or programs which manipulated the data. Again, the emails show a pattern that deliberately obstructed the release of the underlying data. Partly to cover the fact that the data was either cherry-picked to produce a given result or that the original datasets had gone missing and couldn’t be produced. And partly to avoid an open and honest debate which would have shown that some of the assumptions and manipulative techniques were significantly flawed.
Another big lie about “the consensus” …
“But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.”
Yes, there will always be procedural errors in science, hence the scientific method which calls for an open and free exchange of scientific data, findings and methodology. So, by the very nature of the scientific process, the science is not settled.
And about that consensus, many of the IPCC members contributed or reviewed only part of the submitted works. Many of these panel members are more political representatives of their respective organizations than they are working scientists. And it should be noted that many scientists have been forced into silence due to the demands of their institutions (which were receiving multi-million dollar grants from governments and foundations) and the peer pressure of some of their fellow scientists who threatened to impair their access to data, computing time, publication opportunities and to participate in the overall program.
Attempting to explain away an obvious Winter cold streak …
“Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.”
If Gore was honest, he would simply say that the weather, whether local or global, does not tend to indicate anything as the timescales demanded for climate trends are measured in hundreds, if not thousands of years. And that the short-term temperature rise – since we may be still recovering from the last ice age – is statistically and practically irrelevant to the discussion of global climate change. It also helps to remember that:
One, we do not know much more than the climate appears to be cyclical and we do not know its periodicity nor its maximum/minimum amplitude;
Two, we do not know where in the cycle we may be;
Three, we do not know the optimum global temperature of the Earth;
Four, our historical temperature measurements are deeply flawed given the nature of the instrumentation, their placement and their interpretation over time;
Five, we do not know if our measurements will allow us to measure any significant change to the weather that would not be overshadowed by the inherent variability of the phenomenon itself. It helps to understand that we are speaking of tenths of a degree in global temperature fluctuation over yearly periods.
Six, scientists openly acknowledge that the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more CO2 and less CO2 – and in periods where man’s influence was non-existent;
Seven, scientists acknowledge that the Sun’s output, our orbital path, the Earth’s precession and rotational dynamics, the volcanic activity and plate tectonics, the oceans depth and currents are all likely to have significantly greater effects than a minor greenhouse gas such as CO2. In fact, the mechanism of the premier greenhouse gas, water vapor, is still poorly understood – but it appears to be a self-regulating feedback mechanism.
Eight, the rise in the CO2 concentration, rather than being the cause of global warming, appears to be caused by the warming of the oceans and the rise in CO2 levels lags the rise in temperature, often by 600 or more years;
And nine, the weather researchers do not discuss the benefits of a warmer climate and greater carbon dioxide concentration to provide a balanced and objective presentation.
Demonization of the contrary view …
“Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.
“The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.”
Notice that Gore wants to characterize those who believe differently by using the pejorative “deniers,” instead of the more benign “skeptics.” The clown does not realize that science is a skeptical process – continually testing the status quo. This term, usually associated with the abhorrent term “holocaust” denier marks the depths to which Gore must sink to make his argument.
Forget about Gore’s attempt to explain a cold January and concentrate on the fact that a significant number of global measurement stations were deliberately omitted from research results – only 1 station out of a hundred or more of existing stations was used to report all of the arctic temperatures above Canada. Other stations were found to be inappropriately located where they reported not on legitimate temperature readings, but were influenced by man-made interference such as air-conditioning, heat-absorbing asphalt, etc.. These stations measured nothing much more significant than the “heat island” effect of urban populations – and raised the apparent temperatures used to calculate so-called global warming.
Science according to the Goracle …
“Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period.”
So it is Al Gore’s intention to allow the gross pollution to continue by allowing the polluters to buy government and private indulgences to continue their polluting ways rather than clean up the air, water and land pollution they spew forth. All costs of these indulgences to be borne by the ratepayers and the general public. Governments profit by becoming larger, exerting more centralized control and raising taxes. Gore and his buddies profit by selling and trading these pollution credits. The special interests profit because they can raise their rates and/or receive government subsidies and grants from the taxpayer’s hard-earned funds. And the thought that some forest in lower crapistan can serve as the basis for these credits is ridiculous; especially as people continue to suffer and die from the local pollution. Even if all industrial activity were to cease this very moment, we would not know the effects on the climate for 600 to 1000 years, if ever. We will be dead and the fruits of our labor secure in the government’s coffers or in the hands of the heirs to the present day robber barons.
“Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.”
Gore, the dumb son-of-a bitch, is so stupid as not to realize that the storms are more influenced by the cyclical warming and cooling of the oceans and its current flows than pollution and its effects.
Though there have been impressive efforts by many business leaders, hundreds of millions of individuals and families throughout the world and many national, regional and local governments, our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them.
And in spite of President Obama’s efforts at the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December, global leaders failed to muster anything more than a decision to “take note” of an intention to act.
What efforts – flying in to give a speech on the way to pick up an unearned Nobel Peace Prize awarded by a group of socialists hoping to diminish the world influence of the United States and pick the pockets of its taxpayers?
“Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution.”
If this wasn’t such a blatant ploy to screw the United States, and the benefits to Europe were clearly demonstrable, the EU would have taken independent action like they have done many times in the past.
“The political paralysis that is now so painfully evident in Washington has thus far prevented action by the Senate — not only on climate and energy legislation, but also on health care reform, financial regulatory reform and a host of other pressing issues.”
Al Gore, ever the democrat/socialist seeking to push a toxic far-left political agenda on Americans. One could imagine Gore, if elected, being a tad moderate than President Obama.
“This comes with painful costs. China, now the world’s largest and fastest-growing source of global-warming pollution, had privately signaled early last year that if the United States passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty. When the Senate failed to follow the lead of the House of Representatives, forcing the president to go to Copenhagen without a new law in hand, the Chinese balked. With the two largest polluters refusing to act, the world community was paralyzed.”
China is not an honest player in world politics and remains fundamentally at odds with our political system. They cannot be trusted, either as an ally or trading partner. To believe that they would diminish their sovereign interests to benefit the world is ludicrous and unbelievably naive.
Moving from climate to the real goal: the domination of socialism …
Why would Al Gore deviate from his message of global warming into the realm of socialism if it was simply a matter of settled science supported by the consensus of scientists?
The decisive victory of democratic capitalism over communism in the 1990s led to a period of philosophical dominance for market economics worldwide and the illusion of a unipolar world. It also led, in the United States, to a hubristic ‘bubble’ of market fundamentalism that encouraged opponents of regulatory constraints to mount an aggressive effort to shift the internal boundary between the democracy sphere and the market sphere. Over time, markets would most efficiently solve most problems, they argued. Laws and regulations interfering with the operations of the market carried a faint odor of the discredited statist adversary we had just defeated.”
If Gore weren’t so damn stupid, he would have realized the global financial crisis had its roots in government intervention in free-market policies – and that his democrat buddies were corruptly complicit in bringing the world to economic disaster.
This period of market triumphalism coincided with confirmation by scientists that earlier fears about global warming had been grossly understated. But by then, the political context in which this debate took form was tilted heavily toward the views of market fundamentalists, who fought to weaken existing constraints and scoffed at the possibility that global constraints would be needed to halt the dangerous dumping of global-warming pollution into the atmosphere.
Socialist playbook: demonizing big business …
“Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.”
The science has not become clearer and clearer … it has become more murky because as we learn more, we begin to realize how much more there is to learn. Demonizing all of business with the taint of the tobacco industry is disingenuous. First, the government, with all of their medical knowledge, did not outlaw killer tobacco. And second, they screwed the American public – both on health issues and in the wallet, by applying increasing taxes which served only to fuel government excesses and not alleviate medical impacts as was once imagined.
Socialist playbook: playing the class card …
Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.
Gore is truly an asshat. Most of the mainstream media slants definitely left and has given a pass to those leftists in government and their wacky political policies. Gore appears to be speaking of a small minority of media outlets in cable television and talk radio who actually give their critics a chance to respond and make their point. If the left really had a superior message and a product – instead of continual whining – Air America would not be in bankruptcy.
Socialist playbook: use their laws against them to subvert their causes …
“From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.”
The democrats speak of social justice, economic justice and people’s rights as if everyone was a victim and did not receive an equal opportunity to achieve – rather than a guaranteed right to achieve. Look at Gore’s privileged upbringing and draw your own conclusions. I think he is a sniveling coward that typifies the far-left “do as I say, don’t do as I do” limousine liberal.
The wrong existential threat is identified …
“We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.”
The existential threat to our nation is not global warming, it is corrupt and complacent politicians seeking to perpetuate their political power, line their pocketbooks and tell us all how to live as the ruling (not governing) class. Churchill was right, we need to purge our government and their advisors of people like Al Gore and his fellow travelers.
Bottom line …
Al Gore is a lying scumbag who will do or say anything to pursue his agenda of self-interest: money, power and self-aggrandizement as the savior of the planet. A man who lacks the balls to debate knowledgeable skeptics and hides behind a phalanx of security guards which control media access. The Barack Obama-style media control program.
If you believe in global warming, fine. Base it on verifiable facts delivered by honest brokers, not emotion. If not, continue raising your concerns.
-- steve
Reference Links:
Op-Ed Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com
Suspect this will not be posted because it is a threat to your beliefs. That is not "fair and balanced", but am not surprised a denier would do that. http://www.alternet.org/environment/145609/how_to_answer_the_dumb_things_climate_deniers_say.
===========================================
On the contrary, many of us welcome the conversation and do not hide the truth -- unlike many of the leading scientists at the CRU (Climate Research Unit) and elsewhere. I am not a denier, but a skeptic. What I believe is there is constant global climate change, but relatively insignificant input from man and little or nothing man can do about it. I also believe that everyone should have a voice and be able to argue their position -- it's the American way. Instead of just responding with a link, can you point to something that is obviously wrong. Of course, my perjorative characterization of Al Gore is my personal belief ... but the rest of it is open to argument.
Why did you presupose that I wouldn't publish your comment and link. Obviously you haven't read some of the comments (see the right-hand side-bar) that have been made: both good and bad. Some think I am a loon while others agree. State your case and have at it -- I'm here and not going anywhere soon. (I hope) -- steve
P.S. took some time to read your link -- much of it makes no sense in light of scientific findings. Pick one and we'll discuss it -- you and me and all of my readers. -- steve
Posted by: owl | February 28, 2010 at 01:31 AM