My own view is that George Will’s real dishonesty has nothing to do with the science, but his implication that Julian Simon’s bet with Paul Ehrlich over future commodities prices cut in favor of his “skepticism” when in fact it goes the other way.

Simon won because he knew that propoerty rights and market forces would be working both to alter demand and to draw more supplies to the market; where as with climate there are no property rights in the atmosphere (which is an open-access commons) and no liability associated with GHG emissions, etc., so there is simply no market working to lower our climate forcing or for geo-engineering, or to compensate those who find they are compelled to adapt.

In short, Will displays a stunning ignorance of how markets work, and when they don’t. In the case of climate change, the “neo-Malthusians” are 100% right about the absence of market mechanisms.

This indeed something which I find quite disturbing, that Mr. Pielke is usually included among the “deniers” despite supporting the “consensus,” merely for not supporting the radical political agenda which seems to otherwise go hand in hand with it. Was the science ever relevant at all, at least outside of the scientific community? If some miraculous discovery occurred this week which irrefutably proved that CO2 was not a hazard at all, would the protesters pack their signs into their single occupant SUVs or their private jets and return to their 6,000+ square foot homes where each and every room is packed with kilowatt devouring luxury electronics? Will the politicians abandon all efforts to levy new aggressive regressive taxes? Do any of them really care about what does or does not harm the planet, or are they just hypocritically using the modern human civilization which they benefit from more than most as a scapegoat for the emptiness of their own lives?

http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2009/program/lectures/media/gore.ram

…he gets around to talking about energy and climate change. The first thing he says about energy is obviously untrue. He says that fossil fuels are expensive and alternative fuels are free! If he means that there is no charge for the wind and the sun, then he must also admit that there is no charge for oil or natural gas. The cost of any fuel is the expense in converting that fuel into usable energy, in which case fossil fuels are by far the cheapest for society. Mr. Gore is blatantly inaccurate from the beginning.

In minutes 16-20. Mr. Gore than gives a misrepresentation of the battle between Galileo and the Church. Most of the scholars in the church already agreed with the science of the sun centered solar system. They did not argue with the evidence. Galileo was not imprisoned because he held such sun centered beliefs, but for more political reasons that had little to do with science. Again Gore is inaccurate in his representation of science history, prefering to recite a myth.

Next he shows a slide depicting the relative thinness of the Earths atmosphere, arguing that it really isn’t very big at all and therefore, it is easy to see how humans can alter it! While science tells us that all life, including human life, impacts its environment (the atmosphere), the relative size of the atmosphere in a photograph from space is irrelevant and scientifically and emotionally misleading. It is propaganda.

Around minute 22 he starts to compare the Earth and Venus, indicating that the only difference between the two is that life developed on Earth and captured the carbon from the atmosphere while life did not develop on Venus, leaving the carbon in the atmosphere. Hence, Earth is a garden while Venus is an inferno. Excuse me! Any middle school science teacher worth his or her salary would correct little Johnny for making such broad and unfounded statements! Yet, Al Gore, in a room full of scientists, gets a pass!

I am a third of the way through the video and Al Gore has yet to say anthing that is scientifically accurate, other than CO2 molecules absorb infrared radiation. The rest has been irrelevant and/or innaccurate propaganda!

I haven’t even gotten to the part about natural disasters! He makes a false and misleading claim about some disaster statistics, but agrees to change them to other disaster statistics and make some more false and misleading claims about those. This is somehow depicted as an example of his unending devotion for the TRUTH!

When Roger writes “Kudos to Al Gore who has demonstrated a commitment to scientific accuracy in his presentation.” it makes my head spin! Al Gore uses ’science’ as a weapon for a political agenda, twisting it beyond recognition to fit his goals. Perhaps he got a standing ovation because he was speaking in front of the American Association for the Advancement of SCIENTISTS. I can not think of any other explanation, as his ’science’ is atrocious!

In the comparison, George Will’s column is said to be a ‘howler’ and entirely innaccurate, while Gore was said to make just one mistake. Well, I invite you to read what George Will said, if you haven’t already:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html?sub=new

George Will did not make any statement about what scientists thought in the 1970s, but quoted the media from the 1970s. Here are my two favorite quotes, but there are many others:

“The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975).”

The current claim is that the majority of scientists in the 1970s never believed the Earth was in a long term cooling trend…but how could that be true? Is it really possible that the mainstream media could make bold, declarative statements about what the majority of scientist believed when the reality was just the opposite?

Oh…the irony here is so rich. George Will is crucified as an idiot for quoting the mainstream media of the 1970s on scientific consensus by people who are constantly quoting the mainstream media on scientific consensus today; using the current quotes as one of the main reasons we should all believe we are headed for a climate change disaster!

So which is it? Can we trust the mainstream media when they tell us about scientific consensus? If yes, then don’t these bloggers owe Mr. Will an apology? If no, then shouldn’t they shut up about what the ‘majority of scientists’ believe today? Or is this just another example that rational arguments no longer have a place in the climate change debate?

The reality is that George Will was accurate in his editorial. If jounalists want to claim that quoting journalists is a terribly stupid thing to do, then I guess we shouldn’t read them anymore!

Now, about Al Gore’s speech…

Without having a conspiracy, there are beliefs, which people, including scientist, like to be comforted or reinforced. Anyone is more likely to accept exaggerations when they support their belief.

What I still have a hard time to explain is why there is such a high doom and gloom view of the climate at the moment.

For sure, the climate has always concerned human and about everything that is predicted by the AGW crowd, flood, drought and other extreme event, were the everyday (year) reality about 125-150 years ago. 1845-46 was when the last great famine occurred in Europe.

You are mistaken. Scientists in attendance did “speak up” in their own way. From the AAAS news report:

“The audience responded with a standing ovation that lasted over a minute, until Gore had left the room.”