It only took a year for them to catch up to the alternative media, but finally the New York Times had to publish “From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype” calling Al Gore on his “global warming” hype.
“But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.”
“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.”
“Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.”
“Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.”
“Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
“Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.”
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
This, of course, brings to mind my essay: “Dark Ages II” where I discussed the subject of junk science, the “Environmental Movement,” and mentioned these many dissenting scientists to the conventional wisdom about “global warming.” As I pointed out, the Kyoto treaty is nothing more than Marxism on a global scale and essentially a wealth transfer scheme from the “have” nations to the “have not” variety.
For those who have read my “Sacred Cow Science” essay and investigated the link at the end, another thought is almost inescapable. When one ponders the incredible geological history of our planet, the notion that somehow “man” could have much effect on its future is the height of arrogance. A cyber acquaintance once said it best:
“I am also amused when I read how mankind is destroying the Earth. We are not capable of any such thing and it only shows our arrogance and our ignorance to think we might be. Yes, we may be capable of hastening the extinction of humans but I really doubt the Earth would care all that much, given that it existed for billions of years before we came on the scene. Seems to me we humans are not only arrogant, we really enjoy scaring the poop out of each other with our doomsday stories. Darned if I can understand why when most of Earthly existence is so totally delightful.” – Troy Robinson
I couldn’t agree more. ◄Dave►