AJ Tooley shared a post last week that reveals a hugh problem for the alarmist global warming movement: when both sides of the global warming argument are clearly presented, alarmists lose.
In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a "crisis." At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.That is a titanic shift of more than 16%; a sea-change in polling terms.
Tooley, and the articles author, correctly theorizes that this is why Al Gore is dodging invites from a bevvy of world leaders, including Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who want to debate him on the topic face-to-face.
This is typical of liberal-progressives, who are the driving force behind the overblown climate change crisis. They pretend to support healthy debate and free speech, but really prefer closed and controlled forums where they can present a lop-sided argument without challenge. If you thoughtfully disagree, you are either naive, a pawn of big business or truly evil.
Slowly, it seems, science is kicking the legs out from Al Gore's overblown Inconvenient Truth.
------------------
BONUS FEATURE:
The Scoop did a little research on the three person panel that handily beat NASA alarmist Gavin Schmidt, since author and filmmaker Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, The Lost World) was the only familiar name. I added Wikipedia links to all the participants, which makes for some educational reading.
I especially like a comment made by Phillp Stott, listed in his Wikipedia bio:
"... the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate 'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm."
Incredibly well said.
8 comments:
There is this excellent piece by Bjorn Lomberg that addresses a lot of the problems with the debate on what to do about Global Warming.
The idea that we will be losing 400,000 lives from warming is balanced by the saving of 1.8 million lives.
Why do the Global Warming alarmists hate people?
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12
While I strongly admire ones ability to debate and argue a point, and I too am a skeptic, it does not make scientific proof. In the end, debates over global warming mean nothing if there is no proof. The only way to have proof is for it to already have happend... then it's too late. It's a "Catch 22". As a people, we can neither live in fear of impending doom nor live care-free and not worry. I really think we should look at the global warming issue like war. The best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war. We may chose not to believe in the global warming issue, but in most, if not all, cases, it makes good business sense to go green.
Hutch - yours is the most articulate and pragmatic post I have read in a long time. Thanks for doing it here.
I wholeheartedly agree that proof is missing all-around and that a prudent approach would be to limit our impact to the environmental for reasons other than or in addition to potential impacts to climate change.
One good reason is so we can have a clean and healthy environment in which to live and raise our kids.
But, that is a very different arguement than what Gore makes. I don't subscribe to most of the assumptions of the alarmist movement as I feel they are purposefully crafted to support a particular ideological purpose.
Scoop
Scoop, thanks for the link; I feel unworthy, as the post was little more than a link to the article.
Hutch, it should be about the science and the evidence, but it's not. As usual, it's about power and money. Good scientists welcome others questioning their conclusions in hopes that the debate will advance the science, while the current crop of dogmatic "scientists" and their groupies seek at every turn to shut the debate down.
* Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel's climate expert, wrote last December that on-air meteorologists who didn't toe the global-warming line should lose their seals of approval from the American Meteorological Society. She refers to those seals as conferring legitimacy to TV meteorlogists. The message is clear: those who don't agree with my stance should lose their jobs and their public forum.
* Much of the past-temperature data on which global warming advocates pin their predictions comes from a network of data gathering stations scattered around the country. You've probably seen a couple here and there. Meteorologist Anthony Watts became concerned that the 1200 or so stations around the nation are set up in such a way as to provide faulty data. He and his volunteers have determined that about half of the stations they've inspected fail to meet specifications set down by NOAA, the agency which administers them. He used the National Climatic Data Center's website to determine the location of the stations so they could be photographed as evidence of improper maintenance. One day soon after he had begun to post his findings, he found that the database of station locations had simply been removed, making it extremely difficult to find other stations! "Privacy concerns" were cited. Privacy concerns over public information! After a public stink was raised, those privacy concerns seemed less important and the public information became public once again.
* A Canadian blogger discovered a flaw in the algorithm used to determine that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US. NASA, the agency for whom the scientists who wrote the algorithm work, corrected the error quickly. James Hansen, the NASA employee who wrote it --and a noted global warming alarmist-- responded to the discovery most unscientifically. He dismisses those who question his flawed science as "jesters."
* Of course, "jesters" is a downright complimentary term compared to what skeptics have been called lately. "Deniers" is a term used to intentionally draw parallels between global warming skeptics and fascist thugs. Famous environmentalist Robert Kennedy calls climate skeptics "villainous" and "traitors." Dark suggestions that those who question current global warming dogma are bought and paid for gather a lot of play in the media, while partisan funding of global warming advocates rates hardly a mention. And then there's this.
This is what the current "scientific" community does with people who ask questions.
These folks might well think they're saving the world. Problem is, they want to save it by ruling it, and their own fascist tendencies are already showing, before they've even taken control. That scares me more than global warming.
Well, your hero got the Nobel for this, Scoop. Cheers.
Carol - I could hardly believe he got an Academy Award after seeing the movie and what a total commercial it is for his political redemption.
My favorite part of the movie was when he spoke (softly) about his ethical obligation to address global warming because of the need to redeem himself for the sins of his tabacco growing family. How telling that what he is doing is really all about HIM.
I sadly have to say the Nobel prize has been a bit cheapened in my book.
Scoop
Just a couple of notes on quotes because, well, they're irresistible:
hutch-"in most, if not all, cases, it makes good business sense to go green."
Indeed, especially when at least half the population is buying.
Scoop-"the Nobel prize has been a bit cheapened in my book."
This could qualify as the understatement of the year, if we're speaking of the Peace prize, and if we ignore several of the recipients from recent years. This "award" has been irrelevant to me for quite a spell now.
Post a Comment