Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag

Posted on 2/2/07   Page 5 of 7
Text Size: A | A | A
 
Of course, that was long before anybody was burning fossil fuels. So Giegengack tells his students they might want to consider that "natural" climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. That's the crux of his argument with Gore's view of global warming — he says carbon dioxide doesn't control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct, linear way.

Gieg has lots more slides to show. He points out that within his lifetime, there was a three-decade period of unusually low temperatures that culminated in the popular consciousness with the awful winter of 1976-77. Back then, scientists started sounding the alarm about a new ice age.

Of course, it's long been thought that the world would end either in fire or in ice. These days, the scientists are shouting fire. And in all his years around environmental issues, Giegengack has never heard so much shouting. "I don't think we're going to have a rational discussion of this question in the present environment," he says. "The scientists are mad because they think nobody in Washington is listening to them. So it's all either apocalyptic disaster or conflict of interest. If you suggest that we're not going to hell in a handbasket because the rate of global warming is low compared to so many other environmental issues that we're enduring, then you're accused of being in the employ of the oil companies and you're labeled a Republican."

Giegengack says things started to get this way around 1988. There was a horrifically hot summer season that year, and drought led to seemingly apocalyptic fires in Yellowstone National Park. Something in those fires was galvanizing. Al Gore, who made his first run for president in 1988, published his first environmental jeremiad, Earth in the Balance, a few years later. Around the same time, the newly formed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was making noise, and governments met first in Rio de Janeiro and then in Japan to forge agreements on "targets" for carbon emission cutbacks. The resulting Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by most of the countries on Earth — none of which are doing very well at actually meeting the target cutbacks — but very notably not by the United States.


"WOW," SAYS GIEG AS Al Gore struts onto the stage of The Oprah Winfrey Show. "He looks like he's had Botox or something."

It's afternoon in America, and Oprah is offering her millions of viewers a class with Dr. Gore that the producers are calling Global Warming 101. I've asked Gieg to watch it with me.

The show turns out to be pretty much a synopsis of An Inconvenient Truth, with Gore clicking through his hyper-produced PowerPoint program and Oprah exclaiming "Wow! Wow!" with dramatic concern. To dramatize the melting of the floating ice cap at the North Pole, Gore has inserted an animated clip of a polar bear swimming desperately to a tiny ice floe that isn't strong enough to hold him. Global warming is drowning helpless bears. Oprah thinks it's the coolest and saddest thing in Gore's whole movie. Gieg starts shouting:

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

 

User Comments:

One comment, one correction
Posted by Doug | Oct. 24, 2007 at 5:16 PM
COMMENT:
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
Posted by Steve | Oct. 29, 2007 at 9:50 AM
COMMENT:
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"
Posted by Daniel | Nov. 2, 2007 at 10:17 AM
COMMENT:
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
Posted by Walter | Nov. 8, 2007 at 11:54 PM
COMMENT:
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
Posted by garrett | Jan. 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
COMMENT:
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?
Posted by Alex | Feb. 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM
COMMENT:
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
Posted by Fered | Feb. 26, 2008 at 6:07 PM
COMMENT:
yeah, burn!
kqiapcndms
Posted by Anonymous | Mar. 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM
COMMENT:
xinare | [url= click here ]wikexi[/url] | [link= click here ]nitepu[/link] | click here | penewu | [ click here huneci]
ushi
Posted by ushi | Mar. 11, 2009 at 5:31 PM
COMMENT:
Scientists aree supporting the government in propaganda about CO2. Whay is this being done, What for? Civil liberties were erroded by FEAR of terrorists, will the control freaks of the left be using this climate change to make people afraid adn give up thier freedoms. Never has it been known for centuries that a government has wielded dso much power over the populace as today in this uncivilised Western world. How can anyone respect scientists when they will not be truthful that ABORTION kills living humans. How can we believe governments and scientists when they plough public moneys into research on human embryos which has proved barren of positive help for humans saying stem cell research is necessary to find cures when they also neglect to fund the proven and fruitful areas of other stem cell research which are using adult stem cells and embryonis cord blood cells. Scientists and governments are corrupters of truth.
If CO2 is the problem, than it's Game OVER.....
Posted by Max | Apr. 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM
COMMENT:
I agree with Professor Giegengack, if you truly believe CO2 is the problem and that cutting Fossil Fuels emissions (Coal Power Plants!) by half in the U.S. before 2029-2050, how does that address what China AND India combined will increasingly add in the next 10 years? 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley ran a piece on the subject of Coal, and he interviewed the CEO of Duke Energy, reporting that "Clean Coal" has a solution but its cost prohibitive and Duke Energy has a "transition plan" to take place over the next 50 years to clean up coal. Then you have Global Warming experts claiming that 50 years is too late! CO2 is simply NOT enough of a challenge for our planet not to be able to handle through its own planetary natural scrubbing already in place and proven by thousands of years of science data!
Philadelphia It List

Chase Sapphire (SM) Spotlight

The most exciting events & happenings around Philadelphia. View them here.
 
 

Philly Cooks

Congratulations to the 2010 Philly Cooks! Winners. Click here to see who won Dish of the Year, the winning dishes, event photos and more...
 
 

Martini Madness

Stir, Sip & Socialize at the year's most anticipated cocktail party. Don't miss the madness! March 31. National Constitution Center.
 
 

Green House

Visit our virtual room-by-room green guide for energy-saving tips and ideas.