Whatever…
Published by Mike Stark May 25th, 2006 in Jim BohannonLast night I called the Jim Bohannon Show to talk about Global warming with Judd Legum and Professor Bollinger from Arizona State. Bollinger is working for Exxon Mobil, Legum for The Center For American Progress.
it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
At one point, at around the 10 minute mark, Legum reduces bollinger to saying simply, “Whatever.”
It made me laugh out loud.
If any of y’all get a chance to question one of these ass-hats, I’d really like to know if they are Exxon Mobil et al pay them to do public relations work in addition to their research.
As it was, I was able to force him to admit that he’s received over $400,000 over the last 10 years from Exxon - and I hope I kind of embarassed him about taking science - something that should be purely scientific - and making it political. Regardless, even if I fell short, Legum did an excellent job of highlighting that dynamic.
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
What I really want to hear from the deniers is what exactly would they accept as proof that global warming is real? Get them to lay it out precisely. They always say there is not enough proof, but they do not specify what they would accept as definitive proof.
That forces them to show how off the charts from reality they really are, and allows the opening to show that denying global warming is similar to denying that Terry Schiavo was beyond help, that Evolution is not real, and so on. It’s a denial of science itself they are peddling.
“what exactly would they accept as proof that global warming is real?”
i get the sense that unreversible catastrophe is the sort of evidence they are asking for. unfortunately by the time we get that evidence, it will no longer matter (i have read reports that there is a “tipping point” beyond which warming will be unreversible and will spiral out of control, warming itself, and that the tipping point is in about ten years).
i have a minor point, about the funding, it is not proof of anything. it certainly looks suspicious, but it could very well be that bollinger would believe what he does whether or not he got funding. for example, jacob sullum wrote a book against the public health crusade against smoking called “for your own good”, and i believe he has recieved money from someone either directly or indirectly involved with the tobacco companies. but his defense (and i believe him) is that the tobacco companies are helping promote ideas favorable to them, and that this is not dishonest. sullum has principled libertarian (he also writes for the libertarian reason magazine) reasons to feel the way he does (he accepts cigarettes are bad for you, but doesnt think it is the governments place to institute bans on them), and he probably would have written the book whether or not he got funding. the problem comes in when the association is not disclosed, or when it causes the writer/researcher to change their conclusions. that is dishonest.
Someone should tell the science whore who takes his orders from Exxon to actually READ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2001, which clearly states that “there is new and stronger evidence that “most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human actitivies” (IPCC Climate Change 2001, pg. 10, ‘The Scientific Basis’)
Here is some more of what the IPCC’s 2001 report contains, and the first is the most alarming:
“The globally averaged surface temp. is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsuis by 2100″ (Note that the avg. increase from 1900 to 2000 was 0.6 degrees Celsius)
“The projected rates of warming are much larger than observed changes during the Twentieth Century and likely to be without precedent during at least the past 10,000 years”
“It is very likely that nearly all land areas will warm more rapidly than the global average, particularly those at northern high latitudes in the cold season”
how come none of my comments posted on this thread?
Judd Legum sounds very reasonable and informed. Props to him. “A scientific consensus on the severity of the problem and the imperative to take ACTION, and then you have a small group of people, funded by the fossil fuel industry, who continue to cast doubt on the consensus and have a vested interest in working for OPEC and Exxon …”
Also, as painful as this may be to read (to believe that people actually listen to Rush Limabaugh and believe him as being anything other than a vociferous, partisan shill is large, because I think this guy has the largest audience in talk radio. But listen to his comments about global warming and how flushie politicizes the argument to the most rudimentary form. He calls anyone who believes in what modern science is saying as being a “wacko”
May 22nd
“RUSH: Bill Clinton Saturday, University of Texas in Austin, a small portion of his commencement address. Ah, ah, ah, ah! Audio sound bite #2. Here we go.
CLINTON: Why climate change is the most — more remote than terror, but a more profound threat to the future of the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren I hope all of you have.
RUSH: Now, this is really odd. Here is Bill Clinton — now, this is explainable, don’t misunderstand. I know this guy like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand. I can explain this, but it’s still very odd. What he said was poor Internet quality. What Clinton said was, “Why, climate change is the most — more remote than terror, but a more profound threat to future of the children and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren I hope all of you have.” (Laughing.) (Clinton impression) You know what it’s going to take to have great, great-grandchildren? Yeah!
So he’s basically endorsing the Al Gore strategery. Al Gore is trying. He’s got this movie coming out. It’s absurd. Antarctica ice is actually increasing. This hysteric global warming is unsupportable by facts. It’s not even supported by these wacko computer models anymore. But yet here comes Clinton endorsing the Al Gore position on this — and Al Gore, by the way, Democrats are begging this guy to run for president again in 2008, and there are stories about how Hollywood contributors are just salivating at the chance to throw some more money at Al Gore.
The second thing is on the substance of this. This is the Bill Clinton who did not go after Osama bin Laden. So now he is explaining why. Global warming is a bigger threat to the future than terrorism. So the question on the substance of his comments would be this. If global warming is that big a threat then why did you punt Kyoto? If global warming is such a big deal, how come you did not sign the Kyoto protocol? But I think I can explain this. When he failed to get any support for Kyoto, even from his own party, he probably said terrorism is a bigger threat to the future than global warming.
We need to go do a Nexis search, Cookie. See if you can find Clinton talking about the threat of terrorism. I know we’ve got Madam Albright in the latter years of the Clinton second term actually declaring a war on terrorism, and they were sounding the warning bells of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and so forth throughout all of that. But this is a classic example of Clinton as a great politician. Who else could fail on Kyoto, fail on getting Osama bin Laden, and now blame us for both of those failures? That is the definition of a great, great politician, especially to liberals. You know, liberal Democrat failures, I mean they move up in stature.
“
One more comment on this issue. Here is a link to a denier website.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
It is almost comical to listen to their alternative theories to global warming and some fo the claims they make. Here are a couple:
“Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely… no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of it’s own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.”
And this one:
“CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.”
“If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!”
Beware the “crisis” or “extreme nature” hype of this issue. There is a great book out there about Christian cults and the mentality of doomsday and I see nothing different here.
Is space cold? It’s neither. Objects are either heated by some process or radiate all of their heat away(See heat fluctations on the moons surface).
Has the earth heated before? Yes, and it has cooled as well. One question about the change in surface temperature is our contribution towards the change, not whether it is happening. The other question is what cycle the earth SHOULD be on right now. That is to say, if cooling/warming is cyclic, then how cyclic? Then project where we should be now, and compare that to actual results. If the earth is supposed to be in a cooling cycle, then we really do have a HUGE impact on the surface temperature. If we are already in a warming cycle, then we can discover our own contribution. The truth seems to be right now that it is impossible, with todays technology, to reference far enough back to see these swings. I would be interested in the results from a life cycle point of view as well. Are the swings longer or shorter in duration? What were the actual temperature swings? Most importantly, if the duration of swings is getting longer, what effect will that have ultimately on our ability to grow food and such. I feel for the environmental movement, but it is no religion to me. My Engineering degree precludes me from feeling any which way about what 2 2 means, I just strictly care about the answer. From the answer(Our Contribution) we can figure out what IMMEDIATE action is NECESSARY. Having worked as an operator at a nuclear plant, I know through training and practical experience that there is no casualty whereby you have to act so quickly as not to think. This post is not intended to spur more bickering, but actual thought, like:
More Heat could mean More Clouds(increased evaporation) thereby more reflection of the sun’s light thereby Global Surface Cooling.
or
More Heat could mean More Deserts which due to there light color actually reflect more of the sun’s rays back into space(yes, trees and rooftops and oceans absorb an incredible amount of the sun’s energy, leaving it here in our atmosphere) which would lead to Global cooling.
or More heat could just beget more heat, but by which mechanism? More heat is not just going to melt ice caps and create deserts, our atmosphere would have to be affected and then what would that mean?
I don’t have all of the answers, but I am hoping for well funded SCIENTISTS(I don’t give a flip who gave them the money, as long as they think like scientists should, critical of every notion and theory). Issues like this are too important to waste time and energy hating oil companies for. No one weeps for the dear, departed whale oil companies that will never come back, these jokers will suffer the same fate some day. READ MICHAEL CRICHTON’S take on the issue of Environmental Religion and Complex versus Linear Thinking on www.michaelcrichton.com He is apolotical about it because that is the way to approach it without sounding like Chicken Little(which Gore does). Every doomsday Cultist has been faced with humiliation when the prediction turned out to be false. So you either just say “Well, since we made the changes I said, we’re money now” OR you make the mommies and kiddies drink the cyanide cool aid, either way you “win”. The human race is already decarbonizing……uhhh…we don’t all burn wood, or coal, or even just straight crude. Natural gas (CH4) is prevalent for good reason (4 Hydrogen atoms-GOOD, 1 Carbon-bad). Compare its composition to wood, and you will being to see the trend that leads to the use of straight Hydrogen as fuel…for pretty much everything. I have the gift of optimism and the wisdom of history to know that we’re not so bad after all and that I didn’t fill my tank up with Whale oil this morning….
pete-
“Every doomsday Cultist has been faced with humiliation when the prediction turned out to be false.”
this is equivalent to saying that since humanity has never been wiped out, we never will be. i think this is a logical fallacy. there is no set date by which global warming will cause catastrophe (compared to people who thought the apocalypse was coming in 2000, etc).
micheal crichton is not a scientist.
“or More heat could just beget more heat, but by which mechanism? ”
i think one of the theories is that as the polar ice melts, it will accelerate itself by causing pools of melted water to form in the resulting crevasses, and that after this happens there wont be any way to reverse it, because it would be impossible to contain the ice. that might not be a completely satisfactory answer, i need to do more research.
“Has the earth heated before? Yes, and it has cooled as well. One question about the change in surface temperature is our contribution towards the change, not whether it is happening. The other question is what cycle the earth SHOULD be on right now. That is to say, if cooling/warming is cyclic, then how cyclic?”
the earth is warming much faster than it should be naturally. i read an article a while ago that put forth a theory that humans started affecting climate significantly when we started cutting down trees for agriculture about 5000 years ago. it said that we would have likely had a small ice age if we hadnt done this. the article also compared carbon levels in periods of intense human death (such as the plague in europe, which if i remember correctly killed about 1/3 of some populations, and the american genocide in which europeans caused the death of 90% of the natives). this caused trees to grow back and there was a very strong corresponding drop in carbon dioxide.
that article is available here, and is quite interesting: http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/News/0305046.pdf
it goes into warming/cooling cycles also.
orihd,
“Michael Crichton is not a scientist”
CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
The Biological Sciences post-doctoral work probably makes Mike a scientist….. (See almost any Deparment of Biological Sciences)
“never been wiped out, means we never will be”
When you make an analogy to something I said, please make sure it follows in common sense logic. The truth is that few groups outside of cool aid drinkers have ever had a sure fire doomsday equation. I never said we couldn’t be wiped out, the possible reasons for such a catastrophe are seemingly limitless, few having anything to do with our actions (or inactions) regarding the weather. The point is that Doomsday Chicken Littles have always been wrong, it does not necessarily follow that every single one will be, but the probability of Al Gore (now he’s really not a scientist) being correct is highly unlikely. Doomsday gurus also offer no solutions. Remember, when you are famous for saying (as in The Population Bomb) that the planet is going to be over run by skyrocketing birth rates, there is little incentive to see your prophecy fail. Birth Rates were already declining in countries (save a few) because if all of kids survive, you’ll have fewer kids. This is the example of critical thinking….not linear thinking (Better Medicine->Longer life span and fewer infant fatalities->Oh Sweet Jesus the planet is overun with modern apes!) Linear thinking is really not thinking at all but a straight shot guess at an outcome. If my TV doesn’t turn on when I push power, it could be 1)Power out to the house 2)TV not plugged in 3)I’m not pushing the button hard enough 4)The button is broken 5)Someone is sitting on the remote control, keeping it off 6)The entire television is busted 7)The cable box it is plugged into isn’t on or plugged in, etc… I only implore people to use critical thinking, like I have for one level of the “What’s broke” game. Each point could be extrapolated to many higher levels of questions and the result could be some 10 questions later like “A squirrel nested in a High Voltage Transformer and caused a fire and local brownout.”
you said
“i think one of the theories is that as the polar ice melts, it will accelerate itself by causing pools of melted water to form in the resulting crevasses, and that after this happens there wont be any way to reverse it, because it would be impossible to contain the ice. that might not be a completely satisfactory answer, i need to do more research.”
You’re right, do more research….. The most scientific word you have in the above paragraph is “theory”. I am not saying to throw out AlGore’s theories, but to examine them, criticize them (as ALL theories are). Also, just an idea, come up with new theories…..amazing. In no way am I saying that the above is wrong or right….just that it is what it is….a theory. No different than my theories. (I didn’t even read those in a book, just made them up) And hopefully, some courageous souls out there will put forward even more theories, either built on AlGores Scientific Powerhouse or staunchly contending against it. The more ideas the better….that is how things get invented. By the way there is a reason why climatologists are bound to call their ideas theories vice laws (See Sir Isaac Newton, etc..) Laws have a very rigorous passage in the scientific congress, for a very good reason. I am not a hater or a doubter, I don’t want people to go back to sleep, but rather back to school. Michael Faraday (Faraday’s Law regarding electricity generation) had to repeat every single experiment that he chose to have some faith in. Was he calling every scientist a liar? No. He was smart, and scientists today should follow his example.
you said…
“that article is available here, and is quite interesting: http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/News/0305046.pdf”
Read it, kind of liked the hypothesis(still, skeptic). No research is complete without a strong rebuttal however….see specific criticism of your article(theory)
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/broecker06eos.pdf
Also, go back to your article. Look at the way, way bottom. You will notice words (in the suggested book titles) like:
Plagues
Germs
Fates
Crisis
very scary…..I don’t believe in the boogey man….the world is okay and you are too!
Pete
you gota love the ficklness of politicians! haha! I also love the way that you can hear in Bollinger’s voice from the very begining sounds like he EXPECTS some one to get him annoyed. He almost STARTS annoyed, and extreamly nervouse, and on edge. hes trying to relax, but his voice gives him away.
Policitcal issues and scientific issues go hand on hand alot of the time. funding isnt fair.
But anyway, more importnat issue! does anyone have any idea WHAT IT IS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING HE DOESNT BELIVE? i dont think he actully says SPECIFICALY WHAT it is that he doesnt belive…..
And even so, he cant hide from the fact that we are running out of fossil fuels, so in the end its better for us if we start trying to find new fuels and recycle more anyway, isn’t it?
some one should point that out to these people.