An Inconvenient Book
By Eric Richard
Last week, Al Gore published a new book called The Assault on Reason.
I have not read the book yet, but I have read a few excerpts and I have to say that purely speaking as an environmentalist, I am a bit sad about this book.
One of the things that Gore has been able to do over the past few years has been to really help bring the entire global warming movement to the mainstream. He helped take this from being a liberal Democrat issue to an issue for everyone. I think the most recent statistics I’ve seen have shown that something like 70% of Americans now believe that global warming is real, that it is man-made, and that we have to do something about it.
While I don’t know the numbers, my suspicion is that there has really been a large shift in those numbers over the past couple of years and I would put quite a lot of the responsibility squarely at his feet.
Now, part of why Gore has been able to succeed is because he has largely transcended partisan politics. He stopped being the former Democratic Senator from Tennessee or the former Democratic VP and started becoming the man the first President Bush called “Ozone Man”.
Clearly during the peak of the fever surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, lots of people tried not to let Gore escape politics and ascribed political motivations to him like, “This is just so he can run for President again.”
I think it actually helped the credibility of Ozone Man when Gore repeatedly denied over and over and over again that he was not going to run for president.
With all of that in mind, I think that Gore, the champion of the environmental movement, has really done a disservice to that side of his personality through this book. I think it brings him smack dab into the middle of partisan politics and will allow people to dismiss all of his arguments as being all about liberal issues.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that these things don’t need to be said. But, I think that this was a real missed opportunity for Gore and the environmental movement. I think it would have been better if someone else said these things and if Gore kept out of the fray on issues like Iraq or national security.
I would have been much happier if this book was a follow on to An Inconvenient Truth taking all of the star power he’d gained and continuing to focus that on the environmental issue.
Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but I worry that Gore has just brought himself back to the land of the mortals with this book and, in that process, may undo some of the great work he’s done around bringing environmentalism to the mainstream consciousness.
Has anyone else read this book yet? Are my fears warranted?
on May 24th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I also have not read the book, but if there’s one thing Al Gore invented the internet for* — besides pictures of cute kittens — it’s rampant speculation. But, really, I don’t think one needs to read the book to totally respond, Eric, because I’m not sure I buy your assumption that Gore became credible because he shed his political self. Certainly, the trust-fund kids at National Review still see him as political And the environment as been one of his big issues throughout the last part of his political career. He wrote Earth in the Balance
on May 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I heard someone comment that “only in America is global warming a political issue, everywhere else it is purely scientific “. I would like to see an entry on this topic. It is hard for me to see us from the outside looking in, but maybe you have some more insight on this from your reading.
on May 27th, 2007 at 7:05 am
We’re up in Canada at a Best Western and every light bulb in the room is a CFL. On the several hour ride up here we listened to Al’s new book on cd. We’re only in the third chapter, but we think that his book is well written and about the real root of the problem here in the US. We feel that that through his climate change crusade in the US, he’s discovered a significant resistance to his message and that he’s done research into the factors that have led up to this point. It seems to us that he’s trying to open our eyes, make us actually think and try to get us back on a track where issues like climate change would never, ever take 30+ years to be acknowledged.
on May 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Responding to a previous post about America’s views on global warming, I don’t have any hard facts to offer, but I can certainly say the sense I have from the conferences I have attended is that there is a *vastly* different viewpoint in many other places in the world.
Just look at what has been happening in Europe over the past years. The EU has passed *mandatory* greenhouse gas limits. The UK has approved massive wind farms off its coast. Germany has incredibly strict building codes. Denmark has taken up wind power as a major source of its energy. During all of this time, the U.S. has largely sat on its butt and done effectively nothing at the Federal level.
The other example I would use came when Ross Gelbspan gave a key note at a conference last year. He talked about an column he had written for the Boston Globe entitiled Katrina’s Real Name (http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/).
He mentioned how after writing that article, he got pilloried in the U.S. for making such a “radical” contention.
He then mentioned how a few months later he was talking with the editors from several major German newspapers including Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/) and in their conversation with him, they also criticized him for the article, but for a completely different reason. They said that the article was a waste of the paper it was written on because it was so obvious and everybody knew it. They wanted to understand why Ross was wasting people’s time in writing such an article.
However, I would caution that these differences to not mean that this is a “politicial issue”. I think that this notion that climate change is a “political issue” is really another one of those myths that people *want* you to believe. But, if you look at some of the biggest environmentalists and some of the newest environmentalists, you will see that this is really a bi-partisal issue. I don’t think that anyone can claim that Rupert Murdock, owner of Fox News, nor Mayor Bloomberg from New York City are liberals, but both of them have “got the religion” recently. Similarly, John McCain and Arnold Schwartzenegger are some of the leading advocates against global warming — both Republicans.
So, I think the real issue here is that the critics want to position this as a political issue in order to freeze progress. But it isn’t really clear that this actually is a political issue.
From what I understand, I would agree that there is a real gap between the U.S. and at least Europe on this issue, but I am not sure I would characterize the difference as purely a political one.
on May 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Eric, I disagree with you on this one. I think this is a political issue, because it is an economic one. If you look at the politics based on region instead of based on party, it is much easier to predict where a politician will come down on an issue. For example, Tom Harkin is a huge supporter of corn-based ethanol. Barack Obama is a supporter of liquid coal subsidies. In both cases, geography trumps membership in the Democratic party. On the flip side, it’s easy for NY and CA Republicans (Bloomberg and Schwartzenegger) to want to fight CO2 emissions as their regions don’t have economies that rely heavily on oil, gas, or coal.
on May 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
On a slightly different tangent, the US is most likely seen as politicizing climate change because we do things like rejecting the G8 proposal to fight climate change. I suspect that if asked, the President would cite concerns over the economic impact of implementing this proposal.
on May 31st, 2007 at 2:00 am
Yeah, I think I’m confused by he term “political” here. It seems, Eric, that you’re using it as a synonym for partisanship. But as Vicki pints out, political differences can stem from more than party identification. And then, too, there’s a sense in which the topic is political because we are discussing how to best organize our society and use resources, which are political questions.
on November 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Does anyone find it odd that someone would bother to even post a book review without reading the book? the second line was and then the entire rest of the report was on Al gores book. Why don’t at least ONE of you actually have an open mind and read Glen Beck’s book. I feel like the entire point of this posting was to stop people from even bothering to check it out. I for one will read both and way the issue for myself. I encourage everyone with a mind to do so themselves.
on November 20th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Glenn Beck is funny.
People who think global warming is man made haven’t studied history, believe there is science in consensus, and don’t see it for what it really is - a money grab.
If you really want to do something about global warming - make it rain. Or at least model precipitation in your gloom and doom predictions!
But please - don’t prevent us from realizing energy independence because you’re too scared to build another coal fired power plant, or drill in a wildlife preserve.
The environmentalists attempt to thwart recovering and refining our own resources is downright criminal!
Preserve Liberty - Can A Liberal!
on November 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
So, let me get this straight. The original post discusses “The Assault on Reason” by Al Gore, and while the author has not read it, he is concerned that it needlessly politicizes the environmental movement. The discussion from that generally pertains to politics regarding environmentalism and how Americans are view abroad.
Then, nearly 6 months later a Glenn Beck supporter feels the need to defend a book that was not even alluded to in the previous discussion. Glenn Beck supporters then insult all environmentalists. Now, I see how people don’t support protecting the environment. It’s easy when your logical path from A to B routes around Mars. Thank you, Glenn Beck supporters!
And while we are on weird tangents, here are mine.
Go, Pats!
Remember the Maine!
e to the u, du / dx
e to the x, dx
Cosine, secant, tangent, sine
3.14159
Integral, radical, mu dv
Slipstick, slide rule, MIT!
on November 29th, 2007 at 12:53 am
I drive an 88 Chevy K-5 Blazer with a beefed up 350. I am lucky to get 10 mpg. I also smoke cigs dipped in oil. I am all for doing my part in helping the environment, but Al Gore is an ALARMIST. Do your homework before jumping on his bandwagon. He is far from stupid…he is making a ton of money off of people like YOU. I am not even close to a right wing maniac either.
If there is one thing that science has proved over the years, is that it is all based on SPECULATION. These people don’t know JACK. Blah blah blah. I feel sorry for all the “sheep” out there. So lost and willing to just follow the trends. WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Glenn Beck is really funny, but above all else he speaks from the heart. How people can’t like him is beyond me. It is all common sense. Why is that so hard to figure out? I don’t want to slam anyone but it is so hard not to when things are so obvious!!
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
on November 29th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Ah, yes. The famous “blah blah blah” retort. I believe Abraham Lincoln invented that device in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.
on November 30th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Josh, you obviously don’t read much - probably depend on AM radio to give you your opinions on the enviornment and liberals.
on December 1st, 2007 at 6:00 am
AAAHH YEAH,
Excuse me while I go throw another tire on the fire. Be back in a minute.
Glenn ROCKS and oh yeah he a number 1 best seller and the 50 million dollar man. GOD thats gotta hurt. YEAH…..oh well
on December 7th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Ah, from the mouths of left wing bomb throwers…Actually B-O-B I read books all the time. From the Left Behind series, to how to irritate a liberal, which isn’t hard to do by the way….all you have to do is speak common sense and they fly off the handle. Your just angry cause you only have one failing a.m. station to listen too and I have the rest of the dial at my disposal. So sorry…um…no not really……
Viki, thinking you are so educated because you know about a Lincoln debate. I have an idea, why don’t you move to Russia or Cuba, you Red diaper doper baby. Please……..Your thought process is going to ruin my country. Go blow your bong hit in another direction.
on December 7th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Vicki and BOB,
I think you have just been called out by Josh. OH thats right you can’t respond because you have no answers. You Bush and country hating liberals are amazing. You spew your venom about this country…yet you don’t leave…..HMMM. You hoard your freedom and DEPRIVE it to others. Get on your knee’s and thank GOD you live in the United States of America.
United States Army Veteran,
Desert Storm
YOUR WELCOME
on December 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Josh, huh? Which thought process is ruining your country? I’m not sure that referring to the Lincoln-Douglas debates makes me anything other than an American that understands that even during a time of heated disagreement, we can discuss issues civilly.
Stu, I would be more than willing to discuss the issues. What would you like me to talk about? And for the record, I have never hated my country; however, I will voice my opinion when I believe this country is headed in the wrong direction. My grandfather, the WWII Navy veteran, and my father, the Desert Storm Army veteran, taught me that they donned their country’s uniform to protect such freedoms.
on December 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
oh vicki,
Where do you want me to start? First, just how is OUR country heading in the wrong direction? No more terrorist attacks since 9/11/01? Or maybe is it the 4.6% unemployment rate? OR maybe it is the highest stock market in history? OR maybe it is the surge in Iraq that has violence down by 70%? By the way vicki are you aware of the 5k bicycle ride they just held in Fallujah Iraq last week? HMM this was the deadliest area in Iraq just a short time ago? Yes Vicki America is a good country and YES we are doing good things. Yes Vicki America has made some mistakes along the way but you should really educate yourself on the facts and be very appreciative for the land you were luckily born in. Oh, one last question Vicki….If it was your family or you that were being raped and murdered at will….WOULD YOU WANT HELP TO COME??????? HMMMM
United States Army Veteran
Desert Storm
Your Welcome
on December 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
America is a good country; I’ve never said otherwise. America is doing good things; I’ve never said otherwise. But, America is also making some mistakes, and as a citizen, it is my duty to speak out about those mistakes.
We are headed in the wrong direction on financial issues, specifically, the national debt. As more and more baby boomers retire, we are going to have to pay back the money we borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. At the rate we are going, the federal budget will be dedicated to military spending and Social Security/Medicare. I like things like roads and schools. Therefore, if we don’t get our financial house in order, we are headed in the wrong direction.
We are headed in the wrong direction on the cost of healthcare in this country. As Americans, we are paying more than any other country per capita for our healthcare and given our life expectancy and disease rates, we are getting far less. Forcing private companies to pay the healthcare costs for their employees makes American companies less competitive globally. We need to reign in healthcare costs, or we are headed in the wrong direction.
We are headed in the wrong direction on energy policy. It is not in our interest to have an economy that relies so heavily on foreign oil. It is not in our interest to continue to emit greenhouse gases that cause climate change and ultimately global instability as people fight over dwindling resources. We need to encourage research into alternative fuels; otherwise, we are headed in the wrong direction.
We also need to be honest with ourselves about the situation in Iraq. The surge has helped lessen the violence, but we are back to the levels we had in 2003. Let’s not pretend that walking in a circle is forward progress. Given that we invaded Iraq, it is our duty to do everything in our power to aid the creation of a stable, peaceful country. Pulling our troops out immediately will only result in greater chaos and violence. However, I do feel that we need to hold the Iraqi government accountable for making progress in their own country. If they are unwilling to work toward benchmarks that only serve to improve Iraq for the Iraqi people, then I am not sure we owe them anything.
on December 9th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Vicki,
I do applaud you on your response. I agree with you that spending is out of control. Yes health care costs are out of control but universal health care is not the answer especially if you are concerned about spending. We need to come up with a more comprehensive health care system. We need a system that allows us to continue with the best health care in the world and also make it affordable for all. I am with you. I agree that we need to get off foreign oil and need to look for new energy resources. Lets agree that maybe the earth is warming slightly however, it is not a fact that it is man made. YES I agree that the government in Iraq as well as the people need to stand up and help take charge. Please remember that our democracy did not take hold for many years. I do not want to think that 3900 american lives were lost in vain if we cut and run. I think that you and me are closer than you think. America needs Vicki and Stu to come together and not always agree on policy but always agree on PRINCIPLE!
I am very happy that we have agreed on certain issues and only disagree on policies but want the same result in the end.
GOD BLESS YOU VICKI AND YOUR FAMILY!
MERRY CHRISTMAS
stu
on December 10th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Stu, I do think we agree on many things. With that said, I just can’t agree that climate change is not man-made. The scientific data and papers I have read overwhelmingly point to this conclusion. It seems the holes in the scientific theories are not whether or not we are causing global climate change, but how fast that change is occurring.
The papers and essays that refute that climate change is man-made seem to take one of two approaches. First, they use selected anecdotes to refute global climate change. Using a single cold week in December to refute climate change is no more valid than using a hot-streak in January to prove climate change. Instead, one must look at data across long periods of time. This data points to very to climate change that correlates very strongly to human-created carbon emissions.
The second tactic used by naysayers is to poke a hole in a single, border case in climate predictions and claim that this refutes all other climate change estimates. Science simply doesn’t work that way. If naysayers want to claim that climate change is not man-made, they must explain the rest of the phenomena as well, not just small samples at the edges.
If someone wants to refute that climate change is man-made, that person is free to present their data and findings to the scientific community like everyone else. But, they also should expect the same level of scrutiny as everyone else has faced. At that point, I will take them seriously, but pointing out that it snowed today in MA is not going to convince me of anything.
on December 10th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Vicki,
I tried to extend an olive branch on our differences and you are simply unopen to this so with this I bid you a happy future. I do hope that in the future you will open your mind to people that try to reach out to you for compromise. I tried to open my mind and agree with you and you only focus on global warming. I will tell you this, the terrorists that you seem to ignore will cut you and all of your familes heads off long before your temperatures will kill you if you don’t wake up. Do not respond to this because this is the last entry I will make here. I am deleting this from my files and will not return to read anything else. I tried to reach out but you will not have it. I should have known better than to try and reach common ground with somebody that just wants to hate. That said I had the last word here. Think about it.
stu
on December 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Stu, I am not sure why we we can’t fight terrorism and climate change at the same time, and I am even more confused that you feel that I want to hate. In your previous message, you said, “Lets agree that maybe the earth is warming slightly however, it is not a fact that it is man made.” I simply cannot agree with that statement at this time, and explained why. I am more than willing to discuss ideas civilly in the hopes of everyone learning something.
on December 14th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Vicki, You believe that global warming is caused by man just because the “scientists” say so? It is no different from the FDA saying that salt will kill you..oh wait no it won’t..oh wait yes it will…These people work hard at what they do, I won’t disagree on that, but how can you possibly draw such a conclusion in that short amount of time?
This is all THEORY. First they said that (not sure the actual year but) 1992 was the hottest year ever, then they said oops 1932 was the hottest year. Mother earth has been here for hundreds of millions of years. That is hundreds of millions of years that we haven’t been here, or kept records, or done any kind of science. Scientists are just people too. They make mistakes all the time and are quite aware that most of their findings are all based on theory.
There is no way anyone can possibly know in the very short amount of time we have lived on this earth that we are the cause of global warming. The entire human race is a pimple on the butt of this earth. Just thinking in logic should make since that if we are any kind of cause of warming it is so small compared to the sheer size and power of mother earth. Does that mean that we should just not care? Of course not. But trying to alarm the world that we are all going to die unless we do what they say, is just ridicules.
If we ignored science then these guys wouldn’t have jobs, or grants, or anything to do at all. They have to come up with things to justify the spending and the continuation of free grants and large salaries. This is all just common sense. If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV then I should be able to. I do not want someone to EVER tell me I can’t because they say. Al Gores whole carbon offset thing is a joke.
How can it possibly help to pay a place to “offset” your footprint? That is saying go ahead and keep doing what you are doing and just pay me so you THINK that you are doing better. How can money offset your footprint? WE as individuals are the only ones that can truly offset our so called carbon footprints. That means really doing “green” things. NEVER Driving a car, using aluminum, plastic, gas, coal, smoking, farting, eating meat, buying clothes, buying a house made of wood, burning a fire, using a computer, going to starbucks, breathing…….
You see it really doesn’t matter because whatever we do we are going to create a footprint. Did you know that over 30 jets flew in for the so called “global warming” conference? Do have any idea how much fuel it took to do that? Did you know that Al “I am a total hippocrate” Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot home? Do you have any idea what it costs to heat a place like that? He also has his own private jet. Do you think for one second that he owns a Prius? Is his place solar? um….no. Do you think for one second he is going to give up ANY luxuries he is used to? Hell no.
At least Leonardo Dicrapio walks the walk for the most part, or at least he tries. I just don’t understand how so many people can just think that these politicians really care about us. Don’t all of you see that they are in their own world in D.C.? Not to say there isn’t some that care but for the most part it is all about money and power. The all mighty VOTE. That is why nobody will put a secure fence on BOTH borders. It would be political suicide.
God forbid you lose all those minority votes, which by the way here real soon if you are white you will be the minority. I am not trying to fire a race debate up…I am far from racist. I am not right or left winged either, but I am a thinker and I am far from stupid. Why would you ever just fall in line with what is portrayed to be true? This is all a game of power…who has it, who can get it and keep it.
The media blows it all out of proportion, spins it, makes it glamorous. God I am sorry for such a novel…I am just so sick of all of this crap. Always question authority. Always ask questions, think for yourself, get all sides before jumping on the bandwagon. If we all just do what we know is right then all would be well.
on December 14th, 2007 at 1:23 am
I want to say I am sorry to the creator of this site….Eric Richards. I just read his comments about the book. The only reason I got to this site was because I was doing a search for Glenn Becks book….which by the way has been number one on the best sellers list for three weeks straight! (Go Glenn!) Anyhoot….I see that he was upset as well about the political spin surrounding Gore. I am sure there are a bunch of libs here, but it seems he truly wants to help the planet. We might not see it the same way but I just figured this was another left wing bomb throwing site. So I am sorry for not paying attention! Good luck to you Eric and don’t get lost in the political power struggle! Stay true to what you believe in and do it for the right reasons and I am sure you will do well. Now if the rest of the world would wake the hell up and get a backbone we might be able to take this country back. WE THE PEOPLE know what is best for this country, not a bunch of greedy politicians. Merry Christmas everyone! Be safe out there…..
on December 14th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Josh, I don’t believe climate change is real and is man-made because the media has told me so. The media is horrible at reporting scientific stories. That is why they said “salt is bad for you.” That is ridiculous. Your body needs salt for many critical processes. Like most things, salt becomes bad for you when you ingest too much of it.
I also don’t believe climate change is real because a bunch of scientists say so. I believe it is real because I try to read scientific studies and understand why the scientists arrived at the conclusions they did. That is how science works. You collect data, you come up with a hypothesis to explain your data, and then you come up with tests to collect even more data. All along the way, you refine your hypothesis until you can explain the data you are collecting. Once your hypothesis is strong enough, you arrive at a theory you can apply to future experiments. For example, gravity is a theory, but engineers use that theory everyday whether they are designing office buildings or space craft.
Man-made climate change has thousands of studies to support it. These studies have been used to construct detailed models of how climate change will proceed. If there is a flaw in these models, it appears that they are not aggressive enough. Climate change is happening the way scientists have predicted it will; it is just happening faster.
On the other hand, I cannot find credible data to support the alternative. I read the NASA study that changed the “hottest year in history.” In the end, it was largely a math error. My recollection is that the 10 hottest years remained the same with the exception of a couple that swapped places. The overall trend still held.
I have also read the hypothesis that climate change is all due to fluctuations in solar activity, but when I dig into these studies I find that the hypothesis only holds for the pre-industrial era. Once people started emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases, the correlation between solar fluctuations and global temperatures largely fell off.
If you know of climate change skeptics who have solid data backing their claims, I would love to read their studies. In the meantime, I have to believe the theory that is supported by more than politicians shouting at one another.
I would also not presume to know what anyone believes or does not believe about particular policies without talking to him/her. For the record, I do not like the current trend of “carbon credits”. The way the systems are implemented, they are a way for non-polluters to make money from polluters who get to continue polluting. For carbon credits to work, there would need to be a cap that reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by everyone. Until then, we will just shuffle money around and feel better because we are “changing” the world.
on December 14th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I can accept that Vicki. Although I still don’t agree with you at least you are trying to see the other side as well. I am far from knowing anything about the science of it all. Again I think it is all a guess on their part. Gravity is a fact…I don’t really care why we have it, I just know it is here and it keeps me on the ground. I just think that it is impossible to be able to have any hard proof that we are the cause of all this. It is like trying to forecast the weather. They sort of know why the patterns do what they do but it changes all the time and gives me two feet of snow when they said “a light dusting” It is all a big guess. Trying to figure out mother nature will never happen.
I hate to bring religion into this but it is like telling me there is no god. Science says it is evolution and big bangs. Fine and dandy…but NOTHING can just be there….NOTHING. They seem to know it all but when you bring that up there is no explanation. The fact is THEY DO NOT KNOW! They can’t possibly know ever. The science world has made leaps and bounds and done some great things for mankind, but I still believe it is all speculation.
The climate changes have been shifting and changing long before we ever came about. This earth has burned and frozen and shook and blown up for hundreds of millions of years. Can you fathom that time? I know I can’t and a drilled hole in the ground and test tubes and microscopes will never convince me. We can’t even explore an eighth of the ocean, or cure cancer or aids with all this great science and you are going to tell me that these guys know for sure that we are the cause of global warming? Sorry, not going to happen. It is ALL SPIN. Not to say that there are not people that are really trying to figure it out. Kudos to them for trying.
Here is another analogy….It is like a scientist drawing my blood and urine, taking dna and hair and skin samples. Then doing tons and tons of tests. Those tests will for surely turn up facts about me, hard facts that cannot be argued with. And then telling me based on those facts, who I am as a person, what I believe and think and act and WHY I am and do those things. Um….no, they will never be able to do that. This earth has a soul, a heartbeat, and they will never be able to tame it or figure her out. It is impossible.
on December 16th, 2007 at 5:13 am
I don’t think it is fair to people who devote their lives to science to claim that it is “all just speculation.” We have made huge strides in all aspects of science whether it is space travel or computer technology or medicine. For example, my sister-in-law is recovering from a form of breast cancer that would have been fatal just five years ago. Scientists are making great strides in understanding how cancers form and how they spread and that is translating into saving lives.
Just so we are on the same page here, a scientist would not say that gravity is a fact. Facts are things that can be observed, measured, and verified. A fact is something like there are 12 inches of snow on my deck. I can measure that. Someone else can come to my deck and perform their own measurements. You can’t really measure gravity. Instead, you measure things like how fast things fall and how much they weigh to start to understand this idea that is gravity.
As I said in a previous post, scientists take all of these measurements and start to ask questions about them. For example, does the size of something effect how fast it falls? They then set up experiments to test these ideas. In lots of cases, the original hypothesis is wrong. The scientists go back and try to figure out an alternative explanation for both the original data and the new data. Eventually, the hypothesis gets strong enough that you can use it to predict the outcome of future experiments. When you get to this point, you have a theory. You may think you don’t care about the theory of gravity, but if you have ever flown in an airplane, you should be thankful that the engineers didn’t just guess at how strong gravity is on Earth.
When it comes to the theory of climate change, it is important to remember that it has undergone the same rigorous process. Einstein made his name explaining problems in Newton’s explanation of gravity. A young scientist could make his/her career off of a similar refutation of man-made climate change. But instead of that refutation, scientists have been finding more support for the idea that humans are causing climate change. They do this by finding that alternative explanations can’t explain the changes we are seeing. Scientists have also used the theory of man-made climate change to construct elaborate models. These models have failed in one way: they have been overly conservative. Global climate is changing in the way scientists expect, it is just happening faster.
This is not to say that science can explain everything, and it certainly cannot explain God. Science answers the question of how; religion answers the question of why. To wrap this back to my original explanation of the scientific method, how would you measure an infinite God? How would you set up an experiment that allowed you to test an omnipotent God? These are just absurd questions.
Perhaps it is my Jesuit-influenced background, but I have no problem understanding how God can use something like evolution to create and mold a finch. But that knowledge doesn’t stop me from admiring the beauty and majesty of His creation. If anything, it enhances that admiration.
on December 21st, 2007 at 9:46 am
Vicki said, “On the other hand, I cannot find credible data to support the alternative”. Read this whole article and tell me what you think now.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
on December 26th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Josh–
Beck’s book was #1 for a week before surrendering the position back to Stephen Colbert’s I Am America (and so Can You). Just thought you might want to get the little stuff in order before you try to tackle the big stuff.
on December 31st, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Mark, I have not had a chance to fully digest the entire report, but my initial reaction is that the authors of this report started with the premise that there is no scientific consensus on climate change and cherry picked quotes to back that premise. In doing so, they in some cases completely misrepresented the original studies.
For example, the report discusses the role of solar fluctuations on climate. For some reason, the authors chose to reference a blog (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002586.html) instead of the original paper (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf). That original paper does not say anything about CO2 and climate. The conclusion of the paper is that solar fluctuations effect climate and that computer models could be improved by incorporating solar data. Somehow in the telephone game from the original paper to the blog posting to the Senate report, the scientific claims changed dramatically. I do not care if this was done intentionally or was an honest mistake; either way, it is poor research and does a disservice to those who rely on the Senate to be honest in its dealings.
The Senate report also seems to be all over the map on what it considers to be a “skeptic” — ranging from those who believe climate change is not happening to those who believe the climate is changing naturally to those who believe climate change is man-made but disagree with the rate Al Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. I am not sure that it is accurate to label someone a “skeptic” because they disagree with Al Gore on subtle details of climate change. I disagree with Al Gore on some things, but I do not consider myself to be a climate-change skeptic.
I do think that the Senate should take an honest look at the state of climate change research, including where there is strong consensus and where scientists are still fuzzy about the details. I don’t think this report fits the bill.
on January 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Vicki,
You uneducated idiot, Are you an Obama or Clinton supporter? I have read all of your posts and can tell that you are a deprived and uneducated child. All of your Al Gore spewing is so unsupported by ANY scientific facts it is laughable. Now, if you can produce any proof of any of the venom that you and your GOD Al Gore are vomiting than throw them on the table and I will be GLAD to SWAT YOU AND THEM DOWN! YEAH, didn’t think so….. you PROGRESSIVE IDIOT……STOP HATING YOUR COUNTRY AND BE GREATFUL YOU WERE BORN HERE>>>>>>>LIBERAL HATER
on February 1st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Rush, as I pointed out to Stu earlier, I do not hate my country, and I never have. To be quite honest, I do not see where I have put forth anything other than a reasoned opinion. Why don’t you tell me where I have displayed “venom”? Once you have specific arguments, we can have a civil conversation.