This past week, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore urged scientists to exert their influence on global climate change. In short, he said that scientists must play a more active role in how their science is used to make policy. "For those of you who haven't communicated, there is no time to sit back," Gore says.
Which, of course, begs the question of how this can be accomplished? Should scientists become "Issue Advocates" as described in Roger A. Pielke Jr.'s book "The Honest Broker," or should they be the "Science Arbiter?"
But it also begs the question, what role should politicians play in advocating science? Gore himself has been a highly visible icon communicating the science of global warming to the public and to the legislators with whom he once worked. In one sense, he has been far better at communicating the issue than have the scientists themselves. But in another sense, he has become a foil for those who say that global warming is merely a liberal political movement and scientists are only claiming there is a crisis to get funding. And we all remember the Terry Schiavo case when then Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist took the Senate floor and challenged the diagnosis of Schiavo's physicians that she was in a persistent vegetative state: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office." While Frist was a medical doctor prior to entering politics, many medical scientists took offense to him making a diagnosis based solely on an edited video tape.
Both Gore and Frist's advocacy have provided fodder for discussion about the relative roles of politicians in science and scientists in politics. Are they communicating from knowledge, or are they using the science to further their political ideologies? Many arguments have been offered for both sides of the discussion.
In his speech last week to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Gore encouraged the "world of science" and "the world of politics" to work together to respond to the climate crisis. He called for the scientist to deliver the sense of emergency to their colleagues, networks, and policy makers. In essence, he called on scientists to be issue advocates.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 302
That's my take on the guy. I don't think he's evil or anything. I just don't think he's terribly intelligent.
May be I am just not getting it, what you mean here.
I find it disturbing that so many people are science illiterates.
Advancement of Science (AAAS), "
ASIA is now the 800 pound gorilla in the room and nothing we do will change that..
People forget that the carbon pall that already lies over that continent..
Gore is a good man and he means well but he has a regionally centric vision that does not serve humanity as well as a broader view might.
the graphic below is from NASA and show where the pollution ALREADY is.
Politicians as a whole should help and fund science when they can though through legislation/bills; just not to line thier own pockets, or some lobby's agenda.
I found it amazing how many people went through hoops to get their name removed from his project.
He should have been required to return the Nobel Peace Prize award that he won half of, due to his errors.
Mooch
I think Gore has done a lot of good in spreading the truth. He has a pulpit and is using it to all of our advantages. Just as Carter is using his pulpit to help people and spread truth about the situation in the Middle East, our politicians should all use their power and exposure to spread truth.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/national_science_boycotting_lo.html
Perhaps scientists should take a more active role such as this using the 'power of the purse' to make their point, also.
The weather and global warming are two separate and distinct entities. One has very little to do with the other.
Well, Kimberly, intellectually speaking, most of us couldn't hold a candle to Al Gore. That doesn't negate your comment, just acknowledges that he is smarter than the average bear (so to speak). He didn't actually try to take credit for the internet, that's just an urban myth, though he does deserve credit for helping to make it more accessible to the general public. Disagree with him if you must, but to say he isn't bright would be a major misconception.
I am proud to say that my congressman is a real scientist, a rocket scientist at that. Now, if only the ignorant 'creationism' types would shut the f--- up and pay attention, we may actually make progress in this country.
Obama has taken steps to reverse the ignorance of the past 8 years, but there are still many that are clinging to their ignorance, a few of them just above....
Bottom line, what is done in one place impacts other places.
John, to me this epitomizes the problem. While on the one hand Al Gore has done more to communicate the problem than most scientists, he has become a foil of the anti-global warming brigade. A politician almost by definition is not to be trusted (a bad rap in my opinion, though I can certainly understand the reasons for thinking that way). I suppose the problem is that he is both a communicator and a distraction.
Actually, mooch, Gore gets his info from scientists, so it's not "his theory," it's the scientific consensus. Which is exactly my point. The scientific consensus is clear, but Gore serves as a distraction from the consenses. It's easy to make fun of Gore and by doing so secondarily and surreptiously attack the science. But the science is sound. Gore merely is an easy straw man.
I think to apologize for someone like Gore is a mistake, personally. One should never, ever apologize for intelligence, class, well-spoken discourse, factual presentation, and hard work in forwarding a cause. The extremists on the right will criticize anyone with whom they disagree. I consider it a badge of honor to be ridiculed by them, to be called a moron by the likes of at least one of your commentors above.
Politics has worked to shut up science for so long. It's time politics helped explain science to our stupid masses.
Here's your chance, L. Wade. Name the "so much stuff" that Al Gore has made up. We'll wait.
"Science is about the truth, right? But mostly I think it is about unproven theories."
Actually, L. Wade, science is about "seeking the truth." The difference may seem subtle but the it is actually quite important. Science hates uncertainty. It observes, then makes hypotheses, then tests those hypotheses, then tests the uncertainties of those hypotheses, then tests the results of those uncertainties of those hypotheses, and after quite a bit of reiteration finally comes to a consensus. This is why the consensus on climate change/global warming is so important...because it withstood the three decades of scientists questioning every nuance. And yet after all that questioning, they came to a consensus that global warming is happening and we have contributed to it.
Go figure.
Well, Nora, that seems a bit melodramatic. But unfortunately he does seem to be a double edged sword. He both inspires some and repulses others. So is he a good messenger?
Spoken like a person with no scientific education. This is the standard reply of the uneducated that think "theory" means "a guess." There is a difference between a scientific theory and a guess or hypothesis (which is, in fact, what most people really mean when they use the word theory).
I won't bother to go look up the wikipedia page for you that explains this stuff. If you actually cared about knowledge, you would have already found it.
Actually, people can legitimately dislike Gore for his politics, but not for his lack of intellect. In fact, many say he lost the 2000 election (okay, technically he got more of the popular vote, but he wasn't President, was he) because he was too cerebral for the masses (personally I think it was a combination of too cerebral, too close to Bill Clinton [Monica-gate pretty much killed Gore's chances], too many people incapable of reading a ballot in one district in Florida, and too many conservatives on the Supreme Court). Now, supposing you can follow my rather convoluted and parenthetically diarrhetic previous sentence, you can see that my point is that Gore is actually quite intelligent. People don't always like intelligent. Especially when it highlights their own lack of thought.
Whoa. You learn about the scientific meaning of the word 'theory' in elementary school, then continue to use it in high school science. There is no excuse for not knowing what it means in a scientific context. There are many words that have different common usage meanings than subject-specific meanings. Ignorance is no excuse - everybody has at least a basic education in this country. And when you become an adult and actually read this over and over again, then you have a responsibility to stop repeating incorrect usage. It's the excuse that people keep hearing from their own sides, ignorant or not, and it's the lazy way to argue a problem - just keep repeating falsehoods.
The whole focus on Al Gore is really unscientific, and deliberately so, in order to take the focus off the facts and what the scientiic consensus is and focus it on whether you like Al Gore or not, or whether knowing that he is being stigmatized by the Repulicans like they do with everything, trying to make it look like a "real good partriotic rich American" person would not like Al Gore ... or want to have a beer with him.
What is the purpose of this whole article, to see if Al Gore would win a popularity contest, we already know the answer is yes, since he did win the 2000 election after all.
The questions and points need to be put into some kind of order and perspective otherwise the survival of life on the planet becomes based on Republican bad-jacketing.
Doc C., your map certainly shows that overpopulation equals pollution.
Bruce, I actually haven't judged Al Gore at all. I merely stated what I think you will agree is accepted fact - some people look up to him, some people use him as a foil against the climate change debate.
"What is the purpose of this whole article, to see if Al Gore would win a popularity contest,..."
Not at all. The purpose of this article is to highlight the delicate dance between science and policy and politics. I've written several articles recently here and in my blog about science and politics (and policy). Mostly I've focused on the role of scientists in politics and policy development. But Al Gore's speech at AAAS made me think about the role of politicians who insert themselves into scientific debates. Gore isn't a scientist, though clearly he has had an interest in science going way way back. As a Senator (just before taking over as VP), he represented the US at the Rio conference. I remember reading "Earth in the Balance" before it was cool (okay, it may never have been cool, his writing is rather dry and cerebral). But the fact that he was the VP makes him an easy foil for those who oppose his political views and thus will almost automatically distrust any environmental (or any other) view he espouses.
So I ask you. Do the positives of Gore's visibility bringing the issue to light outweigh the negatives of him being used by the opposing viewpoint as a strawman to shoot down?
Unfortunately, Bruce, I can't control the views of the people who comment. Actually, I'm a strong believer in letting people either make their point or make fools out of themselves trying. I think my response to that particular comment addressed my point of view on its veracity.
Generally I do one of two things in my responses. Either I try to get people to explain their views ("Gore is an idiot" isn't so much a point of view as it is a lack of intelligent discourse). Or I explore the logic (or usually lack of it) for them. Sometimes it stimulates thoughtful reflection. Other times it stimulates vitriol and ranting (a sure sign of a weak argument). And still other times it causes them to go away in search of a kindred soul who will validate their life with complete agreement to something that doesn't follow a logical thought process. Of course, sometimes someone will so stimulate my own thought processes such that it will send me down the path of intellectual discovery. I live for those moments.
They may talk about science and theory in school but they actually do teach in many places that a "theory" is a "guess". The teachers of science in the public school, in the main, don't have a clue as to what the scientific method is nor what science is all about. That is the main reason that Americans are mostly scientifically illiterate. It's enough to make one cry.
I'm not defending WalMart by any means, far from it, but it's way too simplistic to look at one facet of a multifaceted issues.
Here it is: in a perfect world, Scientists would be able to do their thing in their lab, and the rest of us would pay attention well enought that they would not need to be advocates. But we are not doing our jobs as voters. We are not hunting for the truth, and accepting it when we find it. And unfortunately, we have seen the denial squad working pretty hard over the past twenty years to conceal the science and to lift one side of the playing field- even such abominations as Exxon offering money to denial "scientists" and White House editors re-writing reports from NASA scientists.
In that atmosphere, it is hard for me to ask scientists to stay on the sidelines of a political debate that on the denial side seems to not be science based.
LOL, I suspect not everyone will agree with you on that one, Chris.
"In that atmosphere, it is hard for me to ask scientists to stay on the sidelines of a political debate that on the denial side seems to not be science based. "
This is a question that has been an issue for quite some time for scientists. Those who strayed out of the lab were treated as mercenaries. Those who stayed in their labs were treated as if they were abandoning their science by letting it be misused. Look at the scientists who have been in the forefront of the climate change issue (and the non-scientists like Gore who have stepped into the communications gap)...they are accused of selling their souls. To many scientists it's an incentive to stay in the lab and say "screw you" to the world. But to others, it's incentive to speak up to ensure against abuse of their data.
When I get a chance I'll post another piece I've culled from Pielke's book on "tornado politics" vs "abortion politics."
I would like to address one of the issues you raise, that hasnt gotten much attention so far. Should scientists be advocates. This is very tricky, because a scientist must remain open to the possibility of change, if new data becomes available. This could pose a dilemma, unless the scientist is convinced that the data is so strong, that were is no likelihood of the theory, or general picture being overturned. A good example is the danger of smoking. When it became clear, beyond any doubt, that smoking is a major cause of human disease, scientists became vocal in their statements.
Global climate change is a tough one. I respect Al Gore, but his statements on the issue are painful to hear for a scientist, because they are framed in the language of the absolute truth that politicians love, and scientists hate. There is no uncertainty that global warming is a major threat, and is a result of man made greenhouse gas production. But there is an awful lot of uncertainty about the details. And you wouldnt know that listening to Gore. No scientist would want to be in the position of making these kinds of statements.
Al Gore is one of the greatest intellectual authorities our nation has to offer. To belittle this man is hold deep disrespect for higher order thinking. If one really has a disagreement with someone of such caliber, it is the responsible thing to back it up with sound documentation and honest discourse. I just don't see this from the naysayers.
> mountains on a theory that has'nt been tested.
The theory that should have been put into practice that that it is not OK
to change things at the planetary level for the economic gain or the
few.
We have brought about our present dilemma due to unconsciousness and
ignorance, but now that we are sentient and realize the situation every
moment we wait to save the planet is evidence that we are not what
we think of as intelligent life.
Carl, I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that he doesn't know what he is talking about simply because he is wealthy. It's a non sequitur, really. Now, you could make a case that he doesn't practice what he preaches, but if he sat in a cave then he wouldn't be able to get his message out. Sure, the guy profits from this, but profiting from it doesn't mean he is wrong.
Which by the way raises a common misconception. Gore is often pilloried for not being a scientist or proselytizing global warming. As the article notes, he has become a foil for ridiculing the science. But all his charts and facts and figures come from science. He isn't making the science...scientists are making the science...Gore is merely someone who is using his celebrity to communicate the science more than scientists have been able.
For example, it is likely no one who isn't a scientist would have read the IPCC report, but most have at least some idea of what is in it. Communicating outside our family of scientists is often difficult for scientists.
Agreed, Sy. For the reasons you mention there is a tricky balance between seeking knowledge and advocating a position. And once you take a position, is it possible to alter that position as new data come in? It is, but this relates to the end of your comment:
"There is no uncertainty that global warming is a major threat, and is a result of man made greenhouse gas production. But there is an awful lot of uncertainty about the details. And you wouldnt know that listening to Gore. No scientist would want to be in the position of making these kinds of statements."
As you say, there is no uncertainty that the problem exists and that man is playing a role. That is clear. We simply argue about the details - how much, how bad, timing, model tweaking, etc. Gore speaking with greater certitude about the details than scientists would can provide the fodder for those who chosen ideologically not to be believe in global warming. People are quick to point out that there are some scientists who disagree with the consensus - offering them as "proof" that the consensus is wrong - but ignore the scientists who think the IPCC underpredicted the threat.
In short, people exploit the scientific uncertainties in the details to negate the entire concept. Gore's presentations and celebrity has given him a platform to communicate the science, but in doing so becomes the target for ridiculing the science. It's a double-edged sword.
"My big problem is we're being told that we have to move mountains on a theory that has'nt been tested."
This is a common misconception caused by the different definitions scientists and lay people have for the word "theory." To the general public, theory has come to mean "a guess." It actually isn't a guess, and if you follow the etymology the word we use in the public actually does derive from the scientific meaning even though we generally don't realize it. When we say we do something "in theory" we actually aren't saying we do something by guessing, we actually imply the more scientific concept. So, what does theory mean in science? What theory is NOT is "a guess." A theory is reached only after observation of occurrences. From those observations scientists devise a hypothesis (or usually a long series of hypotheses) to explain the observation. They then test those hypotheses and retest them. They then offer new hypotheses to try to explain uncertainties and new questions. This process can go on for quite some time and by many scientists working both together and independently. Eventually, after all this observing, testing, retesting, and analysis the sum total of all this becomes a theory. So a theory is actually the end result of an incredible amount of work. So to suggest that global warming is "just a guess" shows a lack of understanding of how science works.
"admittedly it is hard to test something as big as the planet but what I remember is that theories have to be tested with both a test group and a control group and the the results have to be able to be repeated then the theory is proven.. Till then it's still a guess."
Actually, I just explained this. It is not "still a guess." Does that mean that scientists have stopped researching it? Of course not. Scientists never stop researching. There are scientists today who continue to study the intricacies of gravitational theory (e.g., Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation). Oddly enough I don't hear too many people arguing that gravity is "only a theory," or that heliocentricity is "only a theory," though there was a time when scientists who studied both were ostracized by the community because it upset their predisposed belief systems.
"And the proof of global warming is "look around you".
Actually, the proof of global warming is the decades of research in the area, and the consensus that has been reached. No one can point to a particular event and say "global warming caused that," except perhaps the retreating glaciers and ice cap melting. As alluded to in my article, "popular communication" of intricate scientific data can both get the word out and become itself the foil for attack. Kind of "shoot the messenger" rather than address the message itself.
"So when else have we changed our way of life so dramatically over a guess about what may or may not be happening?"
I'm sure we could all come up with a few ways we have changed our lives dramatically. But the point is that there is a consensus that it is, in fact, happening. Your uncertainty or outright denial doesn't mean scientists don't think it is happening. And scientists, after all, are the ones actually studying this issue.
Janet - Sy touched on this as well (and he is another scientist too). Clearly some scientists cringe when they listen to Gore, but moreso for his certitude of details rather than the inaccuracy of his greater message (which, after all, is that of the scientists).
I agree that a lot of politicians don't want to listen to scientists, and that is true for much of the general public as well. Science often challenges our previous thinking, and that is a hard pill to swallow if it upsets your ideology. The other problem of course is the uncertainty issue. While there is a consensus about global warming, there is still lots of continuing research on the fine details. Just yesterday one of the IPCC scientists came out saying that he thinks that the IPCC report UNDERpredicts the problem. That uncertainty about the detail gets expanded by some into uncertainty about the consensus, which of course their isn't.
All of this gets confusing to the public. They see reports one day to eat more fish, and the next day to avoid certain fish because of mercury levels. And they think "so, should I eat fish or not." Science tends to dig into the details, politicians and people need definitive messages. It's a tough balance.
I can concur from experience, Joe, as can Sy and Jax and others. The whole purpose of science is to gain knowledge. And knowledge begets new questions, and the search for new knowledge. There will always be a few who veer off ethically, that is true in any profession, but as a whole it is quite difficult to pass off a fallacy as a theory. There are just too many people working for too many years doing too many experiments - all essentially "checking your work" - you just can't fake something this big. And every time someone comes up with a new idea it is incorporated into the analysis. That's why yesterday a scientist came out to say that the IPCC calculations may underpredict the problem. There are scientists out there continuously collecting new data, and the new data (things like ice melting, etc) suggests that the predicted events are happening much faster than we had assumed. Always learning.
David,
perhaps you could clarify this consensus that you claim exists.
It seems that those who support the theory of global warming claim a consensus but those who understand the arguments of the sleptical climate scientists don't see a consensus.
BTW on Al Gore,
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (Al Gore, CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” 3/9/99)
"Here's your chance, L. Wade. Name the "so much stuff" that Al Gore has made up. We'll wait."
"British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims"
"The first mistake made by Gore, said Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.
The claim that sea levels could rise by 20 ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.
Justice Burton added: “The armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.
Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.
The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.
The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability.” The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.”
The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMNi-2SrQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8
Anywho David there is plenty of science out there that disagrees with the global warmists theory that man is the cause of global warming, and very little science in existance that leads us to believe that we humans can have any effect on climate change at all.
"perhaps you could clarify this consensus that you claim exists."
Check out the IPCC report. It's pretty clear on how the consensus was developed and why it is, in fact, a consensus. If you want, you can even go back to the earlier IPCC reports and track the development of the consensus even closer, including how they identified and dealt with uncertainties.
"It seems that those who support the theory of global warming claim a consensus..."
You are confused about how science works and have this backwards. Those who understand the science support the consensus that global warming exists.
"...but those who understand the arguments of the sleptical climate scientists don't see a consensus."
Again you are confused and/or misinformed. Those who understand the arguments of skeptical climate scientists are able to attribute them to two, albeit overgeneralized, groups: 1) the loony tunes who don't know what they are talking about, and 2) the reputable ones who raise interesting and legitimate scientific arguments for discussion. For the first group, which unfortunately appears to be the majority of the "skeptics," their own lack of logical argument and credibilty speaks for itself. For the second group, their arguments and data are incorporated into the discussion, analyses, and refinement of the theory. In some cases these points are found to be specious or irrelevant (e.g., they affect 0.000001% of the variance, and thus have no impact on the conclusions). In other cases they provide some valuable insight into a particular area of uncertainty. All valid data are debated, analyzed, and incorporated. And the consensus remains the consensus. Only these additional valid data points now make the consensus even stronger and the confidence in it even higher.
"BTW on Al Gore,
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (Al Gore, CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” 3/9/99)"
I suppose we should just ignore the fact that this has been proven false over and over again: False
"British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims"
You're suggesting one judge's opinion on Al Gore negates the whole concept of global warming? And yet you would ignore the people who actually study the phenomenon. You also confuse "made up" with "exaggerate." If you read the comments above you'll find that even scientists think that Gore states things with certitude that scientists would not. But to conflate Al Gore's overstatements with some conclusion that global warming is not real and/or man's influence on that warming would be summarily wrong. It also would be against what the scientific community understands to be happening. The fact that Al Gore is not a scientist and thus not held to the same standards of scientists, and the resulting use of him as a foil for those who seek to deny the science, is a major point of this article and many of the comments.
"Anywho David there is plenty of science out there that disagrees with the global warmists theory that man is the cause of global warming, and very little science in existance that leads us to believe that we humans can have any effect on climate change at all."
Actually, there is no science that disputes global warming or that man has contributed to and accelerated its occurrence. Butt there is a scientific consensus that the preponderance of the evidence clearly points to both the existence of climate change and man's influence.
Gore did take the initiative in the Congress to support and help create the internet in his role as a Congressman. At no time did Gore claim to have done the computer work nor the software creation that has resulted in the internet as we know it.
Your claim that he lied on this issue is false.
If one is willing to look at ALL of the facts, rather than just what the algorians tell you, it's not hard to doubt the global warmist theory.
The fact is that eventhough C02 in our atmosphere continues to rise the temperature of our planet has not been rising for the last few years, according to the global warmists and their theory our planet should have continued warming due to the additional C02 in our atmosphere.
If one is willing to look at ALL of the facts, it is virtually impossible not to agree that global warming is real and man has contributed to it.
As this article points out, Al Gore has become a convenient straw man at which to take pot shots. Attacking Gore has become a surrogate for attacking the actual issues, in large part because the facts don't support the global warming denialists. Ah, but they always can jump on Gore, which is usually good for a little self-stroking of the ego. It is, however, but a distraction from the discussion and a sign of a weak argument.
And, I'm sure you think The Flintstones movie is a documentary, too. LOL
I suppose it's easy to get confused, Mooch, by the wording in my title if one takes it at face value without thinking through the nuances. It goes without saying that Al Gore is not a scientist. Everyone understands that. My reference was to "scientists," with the quotation marks highlighting the fact that politicians, as non-scientists, were communicating science. [In fairness, the other example in my article was to an actual scientist (I'm including medical doctors in the broad meaning of scientist) who made a political diagnosis despite his scientific background.]
That said, I feel the need to clarify the wording you selected. This is not "Al Gore's theory on global warming." What Al Gore does is communicate the science of global warming, perhaps with some degree of overstatement and flamboyance for effect, as noted by several actual scientists above. So this is "the scientific consensus on global warming." That distinction is missed (intentionally or in ignorance) but those who use Gore as a foil.
I think your question, regarding Al Gore's role (and politician's role in general), aught to be viewed in context.
Gore, now as he tours and speaks, when he won the Nobel prize, when he produced his film "Inconvenient Truth," and even when he wrote his book "In the Balance," is acting off the situation happening to Climate Science (Global Warming warnings coming from science)... He was Reacting to the organized reactionary efforts to deny, diminish, and distract the message from Climate Scientists about Climate Change and the Human role in it.
So, in a sense, he was supporting the scientists and there message... He was being a champion for them (similar to how he championed the expansion of the internet).
The science needed the support of politicians in this case because of the stonewalling and derailing that was going on from vested and self-centric interest groups and because the message was getting the cold shoulder from the public masses that were incapable or unwilling to understand the implications of the message (with the second group, the public, being stoked by the first group, the vested interests).
While politicians aught to focus on Policy, they sometimes (maybe often) champion Causes (sometimes rightfully, sometimes wrongfully). When something obvious (now obvious) like the need to regulate the dangers of smoking gets slammed, slurred, and stalled by the Industry, who makes sure that something DOES get done to educate people and protect them?
So, in the case of Gore... isn't he filling an appropriate role in the whole process?
When we look at folks like Gore, it's important we look at them in context...
Hecklers who want to bring down efforts to act and take the warnings seriously prefer to 'micro focus' - just like a flock of crows pecking pecking pecking with the pointy tips of their beaks... they circle and distract like jackals ...
That said, Gore is no super hero, he is filling a needed role using the position he has...
and for that he is to be thanked...
Due to the blanket being thrown over them and the efforts being used against them, and considering the implications we all face... Yes, Scientists do need to raise their voices in this situation...and Yes, advocates like Gore do serve a purpose...
In my recent effort to link many of the scientific organizations that endorse the IPCC Reports on climate change, I ran across a statement from the American Psychological Association, which dealt with the communication issue - regarding, that is, how scientists might more effectively communicate the science to the public.
Society's Grand Challenges: Insights from Psychological Science - Global Climate Change (p. 29).
Such effective communication is apparently needed. While 70% of respondents think the earth is warming, and 77% think that human activities at least contribute to warming temperatures, only 9% base their opinion on "scientific research".
CLIMATE CHANGE AND AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION:
THE NATIONAL AND STATE PERSPECTIVE
The lie that never dies.
Kimberly: "...he may be trying to do a good thing now, I just don't think he's bright enough to know what he's talking about."
Actually, it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
BTW, do you know anything about Current TV?
And, of course, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, he's some dummy....
Gore gave the keynote address at the 2007 AGU Convention. "He spoke for an hour to a packed ballroom, and crowds also filled overflow rooms to watch a closed-circuit broadcast of his talk. Yes, he got a standing ovation - and signed autographs before slipping out of the ballroom."
David: "And yet he also serves as a focal point for the loudest of denialist voices."
Denialists attempt to divert the discussion away from the science by falsely claiming Gore presents himself as a scientist. If it weren't Gore, it would be someone/something else.
David: "On the balance, I think most would agree that he has helped raise awareness higher than scientists might have thought possible."
I agree. And he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize precisely for that reason - another fact that the denialists disparage. But hey - it's the Nobel Peace Prize!!
Gore: Scientists say that our current activities will put millions of people at risk and we need to curb our dependence on fossil fuels before the results are irreversible.
Global Warming Deniers: Don't worry about it; keep buying oil no matter what it costs from people with a long history of completely ignoring implecations to the environment and a willingness to sock it to the public whenever possible.
Gee, who's the crackpot?
One serious problem for scientists in going straight to the public is that the media has no incentive to tell the boring truth. They want traffic and readers/listeners; that means sensationalism. Talking to the media put you at considerable risk of having what you have to say butchered and used out of context and distorted. And, of course, as scientists, being discredited actually ruins your career, unlike, say, politicians.
Very well said, Stephanie
Good way of putting that. I have though of it as a kind of myopia. At best, the focus is peripheral or tertiary, detailing the trivial in order to intentionally ignore the main point.
So Gore is actually exploiting the controversy surrounding himself to draw even more attention to this issue. Brilliant!!!
Yes - I know. The only folks allowed to make money are the polluters. Anyone, like Gore, who devoted a great deal of his political career to addressing climate change should show their sincerity by being poor - and ineffective.
David: "I think Gore has probably shown over the course of his life some substantial service to the country and the planet."
No doubt. He has been working on climate change since his first term in the House of Representatives, when he held hearings - highlighting his college science professor, Roger Revelle, who had documented the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
David,
Even your reference attributes the statement to Gore, it's just that they claim he didn't intend to say what he said (he didn't mean it that way).
But if you look at the transcript of the interview he makes no clarification and did not include his claim with any other comments, he made the claim it is there for all to see, it has never been shown to be false.
But ahh yes you respond with the traditional I know it all flair of traditional global warmists discounting most all who disagree with the faithful as crackpots and loons.
Without addressing the science at all.
At least Steve B came in making the attempt to provide some evidence which disagrees with the skeptics. But it doesn't change much, you have proponents of man made global warming claiming the historic record showing temperature lagging C02 and you have skeptics using the same record showing C02 lagging temperature.
You have the proponents of global warming exclaiming that the ipcc model closley mirrors the record.
But examples like this can not be ignored.
This chart shows that eventhough the C02 PPM has risen from 372 to 387 in the last 6 years the earth tempreature has fallen.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
And that this chart shows the predicted temperature rise never materialized and in fact cooling took place to a much greater degree.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GORETEMPS.jpg
This chart shows the IPCC's predictions of atmospheric C02 compared to the reality of much lower levels.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsIPCC.jpg
The fact that climate scientists do not have faith in the models (Von Storch/Bray surveys of 1996, 2003, 2008) which the IPCC claim are reliable despite their being shown in error, this is reason enough to doubt the global warmists and their claims that we are all doomed.
The fact that despite the claims of global warmists, science shows that water vapor is responsible for 95% of global warming with approx. 13'000 Gigatons in our atmosphere compared to 800 gigatons of C02.
Another fact is that we could stop all of mans output, approx. 9-11 gigatons anually of C02 and we would not effect global warming one iota.
Gore's solar plans thwarted by upscale neighborhood's rules
Al Gore gets approval to install solar panels at his Tennessee home
Prior to the solar panels, Gore bought green energy from the TVA Green Switch Program.
Katrena: "...if he cared so much he would leave the jet on the ground and use a hybrid car or drive"
Gore offsets carbon emissions from travel. It's not a perfect solution, but for someone, who has to be where he has to be, there are no alternatives presently.
On the other hand, Gore has helped convince corporations like Wal-Mart to move increasingly toward sustainability.
However (David Evan - are you reading this), this is a perfect example of "micro focus".
Also, I'm surprised you still reference icecap. These well-known climate skeptics have every opportunity to publish their research (are they actually doing research) in scientific journals. Their problem is that their hypotheses aren't washing in the scientific community. I have said it a thousand times, and I will continue to say it (until is changes): no scientific organization disputes the IPCC Reports. That a fact.
Despite your trying to use the fact that the Von Storch survey not being published as "scientific" as a tactic, it holds weight in that it shows the opinion of the people who knows the science the best, whether published as a scientific study or not.
BTW Von Storch has announced that the 2008 survey is secheduled to be published in a scientific journal but again not as a scientific study but as a reflection of the opinions of climate scientists.
"I'm surprised you still reference icecap."
I notice you post no specifics in your claim that their hypothisis are not statisfactory nor that you challenge the fact that the IPCC's predictions have fallen short.
The problem with AlGore's hypocrisy is that despite Steves postings that AlGore made an attempt to make his main home more earth friendy is that he made no attempt until after he was publicly ridiculed in the press for being so un carbon friendly only then did he make an attempt to reduce his carbon foot print, untill then it wasn't important to AlGore to be earth friendly...it was just important that he tell all the rest of us to be more earth friendly.
Typical ploy #45: Create a strawman to knock down.
I, nor does any other scientist, discount "most all who disagree with the faithful as crackpots and loons." We discount those ideas that are crackpotish and loony, which unfortunately tends to be most of the ideas presented by those who are most vocal against global warming. When you can understand and/or honestly admit the distinction then an intelligent discussion can be held. The truth is that you summarily dismiss the scientific process in favor of your single-minded view, then accuse anyone who disagrees with you of summarily dismissing your views. It's like an embarrassing Psychology 101 case study.
The truth is that most points raised against global warming are, in fact, without scientific basis, of minimal impact to the variance, specious, and/or "crackpot" and "loony."
That is not to say that there are not valid points raised by those who do not agree to the consensus. Every valid point - let me emphasize this, EVERY VALID POINT - has been incorporated into the scientific process and will continue to be incorporated into the scientific process as new data are obtained. When any pertinent issue is raised, when any relevant data are presented, when every valid argument is offered it gets evaluated, debated, analyzed, and incorporated into our understanding of what is happening to our earth.
To suggest that opposing views are discounted is either disingenuous, uninformed, or (likely) both. All valid viewpoints are incorporated into the development and continuing refinement of the consensus.
"Without addressing the science at all."
Unlike some people who like to make believe they are experts in areas they clearly have no knowledge of, I choose not to get into the actual scientific discussion of global warming itself, especially with those who aren't listening anyway. This is for two reasons. First, despite my own greater knowledge than many on the subject, I do not consider myself expert enough to debate the finer details, nor do I have the time to do so. Clearly Steve B has spent the time to become substantially informed on the issue and can certainly address and document the science much better than I could. Others are also more conversant in the details of the IPCC report and our evolving understanding. Second, I must admit that I grow bored with having to re-explain why the sky appears blue for the umpteenth time to someone who insists that a rare flash of green that occurs on the horizon under certain conditions means the sky doesn't ever appear blue. Talking to those who will not listen is a bit of a waste of energy, don't you think. Ironically, when an honest and informed discussion is held on any particular topic I have often found the opposing view to be persuasive. But that requires both views to be informed.
My own forte is the scientific process, which is what I tend to focus on in my commenting. I also tend to believe that views must be supported, which is why my own comments are usually a bit verbose. It is also why I give more credence to someone who provides a logically and factually supported argument for their position as opposed to someone who merely makes a statement, often without any logical or factual basis, and believes that it is sufficient. I furthermore tend to not be enamoured with those who twist the meaning of someones words to fit their preconceived viewpoint, yet overlook that same dictional inartfulness in those for whose viewpoints they agree. Especially when they do so intentionally.
My day job beckons.
Let's recap O.K.?
From your earlier post;
"Those who understand the arguments of skeptical climate scientists are able to attribute them to two, albeit overgeneralized, groups: 1) the loony tunes who don't know what they are talking about, and 2) the reputable ones who raise interesting and legitimate scientific arguments for discussion. For the first group, which unfortunately appears to be the majority of the "skeptics," their own lack of logical argument and credibilty speaks for itself."
David,
Interesting debating tactic that you make a statement then claim you never made the statement. (while not removing the evidence)
But then what can one expect from a person who claims that AlGore didn't say he invented the internet eventhough the evidence show that AlGore did make that claim, you seem to have a distant relationship with reality.
"I choose not to get into the actual scientific discussion of global warming itself,"
Of course you don't David, if you don't understand the science there is no sense in responding, and if you were to have the desire to become as educated as Steve B on the sublect all that takes is to open his sources once in a while, real climate and grist mill who are the purveyors of the traditional global warmists thinking which is where most of the public gets their regurgitation of the IPCC doctrine, no questions asked.
However science is not supposed to be about regergitation and doctrine it is supposed to be about questioning the regergitation and doctrine, the only question the IPCC asks now is 'does this study validate our claim?' Which is why the IPCC was totally perplexed concerning the current phase of some 10 years of no rise in the earths temperature (which of course was not foreseen by the IPCC models).
But then if you wanted to really understand the science of climate change you might visit www.icecap.us and learn about the questioning of the regurgitation and doctrine, where despite Steve B's claim (due to ignorance) that "Their problem is that their hypotheses aren't washing in the scientific community." a group of dozens of well credentialed climate scientists (some believe global warming is antropogenic some believe it is not) who's peer reviewed published works number in the hundreds, have come together in the name of open discussion on the subject rather than the closed door thinking of the global warmists who say the question has already been answered, no further discussion needed.
I wonder which of their hypothisis are not washing with the scientific community?
The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.
4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.
5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.
The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e.Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data.
But then what can one expect from a person who claims that AlGore didn't say he invented the internet eventhough the evidence show that AlGore did make that claim, you seem to have a distant relationship with reality."
Please go back and read for comprehension.
"However science is not supposed to be about regergitation and doctrine it is supposed to be about questioning the regergitation and doctrine, the only question the IPCC asks now is 'does this study validate our claim?'"
Please try again to read for comprehension. Also, please refer back to "Typical ploy #45: Create a strawman to knock down."
Please explain how somehow the IPCC and all the rest of the scientists in the consensus somehow missed this evidence that completely refutes their theory. Please also explain why the information has not already been incorporated into the analysis.
"The above list provides a complete refutation..."
The above list does nothing of the sort. And the fact that you think somehow all the people who study this have been bamboozled demonstrates your lack of knowledge of how science works.
"i.e.Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data. "
Refer back to "reading for comprehension."
The Empire State Building has 6,500 windows. One of them has been blown out by a gust of wind.
The Scientific Analysis: The Empire State Building has 6,500 windows, one of which has been blown out. Technically, the Building still has 6,500 windows if you define "window" as the space, whether it currently has glass in it or not. If you define "window" to only include those spaces that, in fact, currently have glass, then the Empire State Building has 6,499 windows (and one likely to be replaced pretty quickly).
The Denialistic Analysis: The Empire State Building has no windows.
No re-reading necessary, I read what you posted then read your post dening that you posted it!
LOL! Denial is more than a river in Egypt!
"Please explain how somehow the IPCC and all the rest of the scientists in the consensus somehow missed this evidence that completely refutes their theory."
Don't have a clue on that one David, I mean it's so kintergarden obvious you'd think they would have a hard time ignoring those facts, maybe you could explain......Oh wait that's right you've never become knowledgeable about the science so I guess you couldn't.
"Refer back to "reading for comprehension.""
Again you'll need to offer some facts to refute the evidence it's not enough to voice an opinion when it comes to scientific facts.
Science is about numbers consensus is political.
The empire State building;
Still no science, just conjecture and opinion.
Can you address the fact that the IPCC predicted X and the exact opposite happened regarding the earth's temperature?
Can you address the fact that the IPCC predicted 400 to 428 PPM C02 in our atmosphere and here we sit at 387 today?
Well I can! The models don't work nearly as accurately as the IPCC would have us believe.
The IPCC is ignoring contradictory facts in favor of facts that prove their theory, such as the effect that the sun has on our planet.
The "experts" say it's not the sun it's the C02 that is causing the earths warming, but low and behold in the presence of less than normal sun activity out planet has stopped warming and in light of an almost sunspotless year the earth has cooled down to the same temperature as it was nearly thirty years ago.
But then again the "experts" say it can't be the sun.
It's not a tactic, Dan. Science matters. As far as "opinion of the people who knows the science the best" is concerned, why do you consistently discount the fact that no scientific organization disputes the IPCC Reports. Those organizations publish the journals in which the research is evaluated and debated. Those organizations are in a position to know the entire range of scientific debate - unlike the cherry-picked studies by well known skeptics, which make up icecap, your current "go-to" source (others having been free-market think tanks like Heartland).
Dan: "Von Storch has announced that the 2008 survey is secheduled to be published in a scientific journal but again not as a scientific study but as a reflection of the opinions of climate scientists."
Operative phrase: "but again not as a scientific study". Science matters, Dan. But if you're content with surveys, you may be interested in Survey: Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming is Real, just published by EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. The survey was conducted by Peter Doran, whose research has been previously misrepresented by "skeptics".
I used to waste alot of time debating specific scientific points with skeptics - to no avail. I don't do that any longer. As much as I like Gather, it is not the venue where scientific debate is conducted - sorry. Scientific debate is conducted in scientific journals - you know, the publications of all those scientific organizations that I continually refer to. Icecap is not a scientific organization and does not publish scientific journals. Nor does Heartland, Fraser, or the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - all of which you have referenced before.
David: "I choose not to get into the actual scientific discussion of global warming itself, especially with those who aren't listening anyway....I must admit that I grow bored with having to re-explain why the sky appears blue for the umpteenth time to someone who insists that a rare flash of green that occurs on the horizon under certain conditions means the sky doesn't ever appear blue. Talking to those who will not listen is a bit of a waste of energy, don't you think.
I've reached pretty much the same conclusion. Besides - no scientific organization disputes the IPCC Reports. And I would think that these organizatons, which publish the research, would be in a much better position than me, Dan, and likely most gather blatherers, to understand that research.
That's the spin, Dan, originating with a "conservative" think tank in Gore's home state of Tennessee, the timing of which was designed to distract from his Nobel Peace Prize award. At the time, Gore had been offsetting carbon emissions for some time, and he had previously attempted to install solar panels on his roof.
Why do you think, though, that Al Gore wouldn't face the same obstacles to reducing carbon emissions that we all face - what are the alternatives? To demean Gore for working his butt off to develop alternatives that we all can use is nothing more than politically motivated attempts to maintain the status quo. There are alot of coal interests in Tennessee, Dan - keep that in mind.
The IPCC has not "ignored" solar forcing. It is included in their reports. The only "ignoring" here is on your part. You consistently ignore the fact that no scientific organization - not the NAS, not the AAAS, not the AGU, not the AMS, not the AMA, not the Royal Society, etc., etc., etc. - disputes the IPCC Reports.
Well it may have been designed as you say but it was also fact, the record is clear there is no spin in the fact that AlGore's home was about as carbon unfriendly as a house could get, that it wasn't until the public ridicule that AlGore decided to make his home more carbon friendly, only then did he find out that the local historical society would limit the size of solar system installed.
I used to waste alot of time debating specific scientific points with skeptics - to no avail.""
Interpretation:
I could find no argument sufficient to counter the skeptic's facts.
"Icecap is not a scientific organization and does not publish scientific journals. Nor does Heartland, Fraser, or the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - all of which you have referenced before."
Now why would you purposefully claim I have referenced an organization when I have not? I'm not familiar with "Frasier" ( so I guess I may have referenced them in the past but I don't recall) and I don't think I have ever referenced the Oregon institute.
How many of the scientific organizations you refer to actually publish journals? I would imagine that few do outside of their membership newsletter.
But how published are their members?
www.icecap.us contributors:
"Reid A. Bryson Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., Global 500 Laureate, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI"
"Over his long career as scientist and teacher, Reid Bryson has significantly advanced the understanding of climate, people, and the environment. He has written more than 260 articles and five books ranging over the fields of geology, limnology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, and geography. Most cited climatologist in the world according to British Institute of Geographers article, 5th most cited physical geographer and 11th in list of all geographers."
"Robert Carter, Researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia"
"His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic paleontology, paleoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change. B.Sc. (Hons), University of Otago, Geology, 1963. Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Paleontology, 1968."
You can see Robert Carter speak on global warming on you tube;
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
"William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University"
"Dr. Cotton has distinguished himself in a broad range of professional activities as a publishing scientist (more than 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals, seven chapters in books, authored one book and co-authored two books), advisor of graduate students; editor of journals and member of advisory and review panels. From 1970 to 1974, he worked as a meteorologist at NOAA’s Experimental Meteorological Laboratory in Miami. In 1974, he joined the faculty of Colorado State University and was quickly promoted through the ranks, achieving full Professorship in 1981. At CSU, he has received the Engineering Dean’s Council award for excellence in atmospheric science research, the College of Engineering Abell Faculty Research Graduate Program Support Award and the CSU Research Foundation Researcher of the Year (1993) Award. He has advised 33 PhD and 29 MS graduates."
So we have three contributors to www.icecap.us who have published almost 500 papers.
Three out of dozens, I think that reflects well on www.icecap.us.
"The IPCC has not "ignored" solar forcing."
Well the fact that their models did not predict the lull in warming indicates that they did not give it the weight it deserved....which means that their predictions are not worth the paper they are printed on.
How many times did you or other global warmists state on gather that the experts have discounted solar activity as a source of global warming? And once again....the sun enters a more than normal inactive period and the planet stops warming.....then the sun goes into an even more passive sunspotless period for a year and the planet cools to a 30 year low.
The only way the IPCC could have been so far off in their predictions is because they discounted the effect of the sun on our planet as related to warming.
In other words the IPCC ignored solar forcing.
I already addressed that. Repetition on your part is just that - repetition.
Dan: "Interpretation:
I could find no argument sufficient to counter the skeptic's facts."
Misrepresentation won't help validate your skepticism.
Dan: "How many of the scientific organizations you refer to actually publish journals?"
You don't know? I'm surprised. Actually, most of them publish multiple journals. But the question is whether icecap publishes any.
Dan: "But how published are their members?"
So much, then, for bias against skeptics, since they are published in scientific journals. Too bad, though, for them (you) that their research has not convinced the scientific community at large.
Now you have again just ignored the fact that scientific organization - not the NAS, not the AAAS, not the AGU, not the AMS, not the AMA, not the Royal Society, etc., etc., etc. - disputes the IPCC Reports.
LOL! No you claimed that it was "spin" when in actually the record is clear and researchable.
Misrepresentation won't help validate your skepticism.
You offer no valid facts to contradict the skeptics science!
You be sure to post how many of your scientific orgsnizations actually publish a journal O.K. Steve!
This has to be the funniest thing you've ever written, Dan.
"You be sure to post how many of your scientific orgsnizations actually publish a journal O.K. Steve!" (Dan)
"Actually, most of them publish multiple journals." (Steve, in response)
Guess there still is a lack of reading for comprehension. It generally helps credibility to have some knowledge of how science works, at least when critiquing how science works.
I can confirm from personal experience (editor/peer reviewer/author) that virtually all scientific organizations publish at least one journal, and the larger ones publish multiple journals. Not surprising, actually, since the purpose of scientific organizations is to facilitate the dissemination of information and provide fora for debate and discussion of emerging scientific issues. The journals, the annual meetings, the special symposia, the newsletters, and the online community discussion groups all allow scientists to discuss issues, challenge each others findings, and argue about the stickier points in ongoing research.
Well I,m glad I could make you laugh David, but my statement is true, other than my posts in this thread, opinionizing, postulating and conjecture is all that has been posted by you global warmists.
"I can confirm from personal experience (editor/peer reviewer/author)"
Well good for you David, you are an accomplished wordsmith.
"Not surprising, actually, since the purpose of scientific organizations is to facilitate the dissemination of information and provide fora for debate and discussion of emerging scientific issues."
Sounds kinda like Icecap.
Steve,
Would you be willing to remove from your long list of organizations those who don't publish an offical journal as valid scientific organizations?
Getting funnier every minute. Keep working on that reading for comprehension part. Also keep in mind that legitimate discussion of various studies and data are warranted and, in fact, encouraged. That's why the valid points of others you have been repeating have already been incorporated into the analysis, and why any new valid data will also be incorporated into the analysis. Starting your argument with the suggestion that scientists worldwide are just making wild guesses or that profuse links to source material are "opinionizing, postulating and conjecture" (all while your own points are backed by scientific consensus or perhaps "just good common sense") tends to affect the credibility of other points you might be trying to make.
"Sounds kinda like Icecap."
Notwithstanding everything else already said by others about Icecap, refer back to "The Empire State Building has 6,500 windows..."
"Steve,
Would you be willing to remove from your long list of organizations those who don't publish an offical journal as valid scientific organizations?"
Please explain your logic on this one, Dan. By suggesting that Steve be willing to remove all organizations from his list that do not publish an official journal you are saying that your one organization that does not publish an official journal would also be removed. So Steve's list of organizations that recognize the validity of the IPCC conclusions would be reduced from say, 100 to something like, say 97 (it might be slightly less than that, I haven't actually gone through his list and counted). Meanwhile, your list of one organization that questions the validity of the IPCC conclusions would be reduced from 1 to, well, zero. So in the end Steve still has 97 (or more) organizations that provide support to his position and you now have zero that support your position.
So, how does this particular exercise benefit your argument?
Since we're all getting into counting, perhaps we should consider (as Steve has already noted) that many of these organizations publish multiple journals. So if we count journals by these organizations then the number would go well beyond the 100 I used in my exemplar. But let's not stop there. Let's count up the scientific publications that support either side of the discussion, i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles, books, chapters, monographs, presentations at scientific meetings, presentations at non-scientific meetings, government reports, Congressional hearings, international regulatory body reports, international scientific bodies, international agency reports, etc.
The reason I post such information is NOT because I am concerned with my or the Skeptics credibility in opinion of global warmists like yourself and Steve, you and Steve are among the true believers and could never be swayed but others who come into these discussions who are not so closed minded may take away from the information I post that it is not all said and done as you suggest.
Your claim that it is all taken into account is a reflection of your NOT understanding the science and how the results are arrived at, which is what the skeptics excell at, an understanding of the science.
And I'll say it again the inability of the IPCC models to predict what has happened is an indicator that all was not taken into account.
If they truely know it all as you are suggesting, how is it that they didn't get it right?
Climatologists understand models and their limitations which is why in the Von Storch/Bray surveys climate scientists show very little faith in models in being able to predict future climate conditions.
Science is about facts, Consensus is political.
Your move into the realm of the 'I have more people on my side than you do' argument means nothing, when you have hundreds if not thousands of skeptics well credentialed climate scientists presenting science that challenges the IPCC doctrine it is the science that must be challenged posting the numbers of believers doesn't challenge the facts.
The problem with your misunderstanding of science is that you base your critiques on a false presumption. Your thesis presumes that scientists decide on a position, then spend all their time finding data to defend that position. It's understandable that you would make this mistake because it is the modus operandi of those who deny the consensus. The reality, which of course anyone with actual knowledge of science would understand, is that scientists first observe, then propose a hypothesis to explain those observations, then test, reobserve, rehypothesize, and retest for as many iterations as necessary to understand what is occurring. All of this done independently and in tiny little pieces by many different scientists, who publish their work, present their findings, and then revise their understanding as necessary. If a scientist comes up with findings that others cannot repeat in independent testing and analyses, then those findings are considered uncertain. This process leads to collective understanding. Individual scientists present data, and those data must be challenged for veracity and if valid, integrated into the analysis.
Meanwhile, lacking an understanding of why their "groundbreaking data" doesn't actually negate the consensus, those who don't know how science works resort to cute little catch-phrases like "global warmists" designed to distract from the science by demeaning the process and intelligence of science as a whole. It's why those who don't understand data use Al Gore (or to attempt to demean further, AlGore) as a foil rather than defend their positions and/or data on its merits.
To give an idea of how climate models have worked in the past, I referenced Robert Carter as a contributor to icecap, in his presentation Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- parts 1-4 September 2007 in which he makes known a press release by one of the leading climate modeling organizations The Hadley center in the U.K. in which they make the announcement that they are incorporating new software that will be able to take into account natural variables.
"Our earlier models did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability"
So up until about a year ago climate models were not even built with the ability to take natural variabilities into account which makes for poor predicting over all.
The skeptic game is to keep presenting the science of climate change as uncertain or undetermined. A good example of this game is the now infamous Luntz memo. The idea is simple. No matter how compelling the science of climate change is, just keep "asking questions", so that the impression is created of scientific uncertainty.
It won't matter how many scientific journals the IPCC endorsing science organizations publish. It won't matter how many "...books, chapters, monographs, presentations at scientific meetings, presentations at non-scientific meetings, government reports, Congressional hearings, international regulatory body reports, international scientific bodies, international agency reports, etc." document anthropogenic climate change. Dan will (to use David Evans' term) "micro-focus" on some irrelevant information (which, as you often point out, has not been ignored by scientific inquiry), which he claims the IPCC missed (along with all of the endorsing scientific organizations), thereby negating the IPCC assertion that climate change is "unequivocal", and with 90% probability, is caused by human activity.
What Dan may not realize, however, is that Luntz himself has reversed himself on climate change. So has the primary funding source of the skeptic effort.
Finally, what Dan fails to understand is that not only is the scientific debate on climate change over (to the extent that any debate in science is ever over), but the political debate is over as well. As a spokesman for Exxon said (link above), following the 2007 IPCC Report, "...the global ecosystem is showing signs of warming, particularly in polar areas...the appropriate debate isn't on whether the climate is changing but rather should be on what we should be doing about it."
How about addressing the science?
BTW The scientists do their best, it is the IPCC who compiles the imformation and as any political organization it does it's best to bolster it's political position despite the facts presented.
Unfortunately, Steve, I'm all too aware of the game. This is one of the reasons I started exploring, as Chris Mooney puts it - the Intersection - between science and policy, on my blog and why I've begun contributing more science related posts to Gather.
"Finally, what Dan fails to understand...
Actually, I don't think Dan really cares. But it does make an interesting case study.
all of which were times that we were closest to the sun......just like Jan. of 2001.......
everything is circular......IMO ! ! !
Politicians learned how to twist the English language so I am not so trusting that they know much about science........
You guys post as if when you post stuff it makes it the truth...delusional... Steve C02 is the bread and butter of the global warming argument, according to you global warmists it is what is causing the earth to heat up. if some how you as a global warmists think C02 is irrelevant then you'er one poor global warmist.
Most of the references I have provided show that C02 is not the cause of global warming as is the Global warmist claim.
"Finally, what Dan fails to understand is that not only is the scientific debate on climate change over (to the extent that any debate in science is ever over), but the political debate is over as well."
Well Steve the debate is over for you and other true believers but as you hide your head in the sand more and more science discounting the IPCC doctrine is being released, more and more scientists are researching and adding to the skeptic's arsenal.
In a recent Debate on Global Warming:
"During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies."
Of course we should accept the information from an organization with such a plethera of qualified individuals! LOL!
You could be right, but he does post some interesting information on solar energy from time to time.
Actually, they do nothing of the sort. They provide information, and said information either is specious, irrelevant, or has already been incorporated into the development of the consensus. They don't negate the role that CO2, and our activities that impact the level of atmospheric CO2, h