Former Vice President Al Gore
Retaliating against the growing skepticism of global warming, Al Gore wrote a lengthy story published today in The New York Times attempting to set the record straight.
It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.
But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.
Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.
Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.
No one in the mainstream media, it seems, has the guts to take on this scandal. This isn’t some penny ante affair about graft or infidelity. This is a direct assault on our national values, on who we are as Americans. At one time, the criminal types who burglarized the Watergate or the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s doctor were reviled. Now they have their own network. Bret Baier set the scene last Thursday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/fox-news-embraces-cyber-t_b_383887.html
Here’s the complete transcript of a debate between me and @GregWHoward on Twitter. It’s almost 2010 and this is how far we’ve come in the health care global warming debate.
This exchange took place today. I started the debate, unknowingly, by criticizing a stupid joke. I retweeted an update by @GregWHoward with the hashtage #DumbestJokeEver and then the following “discourse” ensued.
–
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
ME: RT @GregWHoward: Let’s see how many libs really believe CO2 a pollutant and do us a favor by not breathing anymore. #DumbestJokeEver about 2 hours ago from web.
@GregWHoward: @svendarko Who said I was joking abt libs not breathing any more to cut CO2? #tcot #p2 #ocra #sgp #ucot 40 minutes ago from UberTwitter in reply to svendarko
ME: @GregWHoward Spoken like a true pro-lifer. Proponent of anything that results in liberals being dead. #tcot #p2 36 minutes ago from TweetDeck in reply to GregWHoward
@GregWHoward: @svendarko I just want libs to practice what they preach. If CO2 harms planet, stop breathing #p2 #tcot #ocra #sgp #ucot #hhrs 17 minutes ago from UberTwitter in reply to svendarko
ME: @GregWHoward It’s not the CO2 from breathing that’s the problem but from burning fossil fuels. #duh #climate #tcot #p2 13 minutes ago from web in reply to GregWHoward
@GregWHoward: @svendarko Still expect libs to do their part to improve man’s lot by dropping dead #p2 #tcot #ocra #sgp #ucot 3 minutes ago from UberTwitter in reply to svendarko
END TRANSCRIPT
Twitter can be a creepy place.
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.
Critical thinking, climate change and corporate control
There are people who believe that Earth’s climate is changing. They believe that the planet is warming and that human activity – burning fossil fuel – is partially to blame for that warming. These are the scientists, and everyone else who appreciates the value of science and understands that polluting the environment is dramatically effecting the delicate ecosystem here on Earth.
And then there are people who don’t care whether Earth’s climate is warming or cooling, as far as they’re concerned, climate fluctuations have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. For these people global warming is part of Earth’s normal climate cycle. A small number of these people benefit directly from the continued burning of fossil fuel, like for instance Saudi Arabia or Exxon Mobil, but what’s interesting is that the majority of the people who think global climate change is much ado about nothing are regular folks with no vested interest in polluting.
My question is why do these average Joe’s and Jane’s care so deeply about burning fossil fuel? I mean, I get it that oil and coal have provided the human species with much appreciated energy. Without fossil fuel, we wouldn’t have computers, cars, trains, airplanes and iPods. But what is the harm in researching ways to generate that same power with a renewable energy source? Would it be so bad if that source was not a fossil fuel, and pollution-free?
The motivation driving oil companies that promote polluting as much as humanly possible is obvious. They want to make lots of money by all of us burning as much oil as we can afford. So when scientists start talking about apocalyptic mass death if the planet continues its current warming trend, naturally the oil and energy corporations do their best to brush the issue aside as just a bunch of hippy scientists taking one-too-many bong rips before lab. Tree huggers. Even so, traditional oil companies are diversifying their product portfolio to include some of that hippy technology like solar. That’s why British Petroleum is now BP “Beyond Petroleum.”
But what motivates the millions of cynical people out their who just will not stand by and watch as clean renewable energy is researched, developed and implemented? Why do they care if their electricity is generated by the sun or coal?
I think what’s happening here is a combination of a lack of critical thinking and misinformation.
Critical thinking is not an optional component of life. Yet, far too often, people are raised without the ability to think critically. If one can’t think through a situation, consider all sides, and ferret out bullshit, it’s impossible for them to consistently make the correct choice when considering a complex problem.
Fortunately, a lack of critical thinking skills in day-to-day life isn’t fatal, many non-critical thinkers live long and happy lives. But when it comes to politics, religion and commerce, that inability to think critically is taken advantage of by the propagandists. That’s what is happening here with global climate change.
In the interests of serving their own interests, oil companies pay “scientists” to write papers debunking the effects of pollution on the Earth’s global climate. Lobbyists and industry spokespeople testify before Congress about the negative economic impact on their industry if we’re not allowed to pollute as much this year as we did last year. Cable news commentators and talk radio bloviators latch on to the issue to excite their listeners and make more money. All this misinformation blares through the echo chamber of Fox News, The New York Times, Twitter, Facebook and wherever else it can seep through looking for a mind devoid of critical thinking skills to gobble it up wholesale.
The misinformation flies across the Web, through cable news and across talk radio with such force that it becomes the truth to many people. And because these people have never learned to think critically, they lack the skills to detect the lies they’re being told.
And sure, it’s pretty clear that if we transition our energy sources from fossil fuel to something else, there’s a real risk that Exxon Mobil and others could lose money and market share to other more cutting edge companies, however that’s not a good enough reason to stop innovating.
So if you really believe in free market capitalism, you’ll have to agree that creating more competition in the energy markets is only going to be better for the consumer – that’s you. And if you like to drink clean water and breath fresh air, you might want to consider the notion that polluting less is a good and moral thing to do, despite you’re unfounded reservations about our impact on the Earth’s climate as a result of burning fossil fuels.
Paul Krugman economist
Paul Krugman has moved past the current health care reform debate and onto the next big problem – global warming. Kudos to Krugman for trying to stay ahead of the game of political discourse and trying to push the case for real environmental reform, but getting American capitalists to pollute less is going to make the health care debate look like a stroll through Central Park on warm summer day.
But the larger reason we’re ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.
Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It’s also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.
So there you have it, like health care reform, the green economy President Obama said he wants to create will remain underrepresented in Washington. But maybe, just maybe, Obama can provide the much needed leadership to take on the Elite who like things the way they are, to give the innovative new companies a chance to change our path to destruction into one of salvation. He just better not leave it up to Congress like he did with health care reform or we’re all screwed.
Read Krugman’s column The New York Times.
Books by Paul Krugman on Amazon
The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008
The Conscience of a Liberal
The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century
Essentials of Economics
