

Al Gore: We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - bengebre
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?pagewanted=all

======
wedesoft
The article is worth studying as a masterpiece of political rhetorics. A
salesman truly shows his skills when selling a bad product.

He explains that some side issues in the debate (IPCC claims about
disappearing Himalaya glaciers,FOIA violations) are mistakes and he
conveniently ignores the big elephant in the room: tampering with temperature
records, corruption of the peer review process, lack of evidence for AGW.

And this is all coming from the same Al Gore who used to make false claims
about melting polar ice caps, increases in sea level rise, ... in his movie
"An Inconvenient Truth".

To cite [1]: "You can bet he’d be making the same claim if we had a below
normal snowfall records too."

[1] [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/23/the-goracle-
forecast-a...](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/23/the-goracle-forecast-
agwmore-snow/)

------
fnid2
I think it is possible to believe in climate change and _not_ believe in
anthropogenic warming.

It's just like pascal's wager. Let's assume just the two options where the
globe is warming, is it man's fault or not?

Let's assume it is man's fault and there are two options, we can do something
or we can't. If we can't and we try, we wasted a huge effort to stop something
we can't stop. If it isn't our fault, then we start to look at ways to adapt
and have a better chance of survival. No one is suggesting better air
conditioners as a solution to global warming, but something like that may be
our only hope.

The problem with blaming man is that it might be our behavior that is actually
keeping the globe cool. For example, Global Dimming may be counteracting the
effects of what could be a natural warming cycle due to sun spots:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming> and PBS's Nova did a show on it
as well: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o1iXRU_5WU>

If we stop polluting through the emission of particulate matter, then the
global warming may actually get worse!

~~~
cema
Should not be a matter of belief. Should be a matter of science.

~~~
fnid2
Should be, except that the science has been corrupted by special interests.

~~~
DaniFong
How can you be so sure that your understanding of science has not been
corrupted by special interests? It seems to me that if one were to pick a
population to corrupt, one would pick the intellectually lazy majority...

~~~
ErrantX
Not necessarily; it might be easier to corrupt scientists because they are
traditionally black/white on controversial issues.

As someone not in either the "intellectually lazy majority" or the hardcore
scientific minority it's fairly clear both things are going on.

The science is being corrupted quite a bit by the media and politico's to be
spoon fed to the populace on their own agenda :)

~~~
cgranade
Actually, science is characterized largely by an absence of black and white
thinking. Speaking as a theoretical physicist, I can assure you that those of
us in science will argue ad naseum about whatever detail of a theory you want.
It is this precise mechanism that allows us to produce theories which are
incredibly well-tested.

Where science tends not to see shades of gray is in defending its work from
politically-motivated attacks. One might as well accuse biologists of being
"black/white" on evolution when defending against entirely insubstantial
attacks from creationists. Creationists aren't interested, say, in whether
it's genes or species that are evolving, but only in whether they can sow
enough distrust of science to get into the public discourse. Similarly,
climate denialists don't really care about specific problems with climate
models as much as they do with undermining how science is perceived.

Thus, denialists don't see the actual teeming debate within science over the
specifics over how AGW takes form, where real climate skeptics point out
problems that are then addressed by the rest of the community. To a denialist,
it probably seems as if the world is simply screaming "no" at them over and
over again, but that doesn't mean there's not a rich world within the science
that they denigrate.

~~~
ErrantX
Im not sure that is the case for _controversial_ theories. Just take a look at
the differing opinions on quantum theory (especially the argument over light
quanta) and atomic structure in the past. That was pretty black/white for many
years (by which I mean you had scientists very staunchly on both sides of the
theories).

This black/white scenario is ripe for corruption by a (political) third party.
They can play the two off against each other and ultimately try to present one
as right or wrong.

Going back to the specific quote:

 _It seems to me that if one were to pick a population to corrupt, one would
pick the intellectually lazy majority_

As I read it DaniFong is saying that the general populace is being corrupted
by denialists (agreed, as it happens). He uses this as a(n abstract) proof
that non-denialist climate change science is accurate and scientists are not
corrupted by political motives etc.

My argument is that firstly this is a tautology (because both could be true)
and actually that both _are true_.

We've seen some politically motivated science hit the news even over the last
month or so. Just as much it is clear that the denialists are trying to sway
populists to their opinion through a combination of pseudo-science and (more
often) by undermining the science (as you mention). Arguing that only one
exists doesn't really work any more.

I think that if you want to hold an opinion on this you, sadly, have to go and
do some realistic research of your own into the topics. It's no longer safe to
trust politicians, activists (both for/against) or news agencies (and, yes,
some scientists).

As an aside: this whole debate amuses me because as I observe it seems
incredibly black/white for everyone involved. People are getting so hung up on
whether we have an effect on climate or GW that it completely disconnects from
the actual main issues. It seems often like there is a minority of people
actually trying to do something sensible while the rest bicker of (albeit very
important) meta-issues.

(btw I'm not a denialist :))

~~~
DaniFong
I wouldn't say that scientists are uncorrupted or incorruptible, but it
happens in degrees!

Actually, I think that the climate science indicates more that we're likely to
move out of a regime of the easily predictable, based on empirical data. I
think that the science shows that there's a rather likely possibility of
severe climate change, though I don't put much faith in the specific effects.

The trouble is that our models can't simulate the response of the biospheres
or of the human beings living in them. These are possibly the most important
feedback effects -- certainly they are the ones we should be most interested
in, if we want to imagine how climate change might effect life, but they are
also incredibly difficult to model, since the responses usually can't be
figured out from first principles. (Apparently some of our best data on the
topic comes from a project involving giant heat lamps blasting on a
microclimate. People thought it was crazy but it's our only decent source of
direct data.)

Climate denialists rarely get to this level. Some claim climate change isn't
happening, some claim we're not responsible, and some deny either the
predicted effects or how bad they'll be. However, as I argue in my essay on
Climate Change Skeptics (<http://daniellefong.com/2009/10/11/climate-change-
skeptics/>) we should have a much higher standard of proof for the absence of
severe effects and the absence of harm before we make such drastic changes to
the Earth's atmosphere, biosphere, and primary cooling mechanism.

Incidentally, CO2 based climate change is only one part of it. (for example,
even take a look at N2O and CH4 (methane) concentrations over time
[http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat...](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#4211)
[http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat...](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/136.htm))
There are hardly any temperate rainforests left, the coral reefs are dying,
one quarter of the Earth's photosynthesis is in our food chain, and 90% is in
anthropogenic bioemes: ecologies that human forces have largely shaped, we are
depleting mineral resources and aquifers much larger than they are replenished
or found, we fix more nitrogen than all other life combined, and the mass
extinctions of the past have largely been driven by life-based changes to the
atmosphere (see this TED talk:
<http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html>).

PS: It's " _she_ ", actually.

~~~
ErrantX
> I wouldn't say that scientists are uncorrupted or incorruptible, but it
> happens in degrees!

We're in agreement there. Indeed I suspect a lot of it is scientists producing
their work in good faith with a serious commitment to their field and once the
data leaves the "lab" (as it were) third parties are queued up to pull out of
context quotes and make a story from it.

As it happens I think your stood at the "worst case" extreme (based on what
your saying). I'm currently thinking, from the data I have read, there is both
plenty of time to react and the impact is going to be nowhere near as dramatic
as some people like to suggest :)

Which brings me to:

 _we should have a much higher standard of proof for the absence of severe
effects and the absence of harm before we make such drastic changes to the
Earth's atmosphere, biosphere, and primary cooling mechanism._

I think this is where we mostly disagree. While clearly we should approach
this from the perspective of "we need to make changes and assume that climate
change will have an impact on our future" I think ignoring the scientific
process to _such an extreme_ like your suggesting undermines the entire issue.

There is _no_ requirement to be dramatic about any of this. Indeed it does a
lot more harm than good to be so. We have the makings of a problem facing us -
a problem we really have inly just begun to assess and face. The solution
requires calm, level headedness and common sense.

Example: I've written several times to my MP to suggest he proposes a private
members bill to add new building regulation requirements for new build houses.
These would require Solar heating and/or solar energy cells to be added to
every new build. The added cost of a build is negligible - but I think the
cumulative impact would be as dramatic as any "green policy" currently being
proposed.

These kinds of things make sense not only on a global scale but on an
individual one too: and that is the sort of rational approach that is needed
in the case of climate change.

(I also want to see studies into whether our habitat can and will adapt to a
changed climate; I feel this is a much under explored area and is worth
considering as potential solution. If we can mitigate things to bring about an
adaption to world ecosystems that restores balance that would be a neat and
subtle solution)

> PS: It's "she", actually.

Sorry :)

~~~
DaniFong
In which ways are my suggestions extreme? I don't mean to put you on the spot:
I just actually don't know what you perceive extreme in what I'm suggesting.

~~~
ErrantX
Well simply that your final paragraphs read a lot like "it's really really
bad, we're all going to die".

Which is fair enough; but still worst case scenario (based on what I have read
into it)

------
detcader
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/al_gore_gets_a_po...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/al_gore_gets_a_poll.php)

A great visual at the end of this article.

~~~
dschobel
The problem with that visual is that it ignores the fact that the same social
mechanism that blindly repeats the anti-global warming line today was
repeating the pro-global warming line a few months ago.

It's not clear whether the author's objection is that society reduces nuanced
and still developing scientific research to sound bites and repeats that as if
it were canon, or the fact that the message has turned against AGW (or at
least not as vehemently pro-AGW).

------
wheels
I usually flag all of the climate change stuff here, but this one got an
upvote.

While I've not been excited about Kerry, Hilary or Obama, every time I read
something from Gore, I feel like the US missed out on being able to count him
among its presidents. This article exemplifies why: he's taken an issue that
is central to our times and approaching it with reason and passion.

~~~
lionhearted
> I usually flag all of the climate change stuff here, but this one got an
> upvote.

Wait, you usually flag the articles that show the science for climate change,
or the science against climate change - you flag those, but you upvoted a
political call to action written by a non-scientist?

~~~
wheels
The overwhelming majority of posts here on climate change are mediocre
editorials by non-scientists:

<http://searchyc.com/submissions/climate+change?sort=by_date>

I don't flag the ones that are data-oriented, but do flag most editorials.
This one, specifically, was a mark above most of those enough that I found it
worthwhile. While Gore is obviously partisan, I find it disingenuous to lump
him in with the bulk of partisan hackery on the topic.

~~~
elblanco
I hope you know there's a downvote button you can use instead of a flag.

~~~
torial
What threshold do you need to get that downvote button? I don't see it yet.

~~~
ax0n
I think I noticed my downvote button showed up around 200 karma?

