Ed. It’s the New York Times which means two things: 1) It strains not to give man-made global warming skeptics any credibility, yet at the same time 2) represents a call from a prominent liberal newspaper that the liberal claims need reexamination.
New York Times William J. Broad March 13
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
. . . more
Not a single peer-reviewed scientific study was cited to challenge Vice-President Gore’s conclusions. Instead what we have here are some individals with weak credentials making minor nit-picking observations that are inflated by the author to seem more monumental than they actually are.
Real Climate, which offers a point-by-point rebuttal, responds:
As one of the commentators on Real Climate note, this NY Times article is “a particularly blatant instance of deceptive intent.”
So what Dean does here is go to “Real Climate”, a partisan hack site of global warming hysterics if there ever was one. And the third grade debate tactics continue…
Perhaps the moderator should limit cross posting here at OrthodoxyToday to prevent this sort of rampant flame baiting…
Christopher: I salute you sir. You are unsurpassed in your mastery of the Ad Hominem attack. How much easier that is too, than having to construct rational, logical arguments substantiated by facts or reality.
But isn’t that the point of the NYT’s piece, that the facts don’t back Al Gore as much as the man-made global warning afficianados want us to believe? Seems like some heavy duty scientists have some heavy duty doubts about Gore’s campaign.
And who is to say “Real Climate” has got it right? Glancing through the site they seem pretty certain they’ve got the answers. To my eyes, it is too dogmatic for something so complex.
Father you write: “Seems like some heavy duty scientists have some heavy duty doubts about Gore’s campaign.”
I know the article article makes it seem that way, but the debunkers he quoted are not not actually regarded as heavy duty scientsist. It’s as if someone wrote an article on the life of Christ quoting Father Raymond Brown, author of some of the most respected scholarship on the New Testament ever written, and Dan Brown, author of he “DaVinci Papers”, and presented both of them as experts and sources of equal competency.
Don Easterbrook, for example, doesn’t believe that man-made emissions cause global warming which makes him an outlier and puts him at odds with 99% of the scientific community. Furthermore he blatantly misrepresents Gore’s statements.
David Roberts responds:
.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/233737/021/
The article strains to create balance where none actually exists. Another innacurate passage states:
“So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium.”
Did the NAS report contradict Gore? No, it did the exact opposite. Here’s a quote from the report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
Dean writes: “Christopher: I salute you sir. You are unsurpassed in your mastery of the Ad Hominem attack.”
Recently, Christopher’s posts have tended to be of the one- or two-line “zinger” variety, either ad hominem or denouncing “the left.” They don’t add to the discussion, but increasingly they don’t take away much either, because many people just ignore them. If he has a point to make, he would be better served by making the point. Play the ball not the man, as they say in soccer.
Fr. Hans writes: “But isn’t that the point of the NYT’s piece, that the facts don’t back Al Gore as much as the man-made global warning afficianados want us to believe? Seems like some heavy duty scientists have some heavy duty doubts about Gore’s campaign.”
The point of the piece is that Gore basically has it right, though some disagree with him on some minor points, and a few disagree on some major points. But that’s what you’d expect from science, right? With many issues you’re not going to get a monolithic opinion. One of the strategies of the right is to take typical disagreements within the scientific community and claim that those are evidence that the scientific concensus is bogus. You’ll find that strategy used with creationism, criticisms of modern biblical studies, and so on, and most recently, with global warming.
The best way to honor Christopher’s Posts is to ignore them. He is the King in his own little world and offers nothing redeeming to casual conversation.
As to the real topic of importance, inaccuracies in Al Gore’s powerpoint presentation are abundant. You don’t have to be an expert in any particular field to point them out.
For instance, the government run Glacier National Park website counters most of what Gore claimed about the park. There is an amateur video on Youtube showing a time lapsed video of what happens to ice when it melts in a glass of water – there is no change in displacement. Scientists and professionals have cowered to the “Global Goreing attack dogs” when commenting negatively on the subject. That is truely a shame.
The whole GW movement is political and not scientific based. It really comes down to redistributing wealth from those that produce to those who do not.
note # 3
Read the definition you linked to – there is no Ad Hominen. You never engage in the arguments of the articles here, you simply quote long pieces of hard left partisan sources. Perhaps you should link to the definition of “rational argument” and begin to question the middle school debate tactics you continue to employ. Or better, why not try engaging in the ideas here instead of continually “arguing”, you might learn something…
Here’s a related story which is perhaps a bit more balanced than the NYT piece:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-have-inconvenient-news-for-gore/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html
Note #9;
As many a crises critic has pointed out, no one on the Global Warming Hysteric side has even really addressed the fact that the climate has fluctuated MUCH more in the past then even their most bold predictions. Somehow, life survived. Even in human history we have proof positive that mankind survived and thrived in climates significantly warmer than ours (e.g. the medieval warming period). They seem to never address the moral question (i.e. why climate change = bad) except for references to isolated things like possible hurricane increases, etc. They ignore the positives like the increase of arable land in mid/northern latitudes.
Personally, I find it likely that we are in the continuing process of coming out of the ice age, and global warming = good.
WARNING: Dean unexamined moral premises will again be asserted – with long quotations from hysterical web sites…;)
It isn’t just the NYT, even ABC News has run a remarkably balanced and down to earth piece on this:
Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1
Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer world. If this is a “crisis,” then the world is in permanent “crisis,” but will be less prone to “crisis” with warming.
Sorry Dean, but many truth-seeking, mature, and common sense driven scientists and intellectuals across the political spectrum have exposed the fraud of “man-caused Global Warming” which is nothing more than the modern version of a Witch Hunt against capitalism and individual freedom.
Father Andrew: It is absolutely not a more balanced article. It is an innacurate and misleading article that takes the words of a man whose fringe views are compeletely outside of the mainstream scientific concensus, a man who 99% of all scientsist would disagree with, and presents his comments as represenatve of the views of the entire scientific community.
Read what I wrote in number 5. It would be as if someone quoted Dan Brown, the author of The DiVinci Code, a man who believes that Jesus Christ, was never resurrected, but married Mary Magdelene and settled in the south of France, and presented his views as representative of what the “theologians” actually think.
Please research topics more carefully and learn to distinguish between reputable sources and ideological hacks. Otherwise you are likely to be duped by fraudulent and misleading proaganda as you apparently were in your post above.
Dean what is your source? Your feelings?
Dean, you are not an authority on who and who is not a legitimate scientist. Just two FACTS I’d like you to consider
1. Emotionally heated reaction is not a trait the Church encourages; in fact she actively discourages it.
2. Scientific consensus is no guarantee of truth; often it is an indication of just the opposite. I’ll give you a concrete example: The doctor who discovered the treatment for ulcers that is now universally used, was a simple family practice doctor in the outback of Australia. He tested his findings and submitted them to peer reviewed journals. Since his experimentally verified treatment was way out of the norm of the scientific consensus, the journal rejected his paper. As the doctor pursued getting his ideas to the point where others might test them, he was routinely attacked with Ad Hominem arguments quite similar to those you level at Prof. Easterbrook. Eventually, the treatment discovered by the outback doctor proved far superior, less invasive and less costly than what the scientific/medical establishment thought. However, the good doctor had to endure over 10 years of slander to even get his idea honestly reviewed. It is the truth that matters, not the number of people who believe something.
An aside: When one accuses someone else of making an Ad Hominem attack, the accuser is often engaging in the same level of discourse. It is not a good idea to attack someone for tactics you employ.
Michael writes: “Dean, you are not an authority on who and who is not a legitimate scientist.”
The question I have is how many scientists or scientific organizations does it take to make a concensus. Fifty percent? Seventy-five percent? Ninety percent? I’m not a scientist, but it does seem to me that scientists “in general” agree that global warming is a problem and that human activity plays a significant role. But it’s not clear to me what, for people in this venue, would constitute a concensus, or how that would be measured.
Michael: “Scientific consensus is no guarantee of truth; often it is an indication of just the opposite.”
I would substitute “sometimes” for “often.” Of course it is not a guarantee. But that’s the nature of science. It tends to be self-correcting. But there is not guarantee. Under modernity knowledge is seen as tentative, not “eternal.” Scientific theories are seen as models of reality, not literal pictures of reality.
Michael: “An aside: When one accuses someone else of making an Ad Hominem attack, the accuser is often engaging in the same level of discourse. It is not a good idea to attack someone for tactics you employ.”
Speaking of reality, let’s be real. Around here Dean receives far more than he gives. Concerning Easterbook, Dean offered an opposing viewpoint. He said that Easterbrook “blatantly misrepresents Gore’s statements,” and provides contrary information. That’s hardly stripping the skin off of Easterbrook, and much less than what Dean receives on a daily basis here.
The jury is still out on man-made global warming. I’m no scientist either and can’t give a scientific argument one way or another on the issue.
Having said that, that are contours to the debate that should give any observer pause before the jumping on the global warming bandwagon. These include: 1) the movement is led by a popular but marginal politician; 2) the popular media reports assertions from one side of the debate but not the other; 3) the creation of a popular mythology that ties into the populist secular apocalypticism that has emerged over the last several decades (Paul Erlich’s neo-Malthusian population control; catastrophic environmentalism, etc.); 4) endorsements by intellectually lightweight but influential cultural gatekeepers like Hollywood movie stars (call this a contra-indicator); 5) the silencing of dissent with pejoratives instead of arguments (Ellen Goodman’s comparison of global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers for example); 6) the transformation of a scientific question into a moral issue led by representatives of the religious left (a bit late to the party but someone saved them a seat at the table), such as Jim Wallis’ Sojourners.
I’ll wait until the science is settled before making up my mind completely. But this debate has all the earmarks of a secular left crusade, particularly the driving principle that motives matter more than facts. In the past the crusades fizzled (remember Erlich or the impending ice age?), and this probably will too. Just give the non-politicized scientists time to respond.
Apparently, our SUVs are so out of control that we’re melting the polar ice caps on Mars. Per National Geographic:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
The Financial Times does a better job of presenting the Let’s-not-get-all-crazy-about-global-warming point of view.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/03/climate_change_.html
People who want to do something about slowing global warming need to be aware of economic impact of proposed interventions, if we are to make any progress at all.
The hidden assumption in the piece is that man-made global warming is a closed question. It’s not.
Fr. Hans writes: “The hidden assumption in the piece is that man-made global warming is a closed question. It’s not.”
Let’s assume that it is possible for the majority of scientists to be wrong. But that means that it is also possible that they are right. In other words, if it’s an open issue, it’s open on both sides.
With other issues you have criticized those who would conduct “social experiments.” In particular, you have criticized welfare, gay marriage, and the adoption of children by homosexuals as dangerous social experiments. (Though in the case of homosexual adoption there have been a number of studies showing that homosexual parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting. At this point these studies are suggestive, not definitive, and many more years of research would be required to develop a definitive answer.)
But in the case of global warming, you apparently advocate a large-scale environmental experiment involving the only known habitable planet for humans. Contrary to the advice of a majority of scientists, you want to conduct an experiment in which we continue to pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — and not just at current rates, but at exponentially increasing rates.
Of course, this is not really an experiment, but a gamble. You’re willing to gamble that the majority of scientists are wrong, and that the human contribution to global warming is not significant. You’re willing to come to the environmental blackjack table and wager the planet. If you win, you get increased economic growth. If you lose then we all suffer the consequences, whatever those turn out to be.
Question: why do you oppose social experiments the consequences of which are relatively limited, but favor an environmental experiment the consequences of which could be global and catastrophic? It seems to me that the conservative position on global warming would be to implement controls on greenhouse gases, and then, if future research shows that the majority of scientists are wrong, and that the human impact is minimal, eliminate those controls.
It seems to me that your position on this issue is not at all conservative, or even liberal. It is the position of a gambler, willing to lose it all on the throw of the dice, or the turn of a card, in hope of the big payoff. Do you feel lucky? I hope you are lucky, because if you lose your planet, you lose mine too.
Uniform prices on emissions – ideally, through taxation – will do most of this job. Almost everything else is unnecessary or counterproductive.
Soooooo, the left’s response to a problem is government…wait for it…here it comes…I know you guessed already but wait….increasing taxes and therefore government. Why, anything else is “unnecessary” or worse. And to think, we have liberals here posting question like “why do conservatives have a problem with global warming hysteria”…;)
Note 20. Jim writes;
Not really. I just don’t buy the hype. I think what you will be seeing real soon is some of the scientists who signed on signing off, and others objecting because their data has been manipulated in ways they never intended. In short, I see the movement as politically driven and appeals to authority (“the majority of scientists”) doesn’t make it any less political. Further, many scientists are notoriously uninformed when it comes to cultural matters (many technical and business people are as well). They have a difficult time distinguishing between morality and ideology, particularly when ideologues employ moralistic and scientific language. Look at the Eugenics movement early in the last century for example.
Well, if I had believed Erlich (“The Population Bomb”), or the legions of scientists who believed an ice was coming, you could accuse me of the same thing thing, correct? Looks like I made the right call then. So, if I am a gambler, my bets have been 100% accurate — a pretty good average I’d say. In fact, I will bet you $10 that you will begin to see man-made global warming (the Al Gore, impending doom, all carbon burners are evil, variety) will start being uniformly questioned in the mainstream media by the end of 2007. You up for it?
Seriously, I’d rather wait for the science to work itself out, and that takes time.
Note 21. Christopher writes: And to think, we have liberals here posting question like “why do conservatives have a problem with global warming hysteria”…;)
Yes, I noticed the author’s call to social/economic engineering as well.
The environmental movement is the new home of cultural Marxism. That’s one reason why, I think, you have no peace movement to speak of anymore. Not every environmentalist is a cultural Marxist of course, but having failed in in politics, the cultural Marxist has shifted his utopian delusion from achieving the perfect society to restoring a perfect state of nature (a secularized notion of Eden actually). Watch closely though. Once a desirable state of nature is defined, he will start telling everyone how he wants them to live in it.
if I had believed …the legions of scientists who believed an ice [age] was coming…
No, you should definitely not believe figments that exist only in your imagination. There never were any “legions” of scientists predicting an ice age. There were only a handful – comparable to the number of scientists today who reject global warming. Oh, but those scientists are telling you something you WANT to hear….
Note 24. Well, OK. Change to “legions” to “battalion” if you want. Still, the eugenicists were wrong, Erlich and followers were wrong, the new ice age battalion was wrong, and the man-made global warming crew (crusaders?) may be wrong as well. Time will tell.
Have you checked out The Great Global Warming Swindle from the BBC? Looks interesting.
Fr. Hans writes: “Change to “legions” to “battalion” if you want.”
Well, I think “a few” would be more accurate. It was an idea that was kicked around, but there are lots of those all the time. Scientists speculate about life on other planets. They speculate about the Big Bang, other dimensions, and the nature of space and time. (Someone said that you can never tell when physicists are kidding.) Global warming and its causes go far beyond speculation, though it does involve a certain amount of speculation, as does all science.
Fr. Hans: “Still, the eugenicists were wrong . . .”
Yeah, but they weren’t doing science. You’ve read the book; I have too. It wasn’t science even though they used the jargon of science.
Fr. Hans: “Erlich and followers were wrong . . .”
Yes, one guy and his acolytes.
Fr. Hans: “In fact, I will bet you $10 that you will begin to see man-made global warming (the Al Gore, impending doom, all carbon burners are evil, variety) will start being uniformly questioned in the mainstream media by the end of 2007. You up for it?”
You’re on. But what I would really like is a couple of cans of “bald peanuts” (boiled peanuts). When I lived in the south, I always enjoyed boiled peanuts, and they don’t exist here in Oregon. Against “bald peanuts” I will wager the Oregon product of your choice. If you’re a gin drinker, I would suggest a bottle of Cascade Mountain hand crafted American gin, from Bend Distillery, which some have described as the “Platonic form” of gin. If you like wine, or beer, or coffee, or nuts, or salmon, I can do that too. Your choice.
Note 26. Well, I like an occasional gin and tonic, so I’ll give the American gin a shot. I’ll hunt around for boiled peanuts to go. Never tried them though. Next time I see some I will try them out. Heck, I might send you some even if I lose the bet.
Father if he’s going to send you something from the Northwest you might consider a case of something from Henry Weinhard’s brewery.
Is that a micro brewery? I’m partial to a light ale.
Note 26. Mr. Holman writes:
“Yeah, but they weren’t doing science. You’ve read the book; I have too. It wasn’t science even though they used the jargon of science.”
Neither are the proponents of human-caused global warming, as numerous as they are (although it is funny that scientists in the fields of geology and meteorology, who are well suited to judging historical climate trends and predictive modeling of weather, do not have the “consensus” that we see among climatologists). There is a gravy train of government funding for climatologists who arrive at certain desired results, and they are following it. I was in graduate school when this nonsense picked up steam, and I saw it happening. The “science” behind all of this is generally appalling. I could recite all that has been said by myself and by Mr. Chresand in other threads about poorly constructed models, disregard for the limitations of scaling models to a global scale, and data sets that were culled to achieve desired outcomes (like the infamous “hockey stick” chart that the IPCC and Al Gore use), but I doubt it will do any good.
#29 It’s a pretty good sized brewer that ships across the western states. If I remember correctly they have a very good Pale Ale.