Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"they won't be debating each other, which is something I'd pay to watch. I think that Gore would get eviscerated."

Riiiight. Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean his argument is invalid. Lomborg's credibility in the scientific community seems to hover somewhere around zero. I'd be happy to point you to references, including the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Union of Concerned Scientists and numerous articles in reputable science publications that essentially characterize the guy as a kook.

Posted by Andy at March 21, 2007 06:07 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Bjorn Lomborg could slaughter anybody in a debate, as long as the audience has no training in climate science. Debating skills, not scientific expertise, have been his main concern the entire time. That's why climate scientists are disgusted with him. His expertise in economics is also marginal; he's a political scientist.

Of course Al Gore is also Mr. Debate and not Mr. Expert, but at least his shtick is to listen to climate scientists instead of trying to piss them off.

Instead of entertaining a debate on a topic in which it isn't trained, Congress should accept the conclusions of the bodies of experts that they hired or enlisted themselves to study global warming. They have NASA, they have the NSF, and they have the National Academy of Science. It's a waste of time, if not a negative distraction, to take testimony from anyone like Al Gore or Bjorn Lomborg.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 06:46 AM

Instead of entertaining a debate on a topic in which it isn't trained...

Sounds like something Mr. Gore should think about too.

Posted by Mac at March 21, 2007 08:22 AM

This is a clown show, in front of morons who already have their minds made up.

The total mental energy expended in this whole farce couldn't shift a bowling ball downhill. But I do expect a lot of carbon compounds to be expelled by these windbags, making its net contribution to the environment decidedly negative.

Posted by David Ross at March 21, 2007 09:52 AM

Must...vote...Gore
The Goracle RULES!
/ programming

Posted by gorebot 1776 at March 21, 2007 12:26 PM

Sounds like something Mr. Gore should think about too.

Sure, but if Gore is not and will never be an expert on global warming, he is at least a pretty good listener. He is not perfect, but he is much better than Bjorn Lomborg, who only wants to quarrel with experts who he should consider his teachers.

Gore sets a good example for Congress in trying to understand and repeat what the climate scientists say --- personal virtue would have made his message even stronger, but it is really not the main point. Congress should have been able to imitate Gore without making him testify. Sadly, they may need his testimony even just to become good listeners themselves.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 03:33 PM

> Gore sets a good example for Congress in trying to understand and repeat
> what the climate scientists say ---

As long as the scientists agree with Gore.

While he insults and slanders scientists who disagree with him.

Has Gore listened to the state climatologists in Oregon, Delaware, and Virginia? On the contrary, his statements are more in line with the governors who want to punished or fire them for disagreeing with the official state position.

This type of witch hunt is what separates science from political science. It does not happen in other fields of science. Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold, for example, held some highly unorthodox views but were still highly respected. No one compared them to Nazis or said that "big bang denialists" were not members of the "international scientific community" because they did not pass a litmus test. Their views were soundly criticized on the basis scientific evidence but there was never the name calling, threats, or intimidation one hears from the global warmers.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 05:05 PM

While he insults and slanders scientists who disagree with him.

This doesn't work as an accusation against Gore without giving specifics.

No one compared them to Nazis or said that "big bang denialists" were not members of the "international scientific community" because they did not pass a litmus test.

Again, this is a lot of extremely loose talk about accusations; you haven't really said anything about who is accusing whom. The thread was about Gore and you said that he insults and slanders people. But the words "Nazi" and "denialist" do not appear in his book, according to an Amazon search.

I did find this description of Al Gore in a Fox News transcript: "You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go see Al Gore’s films to see the truth about global warming." If the question is who has violated Godwin's Law, then I don't see that Gore has done that, but evidently a guest on Fox News --- a paid conservative agitator named Sterling Burnett --- has.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 06:47 PM

Also, on the subject of "big bang denialists": While it is true that there wasn't much evidence for or against the big bang early in Fred Hoyle's career, every working cosmologist understands now that the big bang is as real as Dallas. Now, scientists don't really care what people truly believe or don't believe deep down inside. But if you can't treat the big bang as fact (regardless of what you "believe"), then you can't do any serious cosmology as of 2007, or even as of 1987.

If you have to be that contrarian, then you really aren't part of the international scientific community, at least not the international cosmology community, whether anyone criticizes you for it or not. Cosmologists would see no point in even calling you names; they would just ignore you. Denying the big bang has moved next door to denying that the earth orbits the sun.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 06:59 PM

Bjorn Lomborg doesn't deny global warming at all; he just maintains that Kyoto is a poor value for money and that we'd be better off spending money adapting to climate change. It's probably a much more realistic position to take, given that nobody has made any significant progress towards their Kyoto targets. What's disturbing is the reaction that Lomborg received and continues to receive for having challenged the mainstream position on climate change. The reaction of the Danish science academy seemed more like a witch trial than a civilized refutation of Lomborg's hypothesis.

Posted by George Skinner at March 21, 2007 07:14 PM

No, Lomborg demonstrated dazzling incompetence in many other areas too in the "Skeptical Environmentalist" book (which rocketed him to fame among economists and politicians who, also seem to be extremely incompetent at the select subjects).

I remember him comparing the area of forest loss to the total land area of the world and then stating that this demonstrates it is insignificant. (Comparing to total forest area would have made more sense, no?)

Posted by mz at March 22, 2007 12:48 PM

Sounds like Gore was funny and having a good time and the people throwing all the insults were Republicans.

Some Heated Words for Mr. Global Warming
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, March 22, 2007; A02
Al Gore, star of an Academy Award-winning film, was in town for a double feature on Capitol Hill yesterday. But instead of giving another screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," the former vice president found himself playing the Clarence Darrow character in "Inherit the Wind."

"You're not just off a little -- you're totally wrong," Joe Barton (Tex.), the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told the former vice president at a hearing on global warming yesterday morning.

"One scientist is quoted as saying, 'This is shrill alarmism,' " said Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.). The reviews only grew more savage when Gore crossed over to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon for a second hearing. "You've been so extreme in some of your expressions that you're losing some of your own people," announced Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the committee's ranking Republican and the man who has called man-made global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Inhofe informed Gore that scientists are "radically at odds with your claims." Displaying a photograph of icicles in Buffalo, Inhofe demanded: "How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold? . . . Where is global warming when you really need it?"

Evening was approaching when the ordeal ended and the movie star turned to the committee chairman, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "You don't give out any kind of statue or anything?" he inquired.

It was, in many ways, a 21st-century version of the Scopes trial. Only this time, Gore, like William Jennings Bryan a failed Democratic presidential nominee, was playing Darrow, champion of scientific thought. Inhofe was playing the Bryan character, defending his beliefs against the encroachments of foes such as the National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations and the Oscar-hoisting former vice president.

There was opening-night enthusiasm as hundreds lined up to see Gore make his first appearance in the Rayburn House office building. The demand for seats led staffers to set up two overflow rooms. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, by contrast, attracted barely a glance as she arrived for another hearing moments before Gore's appearance.

Gore entered the room with wife Tipper clutching his hand and cowboy boots gripping his feet. His face was puffier, his body thicker and his hair grayer, but he retained his inner wonk. "The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere up here on Capitol Hill," he announced, "is already 383 parts per million."

He also displayed the passion that made his documentary a hit in Hollywood. "What we're facing now is a crisis that is by far the most serious that we've ever faced," he declared. His eyes narrowing to slits, he proposed a series of questions future generations might ask about the current inaction on greenhouse gases. "What in God's name were they doing?" he asked. "What was wrong with them? Were they too blinded and numbed by the busyness of political life or daily life to take a deep breath and look at the reality of what we're facing?"

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called Gore a "prophet" -- and his Democratic colleagues treated him as such. Gore got a hearty ovation when he visited the House floor during a lunchtime vote.

Republicans found all the fuss rather distasteful. A sour Dennis Hastert (Ill.), the former House speaker, called him "a personality and now a movie star."

"Rin Tin Tin was a movie star," Gore demurred. "I just have a slide show."

Barton informed Gore that some of his ideas "are just flawed." Under Gore's plan, Barton said, "we can have no new industry, no new cars and trucks on the streets, and apparently no new people."

But this was no match for Gore. "The planet has a fever," he lectured Barton. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame-retardant. You take action."

The audience laughed. Barton started reading the newspaper, then discovered he wasn't getting much support even from his own side. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) admitted he paid to see "An Inconvenient Truth." Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), implicitly rebuking flat-Earth colleagues, said: "It's possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot." Barton flashed a grin of annoyance.

Over on the Senate side, Inhofe was determined to avoid a fate like Barton's. Given just 12 minutes to question Gore, Inhofe warned him that "I want the same ad-lib time that you have." When Gore didn't answer his questions succinctly enough, Inhofe ordered: "I'm going to ask you to respond for the record in writing."

"Well," said Gore, "if I choose to respond to you verbally here, I hope that'll be okay, too."

"If it's a very brief response," Inhofe directed, then declared that Gore could not answer any questions until Inhofe had finished his allotted time.

Boxer broke in. "You're not making the rules," she said, raising the gavel. "You used to when you had this." The hall filled with applause.

Gore, given ample time to rebut Inhofe, had no shortage of material. "One of the leading scientific experts said the consensus supporting this view on global warming is as strong as anything in science -- with the possible exception of gravity," he said.

The audience laughed. Boxer smiled. Inhofe did not. He left the show early.

Posted by at March 22, 2007 07:27 PM

Gore said: One of the leading scientific experts said the consensus supporting this view on global warming is as strong as anything in science

Several leading scientist experts with the American Pediatric Society said that bottle feeding of newborn children is better than breast feeding. Even experts can be wrong when politically or monetarily motivated.

Posted by Mac at March 23, 2007 05:12 AM