Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

Not all scientists are endorsing his film....


An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda masterpiece. In the documentary about Al Gore's crusade to educate the world on the horrors of man-made climate change, we observe the stolid former veep presenting his paradoxically slick message -- complete with sophisticated visuals, heavily doctored graphics and clever props -- to rapt audiences. The presentation is interwoven with his personal story and shots of his global travels in pursuit of his environmental White Whale. As with Captain Ahab, however, travel seems to narrow Mr. Gore's mind. Whether he is at the North Pole, the South Pole or in the Amazon, Mr. Gore is open to only one conclusion: Apocalypse Soon. Unless, that is, we listen to him. All this, meanwhile, is interspersed with the stock shots of belching smokestacks, extreme weather, collapsing ice shelves and, for some reason, molten lava....

....
In fact, Mr. Gore's film has been greeted with an almost complete lack of skepticism. His citing of a survey of 928 scholarly articles that allegedly found not a single scientific doubter about anthropogenic climate change is regurgitated in many reviews. This "scientific consensus" is contrasted with an alleged 53% of media articles that express unwarranted skepticism. The problem is not merely that this survey of scientific articles has been debunked, but that the most casual knowledge of the actual debate over global warming would establish that it is nonsense. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of skeptical peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic, and while scientific doubters may be in a minority they are certainly not insignificant in number. Meanwhile, anybody who reads press coverage of climate change would know that the media is chock-a-block with True Believers. Just look at the fawning reviews of Mr. Gore's movie in The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and even the National Post. All swallow without question -- or, obviously, checking -- the alleged scientific consensus/media bias line, even as they volunteer to sign up for Mr. Gore's intellectual Pequod.....

.....Unfortunately, the charts to Mr. Gore's better world are vague and pass through dangerous waters. His "solution" -- as skimmed over in the movie -- seems to involve nothing more than a painless global One-Tonne Challenge, which will be facilitated by new technologies promoted by wise governments. Anybody who objects to this approach, suggesting perhaps that we might examine the fruits of government wisdom in the past, is to be dismissed as an "ideologue."....

.....In many ways Mr. Gore's crusade is reminiscent of that launched by Marx and Engels in the middle of the 19th century. As they trekked the grim streets of the cotton towns and pored through statistics in the British Museum, they were looking for proof of what they already knew: that capitalism was an evil system based on exploitation and impoverishment, and that the solution was revolution and collectivization. They died before their revolutions came to pass. Students of history can see the results.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=21361a83-0ea6-42c7-aebc-66f4c1d6f4eb&p=2




....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.....

.....
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.
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. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, 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 KarlÈn 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," KarlÈn concludes.
The 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."
KarlÈn 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 KarlÈn
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.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

==I think you are over stating your case. While I have not followed this issue closely, I know enough about scholarship and scientists to know that (a) there rarely to never is unanimous agreement, and there is no exception here, (b) for every scientist/scholar you find to say one thing, you can ususally find another who disagrees, (c) people can cherry-pick their scholars and scientists, and finally (d) everyone's favorite scholars/scientists are the "leading" scholars/scientists. So don't be too quick to celebrate a victory here.

As for the "earth is flat", I doubt anyone has argued that. There is a fair amount of evidence to show that the earth's climate (etc) is cyclical. Things warm up, things cool down, things don't stay the same. While global warming may affect these cycles it does not cause them. These cycles were in place long before cars and planes.

As for "moral weight", I don't think Gore has any. The man is a politican and, as such, everything he does must be suspect. Also the movie means nothing. If people really believe in global warming (etc) then they need to stop making movies about it and go do something. Does Gore still ride in jet airplanes? SUVs? Does Mr Gore, or you, own a hybride? Talk is cheap, action is what matters. People need to put their beliefs in to action and stop talking about it.


As for the "preserve the beautiful blue marble Jesus created", I would be more concerned about the souls of the people on that planet. It is great to want clean water and air (we all do) but there are other things that are far more important. This is mainly true since the earth is passing away and eternity (heaven and hell) stares everyone in the face.

 

How does one obtain "top scientist" status, A-Pal ?

 

What makes your scientists better than mine ? My article stetes....

"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts...'

How does that make him "bought off" ?

And leave the flat earth stuff out of it, it's hyperbole and has nothing to do with either argument, it is only meant as an insult.

 

"As for Gore doing the right thing he has! if it had been a lesser known person then the weight of the warning may have not gotten out there ..Gore has done good and bless him for it ..sorry you do not see it that way Martin ...Gore is actually trying to unify not divide ...that is moral and has weight."

==I can't speak to Gore's motives, in fact I think he really believes his views as do many who disagree with him. I am not trying to divide Aslanspal, I am just pointing out the problem with saying "the essential debate is over". If you, or Gore, really believe that you will be disappointed. I do wish to come back to the point, does Al Gore practice what he preaches? I don't have an answer to that question. I just know that if he is flying in jets, and riding in SUVs, etc, he is not practicing what he is preaching. Does anyone know if he owns a hybride car?


"Jesus is the creative artist ..he will inspire those of us to take care of his artistic work. Imho it is important to him as with his creation of His Image of himself ..I did not infer one bit one was over the other. Actually they are in harmony."

==I don't think anyone here is for dirty air and water. We all want that. However there is a real danger of becoming extreme and that is something we need to guard against. I live around water, I love to swim (etc), so I want clean water. I have asthma, so I want clean air. I love forests so I don't like clear cutting. I imagine Gore and I have alot in common on those fronts. However that does not mean that I agree with his position on what is the main cause of the warming. Is it cyclical climate patterns that is causing the warming (as it has in the past) or is it human pollution that is causing the warming? That is the main question. I really don't know the answer and I seriously doubt Gore, or his scientists, does either. They have their theories, others have other theories...life goes on.

 

He stated on "The View" that he now uses a hybrid.

 

And now for the rest of the story.:smilewinkgrin:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909​

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE ​

June 27, 2006

EXCERPT

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.

 

Glad to hear that. :applause:

 

From that article:
"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."

"Deforestation" is believed to be one of the causes for global warming. I guess that this reinforces Gore's claim.

Do we really want to go here?
Do we really want to start looking into disclosure of "sponsorship?"

Here's a great idea: go see the movie and decide for yourself.

BiR

 

See, it proves that you can not only buy off "top scientists", but the AP as well.

 

Actually, the debate is not over. There's a related subject, one of multiple aritlces -- http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2006/19/. Note the line: "Researchers suggests that the new spot may be related to a possible major climate change in Jupiter's atmosphere."

I do wish I had retained the URLs that mentioned earth climate changes that amounted to global warming 2,000 and 10,000 years ago. I'm certain a search will display them.

I propose we do the same things that mankind did during those global warming periods.

 

Exactly.

It is unsettled scientific theory with no consensus among scientists qualified in the field.

 

Is your point that other planet's also undergo climate changes even though they don't have people? That's not really disputed by anyone....

Migrate?

 

And Gore is a nutcase.

We are so fortunate he was not elected president.

God provided us with the right man for what He knew was coming.raying:

 

Unsubstantiated manure that you should be ashamed of posting. That's as bad as someone saying that Bush is an antiscience moron who has brought international disgrace to our great nation.

He might have prevented 9-11 and certainly would not have invaded Iraq on a flimsy pretext. With the money not spent on two wars - Haliburton & Blackwater don't come cheap - he might have secured social security and paid down our international debt.

Global war? The apocalypse?

 

The point I wished to make is: the conclusion that mankind is destroying the planet by creating a global warming is hyperbole. That natural occuring climate changes occur without mankind's intervention.

As for your Migrate question -- it is an expected result. It has happened in the past -- most assuredly it will happen again.

 

Oh, Carpo and Daisy. Please raise the bar in this debating arena. Neither of the two previous posts are on subject now, are they? Can we move back to the topic?