29 September 2011

Well That Settles It

From the Guardian, Al Gore updates us on the state of the science of extreme event attribution (emphasis added):
In a near hour-long speech to the Scottish low-carbon investment conference, Gore said the evidence from the floods in Pakistan, China, South Korea and Columbia was so compelling that the case for urgent action by world leaders to combat carbon emissions was now overwhelming, Gore said.

"Observations in the real world make it clear that it's happening now, it's real, it's with us," he said. Failing to take action meant the world would face a catastrophe.

He added that nearly every climate scientist actively publishing on the subject now agreed there was a causal link between carbon emissions and the sharp increase in intense and extreme weather events seen across the globe.
I have been asked by email for my response:

Further elaboration here.


  1. I think your response is appropriate.

  2. Would it make a difference if the consensus was universal and not simply "nearly"? It was my impression that science was not a social construct. It is, however, a faith constrained to a limited frame of reference, which has historically fluctuated in order to accommodate individual or special interests.

    I would have thought being good stewards of our environment, and pursuing reasonable efforts to mitigate risk in a dynamic world, were the priorities. Apparently, we do not even have a consensus on what constitutes "reasonable" or latent risks.

    Also, do "Observations in the real world make it clear ... the world would face a catastrophe."? The observations that I am aware of, are that there are regional variations; and there is only limited, circumstantial evidence to suggest that they are anomalous. Even the proxy data demonstrates an ambiguity, which cannot be readily resolved. Then there is the consideration that our system is not closed, and while the Earth system is incompletely characterized, the extraterrestrial influences are also not well known.

    So, how are they able to justify any policy, especially coerced redistribution, and necessarily economic regression, when their position is ostensibly quite weak?

    Since when has limited, circumstantial evidence, and unproven arguments, been sufficient to effectively turn the world upside-down?

  3. Lovely image... wholly apt and very funny.

  4. . I suppose that this as inevitable when the AGW establishment began to use the word "incontrovertible" in their public statements.

    What I would really like is for people to stop overstating their case on all sides of the AGW issue

  5. Gore's response is roughly the response of the Roman Catholic Church to Luther's impertinent questions.
    Great imagery on this, by the way. At the end of the day Gore is just boring. Boringly wrong, boringly predictable, boringly florid, boringly self-serving. And people are falling asleep. His recent highly touted video marathon was a complete flop.
    Great response on your part.