Opinions of Gore's Warnings......

[55CrushEm]

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun....."

continued.....

[55CrushEm]

"....Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request. "

[Rohirrim]

Most scientists say that global warming is not only real, but is already contributing to extreme droughts, floods and the melting of the polar ice caps. But a few scientists still insist the idea is bunk. With the Kyoto Protocol about to come into force, Melissa Fyfe investigates the doubters, their financial backers and whether they are worth listening to.
At 401 Collins Street on Monday night, 50 men gathered in a room of plush green carpet, pottery and antique lights to launch a book about the science of climate change. Some of them were scientists. But many were engineers and retired captains of industry. Presiding was Hugh Morgan, president of the Business Council of Australia and former Western Mining boss. The master of ceremonies was retired Labor politician Peter Walsh.
Climate change is about science, but not just about science. It's about business and politics and wielding influence. The men - there was just one woman present - were all climate change sceptics, members of an organisation called the Lavoisier Group that argues global warming is nothing to worry about.
The book they launched - the latest weapon in the tussle for hearts and minds over global warming - was by Melbourne climate change sceptic William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre, part of the Bureau of Meteorology. He argues that global warming is natural and not caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
The book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, blasts the models used by climate scientists to predict and simulate what is happening. They are flawed, he says. "Climate change is naturally variable and it poses serious hazards for human kind," he writes. Focusing on man-made global warming is "self-delusion on a grand scale".
The only problem for the sceptics is that the vast majority of scientists think they are the ones that are deluded. "There's a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics", Dr James Baker, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, has said.
The Lavoisier Group challenges the orthodoxy and insists that that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. Named after a French scientist celebrated as a father of modern chemistry (and also famous for marrying a 13-year-old girl and meeting his end under the French Revolution's guillotine) the group was born in Australia in the 1990s specifically to question - some say undermine - greenhouse science and the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to cut global-warming emissions.
Secretary Ray Evans describes the 90-odd Lavoisier members as a "dad's army" of mostly retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries. Many, he says, regard climate change as "a scam". It is unclear how much Hugh Morgan supports Lavoisier financially, but members pay an annual subscription of $50 and the annual budget is around $10,000. When they want to print a pamphlet to distribute at universities or take an advertisement in a newpaper - as they did in The Australian a few years ago - they appeal to members for money.
In Australia, the group is the obvious embodiment of the movement, but the idea has also been taken up by right-wing think tanks, such as the Institute of Public Affairs, and also feeds into a global network. It is a sophisticated machine that has successfully created the impression that climate change science is mired in uncertainty.
Scientists and environmentalists say the sceptics have been so good at spreading their message they have slowed action mitigating global warming. In Australia, the sceptics have been so persistent that the CSIRO, which employs some of the nation's leading climate scientists, has been forced to be far more proactive in defending climate change science .
Observers say sceptics have influenced attitudes of policy makers and politicians. A consultant and industry adviser on greenhouse gases who declined to be named, said: "I think the sceptics have had an impact. I think Australia's reluctance to ratify the Kyoto protocol has come down to the tactics of these groups that are supported by industry."
The nation's climate experts worry - mostly in private - that sceptics will delay action on climate change for another decade, using the same tools of hired guns and questionable scientific evidence as the tobacco industry wielded to deny cancer links in the 1970s and 1980s.
Recently, the sceptics have been on the back foot. Last week, the once-languishing Kyoto Protocol got its start date of February 16. This will set in train international mechanisms such as a global emissions market worth billions of dollars and financial incentives for renewable energy investment in developing countries.
Like the US, the Howard Government refuses to participate in Kyoto but says that by 2012 Australia will meet its targets anyhow.
It probably will, because recent decisions to end land clearing count as "credits" under Kyoto. The Howard Government backs the science that says most of the warming in the past 50 years was due to human-produced emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere that would normally radiate to space.
The 2504 scientists and reviewers who work under the banner of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) look set to make even stronger pronouncements about the role of humans on climate in their next assessment, due in 2007. The scientific mainstream has become more confident about how global warming is affecting the world, particularly in the past 10 years. The panel's chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, told The Age: "One can say scientifically it is human action that is driving the bulk of changes that are taking place today."
Meanwhile, the evidence of climate change keeps mounting. Last century's global warming of 0.6 degrees - 0.8 degrees in Australia - may sound small, but an extra 1.5 to two degrees will mean the loss of coral and other delicate ecosystems. It is the most rapid warming the planet has seen in 10,000 years. In that time, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remained constant at around 280 parts per million. It is now nearly 380ppm, a level the earth has not experienced for at least 400,000 years.
This month, an eight-nation report found global warming was causing the polar ice-caps to melt at such an unprecedented rate significant portions could be gone by century's end. Land temperatures made last month the hottest October on record.
But still the sceptics resist. Some are convinced that humans can't render change on something as large as the atmosphere. Many, like the Lavoisier Group, are concerned about the cost of Kyoto to Australia's resource-intensive economy. Others, such as William Kininmonth, have found fame in sceptic circles in the twilight of their careers. Academics like the Australian National University's Ian Castles, a former Australian Statistian, have become hardened in their scepticism because the IPCC has reacted slowly to criticism.
Still others, such as geologists, are cranky because their study of climate change over millennia has been ignored, they argue. University of Melbourne geologist Ian Plimer says this period of climate change is just "one frame in a three-hour movie". Climate change, he says, is "a dogma, not a debate".
The Lavoisier Group distributes the work of geologist Bob Carter, Ian Castles, William Kininmonth, Ian Plimer and a few other Australian sceptics. The Institute of Public Affairs, which receives funding from companies such as ExxonMobil, the most sceptical of the world's fossil fuel giants, also engages in the debate, scouring the web and email groups for evidence that climate change is natural. Early next month, the IPA is bringing to Australia Andre Illarionov, the economic adviser to Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who lost the argument that his country should not sign Kyoto.
Recently, the doubters have been infuriated by NSW Premier Bob Carr's comments that in future, parts of the state will be like "living in an oven", and the Lavoisier Group is preparing a complaint to the ABC about its "appalling" and "sustained campaign" on climate change issues on Lateline and the 7.30 Report.
Australian sceptics are not as powerful as those in the US, where, for a long time, George Bush's Administration has also questioned the science.
Late last month, James Hansen, a director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, accused the Bush Administration of trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming. "I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," he said.
In the past few years, with the exception of ExxonMobil, most fossil fuel companies in Australia are believed to have quietly accepted the climate science. But in their submissions to government, behind-the-scenes lobbying and through industry associations, many remain Kyoto-resistant and have argued recently against incentives for the renewable energy industry.
In the US, key sceptics have admitted to being on the fossil-fuel payroll, but Australians such as Ian Castles, Bob Carter and William Kininmonth say they are not paid for their views. However, earlier this year, before Russia had agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Kininmonth accepted the International Policy Network's offer to fly him to a special climate science meeting in Moscow. The IPN is a right-wing think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil and which networks with the IPA. But Kininmonth says he didn't know that. In an email to The Age, he said: "I was satisfied that it was a genuine invitation when the Russian ambassador telephoned me to co-ordinate obtaining a visa at such short notice."
Scepticism, of course, is a hallmark of science. Some global-warming critics are simply suspicious about the idea of consensus in the scientific community. As the Lavoisier Group's Ray Evans points out, the history of science is littered with hard-won battles of one man - such as Galileo - against a flat earth-like consensus. Evans also says he is a "Genesis 1:28 man". That's the passage that says: "God said to them 'Be fruitful and become many and fill the Earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the seas and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the Earth".
The global-warming doomsayers, says Evans, are anti-development. Moreover, they stem from an environmentalism that has taken the place of Christianity, particularly in Europe. "To put it in its bluntest terms, when you don't believe in God you don't believe in nothing. You believe in whatever is the fashion of the day, and environmentalism has scooped the pool."
In some cases, scepticism has been good for climate science. US scientist Richard Lindzen, regarded as an outstanding climatologist, has forced his colleagues to address issues such as the role of convection, cloud and water vapour. But most of the handful of scientists around the world that could be called sceptics - and they are mostly not climatologists - do not, as Lindzen does, publish in the recognised peer-reviewed literature, science's method of fact-checking and filtering out bad science.
"Sceptics in Australia function to promulgate these essentially dodgy kinds of studies. And I don't think that is is too strong language to say they are dodgy," says Dr James Risbey, a climatologist at Monash University's School of Mathematical Sciences.
Climate scientists are frustrated that the sceptics' arguments persist, even though they say they have addressed them. There are many uncertainties around climate science, but they are often not the ones peddled by sceptics, they say. Kevin Hennessy, senior research scientist at CSIRO's Atmospheric Research, said one of the main uncertainties was saying what proportion of human activity versus natural variability could be blamed in recent climate events and trends - such as the drought in south-eastern Australia, the Canberra bushfires or Europe's devastating heatwave last year. It is also uncertain how much emissions of carbon dioxide will grow in the future.
Predicting population growth, the growth of economies and technological breakthroughs that will help reduce emissions are all difficult.
Scientists say they are still unsure about some of the impacts of global warming. The effect on coral reefs is clear, but there's limited understanding about the impacts on fisheries, for example. "Likewise we have a good understanding of impacts on some crops, but a limited understanding of impacts on cities," Hennessy says.
Hugh Morgan, probably Australia's leading sceptic in business and the force behind the Lavoisier Group, remains dedicated to the cause. "We are interested in this debate because we see that John Citizen is going to be asked to do some dramatic things to change his way of life in respect of matters (the community) doesn't understand."
While William Kininmonth is respected by his former colleagues at the Bureau of Meteorology and they agree about the climate's natural variability, they disagree that recent warming is natural. In a review to be published in March in the Australian Meteorological Magazine, University of Melbourne associate professor of meteorology Kevin Walsh will argue that Kininmonth has failed to present the case for natural warming. "Some of his detailed arguments are a little bit curious," Dr Walsh told The Age. "Some of his statements actually contradict well-accepted work."
But strangely enough, the Lavoisier Group heard that message on Monday night. In what seemed like a coup, Hugh Morgan had secured the respected John Zillman, former head of the Bureau of Meteorology, to launch the book. Dr Zillman agreed, but made it clear that there were significant parts of the book that he disagreed with. Dr Zillman, who is known to be quite conservative about climate science, said he was concerned about appearing at a Lavoisier Group book launch, but did so in the interests of debate.
He says he is not aware of any sceptic argument that has invalidated the mainstream science, and is now convinced - although would not have been 10 years ago - that it is mostly humans changing the world's climate. "I won't be expecting to be invited back as a regular," he said.




http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html

[defenseman]

"....Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request. "


Good find. I have read lots of material on the global warming subject, both for and against, and have ended up somewhere right in the middle. On another thread, I took the position of fixing the enviroment , in that, because it's the right thing to do, the RIGHT WAY I might add. Lots more material out there, however this article does a reasonably good job of summing it up. I will say that, we do need to quit adding CO, CO2 and whatever to the enviroment as a long term correction, again, the right way...dman

[Rohirrim]

This is another similarity that this argument has with the tobacco/cancer argument that went on for decades: If we wait for consensus before we take action, it might be too late. Consensus in the scientific world sometimes takes centuries.

[alkemical]

it's highly arroagant to think that the chemicals released into the environment have little to no impact. However, it isn't the 'root' cause of climate change, but maybe an accelerant.

[W*GS]

Since I've not seen Gore's film, I'll reserve judgment.

[defenseman]

Since I've not seen Gore's film, I'll reserve judgment.

I'll catch it on some special. I'm sure one of the major networks will eventually air it...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment:
[B]No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts
Sure he has no political agenda, and check out some of this bonehead's statements...

Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station.

5 May, 2004
"The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter

5 May, 2004
"contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has many obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in general, and increased agricultural production in particular.

And to maintain or slightly increase planetary temperature is also very much a global good if -- as Ruddiman and other scientists assert -- the human production of greenhouse gases is helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly warm, interglacial mode."
Source: Tech Central Station Arti http://tinyurl.com/s7qem



Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, [b]"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. Patterson is in a small camp that believes there are NO effects on Earth from CO2.

[footstepsfrom#27]

This debate reminds me of some of the stuff I read a few years ago when I did prevention science research analsysis of psycho-pharmaceutical literature for drug trials. I found it was a good idea to always keep in mind that there are literally tens of billions of dollars in profit riding on what is basically a war of dissinformation most of the time, and the companies standing to benefit ahve enormous resources at their disposal to get their point of view out there. You have to be pretty naive not to recognize that industry has a horse in the race and anything you read from them should be looked at very critically in terms of whether it's legit or not. Certainly in the pharaceutical industry I can tell you the amount of public consumption material that's simply a pack of lies is massive.

In order to get to the real truth you have to do two things; 1) have at least a modicum of background in research methodology and analysis (two years at least), and 2) spend very large amounts of time sifting through what is mostly a lot of redundant data set to find the stuff that's really worth anything. At the end of the day, I found the executive summaries and public relations announcement type pieces you find in secondary source information to be virtually worthless in terms of finding anything substantive. If you're not prepared to live, eat, sleep and breath the subject matter you're more or less wasting your time and speaking from the same level of second hand ignorance anyone else is who is not a scientist trained in the field.

Global warming is only one of dozens of issues that are on the table now with respect to how we're poisoning the environment. You don't have to be a scientist or a researcher to grasp that everything from pesticide levels in ground water to hormone additives in chicken are causing all kinds of health issues and destroying the environment. I live in the most polluted state in America for toxic chemicals, and it while it wasn't great down here before he became governor, people in Texas who follow this stuff closely will all pretty much tell you that GWB's passion for handcuffing the EPA to the benefit of the energy industry and big chemical companies has created this mess at a level far beyond what it once was. Somewhere there's a reasonable balance between industry and ecology, but one thing I'm sure of is that Bush went as far to the industry side with his approach as he possibly could.

If for no other reason than he's passionate about these issues as a true believer, Gore's an attractive alternative to the lunacy that has dominated our environmental policy over the last eight years. We stand to be able to make some progress on all fronts if he's elected president.

[El Minion]

Scientist Review (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/)

<h2>10 May 2006</h2>
<div class="post">
<h3 class="storytitle" id="post-299">Al Gore’s movie</h3>
<div class="meta">Filed under: <ul class="post-categories">
<li><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/" title="View all posts in Climate Science">Climate Science</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/reporting-on-climate/" title="View all posts in Reporting on climate">Reporting on climate</a></li></ul> — eric @ 3:21 pm </div>

<div class="storycontent">
<p><font size = -2>by Eric Steig</font></p>
<p><img src = "http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1594865671.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_V54363733_.jpg" align = right>Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, <i>An Inconvenient Truth</i>, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).</p>
<p>Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.<a id="more-299"></a></p>
<p>Much of the footage in <i>Inconvenient Truth</i> is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father's tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore's sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn't the "wooden" Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.</p>
<p>How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, <a href ="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/">here</a>).</p>
<p>There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO₂ emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.</p>
<p>Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO₂ and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO₂ contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present -- rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed <a href = "http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/">here</a>). However, I don't really agree with my colleagues' criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO₂ scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO₂ changes (as we have discussed <a href = "http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/">here</a>). In that sense, the <a href = "http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/">ice core CO₂-temperature correlation</a> remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO₂ on climate.</p>
<p>For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in <i>Earth in the Balance</i>. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue -- indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue -- but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there (see Science 305, p. 968 Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies).</p>
<p>I'll admit that I have been a bit of a skeptic about our ability to take any substantive action, especially here in the U.S.<br />
Gore's aim is to change that viewpoint, and the colleagues I saw the movie with all seem to agree that he is successful.</p>
<p>In short: this film is worth seeing. It opens in early June.
</p>
</div>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:oyvey:

When you read the "arguments" 55CrushEm presents, it becomes all the more obvious that the republi-cons and the purveyors of junk science on BushCo's payroll have managed to convince him (and others like him) that the interests of those big businesses and industries who profit from destroying the environment are also his interests.

Talk about getting hoodwinked. :pity:

[spdirty]

When you read the "arguments" 55CrushEm presents, it becomes all the more obvious that the republi-cons and the purveyors of junk science on BushCo's payroll have managed to convince him (and others like him) that the interests of those big businesses and industries who profit from destroying the environment are also his interests.
and mine.

[Spider]

Take this for whats its worth ...we all know what I do for a living , I see the the damage we do first hand , you want to know a sicking site ? Drive in from Cheyenne to Denver ........ Dont tell me the Brown cloud is natural , part of the climate , I lived in Denver / Greeley colorado for alot of years , I couldnt take it anymore , Moved to Wyoming the air is clean ..........
LA, Houston , you name em , they are all polluted ........
For you republicans , answer this honestly , you dont have to answer here , but to yourself ....... What if you are wrong , and our Children need to wear a mask to go outside cause of Pollution ?
why shouldnt our children enjoy clean air and green ground ?
I know Spider you drive a truck you goofy bastard you are part of the problem ....... but I wrestle with this question alot

[defenseman]

If for no other reason than he's passionate about these issues as a true believer, Gore's an attractive alternative to the lunacy that has dominated our environmental policy over the last eight years. We stand to be able to make some progress on all fronts if he's elected president.

True believer? In what? Attractive alternative? He appears to have put on some weight and is highly un-attractive from most points of view. Define progress? The DEMS have better alternatives out there other than this guy. He will not make it through the primaries even if he does run...dman

[BroncoInferno]

[/B]

True believer? In what? Attractive alternative? He appears to have put on some weight and is highly un-attractive from most points of view. Define progress? The DEMS have better alternatives out there other than this guy. He will not make it through the primaries even if he does run...dman

I think Gore has done himself a lot of good since 2000. At first, people were saying he'd gone off the deep end with certain comments, but he turned out to be right more times than not. Also, without the political spotlight shining, he's been more relaxed and doesn't come off 'stiff' anymore, just acts like a regular guy for the most part. Same thing happened to Dole after 1996. He seemed like a grumpy ogre during the campaign, then afterwards you find out he's a pretty funny guy.

[bendog]

Oh, I disagree. It's his for the asking. No Goper running has his background unless they voted for Iraq. Fiscal conservative, social liberal, Council on For Relations internationalist. However, I also think there's no doubt in his mind that he won Fla, and there isn't in mine either, really. He accomplished his lifetime goal: be elected potus like his Dad couldn't. Does he really want to be Pres? I'm not sure he has a fire in his belly for that. I think he wants to be asked to serve, and he wants to know the votes will be counted. If the Dems win the House back .... anything's possible then.

[bendog]

I think Gore has done himself a lot of good since 2000. At first, people were saying he'd gone off the deep end with certain comments, but he turned out to be right more times than not. Also, without the political spotlight shining, he's been more relaxed and doesn't come off 'stiff' anymore, just acts like a regular guy for the most part. Same thing happened to Dole after 1996. He seemed like a grumpy ogre during the campaign, then afterwards you find out he's a pretty funny guy.
Also, the press was not given access to bush in live questioning for the last 4-6 weeks of the campaign. Given the 00 election, and the dissimilation of the current admin, I'd expect the media to be more aggressive next potus election.

[55CrushEm]

:oyvey:

When you read the "arguments" 55CrushEm presents, it becomes all the more obvious that the republi-cons and the purveyors of junk science on BushCo's payroll have managed to convince him (and others like him) that the interests of those big businesses and industries who profit from destroying the environment are also his interests.

Talk about getting hoodwinked. :pity:

LOL.....and the point is proven once again....if you don't agree with a liberal, then you must be an "idiot"....

Try actually READING the article.....if you can.

[55CrushEm]

Sure he has no political agenda,

Ah yes, and every article that YOU post is by someone who has none, either.....Uhh

[defenseman]

Oh, I disagree. It's his for the asking. No Goper running has his background unless they voted for Iraq. Fiscal conservative, social liberal, Council on For Relations internationalist. However, I also think there's no doubt in his mind that he won Fla, and there isn't in mine either, really. He accomplished his lifetime goal: be elected potus like his Dad couldn't. Does he really want to be Pres? I'm not sure he has a fire in his belly for that. I think he wants to be asked to serve, and he wants to know the votes will be counted. If the Dems win the House back .... anything's possible then.

Well, we'll see. He won't get my vote. His position on the enviroment, while I'll applaud his need to educate the masses, from where I sit can and will hurt him. Then again, that is yet to be seen. Why? IF he does run for president, and the REPUBS handle the rebuttal to his position on the enviroment incorrectly, if will only strengthen Gore's position on global warming. If handled correctly though, it will knock gore's knees out from under based on his "weak" position on global warming by not utilizing ALL the experts and getting ALL the possible input he could prior to making a movie. They'll blow a hole in his "documentary" and call it pandering to the masses. It all depends on if he runs and how the PUBS handle his dissection. In any case, he doesn't get my vote, he comes off as a "whiner" to me, but, thats just my opinion. Kind of like "hillary" is a reed in the wind, blows whatever way the "polls" take her. Again though, thats just my HO though......dman

[55CrushEm]

the lunacy that has dominated our environmental policy over the last eight years. We stand to be able to make some progress on all fronts if he's elected president.

What do you mean by "lunacy" in this context? What specifically has this administration done to the environment that is "loony" ?

Or is this just another lib catch phrase, with no meat and potatoes ?

You guys talk like this country's environment is going in the crapper....please point to some evidence.....last I checked we still have some of the tightest environmental regulations in the world.....the air and water are relatively clean. Ever try breathing the air in South Korea? Please point to some standards that are that much better than ours.....

[bendog]

What do you mean by "lunacy" in this context? What specifically has this administration done to the environment that is "loony" ?

Or is this just another lib catch phrase, with no meat and potatoes ?

You guys talk like this country's environment is going in the crapper....please point to some evidence.....last I checked we still have some of the tightest environmental regulations in the world.....the air and water are relatively clean. Ever try breathing the air in South Korea? Please point to some standards that are that much better than ours.....
bought gas or paid the light bill recently?:thumbs:

[defenseman]

bought gas or paid the light bill recently?:thumbs:

Streamline your thought process here..dman

[alkemical]

Streamline your thought process here..dman


heh, it was so streamlined it went over my head.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.realclimate.org/

Here's the place to go for the real story.

[defenseman]

http://www.realclimate.org/

Here's the place to go for the real story.

Read here before. Pretty much one side of the spectrum..dman
But, I won't deny there is some pretty good info here. somewhat slanted though..