Posts Tagged ‘Al Gore’

Petrolio: Picco vs. Clima

January 20, 2008

mi sono chiesto in queste settimane quale fosse mai il nesso fra peak-oil e riscaldamento globale di origine antropogenica (denominato AGW in inglese).

Temo che si tratti del fatto che sono entrambe ipotesi che alcuni dei loro proponenti hanno praticamente “blindato”. Cosi’ se fa caldo, c’e’ l’AGW, se fa freddo, c’e’ l’AGW. Se il petrolio aumenta di prezzo, e’ arrivato il picco. Se diminuisce, e’ arrivato il picco.

Il gia’ citato Tierney, giornalista del New York Times si e’ chiesto recentemente se esista un fenomeno atmosferico incompatibile con l’AGW

Si veda anche il lungo commento in proposito da parte di Roger Pielke Sr, e Jr, dell’Universita’ del Colorado

Il “comico-mago” Penn della famosa coppia Penn&Teller ne ha approfittato per prendere in giro Al Gore (qui un breve transcript in inglese)

——–

Ora, esiste un termine per chi approfitta di qualunque notizia sul clima per dire “E’ colpa dell’AGW”: “L’Opportunista Metereologico”.

L’esistenza di tale gruppo di persone, naturalmente, non favorisce l’implementazione di politiche per ridurre le emissioni di CO2, perche’ aumenta anzi, fra il grande pubblico, il gruppo di coloro che considerano i proponenti dell’AGW come delle macchiette.

Nonostante cio’, il pericolo di veder nascere una folta schiera di “Opportunisti del Picco” (se non c’e’ gia’) esiste (e con esso, il rischio di far diventare anche il Picco un argomento per i comici), specie se e’ diffuso l’atteggiamento di voler metaforicamente distruggere chi la pensa diversamente (nel senso di “character assassination” come con Dyson, e con Battaglia); e se rimane alto il fascino per le fallimentari tecniche argomentatorie di chi vede l’AGW sempre e comunque.

Cosa debba fare chi non segua necessariamente ne’ i consensi ne’ i dissensi, e si trova come me dal lato degli scettici dell’AGW, ma anche da quello dei “picchisti”, e’ una questione aperta.

Advertisements

Real Climate: Con Allègre, ma non troppo

January 15, 2008
  1. (40) Maurizio Morabito Says:
    16 October 2006 at 12:20 PM The Climate-Change-Is-Very-Bad community has huge communication issues wrt the general public and it is telling that the main gist of Allegre’s article is completely lost to the RealClimate commentator

    Allegre, as others have said, is a politician, so his words must be “decoded” thinking of a politician’s language, not a scientist’s

    It then becomes a matter of practical action in the real world. And in the real world, Allegre can see “the ecology of the powerless protester” (”l’ecologie de l’impuissance protestataire”) having become a good business, whilst _nothing_ serious gets done (even Al Gore thinks nothing of perpetually jetting around the world)

    My personal view on the upcoming (or not) catastrophe of global warming are somewhere in the archives of RealClimate. But those are beside the point

    The question to ask is what if anything is preventing the entire world from acting even remotely in step with what is written day in, day out on RealClimate and other similar fora, newspaper articles and now even documentary movies

    Allegre thinks the issue is that disasters are not predicted to happen before another half a century. An interesting point indeed

    [Response: Why do potentially sensible comments on appropriate policy responses need to come packaged with demonstrably erroneous science then? There are plenty of serious commentators discussing these issues, and it can be done without distorting the science. -gavin]

  2. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    16 October 2006 at 5:47 PM Re: 40

    “Why do potentially sensible comments on appropriate policy responses need to come packaged with demonstrably erroneous science then?”

    Perhaps because the scientific details are not relevant to Allegre’s argument? All he needs is “the doubt”. If he had cared about the sources he would not have mixed up Nature and Science

    For an example of science-less policy, think of the “War on Drugs”

  3. Alastair McDonald Says:
    17 October 2006 at 2:31 AM Maurizio, are you saying that “a barrage of stories on disappearing species, uncontrollable pests, rising seas, floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, violent storms, scarce food/jobs/resources, and forecasts of millions of human deaths” are “demonstratably erroneous science”?
  4. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    17 October 2006 at 5:10 AM Re: 41

    Alastair

    No I am not. “Demonstrably erroneous science” was a comment by Gavin on Allegre’s words

    Besides, the fact that there is a barrage of stories of impending doom is just that: a fact

    To be 100% clear: I am not hell-bent in demonstrating that contemporary climate science is a load of rubbish (it isn’t). I am simply and fundamentally “allergic” to hysteria and prophecies of doom

    If I could show that all as based on “demonstrably erroneous science” I guess we would not be here talking about it 8-)

  5. Alastair McDonald Says:
    17 October 2006 at 7:13 PM Maurizio,

    So you agree with me -) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/#comment-20023 that one of those [old prejudices that we all retain], which is common to all people including myself, is that disaster is not just around the corner.

    Despite the “barrage of stories on disappearing species, uncontrollable pests, rising seas, floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, violent storms, scarce food/jobs/resources, and forecasts of millions of human deaths” you are convinced it is all “hysteria”.

    You think that we should not report the truth because it does not “serves any purpose apart from scaring people”?

  6. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    18 October 2006 at 2:38 AM RE: 44

    Alastair

    In truth our two points do not necessarily contradict one another. It can still be “truth” but reported as “hysteria”

    As for people not avoiding the wall until they get their nose flattened up against it, well, it would help if the likes of Al Gore were not out there disseminating contrails to tell us not to fly any longer…

    The medium is always part of the message, and for every Cassandra predicting it as it will be, there is a crying-wolf 8-)

  7. Alastair McDonald Says:
    18 October 2006 at 10:21 AM Re #46

    Well, perhaps I am a Cassandra. However, don’t forget that Cassandra was right but was cursed by the gods and so no-one believed her. (I know how that feels.) So Troy fell despite her warnings -( And don’t forget that in the story of The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf the villagers’ flocks were destroyed because the boy was having fun lying.

    Do you really think all these reports are lies, or when a respected diplomat such as Sir Crispin Tickell was Speaking Out on Climate Change to the AAAS, he was doing it for fun?

    The AAAS reported:
    “The business-as-usual way of dealing with the Earth’s system is not an option,” warned Sir Crispin Tickell, delivering the 2006 Robert C. Barnard Environmental Lecture to a full auditorium at AAAS in Washington, D.C. The director of the Policy Foresight Programme of the James Martin Institute at Oxford University first brought the problem of human-induced climate change to wide public attention nearly 30 years ago. Today, he states that global climate change poses a greater threat to society than terrorism and that vested interests in the United States are preventing a swift global response.

  8. Dan Says:
    18 October 2006 at 5:20 PM re: 46.
    “As for people not avoiding the wall until they get their nose flattened up against it, well, it would help if the likes of Al Gore were not out there disseminating contrails to tell us not to fly any longer…”

    Sounds like someone has taken in by right-wing political commentary against Gore speaking out about global warming. As Google or Yahoo! can show you, Gore’s effort to inform people about global warming is carbon neutral.

  9. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    18 October 2006 at 5:58 PM Re: 47

    Alastair: Hysteria is a way of communicating. It has nothing to do with truth or fakehood. One can be hysterical while saying the truth. In no way what I write should be read as affirming that any scientist in the Climate-Change-Will-Kill-Us camp is saying so “for fun”, or knowingly distorting the data

    They (you) see something and yell out your concerns. I see the same things but no reason (yet) to be concerned: and definitely no reason to cry wolf, even if as in the fairy tale the boy was “third time lucky” (in the sense that the third time, really there was a wolf)

    Re; 48

    Dan: Whatever Al Gore is doing to be carbon-neutral (and the amounts to offset do vary from website to website), it is not part of any article I have ever read about his movie

    Wonder if the great unwashed are supposed to be googling about the Man?

    ClimateCrisis clear states “Fly less”: the air-travel offset is supposed to be an alternative, if one really cannot fly less, not the main message. Has Mr Gore organized the launch of the movie in different countries so he would minimise the amount of miles, one wonders

    And most of all, why oh why could he not ram in the clear-and-present-danger of climate change by presenting the movie via internet conferencing?

    ————

    For other examples of “greenwash”, read UK commentator, environmentalist extraordinaire and Guardian editorialist George Monbiot, unless you believe he has been taken in by right-wing political commentary too (”Heat: how to stop the planet burning”: website: http://www.turnuptheheat.org/ )

  10. Dan Says:
    18 October 2006 at 8:19 PM re: 47.
    “…the great unwashed…”. That sort of ad hominem speaks volumes.

    Compare GHG emissions between planes and fossil-fuel fired power plants for context. Clearly, the attacks on Gore’s presentations are not scientifically motivated because the science speaks for itself through the scientific method and peer-reviewed studies in various journals. The attacks are politically motivated and often personal. They are subsequently fed to and regurgitated by those who look for things to throw out to laymen to obfuscate the scientific issues and belittle Gore.

  11. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    19 October 2006 at 3:02 AM Re: 50

    Dan

    Regarding regurgitations, please do read a comment before replying

    The “great unwashed” was about people like me

  12. Barton Paul Levenson Says:
    19 October 2006 at 8:06 AM Re #49 and “Dan: Whatever Al Gore is doing to be carbon-neutral (and the amounts to offset do vary from website to website), it is not part of any article I have ever read about his movie…Wonder if the great unwashed are supposed to be googling about the Man?…ClimateCrisis clear states “Fly less”: the air-travel offset is supposed to be an alternative, if one really cannot fly less, not the main message. Has Mr Gore organized the launch of the movie in different countries so he would minimise the amount of miles, one wonders…And most of all, why oh why could he not ram in the clear-and-present-danger of climate change by presenting the movie via internet conferencing?”

    I take it this poster would ignore a doctor’s advice to quit smoking if the doctor was a smoker himself. That’s a logical fallacy, buddy. Try talking about the issue instead of the people presenting the issue.

    -BPL

  13. Dan Says:
    19 October 2006 at 12:09 PM re: 51. “Wonder if the great unwashed are supposed to be googling about the Man?” and “The “great unwashed” was about people like me”.

    It certainly does not read that way.

  14. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    20 October 2006 at 6:09 PM RE: 52

    BPL: I didn’t say _we_ should not follow Gore’s advice because he’s more of a global warming “sinner” than most of us.

    I wrote that “it would help” if _he_ would follow his own advice

    I am sure “Gore pledges not to travel by air” would be headline news for days

    Re 53:

    Dan: Apologies for not having been clearer. You had suggested to google about Gore. My point was that most people reading all the commentaries about the movie should not “have to” google.

    Somehow the message about him being carbon neutral is not filtering through to the newspapers, the vast majority of whose articles I have read talk positively about Gore’s efforts

    And in any case the question remains: what’s so wrong with internet conferencing, nowadays? Especially in a circumstance where its usage would underly the message so effectively

formicablog: a ognuno il proprio clima

January 14, 2008

Maurizio Morabito says:
January 14th, 2008 at 2:47 am Non so da dove cominciare. E allora comincio con il dire che il premio e’ stato dato a Oslo, non a Stoccolma. Non e’ un premio scientifico, e quindi che peso dovrebbe avere nel dibattito scientifico, non saprei dirlo. Da Bali poi e’ uscita fuori tanta CO2 (e anche peggio)…

Climate Feedback: Al Gore and IPCC share peace prize

October 16, 2007

If the IPCC has done such a great job on the Science of Climate Change, shouldn’t it have been awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics, instead of getting the Peace Prize for its political activities?

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: Gore and the IPCC Win the Nobel Peace Prize

October 14, 2007

Maurizio Morabito:

Regardless of what you think of AGW, this is the first time in history that a Nobel prize has been given BEFORE the fact.

Usually science prizes are given to relatively older people as a lifetime achievement award. And usually, the Peace prize is the recognition of tangible results in the very recent past.

AGW has not happened yet, and there is no evidence yet that Al Gore or the IPCC have done something that will effectively stop/prevent it. There is no tangible result, not even a Kyoto-II agreement to speak of.

———

The other issue I would like to see discussed is how come a “scientific” group like the IPCC gets a political prize. Will the award settle the discussion of what the IPCC actually is, namely a campaigning lot and not the reliable repository of scientific information we had been told?

Forum Radicali: AL GORE, PREMIO NOBEL PACE E RADICALI

October 13, 2007
messaggioinviato: Sab 13 Ott 2007 17:05    oggetto: Cosa dice e cosa fa Al Gore      

v.vecellio ha scritto:
chi sia Al Gore m’importa poco, più mi preme cosa dica e faccia

Parliamone pure, di cosa dica e cosa faccia questo Al Gore a cui manca ormai solo il processo di santificazione. E cosi’ ci potremo chiedere per l’ennesima volta cosa potra’ mai farci, nel Pantheon dei Radicali.Cosa ha fatto, il Nostro, quando Roger Harrabin, giornalista sull’ambiente alla BBC, un tizio che nel cambiamento climatico ci crede eccome, recentemente gli ha chiesto lumi su

un errore ne “Una Verita’ Scomoda”?Dopo l’intervista, Al Gore e l’assistente si sono alzati in piedi urlando che (…) le domande erano state offensive, e insinuando che (il giornalista fosse) una qualche sorta di traditore scettico sul clima“.

TraditoreUrlaInsinuazioniDomande “offensive”

Figuriamoci averlo avuto quest’anno a Padova, il Divo Al, e noi tutti zitti in sala perche’ se qualcuno fa una domanda sbagliata, apriti cielo!

Questo comportamento si spiega con il fatto che quella di Al Gore, come dice Harrabin, e’ una guerra (intra-USA) senza quartiere, dove tutto e’ lecito, includere gonfiare le catastrofi (e mostrare ghiacciai che si espandono dicendo che si stanno sciogliendo).

In guerra, come si sa, la verita’ e’ la prima a morire, seguita a ruota dalla liberta’.

Solo che questa “guerra” si combatte nel 2007 sulle ipotesi di quanto potrebbe forse accadere nel 2047. Qualcuno mi spieghi perche’ dovrei dimenticarmi di essere libertario perche’ qualcuno ha paura del futuro remoto? E per cosa di grazia dovrei rinunciare ad essere liberale e liberista? A quando il primo Piano Quinquennale e l’Economia Eoclimatica?

Qualcuno dira’: cosa ce ne facciamo della liberta’ se e’ in rischio la vita?

E io rispondo: ma non siamo noi quelli degli scioperi della fame spesso a oltranza? Se la vita del singolo e’ meno importante della moratoria sulla pena di morte, come fa ad essere piu’ importante della liberta’ di pensiero ed espressione?

Non parliamo poi di forse quasi trenta secoli di Storia dove stuoli di tiranni si sono inventate crisi su crisi per giustificare il proprio potere.