Thread View: pa.general
4 messages
4 total messages
Started by William A Bacon
Wed, 28 Oct 1992 22:22
al gore's scientific proof
Author: William A Bacon
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 22:22
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 22:22
83 lines
5976 bytes
5976 bytes
AL Gore's Scientific proof
The dust jacket on Senator Albert Gore's 1992 Best seller Earth In the
Balance, tells us that the vice-presidential nominee "is now convinced that
the engines of human civilization have brought us to the brink of
catastrophe." We are also told what we should do about it: "In this brave and
provocative book, Gore argues that only a radical rethinking of our
relationship with nature can save the earth's ecology." Then we are informed
that "some politicians and busines leaders still insist the threat isn't
real." The commentary on this sensational come on finally aaures us,"Gore
proves that iti is."
So there you have it: The environmental champion of the U.S. Senate
demonstrates in his 400 page book that we earthlings face catastrophe of our
own doing. There is no doubt about the impending doom; Gore "proves' it.
Where's the proof?
Speculation, wishful thinking,jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and
reliance on self serving environmentalists do not contitute scientific proof.
For an example of the Gore method, consider his account of a trip he made to
the Antartic in 1988. He watched as a sample from a glacier revealed
differences in the annual layers of ice formed over many years. One of the
individuals in the party claimed that a particular layer was two decades old,
and he identified it has being formed when "the U.S. COngress passed the
clean air act."
Gore gleafully noted that "even a small reduction in the amount of
pollution" in the United States had affected the environment "in the remotest
and least accessble place on earth." We are, therefore, expected to believe
that the mere passage of the Clean Air Act, not any subsequent improvement in
the air quality in our nation, was immediately detectable in the Antartic's
ice formation.
It gets worse. About increases in carbon dioxide in the air, Gore
writes,"But it is clear tat doubling vcarbon dioxide wil in fact increase
global temperatures and in the process subject us to the risk of catastrophic
changesin global climate patterns." Realize that thisisn't presented as
conjecture, but as "fact."How much will temperatures rise? He first insists
that drastic past climate alterations occurred "during temperature variations
of only 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade," but "today, at the close of the twentieth
century, we are in the process of altering global temperaures by up to three
to four times that amount."
The problem here is that most scientists who have been asked about carbon
dioxide agree that its level is increasing but contend that there is no proof
whatsoever that the earth is warming because of it. Gore counters that "a
small number of scientists" argue against his conclusions. But he maintains
that the "insistence on complete certainity" about global warming is an
effort to avoid acting "boldly,decisevely, and quickly, even before we know
every last detail about the crisis."
For some easily acessible details about the supposed global warming
"crisis," the senator ought to avail himself of the logs containing tens of
thousands of temperature readings taken all over the earth during the past
100 years. Their data confirm that there is no global warming or cooling. Or
he might turn to men like atmospheric and space physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer,
who organized a group of scientists to counter Gore-style environmental
radicalism. Calling the Gore thesis "exaggerated," Dr. Singer says, "It's
wrong on many counts, and he should know better because we have told him so."
Al's easy answers.
After detailing similarly catastrophic threats to mankind's future because
of deforestation,air and water pollution,ozone depletion, and
overpopulation,Gore offers his solution. Calling for a Global marshal Plan"
and a "Strategic Environmental Initiative," he wants new taxes on
oil,coal,minerals, and wood, new global environmental regulations,enforced
population stabilization, new environmental treaties, new ways to to asses
technology's effect on the environment, a phaseout of the internal combustion
engine, and a long list of OTHER NEW GOVERNMENTAL POWERS(where is this
authorized in our constitution?) His plans would cost at least $100
Billion,seriously hamper industrial activity, and cost the jobs of hundreds
of thousands.
What Gore prescribes is virtual totalitarian government. Yet his book
carries some vivid descriptions of the environmental devastation produced
under total government control in the former communist nations of Roumania,
Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine. He knows what total government did in that area
of the world. ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT HIS TYPE OF TOTALGOVERNMENT WOULD BRING
DIFFERENT RESULTS?
Early in EARTH IN THE BALANCE, Gore recalls peddling his environmental
scare during the his 1988 run for the presidency.He found next to no interest
in it and turned instead to "a familar list of what the insiders agree are
'the issues.'" He's corect about "the insiders" making such decisions. ANd
now he is riding the crest of a wave that intends to force more government on
everyone, not through fear of communism, which we are told is no longer a
threat, but through false claims about environmental matters. Al Gore's
extremism has gone from beingoutside the insider approved issues to inside.
Happily, many competent scientists are labelling his pitch a complete fraud.
------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
Re: al gore's scientific proof
Author: Bradley K. Sherman
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 04:44
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 04:44
10 lines
927 bytes
927 bytes
In article <gcLDTB3w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes:
> ... Happily, many competent scientists are labelling his [Gore's]
> pitch a complete fraud. ...
Name four, and convince us that they are not frauds.
All the competent scientists I know think that the environment is
in pretty big trouble.
----
--Brad Sherman
Re: al gore's scientific proof
Author: James Ralston Crawford
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 05:21
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 05:21
37 lines
2014 bytes
2014 bytes
(We're almost in the year 1993, and you don't have a spell-checker? You're either lazy, or just plain stupid. Or both.) And techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes: > Speculation, wishful thinking, jumping to unwarranted conclusions, > and reliance on self serving environmentalists do not contitute > scientific proof. Oh, I see. Only speculation, wishful thinking, jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and reliance on self-serving corporations constitute scientific proof. If you're going to attempt to hold people to a certain standard, the person whom you should be most concerned with holding to that standard is yourself. > What Gore prescribes is virtual totalitarian government. Yet his > book carries some vivid descriptions of the environmental > devastation produced under total government control in the former > communist nations of Roumania, Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine. He > knows what total government did in that area of the world. ARE WE > TO BELIEVE THAT HIS TYPE OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BRING DIFFERENT > RESULTS? I don't know about other people, but the mental image I get of your reacting to communism is someone holding a cat over a full bathtub. I'd paid money to see you... oh, say... dropped in the center of a socialist convention. It'd be hilarious. This is better than rec.humor.funny... -- James Ralston Crawford \ Advanced Technology Lab qralston@cislabs.pitt.edu \ qralston+@pitt.edu \ qralston@pittvms.bitnet "You didn't tell him how long it would *really* take, did you?" - Scotty
Re: al gore's scientific proof
Author: Frederick Arthur Furia
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1992 07:00
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1992 07:00
18 lines
1353 bytes
1353 bytes
In article <1cnq80INNba1@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes: >In article <gcLDTB3w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes: >> ... Happily, many competent scientists are labelling his [Gore's] >> pitch a complete fraud. ... > >Name four, and convince us that they are not frauds. > >All the competent scientists I know think that the environment is >in pretty big trouble. You're right on this, but I don't think the fact that the environment is in "pretty big trouble" is what these scientists are denying. What they (and probably most Americans) would say about the book is that it makes huge assumptions as to which problems need to be solved and how they should be addressed. Fred
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads