Or maybe we should call him the Global Shyster (shyster: one who is professionally unscrupulous in the practice of law or politics; one whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable)
Al Gore s at it again. The success of the Democrats in the election have him all stoked up, and he is again, after a silence of several months, in full battle cry about his favorite theme. But wait. . .iit isn’t the same theme. No more “global warming.” Zounds! And not even “climate change.” No, he has morphed his cry to “climate crisis.” It’s an interesting dance of words he performs to justify his claim that the earth is in dire peril. The term “climate crisis.” of course, is so meaningless that it allows the user to make up any statement he desires to rouse people’s concern without providing any objective information.
Citing “[t]he inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama. . .,” he goes on to equate that event to a need to “begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.”
There is more of the same raving about the election before he moves on to cite the usual suspects—the UN’s IPCC and its “four unanimous reports” developed by a host of scientists that allegedly claim that the earth is dangerously heating up.
But we know that the reports were based on faulty analysis. The “hockey stick” graph that was suppose to show a recent rapid heating, has been shown to be completely bogus. And the latest temperature data from NASA’s “ace“ climate scientist, Dr. James Hanson, is also cooked. One wonders if Hanson shouldn’t be fired for incompetence or sued for malpractice; his data in the past has been completely unreliable for predicting anything about the climate.
Gore strongly implies that these scientists from around the world form a consensus that the planet is threatened.
But as the late Michael Crichton reminded us clearly and concisely, a consensus is not science, and real science is not based on consensus.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus [emphasis added].
The IPCC scientists have yet to provide “reproducible results” pointing to global warming. All they have are models that are not worth much in the real world.
Gore then gives a five-point plan to meet the crisis. The problem with his plan is that it is costly (a national smart power grid), of questionable effectiveness (wind farms and solar thermal plants), and would greatly lower our standard of living.(establish a carbon credit trade).
It seems to be contagious. Obama spouts the same rhetoric. As Marc Sheppard shows, he obviously gets it from Gore and merely gives the matter lip service with no real understanding of the subject.:
Now from whom have we heard such an arrogant concentration of misinformed alarmist hokum before? Of course - the man that Obama promised "will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem." The Delphic Goracle himself.
And what is Gore’s reason. I point out here and here that he is in the business of providing carbon credits and is a partner in a firm that will benefit from many of the so-called solutions he advocates.
So much for objective science.
Comments