Gore To Congress: Global Warming Skeptics Like “Bernie Madoffs,” Skeptic To Gore: “Chicken”
Apr 24th, 2009 by MariaEvans
Al Gore is speaking to Congress today about cap and trade and the global warming amid accusations from a global warming skeptic that Gore “chickened out” and changed his mind about a joint testimony:
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
Lord Monckton, who was a climate advisor to the Thatcher Administration, was described this way by Grist:
Monckton has a colorful history—journalist by training, advisor to Margaret Thatcher, business consultant, and developer of the high-selling Eternity puzzle—but no background in climate science. Nonetheless, he’s touted by climate deniers as an “expert” on the topic, and serves as chief policy adviser to the Science & Public Policy Institute, a climate-skeptic group.
Which isn’t far off from a description you could give of Al Gore, so I think it would have been fun to see them side by side today in front of Congress.
Meanwhile, during his testimony this morning, Al Gore compared skeptics of the global warming to “Bernie Madoffs,” and I’d like a minute here to call “foul” on that one. I want scientists and others who may disagree with man made global warming to be able to speak freely about their doubts without being labeled like criminals.
Maria should we be surprised that Mr. Gore would be reluctant to go toe to toe with someone on the subject of man made global warming. This would require him to produce facts that then would be disputed and I believe laid bare as faulse. Mr. Gore I’m sure (sorry for the rhyme) would much prefer to be able to come before the committee and put forth that which he thinks and believes about man made global warming because like all believers of a religion they must believe with blind faith in that which they can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
MMGW has become a religion to too many people in this country and around the world and with cap and trade American industry will be the sacrifice upon the altar.
It is my opinion that Al Gore makes Bernie Madoff look like a nickle and dime scam artist. With his “global warming” alarmism Gore has swindled America out of more wealth than Madoff could ever hope to.
Wait ’till the Jackass Party starts penalizing ‘carbon use’…I was reading about a new electric motorcycle that is almost ready for production, designed to compete with modern sportbikes; 150 mph, 150-mile range and only $80,000!
Did Bore ever sell his Occidental Petroleum stock?
They are criminals if they lied about it.
Global Warming is not religion, Frank, it is science, science that you on the right choose to ignore/deny, for whatever reason other than your ideology/religion, I have no idea. I doubt that you folks have any idea either. Rest assured, GW is real and we have to deal with it NOW!
This issue is not about Al Gore. All he has done is to attempt to deliver the message of the scientific consensus that has concluded that the globe is warming, that man plays a major role in promoting it, now growing worse as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase faster, as they have since the beginning of the industrial revolution, resulting in the increasing global temperatures that have been recorded during this same period.
There is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming among those that agree with it. Out of the entire scietific body there is no such consensus. Hence the message Al Gore brought to Congress and the world is a lie.
We on the right have our doubts about global warming as brought to us by Al Gore because the science still has its doubts.
Oh no, plants are being killed by plant food. Perish the thought. Or better yet try to grow a tree without CO2.
Why can’t people who care about the earth come up with common sense plans, rather than getting hysterical and fanatical about it? I recycle and have for years, long before all these fancy bins started showing up. I car pool, walk and ride my bike every week. My family has always conserved water, kept the thermostat low in the winter, and used the A/C sparingly, if at all in the summer. We grow an organic garden every year, and a number of other things. It is all common sence environmentalism that saves money and has direct bennefits as well as the endirect benefit of a light environmental footprint. No one ever had to preach to me about the environment. I did those things because they made sence to me, and if they didn’t I wouldn’t do them.
Installing solar pannels or a windmill I can’t afford doesn’t make sense. If I have to buy a car then one with good fuel economy makes sense as long as I can afford it and it can perform well enough to meet my needs. Businesses are the same. They are generally happy to do things that are environmentally friendly so long as they needed to do it anyways, and/or it isn’t cost prohibitive. i.e. if they need to build a new factory, they don’t mind making it “ecofriendly” nearly as much as they mind being told that they have to make “ecofriendly” factories when they don’t need a new factory.
Perry , MMGW is theory at best and a con game at worst. There are as many scientist who don’t believe as that do. The same as Christians believe Jesus was the Christ and the Jewish people don’t. MMGW proponents choose to believe the scientist that agree with them the same as we on the other side choose to believe in those who agree with our views.
Now this being said , those of us who will accept that the planets temperature may be changing would argue that man has little to do with this because the temperature has been much colder in the past but it has also been much warmer in the past even before the dreaded fossil fuels.
Please tell me what temperature is perfect for the planet and who gets to decide?
Also is it not worth asking why we hear so little from the global warming crowd in winter but as soon as summer rolls around here they come again.
What about the fact that we are actually in a slight cooling trend at this time? I happen to work in a field that is very temperature sensitive and this past winter was one of my busiest in the past four or five and this with the economy in such turmoil that you would expect that people would be cutting back.
No Perry MMGW is a lie, and cap and trade will hurt the poorest among us through higher energy cost driving more people into the arms of big government . It will also make people like Al Gore even richer as they set up companies to trade in CO2 credits, you just watch as they buy up credits and then sell them for profit to our most vital industries.
And as our country suffers, people like you will be to blame also because you chose to believe the lie.
You two wish it were a “lie”.
A consensus of scientists who accept a claim based on the interpretation of data does not mean there are no skeptics. So the fact that there are skeptics is normal in science, and is one factor that drives science to new findings.
We’ve been through this time and again on here, so I’m not sure what else can be said.
For those like yourselves who are in denial, most of your questions and concerns can be answered at this site:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Before you make another post on this topic, have a look at this first.
The consensus claim is pure bunk. There are over 700 scientist on the Senatorial record as dissenting against man made global warming theory as presented by Al Gore. Other websites have petitions with tens of thousands of scientists dissenting. This is more than just a few skeptics being skeptical just for the sake of it. This is dissent based in science.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Upon looking at the site you linked to Perry I will give you this, there is a lot of information there. I was dissapointed to see that much of it was devoted to correcting logical fallacies, which does need to be done when they crop up. Unfortunatly some some of the refutations were on grounds just as shakey as the original fallacy which makes it at best a draw. When I saw hypertext links I was hoping they would lead to some actual data demonstrating that the global warming theory had merrit. Rather they generally led to another article attempting to refute a reason to dissagree with the theory.
One good note is that towards the bottom I started to find some actual scientific work relating to the subject. It will take me some time to go through it, but I guarantee I will also be researching the science behind the arguments against man made global warming theory at the same time.
There are scientists, and there are scientists. You can’t just pick any old scientist, just like you wouldn’t go to a podiatrist if you had liver cancer – even though both are doctors.
http://cnn.tv/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
” Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. ”
90% and 82% look like a consensus to me. Read the entire article. And is anyone surprised that Petroleum Geologists (at 47%) are the biggest doubters?
pandora I don’t like the way scientists who are skeptical about global warming get shut down, I want scientists to be able to openly discuss this topic, and their doubts without being labeled criminals. As far as I’m concerned, the science surrounding global warming is too political. When you politicize science it becomes crap.
Science also becomes crap when money is involved, and there is a ton of money involved on BOTH sides of the argument.
Perry , ” a consensus of scientist who accept a claim based on the interpretation of data does not mean there are no skeptics”
nor does it mean that they are correct.
Pandora , your two questions about mean temperature rise since the eighteen hundreds is flawed. I as someone who does not believe that the temperature changes that accure are the result of mans use of fossil fuels would answer yes also .
Let’s take the first question , has the mean temperature risen since the 1800′s ? Well based on the records then we would have to say yes.
Now the second question is the tricky one, is mans activity responsible for this rise? Well again I might answer yes but not for the reason you would. You Pandora and others like you would say that man’s use of fossil fuels and other carbon based products have lead to this rise. On thwe other hand people like myself would say that the tracking of temperature rise is flawed due to the fact that many of the collection sites are now in urban areas that in the 1800′s were in un developed areas, some have even been found to be next to A/C units. Also due to man’s paving over of large areas and the amount of glass used in many new buildings you could say that man has caused a rise in the mean temperature but this doe not mean we should cripple our most vital industries based on flawed data and the emotional response of some environmental cases.
Maria, the discussion around GW is political – the science is not. In science there’s just as much incentive to disprove as there is to prove theory. And keep in mind that scientific theory is not layman theory. It is not opinion.
If we want to look seriously into global warming, then we look to Climatologists for the expert opinion. We may consider other scientific fields – and climatologists do just that – but we cannot place all scientists on equal footing when it comes to this question.
Now, that does not mean another scientific field can’t hold an opinion, but unless they have a body of research on GW to back up their claims they are not experts.
My brother is an immuno geneticist – a very respected and highly published one. I can’t count the number of times friends or family call him with questions about illnesses, especially cancer. My brother quickly points out that he is not an oncologist and cannot answers their questions (he does refer them to someone who can) because this is not his area of expertize. Basically, he knows his limits – as do most respected scientists.
So when we say scientists agree or disagree it is vital to consider the field of science from which they come.
There may be just as much incentive to disprove as to prove Global Warming Theory, however the there is a lot more funding right now for people who are supporting it and acting according to the premise it suggests.
When it comes down to it it really doesn’t matter which scientists support the theory and which don’t, untill they explain why in a way that is based on solid scientific research and do it in a way that normal people can understand.
You might want to check out this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1
“For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.”
Playing politics with science is a dangerous game, and the “scientists differ” ploy calls to mind what the tobacco industry pulled all those years ago when they trotted out “doctors” to tell us that smoking was good for us.
In science, it’s not enough to simply disagree with someone’s research. You have to prove them wrong through your own research.
Also, could you provide a link to your claim that “there is a lot more funding right now for people who are supporting it and acting according to the premise it suggests.” I’ve done some quick searches and I haven’t found such a disparity, but maybe I missed something.
The only way the left can get a consensus is by gaging, threatening, and ignoring every other point of view.
Thanks for the post.
Bore has had numerous opportunites to debate one of several of the ever-growing legion of global warming skeptics, and has run for cover each time, which tells me that he is either;
1) Chickens#!t
2) Wrong
3) 1 & 2
David, it seems to me that it wasn’t the left gagging a certain point of view – it was the Global Climate Coalition. Read the link in comment #15.
4) Gore is correct!
I pick #4.
And Pandora is correct, David, as she has demonstrated. Can you refute it with credible scientific evidence?
I don’t think you can, because your position is based on politics, not on science. This is not a left-right issue, but some of you folks on the right are doing your very best to make it so. It’s not working, David, because the science is solid.
Whether you perceive that Gore has run for cover or not, the fact is that he has delivered the message about anthropogenic GW, a conclusion shared by most of the scientific community and, of all folks, the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS agreed that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”, therefore the EPA has the authority to control it’s emission by man.
It is only a few scientific skeptics and the political ideologues who remain as demiers. These folks so far have been underwhelming in their rationale, to say the least!
Because, as you and I know, Perry, science doesn’t end with a hypothesis. It isn’t enough to be skeptical. You must prove your opinion – not on news shows and op-ed pages, but in a lab or other controlled environment.
This is an opinion article from the Wall Street Journal describing the disparity of funding and treatment of scientist who agree with Global Warming Alarmism and those who do not. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
There is no part of global warming science that has not been made political.
A hypothesis must be proven in the lab with research, but if the hypothesis and the findings never leave the lab or are never communicated with the public in an honest and understandable fashion then it is unlikely they will ever bear fruit.
I know enough UD doctorate students to be aware that if you are going into research science there are two main things that you will need to be sucessfull, funding and publication. Both are currently showing a bias in favor of man made global warming theory. In the early part of the last century there was an industrial and political bias against it. The tables have turned not because of the science itself but due to politics in government, in society, in industry (some not all), and in the lab.
I’m not trying to be mean, Tim, but I can’t take an opinion articles on this topic seriously. Also, you’re claiming a bias again without a link – “Both are currently showing a bias in favor of man made global warming theory.”
And your UD friends are leaving out a part of that equation. In order to be published and get funding you must do research that makes a difference. At any given time there are hundreds of scientists working on the same experiments. The first one that proves his hypothesis through research – with ALL the data – gets published (and funded).
Science doesn’t change. Certain parts can be cherry-picked or omitted to make a political point, but if you look at scientific submissions – that have been peer reviewed – the science is clean. How it’s used is not.
I only provided one link because last I checked posts with multiple links require approval here and that would mean a day or more delay before it appeared. Due to your statements I am sure you would simply dissmiss the additional links that I could provide. I am curious as to why I am supposed to accept your article when you reject mine out right. It doesn’t bother me to read links to sites and articles with opposing opinions. I like to find out for myself why others think what they do and then decide if it makes sence, or even research it myself when neccesary and if time allows.
“And your UD friends are leaving out a part of that equation. In order to be published and get funding you must do research that makes a difference.” – Pandora
The key that you forget to add is makes a difference to whom? People can research whatever they want and if they can find a way to tie it into Global Warming Theory, or another field of study that is en vogue they will find it is possible to get funding, access to publication and media attention or both.
Also research for proving a negative will generate less funding, at least until things get out of hand like Global Warming Theory has now. Similarly there wasn’t much funding for reasearch disproving genetic causation of homosexuality until people started claiming science proved it and tried to legislate based on that science.
“Science doesn’t change. Certain parts can be cherry-picked or omitted to make a political point, but if you look at scientific submissions – that have been peer reviewed – the science is clean. How it’s used is not.” – Pandora
I believe that at least a portion of the science is clean, but not all of what Al Gore references is clean scientific research, and as you mention his use of it certainly is not.
The article from this site express my frustrations with the science, statistics, and lack of both on both sides of global warming better than I can. The links in the table of contents are also good. I can offer links to anecdotal evidence, personal experiences, and opinions for each statement I make, however there is precious little statistical data collected and compiled, and much of that is filtered through the biases of one side or the other.
http://landshape.org/enm/bias-in-research/
Tim, you linked an Opinion piece, if you have a stronger article you should supply it. I’m merely asking you to back up your statement. I’ve looked (busy day, so I didn’t invest a lot of time) but I can’t find the actual numbers. And since the basis of your argument relies on disparity…
Also, scientists didn’t go looking for a gay gene. Geneticists study sections of the human genome, trying to discover what each part is responsible for. You keep starting with a premise and an end game. Scientists didn’t study the chemical base pairs trying to find a gay gene or a fat gene. They went into this trying to discover what each pair was responsible for.
Also, science doesn’t have to make sense to you, or be presented in ways you understand. It’s nice if that happens, but it doesn’t make the science better or worse.
*BTW, when a used the word “difference” (bad choice on my part) I meant being the first to prove/disprove whatever.
As far as funding… the rule “Publish or Perish” applies. A lot of Publishing = Funding.
Lastly, you said, “I believe that at least a portion of the science is clean, but not all of what Al Gore references is clean scientific research, and as you mention his use of it certainly is not.” I have not mentioned Al Gore once. Deliberately. I decided not to introduce advocates from either side in an attempt to avoid politics and focus on science.
“Tim, you linked an Opinion piece, ”
It was an opinion piece by a professor of atmospheric science from MIT.
How dare you introduce facts deduced from research by a MIT PhD when rock-solid hysteria proves otherwise?
“See Chicken Little run; an open debate, he must shun. After all, the sky is falling; and those book deals, they’re a-calling.”
Pandora, if you are not using Al Gore’s science and you have access to the good clean science that I haven’t seen yet then please show me the scientific research that not only supports man made global warming destroying the earth theory, but makes it such a strong case for it that I should change my life over it and the governments of this country and the world should make legislation based on it. I would like to see the evidence you are basing your possition on, especially if it isn’t Al Gore’s. Unfortunatly there are too few people trying even as hard as you to keep politics out of the environmental debate. The science has been lost and misconstrued in the various agendas.
I believe that there have been changes in sea level, in the levels of C02 in the atmosphere, and in the average global tempature. Science observes and records those phenomenon, however when it comes to drawing the relationships between this data and coming to conclusions about what it means things grow much less clear. Does one change cause the other, is there a correllation, or is it just an unrelated coincidence? Are there other explanations for what the research has identified? Are there factors that have not been considered? Are the trends continuing? Are they reversing, slowing down, speeding up? What are the possible consequenses if they continue, and on what projected timeline? Do we want to attempt to intervene and stop these trends? Can we? What effect will the proposed solutions have? What are the unintended consequences, the side effects of the proposed solutions?
Global warming advocates have been very imaginative in painting terrifying pictures of what can happen in the future if their theories are true, however their imaginations begin to whither when it comes to looking at possible negative outcomes that could be caused by their proposed solutions.
Pandora , so far all that has been put forward on GW or more importantly MMGW is correlation . The so called science you are so happy to throw around has at best been able to show a correlation between the industrial revolution and a rise in global temperature , but only in a very narrow time span , because if we look at the history of the world through fossil records and ice coars then we find many times that the earth was both cooler and hotter. I notice that you ignored my question from above, what or when was the perfect temperature for the planet?
And as for your absolute statement that “science doesn’t changes” , well I guess that means that the earth is still the center of the universe and the planet is flat. Both of these beliefs were widely held consensus of the day , held by the greatest thinkers of their times.
Correlation does not equal causation and a consensus only prove that two or more people hold the same opinion but not that that opinion is correct .
What no comebacks ? Anyone ? Someone must have an answer since there is so much scince out there.
The answer is simple, my friend. There is no perfect or regular earth temperature. It is a range. They know it. We know it. In fact, global temperature itself is a bit of a myth. It is a rolling average. The problem is there is an agenda which trumps science. The modern world has given the individual power that the state can’t match so we have to stop it. We have to control people’s energy. Good people like President Obama seemingly buy this bill of goods because it comfortably fits into their government will save us belief system.
You guys can start with the papers linked here:
http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/