Skip to comments.MIT's inconvenient scientist [He doubts global warming propaganda]
Posted on 08/30/2006 6:52:17 AM PDT by aculeus
... I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.
Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.
Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.
``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And should be!
We should use the issue to fund a massive increase in domestic energy production, through Nuclear, solar, wind, water and Alternative Fuels.
I totally agree -- seems to me that there was a recent call for a Manhattan Project-level program for energy. Googling...
Yep, there's stuff like that out there, and not everybody agrees with the "Manhattan Project" idea. I think that there does need to be federal funding of basic and applied research to develop and improve alternatives -- particularly funding to research in corporations, not exclusively academia, to encourage the applications side. Funding of academic-corporate partnerships might be a good way to go, too.
The Russians have complete control of Gore. He is there man. They have him dead to rights on an issue where Gore violated International Law in dealing with a situation within Russia during the waning years of Clinton. I don't recall the specifics, but read about it within a Russia media outlet story. Coincidently, the Russians, through Gorbachev, have been promoting the reactionary environmental hysterics. This is rather comical considering the environmental record of Cold War communist states.
The same was said when we went for Clinton's impeachment. After all if we had succeeded, Global Warming Gore would have been President. In the long run, because we stood for principals, morals and justice, while the left stood for corruption, no-morals and law breaking, conservatives ended up winning when Clinton viewed his own decadent personal life as being more important then the nations life.
So basically, we should never advocate the use of junk science. Besides, as China's growth continues to explode, the Earth's environment will be in their hands before too long. Now if you truly believe that apes are changing long term weather trends, the fact that the Communist Chinese will be the dominant producing and consuming apes within a few decades, should cause shivers to run up and down your spine. The instability of the Middle East is more then enough reason to make the development of alternative fuels a national strategic imperative.
Science has solved problems before that were thought impossible to solve. The car is already in production.
Nothing says success - like success.
On behalf of Indians everywhere, I insist you take back your demeaning association of our wooden brethren with that former Vice Presidential "bloatem pole"! ;-P
I never said it was impossible - only inefficient. If building an inefficient car is your definition of success, then you are, of course, right. It's not my definition.
But if converting significantly reduces air pollution in a congested city - say, Denver or LA - the trade off may be worth it by reducing health care costs and loss of productivity associated with air pollution.
The safety of the storage tanks was of immediate concern when I first looked at this technology. The carbon fiber tanks address some of these safety concerns. And real life auto accidents and Hollywood movies remind us that gasoline is not without its hazards.
I think the future will have many competing engine technologies to choose from...In the future, gas stations will adapt to these many engines types and just sell a variety of fuels.