Tag Archives: Al Gore

Consensus

0
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

Those arguing for action against the perceived threat they call variously Catastrophic Anthropgenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or whatever new name they can come up with to try to keep it alive have long relied on the argument that there is overwhelming scientific consensus about it and the “the science is settled”.

In another blog I have argued that consensus has no bearing on scientific accuracy, and that no science is ever settled.  AGW believers say that is nonsense.

Well, it now seems there is scientific consensus that AGW is incorrect, unscientific, fraudulent, and on the data available so far, most probably plain wrong:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore (Hat tip to Joe Bastardi through one of his tweets).

In the face of this, look out for AGW supporters declaiming that consensus has no bearing on accuracy…

Al Gore goes on the Attack

0
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Accuweather.com on March 1,  Brett Anderson’s and Joe Bastardi’s blogs coincidentally carried Al Gore’s NY Times Op-ed of 27 February 2010.  Here it is.

Thanks Brett and Joe.   This kind of stuff needs debating.

None more than this Gorey drivel.  He gets the big guilt thing going – our grandchildren will one day look back on us as a “criminal generation”.  And he even beats the tobacco drum – “industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution … are ferociously fighting …  just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes.”

Man, the skeptics are evil.  They refuse to buy into having their cost of living ballooned, and their taxes increased.   They refuse to have to pay for carbon credits and have the money sent to developing nations to finance their coal-burning power stations and their industries that produce windmills and solar panels with cheap labour to sell back to us.  They refuse to be taxed on carbon emissions.  Why do they exhibit this “criminal” behaviour?

First: AGW is a theory no better than any other theory about climate change.  Actually, it’s worse than some – Richard Lindzen has some very specific criticisms below.   (Thanks JB for the tip).  So it’s not that skeptics blindly and stubbornly refuse to believe something unpalatable, it’s just that they are genuinely skeptical!  Skeptical of a religious crusade based on bad science, argument from ignorance, wilful exaggeration and personal attacks.  A crusade that is already leveraging the power of the state to impose its charges by force of law.  Hmmmm.   I believe it was the founder of Scientology who wrote that if you would be rich, start a religion…  http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/01/anthropogenic-global-warming-as-organised-religion/

Second: Even if AGW was proven and not merely a theory, increasing costs by carbon credits, taxes or whatever would not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels any more than the savage cost increases of the 1972 oil shock.  All such measures do is cause inflation.  (Maybe Gore counts on the fact that most of his audience were not even born in 1972, or were too young to remember.)  So the cure for the unproven AGW is as illusory as the malady itself.  Gore and the rest of the leaders of the AGW religion probably feel that they cannot lose.  When we have paid and paid and become impoverished, the earth will not overheat and they will say “See, together we saved the earth”.  And we will be so grateful…

Reference:

Richard Lindzen on AGW  http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-richard-lindzens-talk-at-fermilab.html If you’re scientifically minded, click on the archive bit at the bottom and go through Lindzen’s full presentation.

The Champagne Experiment – CO2 & Global Warming

0
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , ,

Try this at home.  Put one bottle of champagne and one PET bottle of carbonated water in your refrigerator at 4 degrees C.  Put another of each on your kitchen bench and set your home temperature thermostat to 21 degrees C.  Leave the bottles for twenty-four hours.

Now take out the bottle of champagne from the fridge, and open it.  Also open the champagne bottle on the bench.  What happens?  The cold bottle opens with a hiss or a pop, and the bottle sits with bubbles rising in it,  The warm bottle spurts champagne, overflowing the neck so violently that you lose half of the contents.  Now do the same with the bottles of carbonated water.  What happens?  Much the same thing – the cold one bubbles away gently, the warm one overflows.  Now put the cold bottle of water back in the fridge without replacing the cap, in preparation for the second part of the experiment (keep the cap aside – I’ll tell you why at the end).

Congratulations!  Pour yourself a drink of champagne – you deserve it.  You have just demonstrated the possibility that cold champagne (and water) hold more CO2 in solution than warm champagne (and water)!

The volume of water in the oceans is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres, or 310 million cubic miles.  (Source : “The World Ocean.” The Columbia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. 2007, 6th Ed. New York: Columbia University Press.)  Those oceans hold an awful lot of CO2.  So you have also demonstrated the possibility of something else.  Warmer oceans will hold less CO2 than cold oceans.  So we could expect that in the presence of global warming, the oceans (all 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of them) release CO2 directly into the atmosphere.  Rather a lot of CO2.

Hmmmm….  Is anyone wondering why the glacial records associate high levels of CO2 with high temperatures?  And why the CO2 rise always follows the temperature rise?  Don’t you think it possible that at least some of the CO2 is there because rather a lot of it would slowly bubble out of the oceans when they became warmer?   That would seem to expose Al Gore’s use of glacial records to support AGW theory for what it really is.  Poppycock.  Penn and Teller fodder.

Heh heh…  You have just wasted a bottle of champagne.  Cheer up – it is hard to be grumpy when you are drinking champagne.  So have another glass of champagne.  Go and relax for twenty-four hours, ready for the second part of the experiment.

After the twenty-four hours, go back to the fridge.  Open it and look at the bottle of carbonated water that you returned uncapped yesterday.  It’s no longer bubbling.  So if there is any CO2 remaining in it, it is held in solution.  Now remove the bottle from the fridge, screw the cap back on securely, and leave it on the bench at 21 degrees C for another twenty-four hours.

After the second twenty-four hours, open the warm bottle.  What happens?  It starts bubbling away.  And that’s the point of the second part of the experiment.  Congratulations, now you really have demonstrated that cold water holds more CO2 in solution than warm water!  If you have any more cold champagne, pour yourself one.  Otherwise, have a beer.

(The earlier part of the champagne experiment did not truly demonstrate that cold water holds more CO2 in solution than warm water.  It demonstrated only that when the pressure is released from water containing CO2 dissolved under pressure, it bubbles out more quickly if the water is warm.)

References:

Dr Jarl Ahlbeck “Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming” – see http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm