U.S. Senate Committee attacks AP for its Gore movie support.

[GabeRivers]

I'm sure many of you have seen this, but I found it interesting. It is a recent Majority Press Release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Given that the majority of posters on this forum appear to be leftwing, I would be interested in your rebuttals (please, something beyond the standard retort that this is simply the Republicans playing to their base):


AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"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." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"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,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

[Subby]

Good expenditure of company time, fellas...

[SirFozzie]

Yup. Way to toe the party line.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Someone doth protest too much, I think. . .

That said, this is just a battle of the experts. I have no idea who to believe. People who want to believe the environment is in danger will believe those who say it is and those who do not will believe the other guys.

Like the courts, however, I do not engage in a battle of the experts. It is not my role.

[Vegas Vic]

That said, this is just a battle of the experts.

Actually, the battle was during the late 1990's/early 2000's. In 2006, the opinion is rather lopsided in favor of Gore's position.

[ISiddiqui]

This sounds like a "You Forgot Poland" report by the Senators.

[NoMyths]

I like Roger Ebert's review of the film.

An Inconvenient Truth
By Roger Ebert - June 2, 2006

I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts.

Global warming is real.

It is caused by human activity.

Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.

If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.

These facts are stated by Al Gore in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Forget he ever ran for office. Consider him a concerned man speaking out on the approaching crisis. "There is no controversy about these facts," he says in the film. "Out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero."

He stands on a stage before a vast screen, in front of an audience. The documentary is based on a speech he has been developing for six years, and is supported by dramatic visuals. He shows the famous photograph "Earthrise," taken from space by the first American astronauts. Then he shows a series of later space photographs, clearly indicating that glaciers and lakes are shrinking, snows are melting, shorelines are retreating.

He provides statistics: The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14 years. Last year South America experienced its first hurricane. Japan and the Pacific are setting records for typhoons. Hurricane Katrina passed over Florida, doubled back over the Gulf, picked up strength from unusually warm Gulf waters, and went from Category 3 to Category 5. There are changes in the Gulf Stream and the jet stream. Cores of polar ice show that carbon dioxide is much, much higher than ever before in a quarter of a million years. It was once thought that such things went in cycles. Gore stands in front of a graph showing the ups and downs of carbon dioxide over the centuries. Yes, there is a cyclical pattern. Then, in recent years, the graph turns up and keeps going up, higher and higher, off the chart.

The primary man-made cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. We are taking energy stored over hundreds of millions of years in the form of coal, gas and oil, and releasing it suddenly. This causes global warming, and there is a pass-along effect. Since glaciers and snow reflect sunlight but sea water absorbs it, the more the ice melts, the more of the sun's energy is retained by the sea.

Gore says that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of tobacco. My father was a Luckys smoker who died of lung cancer in 1960, and 20 years later it was still "debatable" that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. Now we are talking about the death of the future, starting in the lives of those now living.

"The world won't 'end' overnight in 10 years," Gore says. "But a point will have been passed, and there will be an irreversible slide into destruction."

In England, Sir James Lovelock, the scientist who proposed the Gaia hypothesis (that the planet functions like a living organism), has published a new book saying that in 100 years mankind will be reduced to "a few breeding couples at the Poles." Gore thinks "that's too pessimistic. We can turn this around just as we reversed the hole in the ozone layer. But it takes action right now, and politicians in every nation must have the courage to do what is necessary. It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue."

When I said I was going to a press screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," a friend said, "Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor...ing!" This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore's concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a responsibility to do that.

What can we do? Switch to and encourage the development of alternative energy sources: Solar, wind, tidal, and, yes, nuclear. Move quickly toward hybrid and electric cars. Pour money into public transit, and subsidize the fares. Save energy in our houses. I did a funny thing when I came home after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth." I went around the house turning off the lights.

[NoMyths]

dola...

I also think this quote sums up why we're seeing a Senate Committee report attacking the film: "Gore says that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of tobacco. My father was a Luckys smoker who died of lung cancer in 1960, and 20 years later it was still "debatable" that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. Now we are talking about the death of the future, starting in the lives of those now living."

[Swaggs]

I saw this movie over the weekend. It painted a pretty dreary picture.

After the movie, my biggest thoughts were that it was scary and motivational, but its audience will probably only be comprised of folks that are already concerned about global warming and its effects AND that, no matter the content of the film, I'm sure I could quickly name 15+ of my friends/family/associates that would not believe the content of the movie, regardless of the evidence.

[sabotai]

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's.

Hmmm. Seems like Ebert is using the same dictionary that FoxNews uses...

[clintl]

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )



As far as I can tell from actually looking at the Reconstructed Temperature graph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Mann's graph is pretty close to the midpoint of the findings of other researchers, and it clearly shows the Medieval Warming Period as well as the Little Ice Age. So I don't see what's discredited about it. Certainly, this article misrepresents what the National Academy of Sciences said, which affirms Mann's conclusions about the last 400 years, but says there is less confidence about the period from 900-1500 A.D. because there is less data. It certainly didn't say Mann was wrong, and the fact is that ALL of the graphs by ALL of the researchers converge on the hockey stick shape.

Here's the NAS press release:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

Here's a rebuttal to the attack on the Hockey Stick Graph:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

[kcchief19]

Here's the NAS press release:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.
The press release denouncing the AP for misrepresenting information mispresents information itself ... that's rich.

I also like that the "hockey stick" was not discredited in the release or sited materials by anyone other than Sen. James Inhofe, who cited the NAS report claiming it discredited the "hockey stick" when in fact it did not.

Any wonder some people hate politics?

[panerd]

I like Dennis Miller's take on global warming. (And while it is probably easy to disprove it is still damn funny and how I feel)

"You know what I've learned about Global Warming? Over the last 100 years, the temperature of the Earth has raised 1.8 degrees. Now doesn't this strike anyone other than me as surprisingly stable? I could go to my hotel and futz with the thermostat for a few hours - I would not detect that difference. Then environmentalists start to say, 'Well, what about your kids?' Hey, I love my kids, I hope that they live to be 100 years old - another 1.8! 'Well, what about your kids' kids?!' 3.6! I'll tell them that we moved to Arizona. 'Well, what about your kids' kids' kids' kids?!' I'm never gonna meet them. I'm sure that they'll be great people, but get about 2 or 3 generations out there, I just stop caring."

Then he goes on to say (couldn't find this quote so I am paraphrasing) And how are we sure the temperature has been rising like this over the history of the Earth? I am supposed to take a temperature reading from before 1900 as gospel. You think the 1900's farmer said I think I will take this accurate temperature measurement that will be used as fact in all sorts of debates in the future. Then when I am done I will go shit in a hole outside my house.

[NoMyths]

Then he goes on to say (couldn't find this quote so I am paraphrasing) And how are we sure the temperature has been rising like this over the history of the Earth? I am supposed to take a temperature reading from before 1900 as gospel. You think the 1900's farmer said I think I will take this accurate temperature measurement that will be used as fact in all sorts of debates in the future. Then when I am done I will go shit in a hole outside my house.
I'd say something about the seriousness with which early scientists studied weather, but I have to go shit in a porcelain bowl fifteen feet from me.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

My approach is this. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, why not be cautious.

If you believe there is no crisis in global warming (and thus do nothing to reverse it), and you're wrong, well the results (as stated in the movie) are catastrophic.

If you believe there is a crisis in global warming (and thus take steps to reverse it by fastracking developing alternative energy) and you're wrong . . . well, there's no negative really.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we should treat is a crisis. The only one who wouldn't is someone with a stake in the current fossil fuel providers.

So, why are we even having a debate on this?

[panerd]

My approach is this. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, why not be cautious.

If you believe there is no crisis in global warming (and thus do nothing to reverse it), and you're wrong, well the results (as stated in the movie) are catastrophic.

If you believe there is a crisis in global warming (and thus take steps to reverse it by fastracking developing alternative energy) and you're wrong . . . well, there's no negative really.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we should treat is a crisis. The only one who wouldn't is someone with a stake in the current fossil fuel providers.

So, why are we even having a debate on this?

You (to clarify, not you in particular but any of us) could ride a bike to work or take public transportation. We don't. Why not? I don't know, but I think we can agree it's a little more complicated than your black and white post. We love to rail on Chevron or Union Electric for their business practices, but then we continue to use their products excessivly. If you, or anyone who preaches about global warming, really does take a lot of measures to cut down on pollution and resource comsumption then more power to you. Preach on. However, if your solution is to blame it all on big business and say that you aren't 1/250,000,00th of the problem than wake up, you are.

Like I said in my previous post, I admit that I am part of the problem. So I don't try to pin this on Bush or Exxon/Mobil as something they did. I have no love loss for either, but they aren't forcing me or my neighbor to live the way we do. I am making choices that aren't the best for the environment. I am pretty sure some of the 100% of scientests that Gore quoted in the movie are also.

[Dutch]

Oil is a non-replenishable commodity that has been predicted to run out long before the 21st century is over. So with that in mind, maybe the planet heats up another degree in that time. If it's man-made, the problem with solve itself as we are forced to move on to alternative fuels.

But regardless, due to our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, I hope the world switches to alternatives before that point, the sooner the better.

[wade moore]

Given that the majority of posters on this forum appear to be leftwing

I'm REALLY surprised no one challenged this piece of Gabe's original post.

[Desmond]

I know fuck all about weather patterns and jet streams but I do know that for the 2nd time in 3 years the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers are flooding out everything in their path thanks to rains like i've never seen. I also know I could of spent last November in my pool.

Im sure it could all be anecdotal, but damn if it doesn't seem like something screwy is going on.

[Grammaticus]

Desmond, you should have never left the Hatch. It was a safe place.

[Desmond]

Aye brother.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You (to clarify, not you in particular but any of us) could ride a bike to work or take public transportation. We don't. Why not? I don't know, but I think we can agree it's a little more complicated than your black and white post. We love to rail on Chevron or Union Electric for their business practices, but then we continue to use their products excessivly. If you, or anyone who preaches about global warming, really does take a lot of measures to cut down on pollution and resource comsumption then more power to you. Preach on. However, if your solution is to blame it all on big business and say that you aren't 1/250,000,00th of the problem than wake up, you are.

Like I said in my previous post, I admit that I am part of the problem. So I don't try to pin this on Bush or Exxon/Mobil as something they did. I have no love loss for either, but they aren't forcing me or my neighbor to live the way we do. I am making choices that aren't the best for the environment. I am pretty sure some of the 100% of scientests that Gore quoted in the movie are also.

I have rephrased the last part of my post, as I agree my targeted criticism was too narrow:

"It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we should treat is a crisis. The only one who wouldn't is someone with a stake in the current fossil fuel providers, and lazy and shortsighted consumers that continue to allow them to pollute the world."

[panerd]

I have rephrased the last part of my post, as I agree my targeted criticism was too narrow:

"It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we should treat is a crisis. The only one who wouldn't is someone with a stake in the current fossil fuel providers, and lazy and shortsighted consumers that continue to allow them to pollute the world."

Well I may catch some shit for this answer, but here goes. So Al Gore tells me that I need to really change my lifestyle, because if not I will be responsible for what happens. But he is probably flying all over the place, living in a non-mud house, etc. I am sure he will say "What am I supposed to do? I was the vice president and a senator, I have to take some security precautions, I can't just walk down the street." i.e. I am more important than you panerd, you need to cut down on your comsuption not me. He probably drives the more expensive hybrid car or maybe even one of those enthenyol cars. Well I don't make the kind of money he does.

It's sort of like John Lennon and "Imagine no country, imagine no possessions." A great song, with some powerful lyrics, and a small little place in New York City. Underscored a little by his castle across the pond. I really have a problem with people telling me to live differently, when they live the celebrity life their message becomes a bit much.

(If you don't like the Al Gore analogy, fill in Bill Mahar or Susan Sarandan or Barbara Streisand, etc.)

[st.cronin]

My approach is this. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, why not be cautious.

If you believe there is no crisis in global warming (and thus do nothing to reverse it), and you're wrong, well the results (as stated in the movie) are catastrophic.

If you believe there is a crisis in global warming (and thus take steps to reverse it by fastracking developing alternative energy) and you're wrong . . . well, there's no negative really.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we should treat is a crisis. The only one who wouldn't is someone with a stake in the current fossil fuel providers.

So, why are we even having a debate on this?

I disagree with that premise, because it assumes that there is a correct approach to dealing with global warming.

[flere-imsaho]

Then he goes on to say (couldn't find this quote so I am paraphrasing) And how are we sure the temperature has been rising like this over the history of the Earth? I am supposed to take a temperature reading from before 1900 as gospel. You think the 1900's farmer said I think I will take this accurate temperature measurement that will be used as fact in all sorts of debates in the future. Then when I am done I will go shit in a hole outside my house.

I'm pretty sure that scientists have ways of measuring the earth's temperature in the past (i.e. core samples and other stuff), so it's not just a case of relying on archives.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm REALLY surprised no one challenged this piece of Gabe's original post.

I considered it, but I'm tired of that particular debate, to be honest.

[clintl]

If humans are responsible, and the National Academy of Sciences has reaffirmed that the vast majority of climatologists believe humans are, there is a correct approach. Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

We can easily do the first with technology available now. Mandate better fuel efficiency for new vehicles. Mandate the installation solar electric panels on the roofs of all new residential and commercial construction as part of the building code.

The second may be more difficult, but there are feasible ideas out there, such as reforestation projects.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I considered it, but I'm tired of that particular debate, to be honest.

Ditto.

[st.cronin]

If humans are responsible, and the National Academy of Sciences has reaffirmed that the vast majority of climatologists believe humans are, there is a correct approach. Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

We can easily do the first with technology available now. Mandate better fuel efficiency for new vehicles. Mandate the installation solar electric panels on the roofs of all new residential and commercial construction as part of the building code.

The second may be more difficult, but there are feasible ideas out there, such as reforestation projects.

As I've said before, better fuel efficiency for new vehicles is a silly idea, symptomatic of hatred of the auto industry, when there is practically NO ENFORCEMENT for vehicles already on the road that don't meet standards. MOST auto pollution comes from older cars, or souped up cars, which don't meet standards.

Anyway, the larger point is that even if we could reduce emissions to what global warming scientists consider "safe levels" (which I don't believe we can without devastating economic repercussions), nobody is willing to say for sure what effect that would have. The fact is, the global climate changes, with or without human input.

[Riggins44]

We had an ice age... then it got warm enough to melt the ice. Must have been caused by penguin activity.

[Dutch]

Oil will run out in 50 years anyway.

[clintl]

As I've said before, better fuel efficiency for new vehicles is a silly idea, symptomatic of hatred of the auto industry, when there is practically NO ENFORCEMENT for vehicles already on the road that don't meet standards. MOST auto pollution comes from older cars, or souped up cars, which don't meet standards.

Anyway, the larger point is that even if we could reduce emissions to what global warming scientists consider "safe levels" (which I don't believe we can without devastating economic repercussions), nobody is willing to say for sure what effect that would have. The fact is, the global climate changes, with or without human input.

There's nothing silly at all about about better fuel efficiency. In fact, no single action is easier or more sensible to take. It can be done, and done now, with virtually no impact on anyone's life. Old cars eventually end up in the junk yard. Sure, it's a gradual transition, but within a decade, most of the cars on the road would be the more fuel efficient models. As for enforcement, maybe that's the case in New Mexico, but it's certainly not the case in California.

I'm a lot more skeptical about the "devastating economic repercussions" than I am about the science that says that the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of industrialization is the primary cause of global warming.

[st.cronin]

There's nothing silly at all about about better fuel efficiency. In fact, no single action is easier or more sensible to take. It can be done, and done now, with virtually no impact on anyone's life. Old cars eventually end up in the junk yard. Sure, it's a gradual transition, but within a decade, most of the cars on the road would be the more fuel efficient models. As for enforcement, maybe that's the case in New Mexico, but it's certainly not the case in California.

I'm a lot more skeptical about the "devastating economic repercussions" than I am about the science that says that the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of industrialization is the primary cause of global warming.

When I talk about enforcement, I'm not talking about the annual emissions check, which misses about 75% of the dirty vehicles. I'm talking about doing spot checks on vehicles which get pulled over for other reasons, or which are obviously polluting (belching black smoke, for example). The technology to do that is very cheap and available, but for some reason there's no political will to do it, whereas everybody thinks it's ok to throw this enormous economic burden on the auto industry.

[clintl]

whereas everybody thinks it's ok to throw this enormous economic burden on the auto industry.

The economic impact on the auto industry would be pretty minor if they managed it properly.

[ThunderingHERD]

Back to the point--I read this article when it came out and, as a liberal who believes in global warming, can vouch for it being a huge pile of shit.

I saw the headline on CNN.com a few days ago, something like "Scientists say Gore got science right." "Well, that's cool," I thought, and popped it open.

It says they polled 100 scientists. And that's all we learn about the methodology. No data is given on how many responded. Not a single dissenting voice is heard in the article. It is noted that "among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory" but it is unclear whether any of those skeptics actually participated. Indeed, since having seen the film (or read the book) was a requirement for being quoted, it would seem to be common sense that the sampling was skewed towards Gores position. "Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book," the article states.

Oh, and then there's this line: "the tiny errors scientists found weren‘t a big deal." Huh? How is that an appopriate characterization for a jounalist to make?

[flere-imsaho]

Oil will run out in 50 years anyway.

That's odd, I never picked you to be a Peak Oil person.

[Swaggs]

The economic impact on the auto industry would be pretty minor if they managed it properly.

One of the more impressive (to me) points in the film is when Gore shows the gas mileage standards for other nations, which are routinely much higher than those in the United States.

So, for example (and I'm using memory here, so the numbers are not exact), in the U.S. the average may be 15 MPG, while in China (who had pretty low standards themselves) the average may be 25. The point being that, with the US's standards so low, American auto manufacturers cannot even enter their products into any other markets, because they would not meet standards.

So, the conclusion was that, if the US increased its MPG standards, its vehicles could be sold/used in many more industrial nations than they are now.

[clintl]

One of the more impressive (to me) points in the film is when Gore shows the gas mileage standards for other nations, which are routinely much higher than those in the United States.

So, for example (and I'm using memory here, so the numbers are not exact), in the U.S. the average may be 15 MPG, while in China (who had pretty low standards themselves) the average may be 25. The point being that, with the US's standards so low, American auto manufacturers cannot even enter their products into any other markets, because they would not meet standards.

So, the conclusion was that, if the US increased its MPG standards, its vehicles could be sold/used in many more industrial nations than they are now.

The same companies that make our cars are making many of those cars sold in foreign markets. American automakers are big players in Europe, for example. They just manufacture and sell different models there. There's no reason they can't build the same models in Detroit. It's not like there's a big design effort required - they already have the designs.

[Grammaticus]

One of the more impressive (to me) points in the film is when Gore shows the gas mileage standards for other nations, which are routinely much higher than those in the United States.

So, for example (and I'm using memory here, so the numbers are not exact), in the U.S. the average may be 15 MPG, while in China (who had pretty low standards themselves) the average may be 25. The point being that, with the US's standards so low, American auto manufacturers cannot even enter their products into any other markets, because they would not meet standards.

So, the conclusion was that, if the US increased its MPG standards, its vehicles could be sold/used in many more industrial nations than they are now.
I don't believe it works that way. For example, you don't see any Suburbans in Ireland, but you see a ton of Ford Focuses. The US manufactureres just market models that meet the specs and often have separate platform models that are offerred in different markets. Same with Japan. If you go to Japan, you will not see a Honda civic that looks or performs anything like the one sold in America. Basically, I don't believe gas milage standards in any way hinder US auto makers in foriegn markets.

One thing is certain, if there is a financial incentive, people will tend to do what needs to be done in order to profit from their efforts or profit for lack there of effort if that is the incentive. This is a basic model that tends to be applied to people in general, not just corporations.

[Abe Sargent]

My approach is this. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, why not be cautious.


So, why are we even having a debate on this?


I agree. No one knows the answer, so let's be cautious when we are talking about the whole planet. BTW, that's teh same reason I beleive we should ban most abortions. No one really knows if they are really humans with real rights or not, so let's err on the side of not committing infanticide.

-Anxiety

[Dutch]

That's odd, I never picked you to be a Peak Oil person.

I'm not, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Seriously, if it's 500 years of oil left, I would start to be alarmed. But 50...meh. Not sure what the estimates are of how much oil is left, but I'm sure the same scientists than can predict it was 87.2217 degrees in the middle of Lake Superior on the 21st of June, 1443 BC can make a guess at how much oil we have left on the planet.

[sabotai]

Oil will run out in 50 years anyway.

I give that about a 0.0001% chance of actually happening, +/- 0.0001%.

As for reducing CO2 emissions, just kill off all the whiney enviromentalists. That would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. :D

[Swaggs]

I give that about a 0.0001% chance of actually happening, +/- 0.0001%.

As for reducing CO2 emissions, just kill off all the whiney enviromentalists. That would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. :D

Smug reduction? :)

[cthomer5000]

I just got back from seeing the film and found it a pretty impressive piece of work. At the very least I think it's a serious starting point for revisiting discussion on the topic.

Also, Al Gore was there, in person, to speak to us after the movie (and this is in a standard, medium sized movie theatre) and take questions. I find him eminently likeable, honest, and genuinely passionate about the environmental cause. The fact that he would make an appearance after a screening of the film to speak to a entirely non-media crowd shows me the guy truly cares.

I didn't feel the movie was depressing, but actually found his wrap-up in the film incredibly motivational on a national level.

[Glengoyne]

My approach is this. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, why not be cautious.

If you believe there is no crisis in global warming (and thus do nothing to reverse it), and you're wrong, well the results (as stated in the movie) are catastrophic.

If you believe there is a crisis in global warming (and thus take steps to reverse it by fastracking developing alternative energy) and you're wrong . . . well, there's no negative really.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we should treat is a crisis. The only one who wouldn't is someone with a stake in the current fossil fuel providers.

So, why are we even having a debate on this?

My take on this is if you don't believe there is a crisis in Global warming, and you're right nothing happens.

If you do believe there is a crisis in Global Warming, and you expend billions/trillions of dollars vainly trying to change a naturally cyclical process. Then you have damaged your economy for essentially no reason.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we shouldn't treat it as a crisis unless the science if definitive that the warming is anthropogenic.

So why are we even having a debate on this?

As a further note. I'm all for fast tracking the development of alternative energy sources. My list would include nuclear. That we burn coal, and thereby dump pollution into the atmosphere to generate electrical power is stunning to me. This isn't 1806 or even 1906, this is 2006, and we don't have to shit in holes.

[sabotai]

This isn't 1806 or even 1906, this is 2006

And where the hell are our flying cars!?!?

[cthomer5000]

One thing is certain, if there is a financial incentive, people will tend to do what needs to be done in order to profit from their efforts or profit for lack there of effort if that is the incentive. This is a basic model that tends to be applied to people in general, not just corporations.

Then I guess the U.S. Auto companies are really poorly managed.

[cartman]

My take on this is if you don't believe there is a crisis in Global warming, and you're right nothing happens.

If you do believe there is a crisis in Global Warming, and you expend billions/trillions of dollars vainly trying to change a naturally cyclical process. Then you have damaged your economy for essentially no reason.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we shouldn't treat it as a crisis unless the science if definitive that the warming is anthropogenic.

So why are we even having a debate on this?


I completely agree that weather pattern are cyclical, and we are in a period of uptics in temperatures. I also think that the scientists are finding that the large amounts of greenhouse gases are accelerating the upswing. There is still debate in scientific circles on this, but the momentum does seem to be swinging toward mainly mankind-based behaviors causing the increase. In the past, it appears it has taken several hundred to several thousand years for the peaks and valleys to form on the range of recorded temperatures. What large amounts of evidence seems to be pointing to now is that the time frame is being compressed into dozens of years. That is how I see the debate currently shaking out.

[Buccaneer]

Let's take this to an extreme and make it a quiz. If we banned all combustion engines that run on any forms of fossil fuels and eliminated all air pollution-generating factories and plants in this country, how much do you think the earth's average annual temperature will go down? Ok, that was stupid because it really will have a negative effect (think of why).

You want an alternative biofuel like ethanol? It takes 1.28 gallons of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of biofuel.

Here's the answer: Don't do anything that will effect the prosperity of developed countries - it is only such countries that can afford to spend the r&d and product development on cool alternative technologies. Poorer countries are too busy cutting down rainforests in order to survive and driving badly pollution-generating vehicles to give a shit that they should be driving a $18,000 Prius insead.

Believe in technology (not in the anti-capitalistic/technology messages). We are 100x cleaner than we were in the late 1800s when many places in the country (and Western Europe) were burning coal for the Industrial Revolution. Anyone been along the Monogahela Valley lately and able to breath? Couldn't have done that for 100 years. In 50 more years, it'll be even better.

Yet the earth's temperature will still rise. Odd that.

[sabotai]

Believe in technology (not in the anti-capitalistic/technology messages). We are 100x cleaner than we were in the late 1800s when many places in the country (and Western Europe) were burning coal for the Industrial Revolution. Anyone been along the Monogahela Valley lately and able to breath? Couldn't have done that for 100 years.

Believe him, people. Bucc speaks from experience.

:D

[Buccaneer]

Believe him, people. Bucc speaks from experience.

:D

Nah, only from second-hand sources. I was too busy out West chopping down the trees to keep warm and to eat.

[AENeuman]

Let's take this to an extreme and make it a quiz. If we banned all combustion engines that run on any forms of fossil fuels and eliminated all air pollution-generating factories and plants in this country, how much do you think the earth's average annual temperature will go down? Ok, that was stupid because it really will have a negative effect (think of why).

You want an alternative biofuel like ethanol? It takes 1.28 gallons of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of biofuel.

Here's the answer: Don't do anything that will effect the prosperity of developed countries - it is only such countries that can afford to spend the r&d and product development on cool alternative technologies. Poorer countries are too busy cutting down rainforests in order to survive and driving badly pollution-generating vehicles to give a shit that they should be driving a $18,000 Prius insead.

Believe in technology (not in the anti-capitalistic/technology messages). We are 100x cleaner than we were in the late 1800s when many places in the country (and Western Europe) were burning coal for the Industrial Revolution. Anyone been along the Monogahela Valley lately and able to breath? Couldn't have done that for 100 years. In 50 more years, it'll be even better.

Yet the earth's temperature will still rise. Odd that.


not sure i follow your thinking bro.
are you saying we should not try and eliminate air pollution-generating factories and plants? or that the alternatives thus far are horrible but eventually they will find something good (and money making)?
i'm not sure how "cool alternative" fits in with "let those making money keep making money"
also, and i know your libertarian mind won't allow this, but can you say the air being 100 times cleaner now is at all because of responsible government intervention? it seems the environmental movement of the 70's (for example) did influence congress, instead of the usually big company lobbies.
therefore, if the air was cleaned up and economies did not fail, due at least in part by the gov't, why can't we lobby them to make it 200 times cleaner by the next century?
where you and i differ is that without gov't intervention i do not think companies would be good for the environment.

[Buccaneer]

not sure i follow your thinking bro.
are you saying we should not try and eliminate air pollution-generating factories and plants? or that the alternatives thus far are horrible but eventually they will find something good (and money making)?
i'm not sure how "cool alternative" fits in with "let those making money keep making money"
also, and i know your libertarian mind won't allow this, but can you say the air being 100 times cleaner now is at all because of responsible government intervention? it seems the environmental movement of the 70's (for example) did influence congress, instead of the usually big company lobbies.
therefore, if the air was cleaned up and economies did not fail, due at least in part by the gov't, why can't we lobby them to make it 200 times cleaner by the next century?
where you and i differ is that without gov't intervention i do not think companies would be good for the environment.

I don't take a solid stance one way or the other but look at history a little differently. I do, however, react against the motivations of anti-capitalism. Many who are screaming about "global warming" (or in the 80s, "ozone hole") are doing more out spite and envy instead of any pure motives (which makes them no different than their opposites). They do not know or appreciate the effect of human behaviors due to noticeable changes in regulations and lifestyles (which was the point in my silly post).

While I know (probably more than most since I work in utilities) the regulatory environment, I do fully believe that a lot of it would have happened on its own simply because of technological changes. And also because of education (in living healthier lives), our and your local population would have wanted it, regardless of what the state or federal laws say (in many, many places like Colo Spgs - we exceed the clean air standards).

So in the end, people will decide what they want and it's up to them to whether or not to accept certain kinds of industries in their areas. And more importantly, it will be up to entrepenuers to come up with even better technologies - not because the govts will force them to - but because it makes sense and can become very, very profitable to do so.

[Buccaneer]

By the way, bro, your comments are needed in the "Buffett's Fortune to Charity" thread.

edit: Wrong thread title.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

My take on this is if you don't believe there is a crisis in Global warming, and you're right nothing happens.

If you do believe there is a crisis in Global Warming, and you expend billions/trillions of dollars vainly trying to change a naturally cyclical process. Then you have damaged your economy for essentially no reason.

It seems to be that based on that simple logic, we shouldn't treat it as a crisis unless the science if definitive that the warming is anthropogenic.

So why are we even having a debate on this?

As a further note. I'm all for fast tracking the development of alternative energy sources. My list would include nuclear. That we burn coal, and thereby dump pollution into the atmosphere to generate electrical power is stunning to me. This isn't 1806 or even 1906, this is 2006, and we don't have to shit in holes.

This negative economic impact associated with exploring alternative energy is a well used canard. Why would that expenditure be in vain? C'mon, you can't tell me you actually think gas is cleaner than solar power. Seriously?

There would be no general negative economic impact to society for changing energy use -- only a shifting of the wealth to those who develop the alternative energies (which by the way could easily include current fossil fuel providers).

[Buccaneer]

This negative economic impact associated with exploring alternative energy is a well used canard. Why would that expenditure be in vain? C'mon, you can't tell me you actually think gas is cleaner than solar power. Seriously?

There would be no general negative economic impact to society for changing energy use -- only a shifting of the wealth to those who develop the alternative energies (which by the way could easily include current fossil fuel providers).

Consider this. Nuclear power is much cleaner than burning fossil fuels but you have the wastes consideration so instead of cleaner nuclear power, we had to build more coal/natural gas plants. Wind power is much cleaner than burning fossil fuels but to achieve a critical mass, you have to have industrial-size turbines covering thousands of square miles - and what will the ecological consequences be as they kill off migratory birds (as they are already doing and being complained about) not to mention landscape and habitat damages? Ethanol (and other biofuels) are cleaner but how much energy does it take to make it? Electric cars are cleaner than gasoline powered cars but where does the electricity come from to generate enough to make a difference? Hydro power is very clean "cool alternative" but what about the consequences of the dams (as much as they tout clean hydro power, there is a moratorium on news dams in several Western states)?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree with some of that. But why don't we research ways to see if those problems could be remedied.

However, you left out a couple that don't immediately pop up any negatives. (1) Solar power, (2) Geothermal.

I don't have all the answers, I'm just lobbying that we work harder (and I mean a lot harder) at finding the answers.

[Dutch]

I'm pretty sure that scientists have ways of measuring the earth's temperature in the past (i.e. core samples and other stuff), so it's not just a case of relying on archives.

Here's how it was explained to me by the AP.

Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years
Panel: 'Warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years'
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/
The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

[Dutch]

I agree with some of that. But why don't we research ways to see if those problems could be remedied.

However, you left out a couple that don't immediately pop up any negatives. (1) Solar power, (2) Geothermal.

I don't have all the answers, I'm just lobbying that we work harder (and I mean a lot harder) at finding the answers.

Sounds like something we should just outsource to the 100 million PHD's in India that are sitting around handling tech support calls.

[Glengoyne]

This negative economic impact associated with exploring alternative energy is a well used canard. Why would that expenditure be in vain? C'mon, you can't tell me you actually think gas is cleaner than solar power. Seriously?

There would be no general negative economic impact to society for changing energy use -- only a shifting of the wealth to those who develop the alternative energies (which by the way could easily include current fossil fuel providers).

Actually I wasn't arguing with your bit about pursuing alternative and or renewable energy. I was mentioning that we shouldn't force companies today to retool to cut another .0025% pollution, and end up costing them millions.

In other words I think Kyoto is pretty silly, while pursuing or accellerating the pursuit of alternative engery sources is a good and prudent idea.

[cthomer5000]

Here's how it was explained to me by the AP.

Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years
Panel: 'Warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years'
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/

But to me it seems fairly resonable that they are right. They can verify the temperature they're getting from recent glacier data (last 30-40 years) against actual temperature readings. If the numbers are lining up for the modern era (and i assume we would have never heard of this type of measure if they didn't), it seems pretty likely that this is a valid way to determine the temperature in past years.

[JW]

My concern about global warming theory is that we have a conjunction of scientific, political, and pseudo-religious belief that fits one particular theory. The scientists are the global warming catastrophe proponents. The politicians are generally leftwing 'green' politicians. And the pseudo-religious folks are the ultra-greens who see environmentalism as a philosophical belief system that borders on religion. So you get a zealous push for the worst case global warming scenarios, and you get lots of media attention. After all, yelling, "The sky is falling!" is a lot more newsworthy than saying, "It seems to be a little cloudier than yesterday."

So we end up not just with global warming theory, but with catastrophic global warming theory. And the zealots attack anyone who disagrees with that version of global warming, even if the disagreement is only one of degree.

There are reasonable alternative views, however. Michael Crichton filled a novel with challenges to catastrophic global warming theory and became an enemy of the global warming zealots. There are other sources where you can read challenges to global warming theory.

Junkscience is one such place. Here are a couple of links and excerpts:

On the matter of Earth's recent climate history, it is implausible that despite variance in solar irradiance Earth has had a stable temperature for the last 1,000-2,000 years. History instructs us this is not so, literature tells us this is not so, and a large spectrum of paleotemperature reconstructions tell us this is not so. USA Today and the hokey "Hockey Stick" representations are obviously wrong, regardless of how politically correct their concept of human culpability might be.

Regarding whether Earth has really warmed to some extent, regardless of our ability to accurately determine it? Yep, we have no problem with that. We have seen nothing compelling regarding Earth's current suspected temperature trend being anything extraordinary nor alarming but we have no reason to believe Earth's mean temperature is not changing, or that it does not do so continuously -- frankly, temperature stasis is a myth.

Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes, although probably only trivially and to a declining extent. Note that Professor Pielke, Sr., is firmly in the camp of believers in anthropogenic global warming but freely admits carbon dioxide to be a less-than-critical factor necessitating obsession and, despite somewhat bizarre claims of Professor Lindzen being a "hired gun" and paid-for shill of an alleged "Big Oil" conspiracy, he is a senior and well-respected pure scientist who gleefully admits carbon dioxide's role in enhanced greenhouse, although he does point this out to be trivial and does not subscribe to the planetary emergency scenario. Pielke and Lindzen are no orphans since most so-called "skeptics" similarly point to anthropogenic climate influence as interesting effects to be understood without necessitating hand-wringing and hair shirts.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm

What are the take-home messages:
The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Now I am not a scientist, and I am not going to defend the Junkscience pronouncements or Michael Crichton. I put myself firmly in the "I don't know" category. I am concerned by the catastrophic global warming theorists. I think we should listen to them. I do think we should do things to improve the environment.

But I am also skeptical of the zealots. And I am skeptical of those who rush to embrace them, as I think we all should be. After all, the popular scientific orthodoxy of the moment often turns out to be just wrong. What did happen to that little ice age?

[clintl]

Crichton apparently pretty blatently misrepresented the findings and statements of a number of scientists in the appendix to his novel, so I would not trust much of what he says.

For a different fictional perspective on global warming, I'd recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's new series (Forty Signs of Rain and Fifty Degrees Below, third novel in the series still to be published). Stan definitely has a strong political viewpoint, but I've known him personally for over twenty years, and I know he is an ethical person and extensive researcher who sincerely believes in what he writes.

[GabeRivers]

Crichton apparently pretty blatently misrepresented the findings and statements of a number of scientists in the appendix to his novel, so I would not trust much of what he says.

I'd appreciate it if you would support your assertion with some evidence.

[clintl]

I'll see if I can find the article, because it was published at least several months ago. No promises that I can, though. But it had unequivocal quotes from a number of the scientists whose work Crichton had misrepresented, stating that what he said about their conclusions was incorrect.

[clintl]

I haven't been able to find the article I read. However, I have found a number of site that describe in detail Crichton's misreprentation of James Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress.

Here are a couple:

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/01/schmidt-fear/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

But Hansen's work was far from being the only one misrepresented. Several other scientists were quoted in the article saying their conclusions from their research were not what Crichton said they were.