The Intersection of Politics and Science

I've been trying not to blog about Al Gore and the peace prize as it's old news at this point, but today the following story crossed the newswires, and once again he was on my mind:

Al Gore Joins Venture Capital Firm To Focus On Clean Tech

SAN FRANCISCO (AP)--Nobel Peace Prize winner and former vice president Al Gore announced Monday he is joining a Silicon Valley venture capital firm to guide investments that help combat global warming.
Gore will join Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms headquartered in Silicon Valley expand beyond software, computer hardware, the Internet and biotechnology to so-called "clean-tech" investments worldwide.
Gore is expected to be a high-profile, active partner at Kleiner Perkins. He is already a senior adviser to Google Inc. (GOOG) and a member of the board at Apple Inc. (AAPL). Alliance for Climate Protection, the advocacy group he co-founded, is based in Palo Alto.
Also Monday, Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr announced he's joining the advisory board of Generation Investment Management, the $1 billion investment firm that Gore founded with David Blood, who previously managed $325 billion in assets out of Goldman Sachs' (GS) London office.
Gore said in a statement that he'll donate 100% of his salary as a Kleiner Perkins partner to the Alliance for Climate Protection, which focuses on accelerating policy solutions to the climate crisis.

To his many disciples, the fact that Al Gore recently won half of the Nobel Peace Prize only serves to reinforce and legitimize what they already knew and have been endlessly bleating about: "The end is nigh! Curb your CO2 emissions or suffer the wrath of Gaia!"

Or something to that effect.

The first thing that cynically occurred to me upon hearing the news of his big win was that the Nobel committee must have been fresh out of science prizes. Man-made global warming is supposed to be all about science after all, isn't it? So why would he win the peace price?

It may be worth recalling that the 5 member committee that chooses the winner of the peace prize is itself nominated by the Norwegian parliament. This means that the peace prize winner is selected in a purely political process. That's all fine and well, but when science and politics mix, you can bet the farm which will trump the other (hint: it ain't science that comes out on top).

The following press release is from the Nobel prize website:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Nowhere is a delineation drawn between what is man-made and what is naturally occurring. That is because it is impossible to do. I have not waded through all of the IPCC report, but I understand it is not as one-sided to Gore's bias as global warming fear-mongers would have us believe. We're celebrating their courage in laying the foundations to counteract change. Counteracting an unquantifiable amount of change on this scale seems like an exercise in futility to me, especially when change is as natural as life and evolution itself.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Notice how many times the word "may" is used in that paragraph. Of course, the opposite of may is may not; as in many of these apocalyptic forebodings may not happen at all. Justification for taking action now against an unknown quantity is defended by citing the precautionary principle, which is defined as:"...a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."

Without acknowledging that science does not need consensus, the whole global warming debate is so hopelessly politicized that there will never be a scientific consensus. Since there's no consensus, those that advocate taking action against global warming are burdened with proving it's real, and that it poses an imminent danger. That explains the junk science used to justify acting now. But how many times have we heard from Al Gore himself that the debate is over, and there is in fact a scientific consensus concerning global warming?

I've got news for the Nobel Committee--wars for resources have been happening since, forever.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

As I already stated, real science has no need for consensus. Either something is verifiable using the scientific method, or it is not. In fact, If the science is so convincing, why are we talking about the peace prize right now?

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

In the preceding paragraph we're told that the 1990's produced firmer evidence to support man-made global warming. Al Gore was Vice President of the United States of America for 8 of those years. Does anybody recall anything he did during those years to combat this imminent threat--aside from make a symbolic attempt to get the U.S. to sign on to the Kyoto Accord in 1997--a treaty that our Congress said they'd not sign?

He in fact may be the single individual who has done the most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that "need" to be adapted to combat man-made global warming. If true, he's achieved this feat largely by using dishonest fear-mongering scare tactics. That's nothing to be proud of. For this he's earned the peace prize.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.


Oslo, 12 October 2007

Protect the world's future climate--like it's a spotted owl or some other endangered species. The last sentence is my favorite; it reveals the underlying hubris that motivates the man-made global warming agenda pushers.

Back to the big news, Mr. Gore joining Kleiner Perkins.

I am wondering what Kleiner Perkins stands to gain from making Mr. Gore a partner? They're wildly successful in their own right, after all. His name certainly has billboard appeal, but the VC world exists mainly in the fine print of the business page, so cache is generally not part of their charter. I am sure they'd be able to spot the next big thing in green energy without him, since they're very good at what they do. If campaign donations are any indication--and they are--Wall St. and "big business" in general are betting heavily that the Democrats will take the White House next year. I'll be waiting to hear the deafening silence from our good left-leaning citizens who make big business-bashing part of their daily routine, when it's big business funding their side of the aisle.

The fact that he's donating his salary to a favorite enviro-hippie charity should not be treated as evidence of his selfless nature. VCs don't make most of their money off their salaries, they make their fortunes instead on "carried interest" -- a share in the profits from their investments -- and management fees. Recently there's been chatter about changing the tax code to treat hedge fund and VC gains in the same manner as corporate earnings are treated. So far, Charles Schumer, the other Democratic Senator from New York, has successfully blocked this legislation at the behest of the HF/VC industry.

I am betting that making Mr. Gore a partner is a business hedge. John Doerr, a PK partner, has been and remains a big supporter of the Democrats, so it makes sense. Mr. Gore can surely provide a hefty amount of influence on Capitol Hill.

Tom Perkins recently designed and built the largest and most expensive sailing vessel in the world, the Maltese Falcon. To say that it is an impressive sail boat is a wild understatement. Maybe Mr. Gore is finally going to swear off private jet travel--for the sake of the environment--and traipse the globe aboard the Maltese Falcon.

Three things need to happen before I take seriously the proclamations of the man-made global warming crowd:

1) Politicians and movie stars need to stop traveling in private jets, helicopters and large limousines and instead fly coach (OK they can fly first class) and take the bus like they advocate for the rest of us.

2) Barbara Streisand surrenders her Malibu home to the rising tide; and the price of beach front property worldwide needs to plummet in general.

3) Self-proclaimed environmentalists need to present solutions to problems that don't conform to their preconceived biases.

I've been of the mind that conservation and developing alternative energy sources are good ideas long before Mr. Gore made it fashionable; and I believe the solutions to our energy problems will come about not from punishing people for the way they live, but from innovation germinated and nurtured in places like Silicon Valley. So from that perspective, I am happy to hear that Mr. Gore is joining the VC world. Perhaps it is his first step away from his fantasy world of misleading bar charts and killer powerpoint presentations.

Now, if he'll just shut up.

UPDATE 11/20/07: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial piece today that more eloquently captures the gist of my post.