Comments on: DVD Review: Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

By: The Moderate Voice » Blog Archive » Al Gore Takes A Page From George Bush’s Book

Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:22:48 +0000

[...] What’s so vital that Gore can’t allow the press to cover a talk that has been seen in movie theaters and see on DVD? FYI, this site reviewed his movie and gave it a highly positive review. SEE OUR REVIEW HERE. MORE: Kalee Kreider, a Gore staffer in Nashville, confirmed by e-mail that news media will be asked to leave his talk after the introduction and that Gore will not hold a press conference. [...]

By: The Moderate Voice » Blog Archive » Al Gore Takes A Page From George Bush’s Book

Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:13:02 +0000

[...] What’s so vital that Gore can’t allow the press to cover a talk that has been seen in movie theaters and see on DVD? FYI, this site reviewed his movie An Inconvenient Truth and gave it a highly positive review. SEE OUR REVIEW HERE. MORE: Kalee Kreider, a Gore staffer in Nashville, confirmed by e-mail that news media will be asked to leave his talk after the introduction and that Gore will not hold a press conference. [...]

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:25:55 +0000

I understand, Jim, but what some scientists are saying is that the bias in the scientific community is to fund and publish the studies that lend evidence toward the warming models, while the scientists who want to perform research that questions the theory are being blackballed. Personally I believe that global warming is occurring and that we’re probably contributing to it (and more to the point, I think there are other reasons to deal with the pollutant issues anyway). But I think that you guys are blind to the possibility that the scientists themselves have some bias that is interfering with their own integrity because theories SHOULD be questioned vigourously. There should not be such a rush to consensus and a feeling that the scientists who dissent are practicing junk science. Yes, they may not have much evidence to support their dissent but then again, if no one will fund them, how can they produce evidence?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:51:22 +0000

No, not really, CS. I haven't seen the opposite apply. If you think there is then please show me but when you look at the background of the pretend skeptics they overwhelmingly break down into people who either are conservative Republicans or receive their funding from ExxonMobil, other companies or groups like AEI or CEI. There are people who legitimately disagree with the details of what the models predict. But the ones who say that it's just part of the natural cycle without trying to explain which of the known contributors to the natural cycle are showing a sign of contributing now are contributing nothing legitimate to the debate.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:16:44 +0000

Jim S,
What about the party affiliation of those who believe in the dire global warming predictions? Could there not be bias on that side of the issue as well?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:07:08 +0000

In an amazing coincidence I have been completely unable to find a single scientist who disagrees completely with the existence of AGW who isn’t also a conservative Republican, much like the one in the article Joe linked to. Not one.

Mauro, there is a difference between the fact of AGW being in dispute and the details of the models and the degree to which it is occurring or will occur.

gattsuru, that article was incompetent and virtually nothing but pure BS. Every argument he presented has been gone over in other places.

By: Mikkel

Mikkel — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:25:49 +0000

Yeah about that article. Actually the post is only the beginning...in the comments it alters between argument and lots of scientific facts that make the article look silly.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:25:10 +0000

Mikkel,
I agree completely- though I also have to add that at lower grade levels, the ability to think critically may not be sufficiently developed so that even with better education toward that goal, we should be extra cautious about what is spoon fed to kids in the lower grades.

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:21:03 +0000

For those who think there's absolutely no controversy even among those who like global warming, please do us all a favor and read this. "Using poor Ludwig Boltzmannâ€™s law, lambdaâ€™s true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UNâ€™s scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: thatâ€™s 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UNâ€™s computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C." I'm not a climatologist. Hell, I don't even play one on TV. Maybe a constant magically changed, or was recorded improperly, or whatever. That's still a hell of a lot of controversy for a mathematical equation roughly equivilant to E=MC^2.

By: Mikkel

Mikkel — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:20:00 +0000

C Stanley I think the biggest issue is that schools do a terrible job of teaching kids how to evaluate information and critique it. Science classes consist merely of learning knoweldge, while in reality most of science is about evaulating information and creating hypotheses. I don’t think that videos should be given out like this for the simple reason that even if all the information is correct, it’ll still be presented dogmatically and hence have political undertones that ultimately hurt scientific understanding.

By: Mikkel

Mikkel — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:15:04 +0000

Mauro here's a thread we had a couple weeks ago addressing some specific critiques (and my critiques of those) and another thread about some of the foundations of modelling in general.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:41:18 +0000

I don’t want to take a chance either and I think there are multiple benefits to reducing emissions even if the global warming doomsday predictions are not accurate. However, I’m not unhappy that the Gore film isn’t going to be distributed to schools because it may be telling the truth but chances are it isn’t the “whole truth” because it gives no credence to those who dissent from it. Giving kids information about current scientific and political debates is fine if the information presents both sides of the issue, but this doesn’t meet that standard IMO.

By: Mauro

Mauro — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:40:45 +0000

I work in climate research at Harvard (admittedly as something less than a grad student), and what I’ve heard from several people in the department is that some of the facts actually are in dispute. I don’t claim to represent anyone; this is just what I’ve heard talked about in various climate seminars. The fact most disputed around here is the extent to which CO2 levels cause global warming. There are many processes dependent on the carbon dioxide, and there are feedbacks in both directions — it can be argued, for example, that global warming CAUSES higher CO2 because carbon is more readily dissolved in the water or something. I’m not sure exactly what the models are. The point is that, while everyone agrees that there is anthropogenic climate change, we don’t know exactly what the climate’s response to increased CO2 will be — some warming is clear, but maybe not to the extent Gore predicts.

There are certainly issues with “the science”, but best-case scenario is still anthropogenic global warming. But don’t take my word for it; I didn’t study this myself and just talked to some people. I may not even be remembering very accurately. Research it yourself.

By: Paul in Austin

Paul in Austin — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:31:05 +0000

It is possible that human’s do not materially effect global warming. But I would prefer to not take a chance. If in the future we discover that we overstated the impact of human emissions on the environment we can adjust our standards then.

But why risk annihilation?

By: Elrod

Elrod — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:48:28 +0000

It seems the only scientiss that are "split" are actively funded by the oil and gas industry. Global warming "skeptics" sound an awful lot like asbestos cancer skeptics or cigarette cancer skeptics in the past. Thankfully, the flat-earthers no longer have an ally as head of the Energy and Environment Committee in the Senate.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:04:43 +0000

To be sure, experts are split on global warming:

This is sort of like the intelligent design debate, where they found many more scientists named “Steve” on the pro-science side than scientists total on the ID side.

Experts are not split in any meaningful sense.

Are football players small because some kickers only weight 170lbs? This is the same sort of completely incorrect generalization.

By: C.Prez

C.Prez — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:11:07 +0000

I’m super, super, super serial. EXCELSIOR!!!

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:45:56 +0000

The facts are in dispute (even by people agreeing that global warming is a problem just not that the “interpitations” of the film are correct) as well as the way in which the facts were displayed. Did they say that global warming caused Katrina? But how else would people percive it?

By: Sylny

Sylny — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:31:52 +0000

Laurie David, producer of the Gore film, offered the National Science Teachers Association 50,000 DVDs of the movie for distribution to science teachers, but she was turned down. NSTA is worried about risking the association’s capital campaign, which includes big bucks from Exxon Mobil.

Does anyone recall the Ibsen play “An Enemy of the People?” in which the protagonist concluded: “The enemy of the people is the people.”