Eco-Messiah Al Gore and his global warming flock can’t handle the truth
Over the years, Al Gore has consistently refused to take questions from the audience after giving one of his alarmist global warming speeches. Last weekend, at the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin, Gore broke with tradition, perhaps because the audience was comprised of true believers. But, unknown to Gore, in the audience was Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer, who asked Gore about a 2007 finding by a British judge that “An Inconvenient Truth” is rife with scientific errors.
When McAleer asked Gore what he was doing to correct the errors Justice Burton identified, a stammering Gore, responded by saying, “the ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools.” Gore’s response was highly misleading and evasive. Justice Burton ruled that an “Inconvenient Truth” could be shown in classrooms but only if his “one-sided” views were balanced.
When McAleer attempted to press Gore on his outright evasion, the Society cut off his microphone and escorted him away. It is evident that for this group of journalists, speaking truth to power is merely a quaint phrase from a bygone era that predates the rise of agenda journalism. After all, silencing those with opposing views is a small price to pay for saving the planet.
The censorship on the part of an organization whose members fancy themselves journalists is indicative of one of the central weaknesses that has plagued Gore’s faithful flock: if the science is “settled” why has Gore steadfastly refused to debate the matter with scientists who have challenged his discredited thesis?
For all their pronounced belief in secularism, for many liberals, global warming has become their religion. They adhere to its tenets with a blind faith reminiscent of the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages. The attempt by global warming alarmists to suppress debate bears a striking resemblance to the College of Cardinals forcing Galileo to recant for having the audacity to question the Aristotelian view of the universe.
In every recent opinion poll that asks respondents to rank social priorities and concerns, global warming has consistently ranked near to dead last. To add insult to injury, while Gore’s minions were silencing McAleer, the BBC, a former erstwhile ally, and a paragon of political correctness among the international broadcasting set, published an article by it’s climate correspondent Paul Hudson, that in light of certain irrefutable facts, asked the question: “What happened to global warming?” As Hudson noted, the warmest year on record was 1998, eleven years ago. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing since 1998, but global temperatures have not — something global warming alarmists have long maintained was impossible.
17th century philosopher Francis Bacon, the father of modern scientific method, warned of the dangers of any inquiry that ignores “negative instances” of the phenomenon under study. Any conclusions derived from an inquiry that ignores this aspect of inductive reasoning is not science but superstition. And so it goes for the “science” of global warming. Namely, how do proponents of global warming explain demonstrable periods of cooling?
Is it any wonder McAleer’s heretical interrogation of Gore was cut short? For the hoax of global warming can now be distilled into one proposition: If facts conflict with the dogma, the facts are to be ignored.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kimberly, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Eco-Messiah Al Gore and his global warming flock can't handle the truth http://bit.ly/9AJoX [...]
Mr. Kinsellagh,
You wrote that “For all their pronounced belief in secularism, for many liberals, global warming has become their religion. They adhere to its tenets with a blind faith reminiscent of the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages.” What separates science from religion, and certainly blind faith, is facts. I have provided a link to some satellite photographs taken in 2006 and 2007 at Barrows Alaska.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/jul/23/arctic-sea-ice-photographs-us-geological-survey
These photographs could not be released earlier because the Bush administration refused to allow to be because they provided evidence for global climatic change. They show dramatic retreat of the polar ice cap. There are other similar photographs if you look for them. They are just a very useful visual aid to illustrate a very complex process.
Now Mr. Gore may be wrong and all of the scientists who argue for global climatic change may all be wrong as well. However they are not moved by “blind faith” but rather by evidence such as the linked photographs, most of which is nowhere near as dramatic and eye-catching but probably more convincing to those willing to have a look.
Now, you know exactly as much about climatology and meteorology as Mr. Gore does, nothing. However there are those who have spent their entire lives studying these issues and they are unanimous that there is anthropogenic climatic changes occurring. It is only political conservatives who, although having not training in the relevant science, feel the need to dispute this reality.
Who then is working off of blind faith?
Here’s a link to the Society of Environmental Journalists debunking McAleer’s comments about polar bears: http://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an
John, you don’t have to like Al Gore (I’m not sure I do), but shooting the messengers puts our future at risk. The science is clear, we are close to a tipping point that will destroy the environment in which human civilization evolved, putting quotes around the science won’t change that inconvenient truth.
John, how do you jump from Al Gore’s movie being “filled with scientific errors” and his poor debating performance against McAleer to “the hoax of global warming?”
(’Global warming’ is a non-scientific term anyway – no one who is serious about the issue speaks of anything other than climate change.)
There is a rather large gap in your logic here. Al Gore may be unwilling to debate the dissidents who diverge from the recognized scientific consensus reflected in the IPCC’s findings. How this makes climate change ‘a hoax’ remains lost on me.
Michael,
I’m not sure I agree with your assertion that global warming has been debated or treated as a non-scientific term or concept by its proponents; if so, why would Gore continually state that the “science is settled”… Also, consensus of opinion isn’t the same as “science”. There was “consensus” in Galileo’s time that the sun revolved around the earth. When Galileo asserted the opposite, he was forced to recant.
In response to another comment. See in context »Galileo presented data that conflicted not just with consensus but with faith-based consensus. That’s what got him trouble.
Today the science really is clear. Science works by the accumulation of data, and the accumulated data overwhelmingly supports human-caused global climate change. For evidence, like peering through Galileo’s telescope, take a look at the link David posted, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/jul/23/arctic-sea-ice-photographs-us-geological-survey
Remember the 84 Reagan ad, there’s a bear in the woods. Well, today the bear is catastrophic climate change. And even if you disagree with 95% of climiate scientists (I think I have that number correct) “For some people the bear is easy to see. Others don’t see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it’s vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn’t it smart to be as strong as the bear?
In response to another comment. See in context »You are absolutely correct about Galileo. The fundamental tenets of Christianity could not support a heliocentric view of the Universe. When science clashed with faith, scientists, such as Galileo were forced by the church to recant their heresy. I see some similarities today with those who seek to silence the debate over global warming by declaring the “science is settled.” Many reputable scientists have discredited both the theoretical as well as the empirical basis on which global warming is based. In response to this increasing skepticism, some global warming proponents, such as Paul Krugman, claim disbelievers are “betraying the planet.”
I take exception to the claim that the science is clear, e.g., how does global warming theory explain periods of cooling? If CO2 emissions have remained the same since 1998, or even increased, why was 1998 the warmest year on record? If the planet is indeed warming, the science evidence is far from conclusive that any such warming is due to man-made factors. The warming could be due to variations in the sunspot cycle.
In response to another comment. See in context »One data point in an unstable system does not measure much of anything. You’re a lawyer, I’m a psychologist. Neither of us are climate scientists. And please forgive my mis-stating a number. It is not 95% of climate scientists who have concluded that human behavior is causing potentially catastrophic climate change, it was 97%. (from a Jan. ‘09 study from the American Geophysical Union). Peter Doran author of the report and a University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, about the near-unanimity among climate scientists,
“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php)
Some people believe the world is flat, Elvis lives, and we never went to the moon. Not believing in man-made climate change is moving into that group as it should. I’m sure there are “right angle” responses to the reality of global climate change, I would love to learn more about them, but denying the problem isn’t going to help.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Kinsellagh,
You asked, “how does global warming theory explain periods of cooling?”
First, no scientific theory can explain everything all of the time, that is just not the way it works. Newton explained the basic theory of gravitation centuries ago but physicists are still working out very important the details to this very day. A truly scientific theory always has holes (they just get smaller over time). It is only those with an anti-scientific bent who believe otherwise and try to use those holes to discredit science. Creationists do this all of the time.
Second, there is no “global warming theory”. There is a hypothesis that increasing concentrations of GHGs are trapping more solar energy in the Earth’s atmosphere. How that expresses itself in terms of weather is a matter of intense debate within the scientific community. Climatology and meteorology are not sciences the way chemistry or microbiology are. There are no laboratories where multiple earths are kept each with a concentration of GHG the resulting behaviors can be observed. The interactions of ocean, atmosphere, and the sun are extremely complex and difficult to model.
Third, some models do indeed predict cooling. As the arctic ice melts, it actually cools the oceans (while raising the sea level). This can indeed cause wide-scale cooling over an extended period of time. Additionally the current ice sheet around Greenland prevent the warm Gulf Stream from moving north and causes it to curve the east and south, warming places like Ireland. Should the ice sheets around Greenland retreat, there could be a change in the warm water circulation of the Gulf Stream, cooling some place, like Ireland.
You asked “If CO2 emissions have remained the same since 1998, or even increased, why was 1998 the warmest year on record?”
The answer is that the 2007 was not the warmest year on record, it is only the second warmest year on record.
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/nasa-hansen-2007-second-warmest-year-ever-warmest-year-likely-by-2010/
2005 is actually the warmest year on record. However 2010 is expected to break that record.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
Why is one year warmer than another, there are a lot variables, volcanic activity, El Niño- Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, &c. However you will notice that the three hottest years on record world wide are all within ten years of each other, statistically a highly unlikely event.
I could go on and on. You of course, I noted earlier, know nothing on your own about this, you are just repeating what you have read not from scientist but conservative political sources.
Returning to your original posting, it is clearly you who are working on “blind faith” here.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Some people believe the world is flat, Elvis lives, and we never went to the moon.”
Sounds like a quote from the man who sold the Elk Indians down the river.
That is what some people might accuse Al Gore of. If he were applying for a science job,. and he flicked me his film as a cv, I would tell him to do his research properly before he starts trying to convince me or any other serious scientist of his research abilities. Either way it does him no favours —one inaccuracy is enough but nine??
I come from New Zealand, and when I watched the film with my classmates we were surprise at this claim in particular: the film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Yes, because it is a false claim. I think he should do the right thing and re cut his film,and take out that claim.
The actual science of Global Warming, well, it’s not settled whether you like it or not. This is a fact, and no amount of fantasy is going to change that.
I know some people want to desperately believe that Global Warming is causing hurricanes and earthquakes etc etc…but in order for that to happen it requires one vital factor–rising temperatures. Are they rising? or staying the same, or cooling? What are the results over the last ten years?
If the temperatutes are rising it would be in favour of the AGW hypothesis, if they are lowering …
One thing is for certain I notice a lot of media are now reporting Global Warming as climate change. These are two different things, in order for man made climate change to be happening we first have to make sure that the temperatures are rising.
Remember the hypothesis is that rising temperatures cause climate change not global cooling causes climate change.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Mitchell Taylor, the foremost authority on polar bears was not allowed to attend the Polar Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen because they do not want to hear his results. Instead they invited 3 lobbiests.
Do you understand now? There is no tipping point, there are no endangered polar bears. There are 1 Billion people on this planet without food or energy. But you guys would rather worry about the polar bears, who are doing just fine. You make me sick.
You are right, it’s about people not just polar bears, and human-induced climate change will cause unbelievable suffering for billions and billions of us. Taylor was not allowed to be part of the Polar Bear group, not because of his bear research, but because of his scientifically indefensible positions on global climate change. If you deny gravity or think the world is flat its not surprising not to be included for your expertise in other areas.
From the Telegraph: “The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html)
In response to another comment. See in context »I suppose I shouldn’t be piling on, since conservatives are a tiny, embattled enclave on T/S, but I can’t resist. So let me ask John this: If glo…oops, I mean climate change, is the liberal religion (I thought atheism was our religion, but never mind that) isn’t it fair to play turnabout and posit that opposing the concept is conservative dogma? Maybe somewhere there’s a rightie who’s warmed to warming, but he or she has escaped my attention. Yes, yes, I realize that conservatives are clear-minded, rigorously logical, independent thinkers with prodigious IQs, but isn’t it odd that they all come down on one side of the issue—the side not inhabited by either 95% or 97% (even that’s controversial) of the relevant scientists? Would it be cynical of me to suspect ideological considerations at play? Like maybe you guys are really terrified that taking steps to save the earth might annoy business and enlarge government? Hmmm?
Belief in the hypothesis of AGW is a faith based consensus. It is a hypothesis with less proof than the theory of natural variability which has never been disproven. The hypothesis of AGW is on increasingly shaky ground as not even the planet will co-operate.
As for the scientific consensus, there is none. India issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.
The debate is over because there never was a debate. All there ever was, was a bunch of snake oil salesmen looking to make money on the backs of others.
It’s my experience that Al Gore is more than willing to have a conversation about the various climate models and whether the more dire predictions are correct or not. What he’s not willing to do is “debate” science with people who do not believe in science.
There are not two sides to every story. It’s time for conservatives to engage in the climate policy debate from a position of scientific fact, not anti-science nonsense. I’m sure Gore and the climate movement in general could benefit from conservative ideas for lowering carbon emissions (though I maintain that cap-and-trade is already firmly rooted in conservative ideology).