“It is a challenge that this Congress must rise to,” Gore said. “I wish I could find the words to get past the partisan divide that both sides have contributed to. … It shouldn’t be partisan. It should be something we do together in our national interest.”
Al Gore in testimony to Congress, April 24, 2009,
By Robert S. Siegel
Former Vice President Gore testified to Congress Friday on global warming. “I wish I could find the words to get past the partisan divide that both sides have contributed to.” Gore said, referring to what he says is a need to reduce greenhouse gases.
Nice sentiment; getting past the partisan divide. However….
Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA) challenged Gore on his claims of a scientific consensus on warming stating that the committee had already seen a number of scientists with, “Completely opposite views.” The former Veep’s response? “There are people that still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
Gore set himself up for immediate rebuke by Scalise. “And neither of us is one of those (fake moon landing believers) and I know you like to deliver those cutesy anecdotes but this is not a cutesy issue,” Scalise said. “We’re talking about the export of millions of jobs out of our economy; out of our country, and testimony has been given just to those numbers.”
Further, Gore’s statement gave Scalise the platform to layout a critical point against the cap and trade proposal that was the subject of the debate. “..The carbon leakage that would occur, where the carbon would be emitted but it would be emitted in China and India and the jobs would go to China and India.”
Gore has often compared warming skeptics to the fake lunar landing crowd. Each time he does it he hurts his image and his cause. There really are people that believe the lunar landings were faked. Fine. Folks like that are harmless and they provide great entertainment for the rest of us. But to cite the fake lunar landing crowd during what is supposed to be serious debate is a cop-out and I say that while trying to be generous toward Gore. To compare that fringe group to legitimate scientists looks defensive.
Gore has facts, or at least what he believes are facts. If he wants to “Get past the partisan divide,” and truly convince people, than he needs to respect critics, not belittle the rather large list of scientists and other experts and that disagree with him. You can’t hope to persuade your opponents by insulting them. It doesn’t work.
And double my criticisms above to Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. His joke about global warming causing the Cowboys to not make the Playoffs and the Patriots to not win the Super Bowl was not funny to supporters or critics of the bill (follow the link to the video and note the complete absence of laughter) nor worthy of his high position in our government. Plenty of people take the issue of global warming seriously, even if you don’t (see Gingrich, Newt). Deal with it.
{ 16 comments }
Really, what’s with the lack of such critical thinking these days? I rarely see such cogent analysis of congressional demagoguery. Thanks for looking at the immaturity of their arguments as well as the content. It really does matter. How can you take seriously someone who results to ad hominem attacks in order to defend their positions? (This goes for both sides). Our political leaders need to learn to stop acting like Middle School kids. If they really understood the value of debate, of arguing the facts and trying to find the most logical solution to problems, they wouldn’t foul the waters with this kind of rhetoric.
Instead of examining peer-reviewed published science, the Republicans have been parading an eclectic group of deniers before the committee to justify their support for continued use of imported oil and dirty coal.
If they keep this up, the grand old party will be as obsolute as the whigs and “no nothing” parties of bygone days.
Rep Steve Scalise especially should know better than to try to justify his own denial of the climate crisis.
Instead of examining peer-reviewed published science, the Republicans have been parading an eclectic group of deniers before the committee to justify their support for continued use of imported oil and dirty coal.
If they keep this up, the grand old party will be extinct like the whigs and “no nothing” parties of bygone days.
Rep Steve Scalise especially should know better than to try to justify his own denial of the climate crisis.
Thank you for your comment. Is it possible to find some data on the group of deniers you site? I am trying to create a forum for fact based debate and you’re by far the best comment on this area.
I guess it does seem Gore’s response was a little clumsy. However, he needs to best illustrate that while there are people out there with good credentials who are critical to Global Warming. However the model of climate change which indicates that man made causes of global warming are apparent is a very broad sweeping consensus.
Instead of siting moon landings he should just say the world wide organizations of scientists who support the model that man contributes to global warming which provides the overwhelming consensus he speaks of.
Here are some…
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Is there proof that C02 causes global warming? I mean the kind of temperature increases that we are being shown? Is there proof that C02 causes droughts, tornados and hurricanes?
If there is such proof, why not reveal that?
Lord Christoper Monckton wants to ask you a few questions Al. Why did that Waxman bIItch deny him the right ? YES I mean WAXMAN CA dem.
Look it up — no free speech in America.
Eve – no, there is no proof that CO2 contributes to climate change. It’s a theory on which computer models have developed. They depend on an assumption of positive feedback. That is, if CO2 causes a small amount of warming, other effects will make it worse. Historical data doesn’t support this, and the models have failed to predict the cooling for the past 10 years.As for droughts, tornados etc, no, there’s no proof. In fact there’s no evidence that these have changed. Remember, we’re only talking about 0.7 degC over 150 years – not something we’d notice.
Cap and trade means we cap our economy and trade it off to China and India. We still get the same amount of carbon emission only it’s not the Western world doing it … we just pay the price for it.
China and India will then fail because their major markets are in the consuming western world.
Gore is working toward global economic collapse in his twisted and riddled with father issues mind. Daddy expected him to be the president, but he failed. Now he wants modern humanity to fail too.
Gore is insane and he has no real argument, just a bad theory.
The fact is a warmer world would be a more prosperous and better fed world.
Let us hope that sanity prevails and this idot passes into history as the gray bearded lunatic standing on a the global street corner shouting “The End Is Near”
the model of climate change which indicates that man made causes of global warming are apparent is a very broad sweeping consensus.
The models can’t predict 1990s climate right when fed 1950s data–why do you believe they’re accurate for the future?
Ben Ayers makes a good point about using peer-reveiwed published science. This is great as long as you are not black-balled by the publishers. As I understand it, scientists who don’t go along with man-made global warming, have a difficult time getting into peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the Democrats refused to allow Christopher Monckton to testify at the hearing along with Gore. Why would that be a problem? My guess is because it would cast doubt on the credibility of Gore and his cohorts. Americans might find out that there is really more than one scientific viewpoint to global warming and if Gore prevails, it will cost them a ton of money. Why do they fear a counter viewpoint?
Unfortunately, peer reviewed means very little. Mann’s hockey stick report was peer reviewed, and wrong. “Peer reviewed” often means supported by buddies who would like a return favour sometime. Woody is exactly right in saying that all the scientists with a contrary view are largely ignored for political reasons. However, they are slowly getting their message across, and more and more scientists are prepared to speak out in support of good science, rather than good politics.
Wow! It’s great to see so many reasonable people responding to this article. Gives me hope that maybe the tide is turning and the truth may win out. Anybody recall Obama saying he was going to rely on science to make decisions? Just like always, he says just enough to be able to cover any position he takes. I need to get a message to that Waxman fella and let him know he needs to stop emitting CO2 thru his face.
“Peer reviewed” usually gives context to a wide sweeping consensus among “peers” in that scientific field.
A peer review is simply a method to present your findings so that others may experiment and find the same or differing results. Peer reviews are used throughout the sciences, even the borings ones which have no political interest whatsoever. So to say that a peer review is something political is absurd. And if you ever read one you’d find that lions share of opinions are at some level critical of your findings when you post within a peer review journal. Of course findings over time are sharpened and sharpened as others repeat your work until they reach consensus of scientific thought within that field. Global Warming has come this far. It’s accepted by the groups I mentioned in my first post. It’s denied by a far far smaller group of scientists in that field.
I disagree. Before publication, peer review is often sought to give confidence that the report is scientifically meaningful and novel. Often, the author is asked to recommend peers to do this. You can imagine the phone call. Hi, Prof Montefidget here. I have an interesting budget approved project coming up that you might want to be involved in. By the way, I’d appreciate it if you could carry out a review of my recent report which is submitted for publication. Don’t think this doesn’t happen. In disciplines where there are limited specialists, and like thinking scientists, it’s common enough.
Explain to me how Mann’s faulty analysis passed through the system, and spooked the world. The IPCC discreetly dropped this from their latest report. Peer review means very little – normally only that it’s novel, but not necessarily correct.
Grant,
I hate to say this but your view of peer-review is somewhat naive and insinuates unbiased review of papers for publication. Every journal has a review board and, I believe, a set of standards against which they review papers. The reviewers are also able to inject their own biases into the review process. In the case of global warming, reviewers may reject any paper that doesn’t conform to their view of global warming. Anyone who thinks scientists are pure, holy and unbiased in either their research or review is extremely naive.
Another bias introduced into the process is funding. Academic researchers are always looking for money for their projects. So, what happened in the 90′s? Tons of money was available for global warming research. If you got some of that money and wanted to continue to get more, what would your research show? Anything except that global warming was not occurring. The research didn’t have to come out and say CO2 caused global warming but that global warming COULD be causing the impacts on whatever it is you’re studying. Last week we heard that fat people are contributing disproportionately to global warming. Global warming has been linked to beer shortage, loss in business at brothels, and the list goes on and on. (see http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm for a long list of things caused by global warming). The major point about global warming is that any scientific debate has been stifled. There is no consensus. It is a political science totally run amuck. Al Gore is now trying to cover his big derriere by lying at the hearings about his business interests. Is Al being altruistic or is Al being true to his own selfish greedy interests? Let the opposite side air their views to the public. What do AGWers have to hide?
{ 1 trackback }