Further evidence Al Gore is full of crap. Further evidence that Al Gore doesn't care about real science. Further evidence that Al Gore is a lying sack of s***...
Al Gore has a new argument for why carbon dioxide is the global warming boogeyman -- and it’s simply out of this world.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with yet another one of his infamous slide shows, Gore observed that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Venus’ atmosphere supercharges the second-planet-from-the-sun’s greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures of about 870 degrees Fahrenheit. Gore added that it’s not Venus’ proximity to the Sun that makes the planet much warmer than the Earth, because Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. Based on this rationale, then, Gore warned that we need to stop emitting CO2 into our own atmosphere.
Incredibly, not a Senator on the Committee questioned -- much less burst into outright laughter at -- Gore’s absurd point. In fact, each Senator who spoke at the hearing, including Republicans, offered little but fawning praise for Gore. It’s hard to know whether the hearing’s lovefest was simply an example of the Senate’s exaggerated sense of collegiality, appalling ignorance and gullibility about environmental science, or fear of appearing to be less green than Gore.
It is true that atmospheric CO2 warms both Venus and the Earth, but that’s about where the CO2 commonality between the two planets ends. While the Venusian atmosphere is 97 percent CO2 (970,000 parts per million), the Earth’s atmosphere is only 0.038 percent CO2 (380 parts per million). So the Venusian atmosphere’s CO2 level is more than 2,557 times greater than the Earth’s. And since the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is increasing by only about 2 parts per million annually, our planet is hardly being Venus-ized.
Gore’s incorporation of Mercury in his argument is equally specious because Mercury doesn’t really have any greenhouse gases in its atmosphere that would capture the radiation it gets from the Sun. As a result, the daily temperature on Mercury varies from about 840 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to about -275 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Mercury’s daily temperature swing actually belies Gore’s unqualified demonization of greenhouse gases, whose heat trapping characteristics tend to stabilize climate and prevent wild temperature fluctuations.
The significance of Gore’s testimony is that the Venus scenario seems to be his new basis for claiming that CO2 drives the Earth’s climate and, hence, his call that we must stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. At no time did he refer to his two An Inconvenient Truth-era arguments concerning the relationship between CO2 and global temperature -- that is, the Antarctic ice core record that goes back 650,000 years and the 20th century temperature/CO2 record. There’s good reason for his apparent abandonment of these arguments -- presented fairly, both actually debunk global warming alarmism. (Note: This YouTube video that I produced explains this point.)
Gore seemed to “wow” the Senate Committee with images and projections of environmental and even political upheaval allegedly already caused and to be caused in the future by climate change, such as melting glaciers and the 2007 fires in Greece that, Gore says, almost brought down the government. Gore repeatedly said that global warming threatens the “future of human civilization” and could bring it to a “screeching halt” in this century. Gore said that we are on a fossil fuel “rollercoaster” that is headed for a “crash.” We are near a “tipping point,” he said, beyond which human civilization isn’t possible on this planet.
Such melodrama, of course, is necessary to conceal and distract from the fact that there is no scientific evidence indicating that manmade emissions of CO2 are having any detectable impact, much less any harm, on the Earth’s climate or its population.
During his testimony, Gore invoked the specter of James Hansen, NASA’s global warming alarmist-in-chief, to bolster his climate claims. But like the ice core and 20th century temperature records, Hansen may soon have to be dropped from Gore’s presentations.
Hansen’s former NASA supervisor -- atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, who recently announced that he is skeptical of global warming alarmism -- recently wrote to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staffer Marc Morano that, “Hansen…violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it) … [and] thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”
Commenting on another key deficiency in the manmade catastrophic global warming hypothesis, Theon also observed that “[climate] models do not realistically simulate the climate system … some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results … This is clearly contrary to how science should be done … Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
The same could be said for Gore and his slide shows.
Venus envy? Yeah, why not? There’s no Al Gore there.
New scare tactics being thrown at the wall since the last ones didn't stick.
You know what's *really* disturbing about this? The fact that noone questioned him. None of our representatives are playing hardball, keeping him honest.
You know what's *really* disturbing about this? The fact that noone questioned him. None of our representatives are playing hardball, keeping him honest.
They don't know any better. I mean they didn't even have reputable scientists come in and talk to them. I'm not sure if the ignorance is willful or not. I'd hazard to guess they are educated on the subject by TV and the misleading and out right lies that come across the screen every day.
Originally posted by fierobear: 31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (Petition Project)
L.O.L.!
The petition project is not a scientific research poll! It's run by some hack on the internet! All you have to do is print out a form and mail it in to get on the list. They don't check credentials. Hell, I could do it right now and be on the list in a week with my "PHD" in climatology.
My poll was a GALLUP poll... What was it you said in the election about not trusting "no name" polls for debate winner results? Is this a double standard?
Did Al Gore really say that? What a bone head? Mercury cooler than Venus? I guess the fact that Mercury has almost no atmosphere to retain heat didn't occur to him.
What a moron!
He is the best spokesman for the growing non-global warming voice. I say we be quiet and let him shove his foot so far down his throat he can't pull it out again.
BTW, Mars has more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Venus and has an average temp of 88 below zero. Talk to me Al! BWAHAHAHAHA
The petition project is not a scientific research poll! It's run by some hack on the internet! All you have to do is print out a form and mail it in to get on the list. They don't check credentials. Hell, I could do it right now and be on the list in a week with my "PHD" in climatology.
This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.
Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.
A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.
Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.
BTW, Mars has more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Venus and has an average temp of 88 below zero. Talk to me Al! BWAHAHAHAHA
That's incorrect. Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2, and the pressure at ground level is 90 times that of Earth. Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2, but is only about 4% as dense as Earth.
That's incorrect. Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2, and the pressure at ground level is 90 times that of Earth. Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2, but is only about 4% as dense as Earth.
Actually it's 96.5% but the point is that if Al Gore is going to make Mercury an issue then Atmospheric density is not relevant to the discussion since Mercury has virtually no atmosphere (blown away long ago by the intense solar winds)...which throws his own arguement out the window. He can't have it both ways. If Mercury is part of the discussion then so is Mars.
lol... okay, that proves it. That poll is completely scientific. I trust Frederick Seitz more than I trust Gallup.
That's not the point, Ryan. You were incorrect about how the poll was done. The petition is mailed to KNOWN scientists, PhDs, etc. You can't just log into the web site and say "Hi, I'm a scientist."
That's not the point, Ryan. You were incorrect about how the poll was done. The petition is mailed to KNOWN scientists, PhDs, etc. You can't just log into the web site and say "Hi, I'm a scientist."
uh huh... 14,000 of the signers have degrees in medicine, agriculture and engineering....which means they obviously have a handle on topics out of their field of study, and they obviously belong in this list. On top of that, 40, yes just FORTY of the signers have a degree in climatology: http://www.petitionproject....ions_Of_Signers.html
The gallup poll polled 10,200 people, of which 90% had PhDs, and 500 were climatologists.
Originally posted by ryan.hess: The gallup poll polled 10,200 people, of which 90% had PhDs, and 500 were climatologists.
And so this means...what? You're overlooking a very important fact. Over the last 10 years, CO2 has gone up and temperature has NOT. Period. No warming. None. Zero. So it doesn't matter what scientists believe, how many believe, or what percentage...the data says otherwise.
And so this means...what? You're overlooking a very important fact. Over the last 10 years, CO2 has gone up and temperature has NOT. Period. No warming. None. Zero. So it doesn't matter what scientists believe, how many believe, or what percentage...the data says otherwise.
lol... So if all the scientists say an asteroid is going to crash into earth today, and 40 astronomers said "don't worry about it" and 485 astronomers said, "this is bad"............. who are you going to believe? What difference does it make what CO2 does? It's ONE factor of 30. This is a huge system with many feedback loops. It's difficult to model with supercomputers. Yet you've figured it all out?
Are you a climatologist now? You have about as much credibility as Joe Schmo does sticking his head out the door and saying, "nope, I don't see nothing... so there is no asteroid..." Well, yeah, of course you don't see anything. You don't have the tools!
You can post all the crap you want, and I don't intend this as a flame, although I'm sure it comes across as such... I'm just really tired of it. You're not a climatologist. I'm not a climatologist. Nobody that posted in this thread is a climatologist.
Your petition link shows 40 climatologists who signed on board. Doesn't say how many have PhDs or how many have published peer reviewed papers.
The gallup poll shows 485 climatologists who said "yes, humans are influencing the climate"... 15 said, "no, humans are not influencing the climate". The overwhelming majority say we are. 90% of them have PhDs.
Originally posted by ryan.hess: You can post all the crap you want, and I don't intend this as a flame, although I'm sure it comes across as such... I'm just really tired of it. You're not a climatologist. I'm not a climatologist. Nobody that posted in this thread is a climatologist.
This isn't my opinion. I never said it was. And I don't have to be a climatologist - I post links, charts and data from climatologists. I guess you either ignored the last 13 pages of this thread, or you don't care.
quote
Who am I supposed to believe?
It's not a question of WHO - it's a question of WHAT. I guess I'll have to post the data...all over again.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-31-2009).]
Since the media is controlled by the liberal elite and since they refuse to publish ANYTHING related to non-global warming research and since NO government agency will issue grants for non global warming research then I guess you should go ahead and just believe what you are being spoon fed by the agenda driven politicians who all have coin to make off Global Warming. Brain turned off, drum beat trumpeted. Good job.
Originally posted by Toddster: Since the media is controlled by the liberal elite and since they refuse to publish ANYTHING related to non-global warming research
Bullshit. If it doesn't get published it's because it didn't hold up to peer review.
Again, I could show you data where the sun output was up while temperatures were falling.
Makes logical sense, doesn't it? There is more than 1 type of forcing.
There are many different cycles and drivers at work. I'm still researching this, but so far PDO/AMO seems to be driving climate. The sun, with it's various cycles, is a part of it, but it appears to be more complex than just the 11 year sunspot cycle, TSI cycle, and so on. Solar wind, cosmic rays and low-level cloud cover all appear to play a part.
Dr. Roy Spencer has some papers and explanations on this, but his website appears down this morning. I'll have to get back to this.
lol... So if all the scientists say an asteroid is going to crash into earth today, and 40 astronomers said "don't worry about it" and 485 astronomers said, "this is bad"............. who are you going to believe? What difference does it make what CO2 does? It's ONE factor of 30. This is a huge system with many feedback loops. It's difficult to model with supercomputers. Yet you've figured it all out?
Are you a climatologist now? You have about as much credibility as Joe Schmo does sticking his head out the door and saying, "nope, I don't see nothing... so there is no asteroid..." Well, yeah, of course you don't see anything. You don't have the tools!
You can post all the crap you want, and I don't intend this as a flame, although I'm sure it comes across as such... I'm just really tired of it. You're not a climatologist. I'm not a climatologist. Nobody that posted in this thread is a climatologist.
Your petition link shows 40 climatologists who signed on board. Doesn't say how many have PhDs or how many have published peer reviewed papers.
The gallup poll shows 485 climatologists who said "yes, humans are influencing the climate"... 15 said, "no, humans are not influencing the climate". The overwhelming majority say we are. 90% of them have PhDs.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Considering how long we have been around, it was a very short time ago that all but maybe one person, who was alive at the time, thought the world was flat. Well at least all of the experts.
Considering how long we have been around, it was a very short time ago that all but maybe one person, who was alive at the time, thought the world was flat. Well at least all of the experts.
And those that dared speak out against the "common widsom" were jailed.
"Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names. "
Someone does his research and changes his mind and he is branded as senile. Way to go Al.
"Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names. "
Someone does his research and changes his mind and he is branded as senile. Way to go Al.
When Al Bore was running for pres, didn't he divert water from a dam into a river to PROVE that river levels were rising? That should have branded him a phony or maybe he should have gotten an Emmy for that performance as well.
What I don't get is how so many people buy into models and if and maybes and projected guesses then actual observable data. Then call reality BS and those who point it out hacks.
<Edit... Oooops. Partfiero beat me to it.> Here's the text of it. With apologies for the redundancy.
By John Coleman
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. The public is now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints from the use of fossil fuels is going to lead to climatic calamities.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.
Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.
So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business. What happened next is amazing.
The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.
So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-01-2009).]
Al will be glad to speak anywhere on 'his' global warming. But he has yet to debate ANYONE, anywhere that Ive heard about. If hed agreee to a debate, everyone could put all the BS to rest. He never will though, because it would prove how big a fraud he and his 'scientists' are. Id bet money theres at least several thousand knowlegable people that would sign up.
Al will be glad to speak anywhere on 'his' global warming. But he has yet to debate ANYONE, anywhere that Ive heard about. If hed agreee to a debate, everyone could put all the BS to rest. He never will though, because it would prove how big a fraud he and his 'scientists' are. Id bet money theres at least several thousand knowlegable people that would sign up.
He's had many offers to debate the subject. He was even offered money, speaking fees, etc. He won't do it.
CHICAGO, IL: In recent months, former vice president Al Gore has become the world’s most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world’s climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced. He is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity from the press and from environmental groups that echo his warning.
But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.
Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.
Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:
[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.
Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore ... and certainly at least merits the decency of a response to his challenge, which he has yet to receive.
Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.
Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.
But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.
If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?
Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery's challenge.
Dennis Avery can be contacted directly via email at cgfi@hughes.net.
For more information about Lord Monckton’s challenge to Al Gore, go to the Web site of the Center for Environment and Public Policy.
Lord Monckton can be contacted directly via email at monckton@mail.com.
In early December 2008, The Guardian, a newspaper of the British Left and an unquestioning true-believer in the catastrophist version of climate alarm, quoted Professor Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University, as saying computer models such as one that he has developed can now ascribe individual extreme-weather events to anthropogenic "global warming", allowing environmental pressure groups to sue the corporations they believe are to blame for the catastrophic heating of the planet. Professor Allen joked, "We are starting to get to the point that when an adverse weather event occurs we can quantify how much more likely it was made by human activity."
...The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff's allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse.
In November 2008, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, and one of the four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that October 2008 was the "hottest on record". Which must have come as something of a shock to the countless millions who trudged through the heavy snow and ice in what they had been told was an unseasonally cold October. But then Hansen should know. He is, after all, climate alarmism's ‘Mr Big'. But then this is far from the first time Hansen has been caught ‘fiddling' the climate figures.
In October, two independent monitors at Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, performed their own detailed analysis of Hansen's reported data. What they found should disturb us all. They discovered that the GISS readings from across a swathe of Russia that appeared to reveal a warming of 10 degrees above average were not readings for October at all. They were a repeat of September's readings.
A highly embarrassed GISS was forced to own up. GISS retracted the figures - and then immediately set about obfuscating its original error claiming they had discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic. This caused even more confusion. Intriguing as the new vacation prospect opened up by the GISS report might be, satellite indicators throughout the Fall consistently revealed the Arctic sea ice had undergone a remarkably fast, post-summer recovery with 30 percent more ice than for the same period in 2007.
A GISS spokesman sought to explain the false Russian temperature figures by shuffling off blame to "other bodies" on whom GISS rely and over whom they have no means of "quality control". The problem is it's NASA's GISS published figures that are mostly quoted precisely because they are regularly higher than those reported by other monitoring bodies. Not to mention they go a long way to underpinning the UN's IPCC 'end is nigh' climate scenario, too. Neither is it the first time Hansen's NASA figures have been challenged as at odds with other monitoring evidence.
In June 2008, NASA temperature data was challenged again over its higher recordings of temperatures compared to the other official bodies. Back in 1998, satellite data from associate bodies at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) were broadly in agreement with those at NASA. Ten years later, NASA's reported figures are regularly higher than those published by RSS and UAH. One reason put forward for the NASA anomaly is that its figures are derived from a grid of ground-based thermometers (the less efficient method) and not by (the far more efficient) taking of satellite readings. But does it matter. Just what is at stake? Well, governments panicked into uneconomic measures; policies which mostly hurt the poor by avoiding the utilization of cheap and plentiful Western energy resources. Resources like plentiful and cheap coal - Hansen's literal bête noir, which he believes is "the enemy of the human race".
In pursuit of his campaign to have the West abandoning its precious coal reserves, Hansen recently took it upon himself in a bid to influence the UK Government to refuse a license for a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent. Kingsnorth is prospectively the first of six coal-fired stations under consideration. Hansen knows only too well that if the UK greenlights the Kingsnorth plant it could kick start a similar program across Europe - and in turn create pressure to follow suit in the US (which has over 25 percent of the world's highest quality coal reserves). If that were to happen, the resultant boost to global CO2 emissions would effectively send the chief climate alarmist message, quite literally, up in smoke. So Hansen took up his pen and wrote to lobby over the decisions with letters to the British PM and to the Queen herself.
Next Hansen - ignoring the hypocrisy as do most leading alarmists - jetted to the UK to give evidence in defence of a group of Greenpeace activists in a British criminal case. The activists had invaded the existing Kingsnorth facility causing thousands of dollars worth of criminal damage. Ignoring the evidence of red-handed guilt, perversely, the jury acquitted whereupon Hansen expressed his public backing for the right to break the law in the cause of climate activism. Hansen didn't say whether this was official NASA policy.
Back in April 2006, Hansen's reading of the climate conditions led him to go out on yet another predictive limb. Hansen said, "We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a 'super El Nino', rivaling the 1983 and 1997-8 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the 'El Nino of the century'." Most other leading climate scientists were mystified at Hansen's reading of weather conditions. Mickey Glanz at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado warned, "The graveyard is filled with missed El Nino forecasts." Roger Pielke, Jr, Professor in Environment Studies at Colorado University, pointed out, "Dr Hansen has bet some of his public credibility in making such a forecast. If he is proven right... contrary to all models and statistics, then his credibility will rise far beyond its already stratospheric levels. If he was wrong, he will be brought back to Earth by his critics who will use this against him. In short, he is taking a big risk, with potential for a big pay-off or a big cost." Suffice to say, it never happened.
Al Gore regards Hansen as an 'objective scientist', but in 2004 Hansen received a grant of $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation shortly before publicly endorsing Teresa Heinz's husband, John Kerry, for the presidency. While those who argue the skeptics case are consistently accused of being in the pay of Big Oil, Hansen got a free pass from the liberal media on the Heinz grant. As Senator James Inhofe, of the US Committee on Environment and Public Works put it, "It appears the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money."
NASA does fine work and there are fine people working for NASA. Some have even gone on record disparaging both Hansen and his publicity-seeking methods. In an article Science, Ignorance is not Bliss (Launch magazine, July/August 2008) former astronaut Walter Cunningham delivered a blistering denunciation of Hansen for fostering the "current hysteria" of climate alarmists by misusing NASA data. Cunningham states, "NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)." Nor is Cunningham happy at what Hansen is doing for NASA's reputation as a serious player in scientific research. He says of NASA, "Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics."
And, for good measure, Cunningham reminds us of yet another Hansen blunder. "After warning 2007 would be the hottest year on record," says Cunningham, "what we experienced was the coolest since 2001." Lamenting that the GW debate had deteriorated into a "religious war" between "true believers and non-believers" Cunningham astutely observes about those who follow Hansen's logic, "it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into." Cunningham states Hansen is "a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA's own data contradicts him." To drive home his point that Hansen is circumventing the real science, Cunningham highlights that, "warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any surface warming effect, but NASA's own data show that has not been happening." Cunningham goes on to note how when Hansen's boss, Michael Griffin, "a distinguished scientist in his own right, attempted to draw a distinction between Hansen's personal and political views and the science conducted by his agency" he was "forced to back off".
In November, another former NASA astronaut, the award-winning Harrison 'Jack' Schmitt, the Apollo 17 moon-walker and former chair of NASA Advisory Chair, resigned from the Planetary Society. Schmitt's resignation letter identified the Society's new 'roadmap' that attempted to link space exploration and climate change research on earth. In his resignation letter Schmitt states: "You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, income and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities." My guess is that Walt Cunningham and Jack Schmitt are not on Hansen's Christmas card list.
That James Hansen has a private fame-seeking agenda and is using NASA to peddle it as he makes predictive blunder after predictive blunder in their name is patently clear. Which begs the question: Why is James Hansen - a publicity-seeking leftwing political activist, responsible for issuing false climate data to the detriment of NASA's reputation and against the public good - still picking up a pay check in a top public sector job? And just how much are Hansen's headline grabbing, ultimately false, pronouncements helping to propel governments towards hugely expensive precipitous climate action?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 -- in anticipation of the new mandates -- California has led the nation in job losses.
The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps. Since energy is an input in everything that's produced, this will raise the cost of production inside California's borders.
Now, as the Golden State prepares to implement this regulatory scheme, employers are howling. It's become clear to nearly everyone that the plan's backers have underestimated its negative impact and exaggerated the benefits. "We've been sold a false bill of goods," is how Republican Assemblyman Roger Niello, who has been the GOP's point man on environmental issues in the legislature, put it to me.
The environmental plan was built on the notion that imposing some $23 billion of new taxes and fees on households (through higher electricity bills) and employers will cost the economy nothing, while also reducing greenhouse gases. Almost no one believes that anymore except for the five members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This is the state's air-quality regulator, which voted unanimously in December to stick with the cap-and-trade system despite the recession. CARB justified its go-ahead by issuing what almost all experts agree is a rigged study on the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system. The study concludes that the plan "will not only significantly reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions, but will also have a net positive effect on California's economic growth through 2020."
This finding elicited a chorus of hallelujahs from environmental groups. The state finally discovered a do-good policy that pays for itself. Californians can still scurry around in their cars, heat up their Jacuzzis, and help save the planet. But there was a problem. The CARB had commissioned five economists from around the country to critique this study. They panned it.
Harvard's Robert Stavins, chairman of the federal Environmental Protection Agency's economic advisory committee under Bill Clinton, told me that "None of us knew who the other reviewers were, but we all came up with almost the same conclusion. The report was severely flawed and systematically underestimated costs." Another reviewer, UCLA Prof. Matthew E. Kahn, a supporter of the new regulations, criticized the "free lunch" aspect of the report. "The net dollar costs of each of these regulations is likely to be much larger than is reported," he concluded. Mr. Stavins points out that if these regulations are a net boon for businesses and the economy, "why would you need to impose regulations like cap and trade?"
The Sacramento Bee, which has editorialized in support of the new regulations, was aghast at CARB's twisted science. We have to "be candid about the real costs of the transition," a cautionary editorial advised. "Energy prices will rise, and major capital investment will be needed in public transit and new transmission lines. Industries that are energy intensive will move elsewhere."
The green lobby has lectured us for years that global warming is all about the sanctity of science. Those who question the "scientific consensus" on catastrophic atmospheric changes are belittled as "deniers." Now, in assessing the costs, the greens readily cook the books and throw good science out the window. "To most of the most strident supporters of this legislation," says Mr. Niello, "the economic costs don't really matter anyway, because we are supposedly facing an environmental apocalypse."
Mr. Schwarzenegger fits into that camp. He recently declared: "I recommend very strongly that we move forward . . . . You will always have people saying this will lose jobs."
Meanwhile, the state is losing jobs, a lot of them. California's unemployment rate hit 9.3% in December, up from 4.9% in December 2006. There are now 1.5 million Californians out of work. The state has the fourth-highest housing foreclosure rate in the nation, has lost more businesses than any state in recent years, and is facing a $40 billion deficit. With cap and trade firmly in place, the economic situation is only likely to get worse.
Other states are plundering the Golden State's industries by convincing businesses to pick up stakes and move out before the cap-and-trade earthquake hits. Governors and Washington politicians who want to reduce their "carbon footprint," but are worried about the more immediate crises of cascading unemployment, unbalanced budgets, and the housing-market collapse, would be wise not to follow California's lead. Green policies have a tendency to push states into the red.
