I will be on vacation for the next three weeks, so TQA is going to go on hiatus. It is unlikely I will have computer access for much of the time.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
A Break
I will be on vacation for the next three weeks, so TQA is going to go on hiatus. It is unlikely I will have computer access for much of the time.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Who Needs Florida Anyway?
A reader has recently brought a (non-scientific) article 
to my attention criticizing Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps Mr. Shepard (who has no connection I can see to the scientific community) should see the movie himself. Most previews don't do the real thing justice, especially if the real thing is more like a power point presentation than an action-packed thriller. To his credit, Shepard does not deny the fact that temperatures are increasing. Yet he does misrepresent the scientific community. Virtually no scientist contradicts the consensus on global warming. Out of over 900 scientific papers in 2004 on global warming, none opposed the consensus view. The 2001 IPPC report declared that "most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." The article also goes so far as to question Gore's images of the snows of Killimajaro, because the melting began in the mid 19th century, before SUVs, we are told. Of course, the mid-19th century was also a time when entire cities in England were covered in coal soot. And yes, there are natural cycles of the presence of Carbon in the atmosphere, but as the chart to the right shows, our levels are unprecedented for even the hottest times in the history of the world. You see the little dip between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago? Look hard, because that was the last ice age. There are a few comparable spots in history dispersed over millions of years where climate change has been so dramatic. All periods of mass-extinction, of course. And yes, the handful of scientists who question this consensus have gotten flack for being in the pocket of big oil. This is mostly because it is true, with the exception of Richard Lindzen, who really just doubts our ability to accurately predict the net effect of future increases in Carbon levels. And there is disagreement over how much the earths temperature will change, but even the most conservative estimate (2 degrees Celsius over the next century) would have dramatic repercussions for the earth. Of course, An Inconvenient Truth is much more convincing than I ever could be. It is highly recommended, even for you, Shepard.
to my attention criticizing Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps Mr. Shepard (who has no connection I can see to the scientific community) should see the movie himself. Most previews don't do the real thing justice, especially if the real thing is more like a power point presentation than an action-packed thriller. To his credit, Shepard does not deny the fact that temperatures are increasing. Yet he does misrepresent the scientific community. Virtually no scientist contradicts the consensus on global warming. Out of over 900 scientific papers in 2004 on global warming, none opposed the consensus view. The 2001 IPPC report declared that "most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." The article also goes so far as to question Gore's images of the snows of Killimajaro, because the melting began in the mid 19th century, before SUVs, we are told. Of course, the mid-19th century was also a time when entire cities in England were covered in coal soot. And yes, there are natural cycles of the presence of Carbon in the atmosphere, but as the chart to the right shows, our levels are unprecedented for even the hottest times in the history of the world. You see the little dip between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago? Look hard, because that was the last ice age. There are a few comparable spots in history dispersed over millions of years where climate change has been so dramatic. All periods of mass-extinction, of course. And yes, the handful of scientists who question this consensus have gotten flack for being in the pocket of big oil. This is mostly because it is true, with the exception of Richard Lindzen, who really just doubts our ability to accurately predict the net effect of future increases in Carbon levels. And there is disagreement over how much the earths temperature will change, but even the most conservative estimate (2 degrees Celsius over the next century) would have dramatic repercussions for the earth. Of course, An Inconvenient Truth is much more convincing than I ever could be. It is highly recommended, even for you, Shepard.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
President... Al Gore?
Buzz has been steadily building over a prospect that a few short months ago I would view as unthinkable. That’s right, the growing clamor for former VP Al Gore to make a White House bid. On the surface it is unbelievable that New York magazine could feature a massive photo of Mr. Gore with the title “The Un-Hillary?” This appears preposterous when one considers the fact that Gore routinely underperforms Clinton in polls against possible GOP contenders and electability meters. But see his new movie An Inconvenient Truth, and the reasons for the hubbub become apparent. I think Gore’s long absence from the world of expensive consultants and vacuous slogans has done the man some good. He speaks with passion and humor, and he even looks better. And most importantly, he inspired genuine enthusiasm among my fellow viewers. This is a rare thing indeed among democrats. And I would be a hypocrite to exclude Mr. Gore solely because of a few poor ratings. After all, this author has stated in the past that a noble yet hopeless crusade may be just what the party needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
