An Inconvenient Truth

Non-lacrosse specific topics.

Postby Sonny on Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:09 pm

sohotrightnow wrote:Scientists agree with Gore

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06 ... index.html


And some people play funny with the statistics...

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.
Webmaster
Image
Image
User avatar
Sonny
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA


Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:35 pm

I think it is important that everyone remembers that Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist. "An Inconvenient Truth" is the result of a personal crusade that goes back at least 15 years. As the above article points out, there are some serious flaws in the information that Gore presents as fact. He is trying to paint a worst case scenario to spur action and has hand chosen certain data sets to help him reach that goal. Errors of that nature should be expected when a politician wanders into science. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Humans are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and we know what these gases do. There is no debate that CO2 and CH4 act as a blanket in the atmosphere.

It is my opinion that to do nothing and pray that some yet unknown natural process will counteract this warming is not a prudent course of action. At no point in the earth's history has there been such a rapid release of greenhouse gases so it is at best a little disingenuous to point to past climate change as an indicator that our current warming is a natural process.

Has anyone noticed that GW-deniers trot out the same handful of names when they talk about the contrarian viewpoints? I'm not questioning their motives or reasoning for their beliefs but in my experience they are a fringe group in the scientific community.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:41 pm

A book review of three books about climate change (including An Inconvenient Truth) by Jim Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:49 pm

Just as I contend that there is debate about the link between hurricanes and global warming, the American Geophysical Union (of which I am a member) released the following statement in a report titled "Hurricanes and the U.S. Gulf Coast: Science and Sustainable Rebuilding"

Hurricanes
While all hurricanes are detected before landfall and their trajectories known to some degree, predictions of cyclone intensity and structure still contain great uncertainty. Although there have been substantial increases in the accuracy of hurricane track prediction over the past decade, seasonal predictions have shown little skill, for example, predicting an increasing number of hurricanes when fewer actually occur. European ocean-atmosphere models, however, have demonstrated improved capability and may provide more reasonable approximations in the future. Rising sea surface temperatures, routinely observed through infrared and microwave emission satellite sensors, increase the tropical cyclone heat potential and contribute to tropical cyclone formation and their intensification. The conference participants proposed the use of improved seasonal forecasts such as those being applied in Europe.


You can find the entire report at http://www.agu.org/report/

The lesson here is that I'm an idiot. :oops:
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby Sonny on Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:01 pm

Even if you acknowledge global warming (which many within the scientific community do not), how much of the so-called global warming is caused by man-made activities is very much up for debate. I've read scientific reports that state that ice caps on Mars are melting at record rates. Here is one link from NASA on the topic:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 ... thpole.htm

Last I had heard, there are no man-made greenhouse gases on that planet. Could it be that the sun is just burning hotter?
Webmaster
Image
Image
User avatar
Sonny
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:18 pm

Every planet goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. These cycles are governed by three primary factors, all having to do with variations in the planet's orbit. Variations in a planet's tilt relative to the sun, changes in the nature of its orbit (elliptical vs. circular), and the precession of the ellipse on which the planet is orbiting the sun. On earth, these cycles run on time frames of 23,000; 41,000; and 100,000 years. Taken together, these cycles mirror changes in oxygen isotope ratios that are used as an indicator of changes in the volume of ice on the planet.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby Sonny on Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:25 pm

StrykerFSU wrote:Every planet goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling.


So taking this factoid one step further.... How could anyone logically argue with certainity that so called global warming is due to man made gases? Especially when one notes the fact that we have only been recording temps for ~ 100 years.
Webmaster
Image
Image
User avatar
Sonny
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:41 pm

Because humans are seriously altering the chemical composition of our atmosphere. You can debate if you wish whether or not humans are causing global warming but there is no debate about our contribution of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere and there is no debating the chemical properties of those molecules.

The fear among scientists is that the climate will change before there is enough evidence to put all doubt to rest. Humans are in the process of conducting a great experiment on our planet. What happens when you double or triple the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe no good can come of this, others...well I don't know what they think.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:05 am

Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth

By Robert J. Samuelson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby DanGenck on Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:20 am

StrykerFSU wrote:
Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth

By Robert J. Samuelson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html



New technologies are great but I don't support sitting on our hands until new technologies show up. That's putting a lot of faith in business to do what is best for Americans... I'm not sure I've seen many businesses for profit with that line of thinking. If oil is still profitable, then new technologies will sit on the shelf or in the lab.
User avatar
DanGenck
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby michlaxref on Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:00 am

I think the article has some very good points. There are plenty of profitable businesses that make money by providing pollution control equipment. The cost to build and operate the equipment is borne eventually by the endusers. In the meantime the businesses provide great employment opportunities.

I know a good number of automotive engineers that make a good living writing code so that automotive emissions satisfy government requirements. But there is the catch. The government has to acknowledge that there is a problem before they get around to even thinking about a solution. And right now we are in denial.

I appreciate the sentiment to not wait to do anything until someone figures it out. But individually we have about as much chance of stopping global warming as the elimination of world hunger. Globally, we figured out how to get to a new refrigerant that did not include CFCs. But this is a much tougher nut to crack.
michlaxref
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:06 pm

Postby Adam Gamradt on Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:46 pm

of the 75% of abstracts that in any way considered the question of attribution, all of them either explicitly or implicitly supported the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities

All of them, get it? It's not a matter a reasonable person would debate. Anyone who claims humans are not changing our climate is drinking the Neo-Con Koolaid.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Alternative theories

Various alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain the observed increase in global temperatures, including but not limited to:

* The warming is within the range of natural variation.
* The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age.
* The warming is a result of variances in solar irradiance.

At present, these have little support within the climate science community as primary explanations for the recent warming.

In an essay in the journal Science, researcher N. Oreskes reported a sampling of the abstracts of 928 articles on climate change, selected using the key phrase "global climate change", from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes found that of the 75% of abstracts that in any way considered the question of attribution, all of them either explicitly or implicitly supported the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities.

------------------------------------------------------

We simply need to demand more from our country's leadership.

How about we start with higher fuel effeciency standards that actually get enforced? How about we kill the tax break, intended to help farmers, that now encourages people to drive Humvee's to the mall, at the taxpayers expense?

Just because he is not a scientist, doesn't mean he can't understand the science. Gore was, and continues to be way ahead of the curve on this issue, and it's time we as Americans started acting like science mattered again.

Of course, I've read my Feyenman, so I think everyone is a scientist, or should aspire to be one, with regards to their own search for knowledge.
Adam Gamradt | www.minnesotalacrosse.org | "It's better to have a part interest in the Hope Diamond than to own all of a rhinestone." -Warren Buffet
User avatar
Adam Gamradt
All-Conference
All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 am

Postby Zeuslax on Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:33 pm

Michlaxref wrote:

I know a good number of automotive engineers that make a good living writing code so that automotive emissions satisfy government requirements. But there is the catch. The government has to acknowledge that there is a problem before they get around to even thinking about a solution. And right now we are in denial.


I appreciate the sentiment to not wait to do anything until someone figures it out. But individually we have about as much chance of stopping global warming as the elimination of world hunger. Globally, we figured out how to get to a new refrigerant that did not include CFCs. But this is a much tougher nut to crack.


I think you make some valid points. Your statements are very indicative of the overall thought process. There are thousands of technologies, strategies, plans, and techniques that are being used (not on a large scale), and could be implemented tomorrow to drastically cut our impact on the environment. They wouldn't hurt the economy, they would just replace our current thinking and practices. If I started to list them out it would take me about 30 years. Many are small, but when done on a larger scale they really add up. Many of these changes would save consumers money. I'm not just talking about riding your bike to work or don't let the faucet run.

Stryker wrote:
New technologies are great but I don't support sitting on our hands until new technologies show up. That's putting a lot of faith in business to do what is best for Americans... I'm not sure I've seen many businesses for profit with that line of thinking. If oil is still profitable, then new technologies will sit on the shelf or in the lab.


I work with and see new and existing technologies everyday. They are easy replacements for what we are currently doing. It can be very frustrating at times to see this, but the program is making a huge impact in the US and our energy consumption. It's a tough concept for many that our houses pollute more than our cars. (no tailpipe at your house)

I was waiting for someone to mention CFC's. I think this is a great example of what I'm trying to convey here. The refrigerants, aerosols, and other products that contained CFC'S were not replaced with some ingenious inventions as a result of legislation. These were off the shelf replacement technologies as a result of legislation. Last I heard the hole over the ozone is rapidly repairing itself.

Probably the most amazing documentary that I ever saw is called the Next Industrial Revolution. It's about the work and vision of architect William McDonough and chemist Dr. Michael Braungart, two INDIVIDUALS in a growing movement to transform the relationship between commerce and nature. It's about thought process and engineering (No politics in this film at all. Just a discussion and Socratic type of movie) and how we approach problems with engineering and design. They've recently worked with Ford and Nike to redesign their buildings and processes to work with nature.

In the US we always use cars as a benchmark for pollution. In 2005, just with the purchase of Energy Star labeled products (new construction or replacements), close to 12 billion dollars was saved and the greenhouse gas emissions equal 23 million cars were not put into our atmosphere. (I know some are thinking that many of these products are more expensive. They aren't more expensive to manufacture typically, they are just considered "niche" at this time.)

Helping the environment is not about growth and no growth. It's about working within common sense rules. In this country we are growing sickness instead of health. If it’s not illegal it must be ok. As a society we have to think about our intent, maybe education instead of ignorance. It's unfortunate that the issue of global warming has almost fallen along political dividing lines. The environment and our health are about more than global warming and whether it exists or not.

What if global warming doesn't exist? I feel like many want that to be the case so that society can continue down its current path. Even if it didn't exist, maybe it's a chance to change the way we conduct our selves and our impact on/with nature.
Anthony
Zeuslax
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:36 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postby Adam Gamradt on Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:43 pm

Great post.

I'm going to check out that documentary.
Adam Gamradt | www.minnesotalacrosse.org | "It's better to have a part interest in the Hope Diamond than to own all of a rhinestone." -Warren Buffet
User avatar
Adam Gamradt
All-Conference
All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 am

Postby Zeuslax on Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:57 pm

Gamradt wrote:

I'm going to check out that documentary.


William McDonough and Dr. Michael Braungart also have a few books out that are great.
Anthony
Zeuslax
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:36 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PreviousNext

Return to Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


cron