Bjorn Lomborg is now also a witness with Mr. Gore this Wednesday (?)

[RestoreGore]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007
http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml#

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality will hold a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Perspectives on Climate Change." 9:30 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building Witnesses: Former Vice President Al Gore and Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Adjunct Professor, Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School


I cannot believe this. Is Mr. Gore being set up?

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of /

I wonder who talked Barbara Boxer into letting him come on as a witness.

[Pirate Smile]

1. It is like letting Victoria Toensing testify after Valerie Plame.

They let the Republicans pick a witness. The Republicans always hope to confuse the situation. Hopefully, the Democratic members will be prepared.

[RestoreGore]

2. And again, they make this a partisan political issue

Very disappointing. Why does everything have to be a damned partisan POLITICAL showdown? What bs.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Disappointing but not surprising.

Think Progress:

POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming

National Journal has released a new “Congressional Insiders Poll,” which surveyed 113 members of Congress — 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans — about their positions on global warming.

The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.

Question: Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?




The last Congressional Insiders Poll on global warming was in April 2006. Subsequently:

– In June 2006, the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization created by Congress to provide scientific guidance, unequivocally concluded that natural causes cannot explain the unprecedented warmth over the last 400 years. Rather, “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” the report states.

– In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “concluded for the first time that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and that human activity is the main driver, ‘very likely’ causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.”

Nevertheless, belief in global warming among Republicans in Congress dropped by 10 points.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/

[Buzz Clik]

9. Don't hold your breath.

Lomborg is really, really smart and well versed. Few if any Congresscritters would be able to do anything but look confused and start stammering.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Is Mr. Gore being set up?

Maybe. But I doubt it. Au contraire. If you let Elie Wiesel debate a Holocaust denier, I think it would bring the strength of Wiesel's position into sharper relief.

Or, to put it another way, Lomborg may be playing Washington Generals to Gore's Harlem Globetrotters.

I'm looking forward to a slam dunk from Al.

[RestoreGore]

6. Sure. But now it is just a partisan political contest

Place your bets... Who will win. The Democrat or the Republican. That's how it will be seen now. It's now going to be demoted to entertainment by the media and not really facing the facts of this crisis. Al Gore should have been called because he is an environmentalist, not because he is a Democrat. If Congress is just looking to use this as everything else to set themselves up for the next election, again this is a big letdown. I do hope Mr. Gore also lets that be known as well, that this is not something to be used as a political football.

[Pirate Smile]

8. It doesn't always work that way - look at this Huffington Post blog:

A Long Rant About Facts, Persuasion, and Global Warming (101 comments )
I want to tear my %$#@! hair out.

On Wed. night in New York City, there was a formal debate. At issue was the statement, "global warming is not a crisis." David Biello sets the scene:

Arguing for the motion were the folksy (and tall) Michael Crichton, the soft-spoken Richard Lindzen and the passionate Philip Stott.Arrayed against were the moderate Brenda Ekwurzel, the skeptical Gavin Schmidt and the perplexed Richard Somerville. (Note: all the adjectives are mine.)

The hosts took a poll of attendees before and after the debate. The percentage of people who thought global warming is a crisis dropped by about 10 percent, from 57% to 46%. Team Crichton was more persuasive. The audience emerged more sanguine about climate change, not less. (You can get the transcript PDF here; a podcast should be coming shortly.)

What went wrong?

Over at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt offers a recap, in which he says:

The organisers asked us afterwards whether we'd have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no. We are scientists, and we talk about science and we're not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas - and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage ...

Yeah, that sounds like what went wrong. When Gavin says "questions of personal morality and wider political agendas," I think he just means, "all that stuff that's not science." He knows science, he's trained in science, he's confident in the accuracy of his scientific judgments, so that's what he's sticking with -- even if it means losing a debate, and with it a chance to change some minds.

I think that is a huge mistake, and Gavin is far, far from the only one making it. It's not just scientists who do it, either. Many people in the environmental field -- and I'd even generalize to progressives, broadly speaking -- seem to be operating on a set of assumptions:

1. The facts, organized and clearly conveyed, should carry the day.
2. When facts do not change minds, more facts are required, perhaps delivered more slowly.
3. When facts do not change hearts, more facts are required, perhaps delivered more loudly.
4. Those not swayed by facts are intellectually, possibly morally, deficient.
5. If sticking to the facts means losing a debate, well, that's the price of virtue.

-snip-
If we really believe global warming is a dire problem, we need people to start acting. We don't just need their intellectual assent, we need their sense of responsibility, their passion, their imagination, and their leadership. We need the full range of human engagement, and facts alone will never generate that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/a-long-rant-about-facts-_b_43604.html

[Buzz Clik]

10. Good gawd. What a bizarre analysis.

You pit someone like Crichton against a scientist and wonder why the charismatic guy who's full of shit carries the day against the knowledgable professor type?

The critical point is made, but totally backwards. You don't send scientists to drive policy or change the minds of the public.

I'm surprised that this is not clear.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. So it will be Fair And Balanced!

Maybe we can get "Rushbo" to do the Michael J. Fox Parkinson Dance on the floor of the House, too, next time a medical research bill is up for renewal.

I can't believe the number of whistle-asses we have in Gummint ... maybe they can form the Republican Whistle Choir and (Backward-)Marching Band ...

--p!

[Buzz Clik]

7. It's this bizarre concept of balance:

Get representatives of both sides, even when one of the views is not representative of the current state of the science.

Lomborg is a major skeptic who (in his book) used lots of scientific data to support his skeptical position. My impression, after reading his book quite carefully, was that he was trying to provide some counterbalance to generally unopposed environmental views. He's more honest and better informed than idiots like Patrick Michaels or the brainless jackass in charge of junkscience.com.

We won't know Lomborg's role for certain until he speaks.