Joe Bastardi responds to Gore's Comments
Our own long-range forecast expert Joe Bastardi posted a strongly worded response to some of Al Gore's comments from the 60 Minutes Interview in his blog on the AccuWeather.com Professional site Friday . Here it is................
UNBELIEVABLE: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.
I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted... by anyone.
The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore's premises grows by the day.
What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility.
When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the "orals," at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU.
In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know.
You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.
In fact, here is an excerpt : "...I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl.
I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true.
However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don't need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact.
Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let's say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000.
These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth's population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world's population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it's liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people.
But you see what is done here. It's the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you'll get taken.
It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand).
It's astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let's remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it's very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha's winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles.
Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic.
Nice way to start the weekend.
Comments (140)
Joe is perhaps being a little hard on Al.
The Honorable Al Gore did invent the Internet after all, about the same time when the first lady was dodging bullets in Bosnia. And Mr. Gore presided over a US Senate which unanimously rejected Kyoto.
I don't live near the ocean. Is Al's recently purchased house on Fisherman's Wharf still above water? Maybe Steve Bloom could drive up there and let us know if the deadly Antarctic melt waters have swept it away yet?
Enquiring minds want to know. Al Gore is an honorable man.
Posted by Patrick Henry | March 29, 2008 5:32 PM
Another Joe Bastardi flame.
I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true.
If Joe has tried his best "to be open minded about this issue", I've certainly found no evidence of that anywhere on this site. It's easy enough to find Joe's rants against AGW. If the best cites Joe can offer in support of his position are Gray and Coleman, then I hope Joe won't mind my observing that he won't change many minds.
My bottom line is that I encourage Joe to keep his day-job as a meteorologist, and leave the climatology to professionals who know what they're doing.
Posted by BrooklineTom | March 29, 2008 6:15 PM
Hey Joe,
I am like you I want our energy to be carbon free. My "TUNNEL" idea does that with the KE of the Gulfstream. Whatever is causing Global warming the "Tunnels" can reverse it. They can be regulated to control SSTs in the Gulfstream in order to regulate our climate in the troposhere both regionally and globally.
SEE:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13455-gulf-streams-secret-is-a-load-of-hot-air.html
The "Tunnels" regulate the amout of heat rising into the troposphere thereby regulating our climate.Can you see the corelation between the two?
Posted by Patrick Cyclonebuster | March 29, 2008 6:22 PM
Heretic! You attack the cult leader! There is a pile of wood waiting for you when the followers get their chance to "save" you.
They'll be by soon with tar, pitch and torches.
What is really funny is that these extremist think they are the enlightened bringers of truth but are instead the storm troopers of fascism.
They have your number now Joe, it is only a matter of time.
But thank you for standing tall when many are too cowed to speak out.
Posted by Ed Lulie | March 29, 2008 6:53 PM
BT: So much for a "flame." Surely in your "leave the climatology to professionals who know what they're doing" you are not elevating Al Gore to that professional plateau are you? If so, what exactly is Gore's qualifications as a professional. Professional scaremonger? Professional snake oil salesman? Professionl liar? Professional scammer? Ah! Professional politician? Thats it! And a politician who makes use of his savy political acumen to cleverly push and capitalize upon this scam.
Maybe the problem with 'climatologists' Is exactly as Bastardi stated above. Seems like you are assassinating the messenger? Bastardi did not debase the Hansens and the Manns, I though he gave them their due.
Maybe it is erroneous for me to hold to the view that climatologists are no more intelligent, and have no more common sense than you or I, but that's the view I hold to.
Flame? Maybe thats the definition of it, but obviously you can see the frustration and emotion there. Deride it as you like, but one thing is certain: as Al Gore will only walk onto a stage that he alone controls, the upcoming sit-down is a sham and CBS is perpetuating it.
300 million in advertising to push this....every generation has to have a new fear to be capitalized upon to 'keep the (world)economy going and create wealth'......from that 300 million, there is obviously a hell of lot of money to be made for those hitting it before people wise up.
Have we discovered who is putting up this 300 million yet?
Posted by Steve Rowland | March 29, 2008 6:56 PM
BrooklineTom, what Joe is saying is he has actually looked at this situation 2-sided and believes and feels like all the millions and millions in this minority group that this is extremely exaggerated to the max and has became an intention getter and money maker for Al {a.k.a Darth Vader}. The man is clueless and that is why his movie is fiction. So maybe finally you being a stormtrooper can answer my questions and be the one to turn me and others to the dark side, why is the sun so overlooked in the earths warming? Why is Mars having a typical situation? Why were crops grown farther north several hundred years than today? Why has the earth been through multiple ice ages throughout its history? Why did the others melt? Why would the earth warming some be a horrible thing and I ask this without the exaggeration of the situations that Darth has said would happen? Why have temps leveled off in the past several years and cooled in the past year? Could warming and cooling be a natural happening of the earth? Will you still believe Darth in years ahead when these phony tales do not happen? etc,etc... They perhaps can control the minds of many, but not the minds of the ones who think for themselves and ask questions and not take the word of a man without knowledge of the subject as the gospel.
Posted by Josh Brenneman | March 29, 2008 7:03 PM
The implication of BT's statement is that BT himself has some credibility. Personally, even without scientific back-up I would be more inclined to believe Mr. Bastardi than anyone who resorts to calling people who disagree with him liars. For BT's info, climatology is an extension of meteorology - the factors that influence them are the same, only the geographic and time scales are different.
Congratulations to Joe Bastardi for putting principles ahead of political correctness and blind obedience.
Posted by Aviator | March 29, 2008 7:51 PM
Joe!
Wasn't that long ago, you were claiming that the climate was in for some cooling off as evidenced by La Nina...
Well, guess what's back: El Nino. Reply: Yes, there is above normal sst close to South America, but that does not qualify it as an el nino. We are still under La Nina conditions, but it is weakening.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/weekly-sst.php
Keep on ranting Joe, we all enjoy to laugh.
Posted by Andrew | March 29, 2008 7:56 PM
leave the climatology to professionals who know what they're doing
Hi BT,
That sounds like an oxymoron.
Predictive climatology is in it's infancy, and no one has demonstrated skill better than a random number generator to date. There are too many random chaotic factors (volcanic eruptions, solar activity, clouds, etc.) for there to be much likelihood of success in our lifetimes.
Several climatologists have demonstrated limited skill at politics and manipulating numbers to fit a curve however.
Posted by Patrick Henry | March 29, 2008 8:12 PM
Cherry blossoms don't lie, but some politicians and some scientists do. There is no trend towards an earlier spring.
Cherry Blossom Festival dates are set based on the average date of blooming (April 4), but nature is not always cooperative. Unseasonably warm and/or cool temperatures have resulted in the Yoshino cherries reaching peak bloom as early as March 15 (1990) and as late as April 18 (1958).
Bloom dates at the National Cherry Blossom Festival don't seem to be changing much, and the earliest bloom occurred 18 years ago.
http://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/cherry-blossom-bloom.htm
We are having about the latest spring out here anyone can remember. The end of March and still no daffodils.
Posted by Patrick Henry | March 29, 2008 9:04 PM
Great comeback, BT!!! Guess you really refuted Joe's discussion points. You basically reinforced Joe's argument that those who advocate AGW consider their arguments to be beyond reproach without bothering to deal with those pesky facts. Attack those who disagree with you without addressing their arguments and you only enhance their position. That is a cardinal rule of debate, but I guess you are not into debating the issue any more than Mr. Gore.
Posted by Buzz | March 29, 2008 9:31 PM
Im a huge fan of your website for it's accuracy in predicting weather. Naturally I expect to see commentary related to the topic of 'global warming' and it's potential effects. I have only second hand exposure to the works of Al Gore, and I expect I am typical in that ( he didn't have 55 million people see his film in the UK), but most people I know have some, if limited knowledge of this subject. What I find confusing about this article, is that the author assumes that the reader already has knowledge of Gray and Coleman, and the Manhattan declaration. It would have been much better written if the author had made some declaration as to his beliefs on the issue of climate change, rather than attacking Mr Gore, who may or may not be qualified to pontificate. Perhaps when the author has calmed down he could present something more intelligent and considered? I'd really like to read his views on this issue.
Posted by Mark_Derby_UK | March 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Gore does not have to defend his hypothesis or theory
Gore has no PhD in the field and has no hypothesis or theory.
Gore is just a "believer" who stands to make a whole lot of money from it, and can hype it, or spin it, any way he wants.
Example of spin:
"GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving."
Probably is, reason being global warming has created a larger demand for biofuels.
The demand for biofuels has driven up the price of food, conversion to biofuel from food crops, and conversion to biofuel from food because of higher profits in biofuel.
Has created a world food shortage.
Conversion to biofuel has also created the fastest destruction of the rain forest in history. Rain forests are being cleared to grow palm oil for biofuel.
What we are doing is rapidly destroying the ecology, in the name of global warming.
.
Posted by saly | March 29, 2008 10:02 PM
Thanks Joe for bringing a sane voice to a subject that is borderline insane. The fact that this theory has some how spiraled out of control into a political and religious diety is sheer lunacy. And for people that want to belittle Joe for being a meterologist and not a climatologist there is one main thing that separates the two. A meteorologist is forecasting real weather now versus a climatologist virtual weather made up by computers. Absolutely no reason to put a climatologist on a pedastal vs. a meteorologist. Once again thanks Joe. The tide will be turning as more and more people will continue to see what a farce AGW is as the dire predictions never happen.
Posted by Bob | March 29, 2008 10:16 PM
Joe is right. There is a growing list of reputable scientists who disagree with Al Gore's "man is responsible for global warming" theory. Yet suspiciously, there is no scientific debate. If we are confident that our science is sound, then we should welcome the chance to prove our theory. The Al Gores won't allow debate. This should at least cause us to raise an eyebrow.
Posted by Brian | March 29, 2008 10:36 PM
Joe makes very good points.
He is in it for the money and nothing more. His silly rantings are pathetic now and his absolute refusal to defend his opinions are telling enough for any intelligent person.
With the IPCC in panic mode now and the fabled consensus vanishing fast (if there ever was one), Al is becoming a bad joke.
It will be a very long time before Science recovers its credibility after the sad farce is over.
We need more people like Joe to speak up to counter the propoganda.
Posted by Gary | March 29, 2008 10:45 PM
As someone with a PhD in a technical area I know that it is only a piece of paper and that one's work must stand on its own. They may not have defended their global warming ideas in their orals but the peer review process shows no mercy. Having a paper published is all about defending one's ideas while your colleagues look for the holes in your arguments. The bad theories don't last long and mistakes eventually show themselves when there are contradictions which can not be resolved. The science is open. If you have a better theory which reconciles the measurements with the models then demonstrate it. I will certainly look forward to hearing about it.
Al Gore is an advocate who was a bit too successful. I am all in favor in controlling the hysteria which is out of proportion with the uncertainties. But do not forget that this is a search for truth which does not care what mankind debates. While I doubt anyone alive will suffer significantly from climate change in their lifetime I personally feel it is a moral responsibility of this generation to strive for a sustainable lifestyle for future generations because the current models suggest it will be a much different world. I doubt it is politically possible though.
Finally, Brett, congratulations.
rob
Posted by Mr.Bob | March 29, 2008 10:50 PM
BT, just curious, what's your day-job? I honestly can't remember if you've ever stated it. But, right now I'm betting that Joe Bastardi, Dr. Gray and several other horrible deniers have day-jobs much more closely related to climatology than yours.
Can you confirm that?
Posted by Greg Simmons | March 29, 2008 10:52 PM
thank you Joe as well as Mr. Coleman
Once people pick a side, they may feel intellectually weak or inferior to admit they were duped.
The signs point to Al doing what a politician does. L I E S and manipulation. why?
that should be what we are really trying to figure out.
1/ to get people to more willingly accept a lower standard of living b/c they will have believed this is the "medicine" they must take for curing mother nature of her "fever"?
2/ this will reduce civil unrest and promote a more orderly transition to a lower standard of living in the country's of the G7, when the financial crisis play out, as well as giving the elite's another thing to gain a monopoly over as well as control?
3/ kondratieff wave's run appox every 60 or so years, with political and military actions heating up to decide who gets the largers chunks of the financial pies, this time their appears to be a supra national level of authority slowly bleeding the soverignty of nations and laying the infrastructure for a global framework of financial, governmental, and military unity, under a "pseduo fascist rule".
don't cheapen it by calling it a conspiracy, history repeats with examples of propoganda to shape the masses beliefs and attitudes, spewed forth thru most media, this makes transitions more orderly and could be seen as a national security measure.
Posted by christian | March 29, 2008 11:12 PM
Ahh, Brookline Tom, a card-carrying VIP member of the *Ted Baxter* club. As *Murray* used to say, if I want to find out what to do or what's the truth, I ask Ted Baxter what he would do, and I do the opposite.
So when I seek the truth, I look to Brookline Tom sputterings and I know the opposite to be the reality.
Excellent Response Joe Bastardi!!! You are so right in your assessment.
Posted by Mary | March 29, 2008 11:15 PM
My bottom line is that I encourage Joe to keep his day-job as a meteorologist, and leave the climatology to professionals who know what they're doing.
REPLY: You mean like Al Gore and the non-political IPCC, right BT? As for your big hero, his comments that will be aired on the "fair and balanced" 60 minutes are typical of the arrogance and eliteism that he spews. Disagree with him, and you are a holocaust denier, a "flat-earther," a philisitine, a charlatan, or a mind numbed robot with the mentality of a pea. Quite frankly, I have had enough of looking at Al Gore telling me I am guilty for exhaling CO2 and driving my vehicle every day, when he is the biggest hypocrite on the planet. With his million dollar home that comsumes more energy than a small third world nation. I plan on not watching 60 Minutes at all this week. And I think it's high time we as American consumers went to the advertisers of these news organizations to get them to pull their commercials until the stop with their biased reporting and airing this puke, while the openly ridicule opponents of this (non) issue. But then again, like the Glo-BULL warming crowd, I guess I am dreaming!
Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE AL GORE AND HIS FRIENDS IN THE "UNBIASED" MEDIA!!!!!
Posted by Oiznop | March 29, 2008 11:49 PM
I am neither a weatherman nor a climatologist, so just like algore I am qualified to be on 60 seconds of truth and 59 minutes of propaganda. 60 minutes has a long history of supporting liberal positions whether they are supported by facts or fiction.
This would be funny if it weren't for the massive redistribution of wealth in order to "fix" global warming. I suggest there is a large body of university climatologist who see money in this latest crisis. The real trajedy is money that could be spent properly on building effective tools for water savings and energy savings is lost forever to misspent grants to fund the propaganda machine of those "experts".
Posted by David Sailer | March 30, 2008 12:18 AM
Another bottom line.
Mr.Gore should keep his day job as a disgruntled, presidential wanna-be, and leave the climatology to the pros who really KNOW what they are doing.
Posted by Brian D | March 30, 2008 12:26 AM
BrooklineTom: "My bottom line is that I encourage Joe to keep his day-job as a meteorologist, and leave the climatology to professionals w