Scientists to Goracle: Relax

posted at 10:32 pm on March 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s a breezy read — although if we don’t reduce our carbon emissions soon, in a few decades that breeze could become a hurricane.

It’s not so much that he’s wrong, they say, as that he’s, well, hysterical.

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent…

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

You don’t win Oscars with 23-inch waves, buddy. Other scientists, meanwhile, disagree: it’s not that he’s hysterical, it’s that he’s really hysterical. And by “really hysterical” I mean “totally wrong.”

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Exit question: Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The IPCC addresses most all of your questions and the articles speculations and claims.

Nonfactor on March 12, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Exit question: Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

Maybe when it’s on the front page and not in the science section.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 12, 2007 at 10:36 PM

I was kinda hoping that new york would go under water too. Drats. Venice is too far to travel to :P

Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

Perhaps the NYT editors just watched the Global Warming swindle on hotair over the weekend :)

lorien1973 on March 12, 2007 at 10:40 PM

As long as there is socialism, there will be socialists looking for a rationale. The answer to the exit question is a resounding NO!

HerrMorgenholz on March 12, 2007 at 10:42 PM

“Goracle?”

After watching “300,” that name puts a really bad picture in my head.

Slublog on March 12, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Butterfly Gore.

Coronagold on March 12, 2007 at 10:54 PM

From the IPCC ‘About‘ page:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

So, basically, they regurgitate information from whatever publication suits their agenda, censoring all dissenting opinions in the process.

BlueStateBlues on March 12, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Exit question: Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

Yeah, right. Not as long as there are billions to be made as a bombastically ant-capitalistic doomsayer.

Mark V. on March 12, 2007 at 10:56 PM

And ironically, right under the article here is a stupid ad for “Lets stop global warming”

might as well just demand you stop the tide….

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on March 12, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Well… the “seal” has definately been broken. The media is weird. Like in Iraq, they essentially freeze out one entire side of the argument, until–at some point–it simply isn’t possible to ignore it anymore. Just like we are starting to see the media slipping and reporting positive developments in Iraq (with caveats, always), we are seeing a change in reporting on global warming.

I think that they are simply realizing that they are going to look REALLY silly in 15 to 20 years. In the past, the alarmist claims were so far in the future that there would be no accountability. We now have reports coming out saying that the world is going to end within 2 decades. That, I think, is when you start to lose parts of the media.

DaveS on March 12, 2007 at 11:16 PM

I should add that the same reasoning applies to Iraq. The media is starting to realize that they might be accountable for the negative reporting in the face of victory in the future, so they are quickly shifting their tone.

DaveS on March 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Since we’re talking about the Times, if they like Hillary better than Gore, there’s your motivation.

AtomicAmish on March 12, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Well, I can’t wait to see their new editorial stance. They’ll surely be calling now for patience and caution before rushing to implement new enviro-friendly policies until the science is better determined.

eagles5 on March 12, 2007 at 11:40 PM

The IPCC addresses most all of your questions and the articles speculations and claims.

Nonfactor on March 12, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Nonfactor, please just pick up your DVD and go home.

It’s a breezy read — although if we don’t reduce our carbon emissions soon, in a few decades that breeze could become a hurricane.

I recall this being the claim a few years ago, and “scientists” felt justified after Katrina (even though despite the destruction, it was a WEAK STORM WHEN IT HIT.. CATEGORY 3 TOPS, AND NEW ORLEANS ONLY SAW CATEGORY 1 TO 2 CONDITIONS!!! The levees BROKE, NOT OVERTOPPED, and they shouldn’t have.) The warmist community had their mascot, and her name was Katrina… interesting how they maintain their believers even though this season was BELOW AVERAGE. I’ve provided the numbers before, though I can’t locate them at the moment… I do remember that NOT A SINGLE HURRICANE MADE LANDFALL and just 2 weak tropical storms (basically a bit of heavy rain) touched the U.S. For anyone that did press a warmist on this fact they shouted “El Nino!” and ran the other way.

And as always it needs to be mentioned that Gore put a hurricane spinning the wrong way on his DVD, movie posters, etc. etc.

RightWinged on March 12, 2007 at 11:55 PM

It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Still our fault. It must have been due to all of those medieval SUVs; you know, the ones with all of the shining armor. /sarc off

IrishEyes on March 12, 2007 at 11:58 PM

By the way, since when did Gore start claiming that he’s been speaking about global warming for 30 years? In the mid-70′s cooling was the worry. Isn’t the NY Times going to question that claim?

eagles5 on March 13, 2007 at 12:12 AM

We need only convince liberals that global warming helps the homeless and the artistic community, and has a leveling effect on income distribution and – abracadabra – “The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were not the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, and that few scientists dispute that warming is actually a good thing” and Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

Coyote D. on March 13, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Did NYTimes and The Goracle have a fallout or what?

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Inaccuracies??

Duh, no!

Kokonut on March 13, 2007 at 12:15 AM

To paraphrase, of all people, Janeane Garofalo in Mysterymen:

“See, that’s why, in general, a mad junk scientist is less desirable than a garden-variety scientist.”

If Global Warming “Climate Change” “The sky is falling!” skepticism is getting too big for the Treason Times to ignore–even if it’s just in the science section–I think real science must finally be making some headway against the Gorebot’s hysteria. He’ll keep getting rich off of it for a while, though, because none of his mindless minions will hold him accountable.

ReubenJCogburn on March 13, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Anyone else want to e-mail William J. Board with the truth?

PinkyBigglesworth on March 13, 2007 at 12:23 AM

it’s not that he’s hysterical, it’s that he’s really hysterical. And by “really hysterical” I mean “totally wrong.”

…and the scariest thought is that this man came within a mm of being in charge of the world…there must be angels out there…

Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

No, but it tempers that Gorian hysteria. It would be nice if they’d continue to focus on his hypocrisy. His money-making machines and absurdly lavish life-style, while preaching to us in that snooty tone, on this topic, annoy me more than his tantrums.

Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 12:27 AM

S/b “Gorean”, and I thought of one of the angels, Sandra Day O’Connor. Though, to be sure, I fully believe that the SCOTUS had to play the role of ‘parents’ because the ‘children’ in the FL Supreme Court were playing politics, while ignoring constitutionality and justice.

Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Volume of H20 as ice floating on H2O as water = A

Volume of H20 as ice on land = B

Recalculate A and B’s volumes once converted to water (I don’t think anyone has done this. Remember, the volume of water INCREASES from liquid to solid. Just ask that water bottle that exploded in your freezer.)

Now calculate the LOWERING of sea level if the ice UNDER the water level in the ocean was converted to liquid. This change = C (Note, something like 90% of an iceberg is underwater and the North Pole . . very very little land mass within The Artic Circle.)

Now I would chance a guess that A + B – C = 0

- The Cat

MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 12:53 AM

It’s a breezy read — although if we don’t reduce our carbon emissions soon, in a few decades that breeze could become a hurricane. — Allahpundit

Don’t worry Allah, carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming and is actually a good thing, you can exhale easy.

Maxx on March 13, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Now I would chance a guess that A + B – C = 0

- The Cat

MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Quote the two characters in the Guiness commercial…….. “Genius!”

PinkyBigglesworth on March 13, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Should that be considered a sell signal for Carbon Financial Instruments?

Dusty on March 13, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Or was it “Brilliant!”……..?

PinkyBigglesworth on March 13, 2007 at 1:05 AM

DDT scare… fake
population explosion scare… fake
global freezing scare… fake
ozone hole scare… fake
acid rain scare… fake
manmade global warming scare… fake

Dr. Evil must be behind all this and he’s laughing his butt off.

Mojave Mark on March 13, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Nonfactor: “The IPCC addresses most all of your questions and the articles speculations and claims.”

Bullsh*t! It cherry picks data and ignores data that doesn’t fit their POLITICAL agenda.

georgej on March 13, 2007 at 1:29 AM

The IPCC is actually setting aside 3 months to adjust the scientific report to fit the political summary. So… yeah.

DaveS on March 13, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Mojave Mark:
Asian flu
Sars
Bird flu
……….

R D on March 13, 2007 at 2:12 AM

Mojave Mark, there should have been a ‘fake’ after those also. All just scare tactics for some reason. I’ve heard it said “If you don’t know the reason, follow the money”. Imagine that!

R D on March 13, 2007 at 2:33 AM

Actually the DDT thing was real. Although, if you have info to the contrary I would be open to reading it of course.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 2:42 AM

I don’t buy Gore’s hysterical scenerio. The earth’s temperature is in a constant state of flux. The Medival Warm Period was one of great prosperiety – and we are just now approaching such temperatures.

Gore has latched onto this issue and gained support of the rabid environmentalists. I believe that even with proof that he is wrong in his cataclysmic prophesies he will find a way to ignore such detraction from his claim to fame.

Bush is no hero, not very smart, lacks judgement, favors the rich and corporate interests at the expense of the nation but he is still a far better choice for president than was Gore.

omegaram on March 13, 2007 at 2:46 AM

I don’t have the link right now, or the energy to look it up, but the short story is, more people would be alive if DDT was used to kill malaria carrying mosquitos in third world countries, instead of getting environmental, and trying to save the world. Algore and his blowhard bullsh*t comes to mind. Never let the facts get in the way of a good Liberal cause. They will save the world, even if it kills us!

R D on March 13, 2007 at 2:53 AM

Actually the DDT thing was real.

Cat, check out what happened to the African people with the DDT hoax. The death toll runs in the 10′s of millions as a result of NOT spraying the DDT. Nobody but Stalin, Mao, and Hilter killed more people than the liberals with the DDT hoax. The libs were indifferent about the death they caused because they were too busy congratulating themselves for “saving” nature. Rush had done some phenominal stuff about the subject if you want to check it out.

My main frustration with all of this global warming tripe is how quickly it will be forgotten. The libs will then say that it was never “really” about the earth being in danger but rather it was about people coming together (barf) and finding new respect for this fragile blue ball floating in space that we all share in the common bond of humanity, blah, blah, blah…

Gag me with a carbon offset.

Mojave Mark on March 13, 2007 at 2:58 AM

MirCat:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

Note the extensive references. They are important.

Merovign on March 13, 2007 at 2:58 AM

Mojave – not 10 million – the number is speculative but likely a billion or more. It’s an absolutely stunning “policy consequence” that the policymakers have been unwilling to face.

http://3billionandcounting.com/about.htm

Warning – the main page of that site makes noise. Not a lot, but you may have your speakers turned up… this is the “about” page.

Merovign on March 13, 2007 at 3:02 AM

Mojave and Merovign, Thanks, I can sleep well tonight, knowing my mind wasn’t failing me. Goodnight all.

R D on March 13, 2007 at 3:10 AM

Well, I guess that’s my good deed for the day.

I hope it goes unpunished (looks furtively from side to side…).

:)

Merovign on March 13, 2007 at 3:15 AM

Hey, I have to get some sleep, so I will acknowledge that I haven’t read through this whole thread…

If you haven’t seen it yet, the good folks running this site have linked the response to Fat Albert’s propagandist movie. It’s:

If you haven’t watched, yet, it’s 1:16 very well spent. (I like the guy (scientist) who asked them (IPCC) to take his name off of their report. They refused him, at first, only removing his name from the document after he threatened legal proceedings!)

“Global warming” is, truly, an issue persued most avidly by those…who have nothing to do!

RedCrow on March 13, 2007 at 3:18 AM

Sorry I screwed up the link. It should still work, though.

RedCrow on March 13, 2007 at 3:18 AM

Exit question: Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

I’m not sure why this would be true. Capitalism, decency, and America never really materialized in this way, so I’m not sure how global warming skepticism is any different.

Lehosh on March 13, 2007 at 4:53 AM

Can I take my house down off the stilts now that we know Gore lied?

Buzzy on March 13, 2007 at 5:38 AM

from the story, we hear from one of Gore’s defenders – Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.

geosciences and international affairs?

Where is the connection there? Is there any more solid evidence of the politicalization of climate science?

moflicky on March 13, 2007 at 7:05 AM

Cat

Rachel Carson was a blithering idiot. The Testing they did to show that DDT would make birds have thinning eggshells was bogus, during the testing they fed the birds a calcium deficient diet, so of course they got the results they wanred.
And of course, they just named a bridge after her here in Pittsburgh. AAAAAGH!

mrfixit on March 13, 2007 at 7:07 AM

I don’t have the link right now, or the energy to look it up, but the short story is, more people would be alive if DDT was used to kill malaria carrying mosquitos in third world countries, instead of getting environmental, and trying to save the world.

I’ll confess here to hiding the copy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that my library put out in the display of “Great Springtime Reads.”

Quisp on March 13, 2007 at 7:10 AM

The grass grows higher everywhere Al Gore speaks.

Coronagold on March 13, 2007 at 7:34 AM

The seal is broken

Yes it is:
Carbon confusion
Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers

But Demetry’s money did not make as much difference as she thought it would. While half of it went to plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide, the other half went to a Bethlehem, N.H., facility that destroys methane — a gas that contributes to global warming. The facility has been operating since 2001 — years before the company began selling offsets — and Demetry’s money did not lead the company to destroy any more methane than it would have anyway.

Moreover, the project received a “dirty dozen” award from a New England environmental group in 2004 because it burns the methane as fuel to incinerate contaminated water from the landfill, emitting tons of pollution each year in the process. This method of destroying methane can emit more pollution than other burning methods

TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 7:42 AM

The inconvenient truth of this whole thing is that AlGore has set back the entire legitimate ecology movement with his scammy program.

If it isn’t bad enough that the left tries their best to kill each and every clean energy source (hydroelectric for one) with legislation and law suits now AlGore and his ilk have painted the entire matter as a money making scam.

Buzzy on March 13, 2007 at 8:13 AM

perhps the answer is to take over the schools and teach children that it is ok to be human. That, although we have flaws, humans are the dominate species for many reasons. And that inteligent consumption is something to be welcomed, not shunned. Then the next generation can shake of the junk science of Al Gore and perhaps lead a peacefull productive life.

(Inteligent copnsumption can be defined as using ones resources wisely. For example, some native american indians would start fires so the buffolo would flee over a cliff while trying to escape. This would kill many more buffulo then they could use, and was a poor use of resources. Inteligent consumption would have killed off just what they needed, and would not involve setting fires)

Wyrd on March 13, 2007 at 8:47 AM

My favorite part of the article—where Gore notes that he’s been trying to educate the public about the dangers of global warming for 30 years.

Riiiiiiiiiiggghhhht.

Steve LLamabutcher on March 13, 2007 at 9:08 AM

The Gore-terfly effect: One blowhard flapping his lips causes a storm of mass hysteria and loss of credibility felt round the globe.

James on March 13, 2007 at 9:14 AM

…since when did Gore start claiming that he’s been speaking about global warming for 30 years?

If he hadn’t wasted all that time on global warming, he might have invented the internet a lot sooner.

RedWinged Blackbird on March 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM

If he hadn’t wasted all that time on global warming, he might have invented the internet a lot sooner.

Now MY theory is that it’s all the computers causing global warming. Ironic, no?

Mojave Mark on March 13, 2007 at 10:05 AM

Money Quote:
“We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

Zetterson on March 13, 2007 at 10:58 AM

By the way, since when did Gore start claiming that he’s been speaking about global warming for 30 years? In the mid-70’s cooling was the worry. Isn’t the NY Times going to question that claim?

eagles5 on March 13, 2007 at 12:12 AM

This was my exact thought, too, when I read that. But hey, he also invented the internet, so what do you expect??

StephC on March 13, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Rather than reflecting some healthy eco-skepticism, could this article really be an attempt by NYT to help Hil (the “new” JFK) by cooling any popular presidential “bump” that Al got from his Oscar?

AlexHamilton on March 13, 2007 at 11:59 AM

I’ll confess here to hiding the copy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that my library put out in the display of “Great Springtime Reads.”

Quisp on March 13, 2007 at 7:10 AM

That’s awesome Quisp! I’ve actually done the same, haha. I did a 30 page term paper on the devastating effects of the “environmental” movement in my undergrad Bio-ethics class and covered DDT, Carson, and Silent Spring pretty extensively. I even brought up the case that she personally should have been held accountable for those deaths in a court of law. It was a classic example demonstrating the fundamental principle of “environmentalism”: Anti-Human.

Roark on March 13, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

Oh, please. It just puts a ‘presented both sides’ tickie in the opposing column, so they can claim balance in their reporting.

And it was more a gentle drubbing with a dull outdoor thermometer (one “he got the facts right” for every two “he’s hysterical”) than tarring Gorezilla with a “Sod Off Swampy” ‘T’*.

tree hugging sister on March 13, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Our blog mascot, by the way.

tree hugging sister on March 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM

It’s not so much that he’s wrong, they say, as that he’s, well, hysterical.

Correction. He is wrong too.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Another exit question. Does this article make the NY Times, and its editors, “deniers”?

Blaise on March 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM

oi vey

there’s dissent a plenty in the scientific community. I can’t believe how dishonest these guys are about where the community stands on this stuff.

One Angry Christian on March 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Scientists to Goracle: Relax

And me to all Doomsayers: STFU

RedinBlueCounty on March 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Actually the DDT thing was real. Although, if you have info to the contrary I would be open to reading it of course.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 2:42 AM

MirCat… here are a couple of links about the DDT scare being total fraud. But there are many sources for this information on the web…. just try typing “DDT Fraud” into any search engine such as Yahoo.

Maxx on March 13, 2007 at 9:59 PM