(Note to Readers---this is an alternate and updated version of the posting on Al Gore on July 19. The conclusions are the same.)
Al Gore put himself back on center stage this weekend with an even more preposterous claim about what mankind needs to do about Anthropogenic Global Warming or "AGW". Just as scientists are starting to more publicly challenge the premises of AGW he ever so casually "challenged the nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and from truly clean, carbon free sources within 10 years". The question is why?
What is AGW 's falsifiable hypothesis or hypotheses? Where is AGW's Einstein? Inside a computer model? The truth is, climate science is far less understood than either relativity or quantum mechanics. But Gore wants you to believe "the science is settled". Do you believe AGW science is "settled"? Relativity is not even "settled". If "science is not settled" it does not mean there is a "50-50" chance a theory is correct. It means nothing of the sort. The range of outcomes can be anywhere from a theory being a complete non-sequitur to it being correct. But until there is confirming evidence there is no basis for an a priori probability as to its soundness. If that were the case, we should act on every assertion that any group of scientists "believe".
Einstein "discovered" both relativity and quantum mechanics. For 103 years, he and other physicists tried, unsuccessfully so far, to reconcile both theories with each other. At their core, they contradict each other. Both theories cannot be true. Various theoretical attempts have been made, the latest being a multi dimensional concept called "string theory". But physicists are aware this can never be proven until a falsifiable experiment is created. Scientists have yet to figure out how to even test the theory. Therefore, the science is not settled. Again I ask the question: what is AGW's "falsifiable hypothesis or hypotheses"? Einstein could describe his "falsifiable hypothesis" so clearly it made the front pages of global newspapers. Does Al Gore know?
This is journalistic negligence of the highest order. Gore has made well into eight figures carnival barking this issue and stands to make well into nine figures if severe CO2 restrictions are put into law. Al Gore's Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It How can this massive conflict of interest not raise the slightest curiosity in Brokaw? Because on the upper East Side it is rude to talk about money? Can't he see the red flags waving? Even the media language has morphed into an Orwellian hodge podge. Brokaw leads off one question with the phrase "I think that probably our audience understands that there is a growing consensus that climate change is real.....". Climate change? What is climate change? What happened to AGW?
More interesting, however, is what they do not say. They do not say anthropogenic global warming is occurring. They say "greenhouse gasses....affect the Earth's climate" but they do not say how severely or in what way. They conclude by urging "governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases" but make no statements regarding how much or over what time frame.
"If I take this pill I will live forever? Really? How much does it cost? It is free? You are telling me that if I take this special sugar pill I will forestall death? Seems odd but if all these scientists say so, why not? Wait, it cost what? $200 dollars a pill 3 times a day? If I skip one day it does not work? Let me look at that UN report again"
Kyoto has been in place 12 years. Nothing has happened to reduce CO2 emissions. Nor will anything happen to reduce CO2 except as technology develops to create energy more cheaply with less CO2 emissions. If Al Gore and other fanatics get there way and a bill like Warner-Lieberman passes in the US, or around the world, the same results will occur. No government can stay in power in a democracy by severely restricting the freedom and wealth of its people unless the reason is compelling, straight forward and obvious. World War II is one such example, when the US Government rationed most goods and services, including energy usage. The extraordinary claim of a man induced theoretical 2 degree increase in temperature 100 years from now just does not cut it.
Governments can still cause great havoc, however. A Stalinist CO2 emissions review board will, like Kyoto, accomplish zero on greenhouse gas emissions. But it will provide plenty of opportunity for rampant corruption, record setting "crony capitalism", and economic inefficiency. And people like Gore will feast. Which, to answer my question in the opening paragraph, is why Gore is now tripling down. He sees his window of opportunity potentially slipping away as the political cracks in "the science is settled" meme expand rapidly. He has noticed, even if Brokaw has not.
When the good people of Florida could not read ballots or whatever
in 2000, Gore needed to find another "gig". He figured he could get
ahead of the curve by lecturing, making movies and creating a private
equity firm to invest in Cap and Trade credits and other green schemes.
He was not counting on temperatures dropping this decade back to levels
in 1979 (when we first began satellite measurement of temperature in
the troposphere). The language politicians use is still heavily pro
"global warming". But no one is stepping too deeply into this bog.
Support is the proverbial mile wide and inch deep. It is a loser's game for any politician
and Gore instinctively knows it. He is doing everything he can to dupe
the public again, as he did when he received his Nobel Prize. I am
betting this time he fails.