Over at Salon Katharine Mieszkowski asks “Did Al get the science right?

The usual oil industry flacks and dogmatic skeptics have surfaced to denounce Al Gore’s global warming movie. But climate scientists say that, basically, he got it right.

Comments

  1. #1 Stephen Berg
    June 14, 2006

    Bob Carter et al. are at it again. What a piece of garbage this article is!

    Please shred every part of this piece of propaganda. Please!

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

  2. #2 z
    June 14, 2006

    Never seen that site before. An enlightening place, indeed.

    “So why all the hysteria? Can you say money? The anti-tobacco lobby is being controlled in large part and funded by pharmaceutical companies that are doing a land office business in selling smoking cessation medications. That’s the real hidden agenda of which I doubt even the staunchest anti-tobacco crusaders are aware.”
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus061206.htm

    Geezus. I guess one would do well to suspect any group with the word “Free” in their name/title.

  3. #3 FhnuZoag
    June 14, 2006

    Yeah, the Carter thing got slashdotted too.

    At least it will increase their bandwidth costs.

  4. #4 James
    June 14, 2006

    There is another article by Tom Harris here.
    An impressive list of anti-warming quotes, though I suspect a lot of them are out of context cherry picks. Anyone care to crosscheck and refute?

  5. #5 Dano
    June 15, 2006

    Anyone care to crosscheck and refute?

    Nah. It’s the same BS wrapped in a new package. Waste of precious time (which is a tactic).

    On second thought, the package isn’t even new. So it’s just the same BS.

    Best,

    D

  6. #6 z
    June 15, 2006

    “There is another article by Tom Harris here. An impressive list of anti-warming quotes, though I suspect a lot of them are out of context cherry picks. Anyone care to crosscheck and refute?”

    Well, one problem is that the links on the first page there that purport to be to the next 3 pages are dead. A sign of their real-world competence, I presume. I did enjoy the blindly ironic arrogance of his quoting “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Of course, he and his wouldn’t understand why that’s funny.

    And the first page does include
    “In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales.”
    This relates to that paper regarding the flaws of econometrics which was bouncing around Usenet a few years ago, as veterans of the Gun Wars may remember; the problem of predicting behavior after a big change, based on things continuing on as they were before the change. I.e., in this case, if there were no correlation between CO2 and temperature when nobody was pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rapid rate, we can therefor confidently predict that there will be no correlation when somebody is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rapid rate, despite the proved cause-effect relationship between CO2 level and increased IR absorbance. Similarly: since I have never been eaten by a bear while jingling a little bell when I have never encountered a bear, if I do encounter a bear jingling the little bell ought to suffice to protect me.

    “Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through” does deserve some sort of prize for confusing long vague noun phrase subject clause, though.

  7. #7 Dano
    June 15, 2006

    Of course, z, your elitist corrections merely reinforce the fact that AGW doesn’t exist in free markets, only in liberal university departments and in France. So there.

    Best,

    D