Poll

Philadelphia Magazine

Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag

Penn professor Bob Giegengack has a few quibbles with the former VP on this whole global warming thing

By John Marchese

Page 1 of 7

LUKEWARM: Says Gieg of Gore, "What he's doing is no less than the scare tactics used by people like Karl Rove." / Photo by Chris Crisman
It's the last day of November, which means winter begins in three weeks. Yet the temperature on the Penn campus is nearing 70 degrees, and it's muggy. Walking to the offices of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science from a remote parking lot makes me sweaty. Global Warming.

Driving here this morning, I heard a report on WHYY from National Public Radio that the International Ski Federation was canceling races because there's no snow in the Alps. Got to be Global Warming!

Yesterday, down the road in Washington, where the temperature was 16 degrees above normal, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case in which 13 state governments are suing the Environmental Protection Agency to force the government to begin controlling carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the decades-old Clean Air Act. If that doesn't happen, the states claim, the rising sea levels caused by greenhouse gases will rob them of coastline. GLOBAL WARMING!!

And this is just one ordinary day in the new normal. Even if daily weather has nothing to do with global warming, and even if the scientific debate about it is not quite done, its cultural moment has certainly begun. Insurance companies have stopped writing policies for coastline residents. A government report out of England warns that global warming may be so economically deleterious that it will make the upheaval of the Great Depression and World War II seem benign.

Michael Crichton has already dramatized the issue in a best-selling novel. Leonardo DiCaprio is working on a documentary on the subject. A recent Time magazine cover featured a polar bear in danger of drowning and the warning: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried."

I've come to Penn to see the skeptic.

In Room 100 of the classic Christopher Wren-inspired Towne Building, Robert Giegengack seems much less than worried. The 67-year-old professor is preparing to give one of the semester's final lectures to his 150-student class in environmental analysis, a popular science elective among Penn's arts and sciences undergrads.

For decades, Giegengack was content to be a relatively obscure geologist who taught more than he published. Recently, though, he's stepped into the swirling tempest surrounding global warming, in part because he says it's not even one of the top 10 environmental problems we face. To make that point, he occasionally joins in a panel discussion, or gives a quote to a science writer. He's thinking about writing something for one of the smarty-pants magazines. "I've always been interested in this question," he says, "but when I first started working, no one cared — you couldn't get an article published if you wanted to." Now, though, "The public appetite for all this crap seems to be insatiable."

Giegengack is a slim man of medium height, with a prominent nose and a very high forehead. "I traded my hair for eyeglasses," he's been known to say. In this weird late-fall weather, he's dressed as if he might run off for a round of golf or a sail — khaki pants, striped dress shirt (short-sleeved) and boat shoes. His name is pronounced "GEEG-in-gack," and over the nearly four decades he has taught at Penn, students have developed the habit of simply calling him "Gieg."

Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next

 
Digg It   |   Reddit   |   Stumbleupon   |   Del.icio.us   |   Technorati
 

User comments

One comment, one correction
Oct. 24, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Posted by Doug Jones
Correction- Michael Crichton's book is skeptical of global warming, not for it. I met a man two years ago who has taught climatology at University of Virgina and now North Carolina. He is not connected with big oil or big anything. He says that there is absolutely no evidence of man's contribution to global warming. He says just follow the money to those making millions off this hoax. Good reporting. I would like to see an article detailing the incorrectness of each of Gore's points in The Inconvenient Truth for argumentative purposes with my left leaning sister and aunt.
Nonsense
Oct. 29, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Posted by Steve Leahy
No scientist is making millions from Global Warming - follow the real money to the coal and oil companies. They ought to be paying a carbon tax for their pollution instead of funding skeptics. I'm no fan of Gore but the science in his film is accurate according to dozens of climate experts I've talked to.
"accurate science" endorsed by "dozens of climate experts"
Nov. 2, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Posted by Daniel Rogers
I would like to see the names of twenty-four (two dozen) people who say they are climate experts and who also say that the "science" in An Inconvenient Truth is "accurate" without qualification. The "science" in that film consists ENTIRELY of two uncontested facts: (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and (2) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperatures have fluctuated essentially in lockstep for at least the last 500,000 years. Ergo the changing CO2 concentrations cause the global temperature fluctuations. It is a simple application of the well-known logical truth, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
Global Warming
Nov. 8, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Posted by Walter Froese
Al Gore's film "An Inconvienient Truth" shows an enormous graph which statistically clearly shows temperature increasing first and then this is followed later by an increase in the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere. This proves that Al Gore is a fool and that an increase in C02 does not lead to any significant global warming. C02 at only 380 parts per million is much to small to cause any significant global warming.
air and climate
Jan. 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Posted by garrett anderson
i am doing a project on air and climate polution and i need to interveiw someone i was wondering if i could get anyone to give me their input on global warming air pollution and green house gases if anyone could get back to me at ggsteiger@aol.com
have any of you read the IPCC reports?
Feb. 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Posted by Alex Horn
first of all, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a logical *fallacy* not a logical truth. second of all, al gore is someone who is just bringing about awareness. he's not a scientist nor claims to be leading the research in climate change, so arguing against him is like shooting the messenger. if you're going to follow the lazy, money motivated psuedo-science of big oil cronies at least address the real challenges to it.
Okay
Feb. 26, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Posted by Fered lhal
yeah, burn!
kqiapcndms
Mar. 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Posted by Anonymous
xinare | [url=http://ripohi.com]wikexi[/url] | [link=http://powiwy.com]nitepu[/link] | http://ratepa.com | penewu | [http://nowova.com huneci]

Post a comment

(* = required field.)
    Your Email Address*
    First Name*
    Last Name*


    Subject line of your comment*
    Your comments (200 words max)*

    Visual CAPTCHA
    Enter the code shown to the right.
    This helps prevent automated form submissions.