| Let's start with the author, James M. Taylor. According to the op-ed, he's the "senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute." A quick Google search of the "Heartland Institute" lands us on a Source Watch page reveals that it's a profitable "non-profit" think tank that promotes ideas and studies that support industries that fund the organization. That is, a think tank for hire. And who hires them? Well, Exxon for one has chipped in nearly a half million between 2000 and 2005.
Let's go to the methodology. The way that Taylor "proves" Gore's insincerities is that he cites a number of studies that refute specific claims in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." What appears to be slam dunk debunking of Gore's evidence on closer examination prove to be, at best, of dubious value, and hardly injurious to the fact of climate change. To wit:
--Taylor cites a meteorology report that showed Himalayan glaciers increased in 2006, refuting Gore's claim that glaciers are shrinking and "global warming is to blame." But in climatology, one year's data is meaningless. (In fact, that growth of glaciers for one year on one particular mountain range is newsworthy is an indication of how serious the problem is.) Trends are what matters. What Taylor fails to mention is that "between 1970 and 1989, Japanese researchers discovered most of the glaciers in the Khumbu region had retreated 30-60m," and like studies showed other Himalayan glaciers melting at similar rapid rates.
--Taylor cites studies a Nature article that lays blame for the cause of Mt. Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow cap to deforestation in the region, which has adversely affected rainfall on the mountaintop. What's not mentioned, however, is that glaciers world-wide are melting at alarming rates, according to satellite surveys, which suggests that regional deforestation is accelerating Kilimanjaro's snow melt, not the sole contributor to it.
--Taylor notes that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February 2007 that "there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes." Besides the fact that Taylor is holding Gore accountable to a statement made after his movie appeared, it is generally known that increased humidity and temperatures lead to more and bigger storms. Scientists are in near-unanimous agreement that higher temperatures are leading to more severe hurricanes and cyclones. That the number of reported tornadoes have increased over the last thirty years is a fact, and while there's no definitive scientific link between tornadoes and climate change, I'd hardly think such a claim is unreasonable, given the other links between severe storms and rising temperatures.
--Taylor mentions that former NOAA scientist Chris Landsea argues against the theory that hurricane frequency has risen in the past 40 years, as does "hurricane expert" William Gray. But Taylor neglects to mention that a recent Nature study showed that, while the number of hurricanes and typhoons haven't increased, severity and longevity have. Taylor also fails to mention is that Landsea agrees that climate change is occurring and that human activity is a main contributor. He only disputes the generally-held belief that the number of hurricanes will increase because of it. Gray agrees, but also thinks global warming is a "hoax." Although reputable, he's outside the consensus on the issue. (For some good climate-change denial unlike Taylor's, read this profile of Gray.)
--As for Taylor's 2002 New Scientist article that "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular retreat'...making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa," well...a quick look at the actual article shows that Taylor's cut-n-paste egregiously misrepresented the contents of the article. First, the "spectacular retreat" was confined to the "Sahel region of the southern edge of the Saharan desert," and that no consensus for the retreat existed. A possible reason for the recovery of the desert, according to the article, was improved farming and irrigation methods. Even if the recovery of the desert were due to increased rainfall in the region, it's scientifically irresponsible to judge larger patterns by a small sample size -- in this case, a specific region. All other reports show that the size of deserts world-wide is rapidly increasing, including the Sahara Desert's creep northwards.
I'd go on, but you get the picture.
In short, Taylor's entire argument is based on studies apparently distorted solely to make Al Gore look like a liar. Some display of scientific integrity, eh?
It's without a hint of irony that Taylor ends his op-ed thusly:
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
In the profile of William Gray, "hurricane expert" and climate-change denier, there's some great quotes about the politics of climate change:
"One of the frustrations is that this has become a proxy war for something else," [CU environmental studies professor, Roger Pielke Jr] says. "It's devolved into a battle to make everyone think the same as a prerequisite to taking action. That's not how politics works."
"It's become like debating abortion," says Phil Klotzbach, a doctoral candidate at CSU who's taken the lead in the annual hurricane-forecasting program that Gray, his advisor, launched 22 years ago. "People need to look at the data and see what the data shows rather than having blinders on."
Klotzbach has tried to steer clear of the larger global-warming furor, preferring to focus on hurricanes in his work. But he sees value in Gray's self-appointed role as a skeptic. "He's one of the few dissenting voices, and it's important to have another perspective," he says.
I agree whole-heartedly with these opinions, although they're implicitly aimed against those that believe human activities have contributed to rising global temperatures. In reality, the media has been bombarded with manufactured "studies" and for-pay think-tank hitmen whose sole duty is to insert a wedge between scientific consensus and general knowledge. As a result, we're still arguing whether global warming even exists, when we should have been taking definite steps towards battling it a decade ago.
Even if the whole thing is bunkum, which most scientists doubt, the steps to fighting it have multiple benefits: reduced reliance on fossil fuels; less pollution; and lower energy prices. Putting in extra insulation in your house saves you money and reduces your carbon output.
Why fight the facts? |
