The Goracle, Hypocrite at Large. The Economist pretty much says all I have to say on that, except to comment on "large". Al, wow, what the hell happened? Seriously. Moonbats used to moonwalk all over Rush Limbaugh about his size, but now he's skinny and Al is, well, not. In a way I think he looks pretty good, a bit of heft being preferable to a stick figure. Oh, and here's a bit about his profiteering off his scare-mongering. Nice guy!
Now that I'm done with the politics of personal destruction, on to the show. In the current climate of climate debate, I find it laughable that the doomsayers insist on framing the argument in ways that stifle debate. These are people who support free speech in every area of life except two: abortion and climate change. In those areas if you are an opponent or skeptic, you are told in no uncertain terms to STFD and STFU.
There is, for instance, the global warming doomsayer who compares skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Yeah, there's a real stimulant to honest debate. I love the editorial cartoon which portrays the Inquisition, glaring down from their high bench, sneering, "You dare challenge global warming with scientific debate!" Sums it up nicely. (For cartoon, go here, look for January 22, 2007.)
Gore et al can sing all day and night that "there is no debate" but obviously there is. They can insult skeptics all day and night by calling them skeptics (as if that's a curse word) or worse. Neither the skeptics nor the debate will go away. By continuously invoking the word "consensus", the doomsayers implicitly acknowledge there is disagreement and dissent.
Consensus implies some sort of agreement, but who held the vote? Consensus implies that there is some disagreement. In science, that disagreement takes the form of facts and figures. In science, the single person who gets it right beats the consensus of millions who got it wrong.
Thus, Gore et al seek to silence dissent by marginalizing dissent, which is spectacularly anti-science. You see evidence of this whenever you read an article that begins, "Every right-thinking person agrees...." Thus, you are obviously a loon if you dissent; your mere disagreement means no one should talk to you.
See this article on the latest example from Gore et al. (Love the closing sentence: "Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.") Gore objects to news media even reporting that there's disagreement, dissent, or debate. Though he's careful in his words, his implication is that it's immoral to report dissent over the issue of population explosion global stavation global cooling nuclear winter global warming climate change.
The proponents of the theory of catastrophic climate change give their agenda away by the demands they make. To affect the changes demanded, we would have to turn the internal combustion engine off. That means shutting down major portions of the US economy.
But that's not my point. My point is what's missing. What is always missing from Gore et al's proposals is how to adjust to climate change. Assuming that the planet's climate is changing -- and of course it is, because it always has and it always will -- then how do we adapt to that change?
We hear again and again that climate change is real, is happening right now. We are told we are now beginning to see the effects of global warming via catastrophic climate change. That means the "disaster" has hit. We can't stop it, it's already happened. All we can do now is adapt to the changes. So rather than tell me to reduce my "carbon footprint", shouldn't we be talking about how to live in the new climate?
Fine, say I. We can't prevent the "catastrophe" because it's already happened. So why are all the suggested responses preventative in nature, rather than adaptive?
Adaptation is never discussed. All that's mandated are changes that destroy western economies. And if I listen to the doomsayers, I'm destroying economies for no reason. 100% compliance with Kyoto had a projected impact of negligible proportions in the year 2100. Temperatures would still rise catastrophically, and if I recall correctly the amount of hoped for reduction was within the statistical margin of error, i.e., too small to really matter. Now that is a real inconvenient truth.
And I haven't even gotten to the inconsistencies in the climate change theories (e.g., compare the dire predictions of the 2001 UN report to the less dire predictions of the 2006 UN report).
Then there's the sheer complexity of the system they are trying to model, a chaotic system if ever there was one (and there's still scientific debate over that, whether weather is truly a chaotic system). Consider that at the Oscars, the producers of Gore's film said they were inspired to action after seeing the effects of Hurricane Katrina. They -- and Gore et al -- attributed the severity of Katrina to global warming. In the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season, and in compliance with global warming computer models, it was predicted that the 2006 hurricane season would be even worse. In reality it was perfectly average...or less. Not a single hurricane even made US landfall. Why? How could the "models" be so wrong? Because of an "unexpected el Nino event" in the Pacific Ocean.
Unexpected. That word sums it up nicely. They had a beautiful model that didn't factor in a known and fairly well understood natural phenomenon. Thus, their computer model predictions were completely wrong. If you take the hard line in science, then you believe that science consists of testable hypotheses. Every time a climate change model is "tested" by reality it fails, yet we are supposed to restructure our society due to what these computer model hypotheses predict for 100+ years in the future.
And Gore et al wonder why there are skeptics.
Comments