Al Gore Is lookin' like a chick-chick-Chicken (which we all know is not on the Endangered Species List)
That's according to an article by Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg in the Wall Street Journal of today (unfortunately, I can't link because it's only available to subscribers), at first entitled "A Gorey Meltdown -- Couldn't Take the Heat!" and for some unknown reason changed to "Will Al Gore Melt?"
[Thanks to alltooflat.com for this image, which I have tweaked.]
Gore had originally given the okay for an interview today with the largest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, but he's backed out. Why? Because he was afraid to talk to the principal proponent of climate skepticism in Europe, Mr. Bjorn Lomborg.
The guy's a formidable debater, for sure; but the reason given?
"Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness."
[Pregnant silence.] Soo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o?? What's an interview for, if not to get to the bottom of someone's opinions and have them answer challenges?
Let me quote just one of the WSJ's examples of Gore's hysterical "misstatements" of data:
"Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?"
Talk about inconvenient truth.
Oh, I can't resist it, here are a couple more:
"He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?"
Sock it to 'em, Skeptics. The economic repercussions of trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is huge, something to the tune of a 30% reduction in the standard of living of the average person, and (1) we're not even sure there will be any warming over the next century, and (2) everyone agrees that Kyoto's effect, even if everyone signed on, will be inefficacious to say the least.
Oh, and by the way, some credible climatologists are now expecting a cold wave that will last until the end of this century.
There is much food for thought, yes indeed, on both sides of this issue, and both sides should be open to live debates on TV and in the media on the subject. But seriously now, until we know more, we should take no action just yet and we should cease the grandstanding, for fear of making things worse than they already are.
[Thanks to alltooflat.com for this image, which I have tweaked.]
Gore had originally given the okay for an interview today with the largest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, but he's backed out. Why? Because he was afraid to talk to the principal proponent of climate skepticism in Europe, Mr. Bjorn Lomborg.
The guy's a formidable debater, for sure; but the reason given?
"Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness."
[Pregnant silence.] Soo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o?? What's an interview for, if not to get to the bottom of someone's opinions and have them answer challenges?
Let me quote just one of the WSJ's examples of Gore's hysterical "misstatements" of data:
"Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?"
Talk about inconvenient truth.
Oh, I can't resist it, here are a couple more:
"He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?"
Sock it to 'em, Skeptics. The economic repercussions of trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is huge, something to the tune of a 30% reduction in the standard of living of the average person, and (1) we're not even sure there will be any warming over the next century, and (2) everyone agrees that Kyoto's effect, even if everyone signed on, will be inefficacious to say the least.
Oh, and by the way, some credible climatologists are now expecting a cold wave that will last until the end of this century.
There is much food for thought, yes indeed, on both sides of this issue, and both sides should be open to live debates on TV and in the media on the subject. But seriously now, until we know more, we should take no action just yet and we should cease the grandstanding, for fear of making things worse than they already are.
posted by Katy Delay at 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home