The View From 1776

Is Al Gore On A Collision Course With Reality?

Mike Porcari has emailed another interesting essay providing an historical overview of climate changes, probable causes thereof, and the effects, none of which have been particularly bad.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/24 at 12:30 AM
  1. What would these petty, self-dealing tyrants do without the chicken littles? Get a job? Produce something that the marketplace actually needs? There is and always will be easy money for confidence men. Why choose markets when you've got the coercive power of the 'state' behind you? Corruption, fraud, confusion and coercion is what these guys live on. Like any criminal enterprise. They and their supporters should be ashamed of themselves, if only sociopaths were capable of shame.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/24  at  07:17 PM
  2. Mr. Brewton,

    You did not cite the source of this foolish claim sent to you by Mr. Porcari. Mr. Porcari's mystery source would benefit from a little basic physics and chemistry education.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/24  at  11:31 PM
  3. Mr. Jay:

    Apparently you didn't bother to go to the link in the post. The linked article gives the names and credentials of the authors of the study. For most readers that is a sufficient citation of source. What other citation should I provide?

    You are quick to sneer at the credibility of people who disagree with you. I don't know what your credentials are in physics and chemistry. If they are as superior as you imply when you dismiss the report writers as lacking in basic chemistry and physics, please give us you learned critique of their report. A blanket dismissal is not an appropriate response, even though that is the standard way that global-warming "scientists" deal with all challenges (because they have no real data to refute them).

    When you demean the qualifications of people as you have done, you had better be prepared to deal, one by one, with their assertions. Your self-assurance alone is not a refutation.

    Mr. Porcari, who sent me the article link, worked with one of the world's top physicists.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/25  at  03:12 AM
  4. The quote, which certainly does appear to be the work of eminent scientists, actually suggests the positive aspect of global warming. There will be more food production for the growing population. With any luck at all, my tomatoes will survive the Fall frosts until November.

    This is the answer to Mr. Jay's Malthusian concerns--If we can keep the GW uptrend coordinated with population growth we will attain eternal harmony.

    I for one would like to see Greenland and Newfoundland restored to greeness as they once were when Eric the Red roamed the seas. Things would be better, at least for those up North, but I would pity those poor souls who must stay in Florida in the summer.

    I for one would imitate the pre-paleolithic hunter gatherers and simply advance with the retreating galciers and retreat with any advancing ones. It's all been done before.

    Best of all, even at my age I can look forward in 5 years to taking a safari accross the sandy deserts of the North Pole with a trusty camel and water kegs at hand.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/25  at  12:36 PM
  5. Mr. Brewton,

    I apologize that I did not notice the second link in the post. There was no source on the immediate quote when you click on it.

    That said, the post is not the product of an "eminent scientist" at all, but a self-published paper from a fringe organization known as OISM, known primarily for its bizarre Y2K predictions and for selling a $200 home schooling course, to allow parents to avoid those "socialist public schools." The kit includes a copy of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (now in the public domain) and the text of "Robinson Crusoe."

    Robinson, the author of the "work" quoted by Brewton, has no credentials in the climate field, and has done no work in it. Originally a biochemist by training, he had a relationship with Linus Pauling, before they had a falling out, with Pauling accusing him of being a hack.

    OISM was also involved in the notorious "Seitz Petition" that claimed to have the signature of 19,000 thousand scientists, but which in reality could be signed by anybody over the internet.

    In short, many people believe that OSIM and Robinson, et. al. while cleverly donning the garb of real scientists, are actually part of the lunatic fringe.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/26  at  04:23 PM
  6. Mr. Jay-- Impressive! If true, it shows there are fanatics on both sides--but I suggest you have more than we do.

    My daughter's father-in-law is a very credentialed environmentalist with a UC Berkeley Ph.D in chemistry where he is professor emeritus. Significantly he has a lifetime of work in climate and environmental issues. He served as director of the first national energy study carried out by the U. S. National Academy of Sciences. He was the first director of the Berkeley Laboratory's Energy and Environment Division. He was for many years the chairperson of the Swedish Academy's International Institute of Energy and Human Ecology. He cofounded ACEEE.

    He is dismayed that what he describes as a "new environmental religion" is making an all-out asault on environmental science. Today's environmental discourse, he says, is permeated with old-fashioned religious apocalypticism.

    He cites some facts: A millennium ago from about 900-1300 AD, we enjoyed a warm period, slightly warmer than today, which helped the development of civilization. A subsequent cold period extended from 1300 to the late 1800's, which led to crop failures, famines and disease. The Thames River in England froze over.

    A warming period began in the late 1800's and continued until about 1940. Then a cooling peiod from 1940 to 1975, then warming from 1975 to 1996, then a cooling period from 1996 to 2008. These are normal global swings in temepratures no one understands. He is all for environmental(pollution) clean up but sees no scientificly based or directed goal in climate change. Indeed , he told me this summer, there may not even be a problem to solve.

    Aa an academic, he understands the process of federal grants and suggests that almost all scientists working on climate change are overly eager to make the strongest case for climate change programs. It is their livelihood. Perks depend on copious government funding. "They can be found at every forum that will hear them, presenting a case for this or that program essential for saving humanity from the terrible fate of a warmer world."

    He especially criticizes Al Gore who is mis-leading many, impeding real scientific research in this area, and threatening to spend trillions of wasted dollars on an imaginary problem. He deplores such a misallocation of resources in the face of continuing neglect of the world's real environmental crisis--which is the grinding poverty of billions of our fellow human beings.

    And he assures me there is a vast number of scientists who agree with him--but many are reluctant to speak out. The current Orwellian "GROUP THINK" in academia and government granting agencies would blackball them, deny their grants, eliminate any chance for promotion or tenure, and hurt their families social standing.

    Al Gore is the Lysenko of American science. Believing that Global Warming is an immediate threat that we can control is like thinking two black stallions can produce a white mare!
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/26  at  09:24 PM
  7. Bill,

    You raise some good points, and a healthy skepticism is always welcome in science. When there is reliable data that happens to be contrary to a particular climate model, that data should be thoroughly explored and analyzed by the scientific community. Certainly, politics should not the influence the laboratory results.

    I do not know of any responsible scientist who would dispute that - although there is certainly a segment of the public who believe that there is a world-wide scientific cabal and conspiracy out to push one particular conclusion for their self interest (i.e. getting more grants). Many of these folks sincerely believe that the scientists have completely fudged their data to provide a politically correct analysis. Such a conspiracy would, of course, require incredible coordination to generate false data from many different sources, ages, and technologies, and from all over the world, showing the same result.

    There were of course warming trends in the past. That is not in dispute. Every schoolboy learns about the advancing and retreating ice ages that carved out the great lakes, for instance. I think what is particularly interesting about the current warming trend (in contrast to those your Berkeley Professor cites) is that with this one there is an unusually strong correlation with rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

    The concern is, I believe, that if indeed man is significantly contributing to this rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, that the temperature changes may occur with unprecedented speed and may go "off the charts" as compared with previous warming trends.

    Note that in previous warming periods, we had only a few hundred million people on earth, so there was much more elasticity in our ability to adapt to change. We currently have two billion people on the edge of starvation, so climactic changes are likely to have much more devastating effects than in the past.

    Of course, there is a segment of the population who would say, "Piffle! A warm up only adversely affect those unwashed hoards over there! I got mine, and that is all that matters, even if we get severe weather pattern changes!"
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/27  at  03:10 PM
  8. "When there is reliable data that happens to be contrary to a particular climate model, that data should be thoroughly explored. . ."

    I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY THAT NONE OF THE "MODELS" USED IN THIS GW DEBATE CAN BE RELIED UPON.

    THE STATISTICAL MODELS EMPLOYED BY THE ALRMISTS ARE ALL BASED ON FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE DATA AND MAKE UNTENABLE ASSUMPTIONS, MUCH LIKE LYSENKO WHOSE DATA ABOUT THOSE BLACK STALLIONS WAS IRREMEDIABLY FLAWED.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/27  at  05:23 PM
  9. Mr. Jay:

    I don't believe anyone, at least not on this website and comments, has alleged a conspiracy. So your discussion of the difficulty of coordinating a worldwide conspiracy is just a straw man to divert attention from the facts.

    We are dealing with large, and growing, numbers of individuals who, like swindlers in corporations around the world, have discovered how to get money unethically, each one on his own. Recent CRU revelations are among the few indications of coordinated activities to cover up malfeasance.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/27  at  05:27 PM
  10. Nonsense, Mr. Brewton.

    A conspiracy is exactly what is alleged! How many posts have you yourself put up claiming that the entire field of climate science indicating man-induced warming is a fraud, or that the data leading to that conclusion is fraudulent and the conclusions are formed out of the self interest of the scientists, because that is they way they will get more grants!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  07:20 PM
  11. Public choice school of economics will give you your answer,little fella. It's not about conspiracy, per se, but about acting in percieved self-interest with the power of the state paying your bills.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  08:13 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.