An Inconvenient Truth

[Harlan Huckleby]

The article explicitly stated that *most* of the scientists had not seen the movie nor read the book. And why would they? .....
Of course he did get some facts wrong, but the reporter still gave him 5 out of 5 stars for accuracy.

Is the movie in wide distribution, or just playing at some art theaters? I would guess it is a movie that most will catch on DVD.

Your supposition that many climatologists disagree with his point of view is curious. The 19 respondants are in close agreement, so you suggest without evidence that this is unrepresentative, others are just boycotting. But climatologists have a high degree of consensus on global warming. You imagine some dramatic split that matches the political argument.

The facts that he got wrong were pretty minor points.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Al's fearmongering on the topic, why waste time reading his book or pay to see his movie? I'm sure they know which of their colleagues he's getting his facts from, so they know the story already.

The Republicans in the Senate commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the scientific methods used to construct the various models about Global Warming. The Republicans (via their committee chairman) did this because they were unhappy with the predictions and recommendations they were confronted with.

The National Academy of Sciences returned their report just last week.

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/22/0606220392.php

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

Al Gore's documentary matches closely with this non-partisian review.

[the_idle_threat]

Is the movie in wide distribution, or just playing at some art theaters? I would guess it is a movie that most will catch on DVD.

A quick look at marcustheatres.com reveals it's playing right now on 3 screens in the Milwaukee area and 2 screens in Madison. That's just the Marcus theater chain. If somebody wants to see this movie, I'm sure they can find it.

Your supposition that many climatologists disagree with his point of view is curious. The 19 respondants are in close agreement, so you suggest without evidence that this is unrepresentative, others are just boycotting. But climatologists have a high degree of consensus on global warming. You imagine some dramatic split that matches the political argument.

We don't really know how many agree with this movie, but you and I both know the support isn't unanimous.

The facts that he got wrong were pretty minor points.

It still seems odd that an article would hail a movie which bills itself as "the truth" as being 5-star accurate when it doesn't get its facts straight.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ahh hell, for what it's worth, look at these graphs, anyway:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

the_idle_threat,

I don't think there is much to be done about this issue right now. It will have to be a world-wide effort, and that ain't gonna happen soon.

Fewer and fewer people are dismissing GW as just politics. If you see it that way, OK, but I just urge you to keep your eyes open.

[the_idle_threat]

Funny thing is, I don't dismiss it as politics. I do believe there coiuld be some truth to it. But my bullshit alarm goes off when something is being rammed down my throat as "an inconvenient truth" the way this movie and its marketing purports to do. The message is that if you question its "truth," you must be a political hack.

The title of the movie, and all the talk you hear about it in the media, fails to acknowledge that this stuff is still all scientific theory---not absolute fact---and scientists don't understand all that is involved. I'm just urging some healthy skepticism.

For example, I looked at the report you linked at nationalacademies.org (which was released in 2001 btw), and the summary contains the following paragraphs:

"Is climate change occurring? If so, how?

Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature warmed between about 0.4 and 0.8°C (0.7 and 1.5°F) during the 20th century. Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence detailed in this report. The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has warmed by about 0.05°C (0.09°F) averaged over the layer extending from the surface down to 10,000 feet, since the 1950s.

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th century warming in global surface air temperature occurred between the early 1900s and the 1940s and during the past few decades. The troposphere warmed much more during the 1970s than during the two subsequent decades, whereas Earth's surface warmed more during the past two decades than during the 1970s. The causes of these irregularities and the disparities in the timing are not completely understood. One striking change of the past 35 years is the cooling of the stratosphere at altitudes of ~13 miles, which has tended to be concentrated in the wintertime polar cap region. "

There's some warming going on, but it stops and starts, and there's some cooling going on as well, and the reason for it all is not completely understood. The actual science is much less tidy than the smoothed-over sound bites you get from the press or from Al Gore's movie.

My bottom line is this: There may be some truth to this, but it's obscured by a lot of bullshit, and the shitpeddlers are doing a great disservice to thier own cause by selling doomsday scenarios and trying to scare people, because they're turning people off to what might be a problem.

[the_idle_threat]

All that being said, Harlan, I appreciate the debate. I've been told I have an aggressive tone, but don't be alarmed ... I'm just an idle threat.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to up my post count ... I need a whole lot more before I can apply for admission to this new elitist trash can room or whatever it's called.

[SkinBasket]

Well, the "study" in question was just a survey by CNN. And whether they have 19 or all 100 people respond, it still isn't a statistically significant sample to predict the opinion of all 10,000 (or whatever) climatologists in the world. So the writer is just summarizing 19 opinions of climatologists, take if for what it's worth. 19 climatologists that are all impressed with Gore's documentary is convincing to me.

BTW, marketing surveys can be returned at a 1%, 2% rate, and they still get useful info out of them.

So in one paragraph you're trashing the validity of your own study that you've used to back up your arguments and then stating how even though it's trash it's still good enough for you? It sounds like your statements about Gore. You go on about how he is NOBLE and SINCERE, then you trash him too. Are you just admitting that no matter how junky the "science" behind all this, you'll believe whatever is tossed your way by an angry politician in tight pants? Your thin smoke screen of supposed political neutrality isn't very convincing.

And as far as I can tell, there is a large difference between a "marketing survey" and a scientific study. I would HOPE that when talking about science and global climates that we would be talking scientific studies, not marketing surveys.

[Partial]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

[MJZiggy]

That's my take on it too, Partial. I don't really care whether gw is real or not, I'd just rather not live in a cesspool of a planet. Our air quality sucks, you used to be able to go out into the woods and drink from the streams and we didn't have to worry about the effects of disappearing rain forests. As consumers we have a lot more power than we think. Let that toy company know you won't buy their product until it comes without packaging that outweighs the kid it's intended for. Think about it. The music industry gave in to consumer demand. Think about how much packaging used to go onto a CD. Now you're starting to see them coming out with cardboard folders for cases. Brilliant. Even better is that they're offering electronic delivery of their product.

Also, think about this. There is no real need to plant trees if we just leave the ones that are growning alone. Nature has a great way of reforesting itself--we just have to quit cutting the things down (and I'm not referring to the renewable forests logged for the paper industry. IMO it's their responsibility to replace the trees they cut down.) I'm talking about people completely flattening acres on acres of forest to put in a subdivision instead of working around some of the trees that are already there, which would do the new homeowners a favor anyway in making it easier to cool their Mcmansions in the summer. I'm talking about the continued devastation of rainforests to get the products that come out of it or from its removal, etc.

[Partial]

Urban sprawl is always going to be a problem though. That is why it is much easier for a large scale corporation ala ford to purchase a large amount of land, much larger than your average man can afford, and use it strictly to plant and grow trees. If a company is going to put something bad into the environment, with all the garbage that is already up there, they should be willing and ready to spend a little more cash, and clean that up.

Problem is that companies are cheap, and that added cost will most definitely come back to the consumer. Lame.

[MJZiggy]

I know that they will always be building houses and subdivision. My point there was that to do it, it isn't necessary to bulldoze down every tree within a quarter mile of the place. If they plan it correctly, a lot of them can be saved to the benefit of both the environment and the new homeowner, but it's just easier to plow everything down so that's what they do without even thinking about it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Funny thing is, I don't dismiss it as politics. I do believe there coiuld be some truth to it. But my bullshit alarm goes off when something is being rammed down my throat as "an inconvenient truth" the way this movie and its marketing purports to do. The message is that if you question its "truth," you must be a political hack.

Ya, that is the message. Of course there are a LOT of people who have tried to portray GW as a strictly political issue, Gore has been fencing with these people for 25 years, so you might understand, if not excuse, his triumphantalism.

BTW, if you see the movie, there is also the message that the Republicans stole the 2000 election. And you get to hear again about Gore is a deep person because his family grew tobacco and his sister died of lung cancer. And you get to hear once again the story of his kid getting killed in a car accident, and how this contributed to Gore becoming a Great Man.

Look, I agree, this movie is a tragic lost opportunity. Although I admire Gore's work in the field over the past 25 years, he was exactly the wrong person to narrate this documentary.

[Deputy Nutz]

It seems the global warming issue pops up about every 10 to 15 years, all the politician get all excited about it, our lovely movie stars get all fired up about it, and then it goes away.

I remember the big Global Warming Scare of the 80s, I was a little kid living in Wisconsin and I thought the glaciers were going to melt and flood us all.

Blame me, I was the one that farted.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So in one paragraph you're trashing the validity of your own study that you've used to back up your arguments and then stating how even though it's trash it's still good enough for you?

Well, this was a decidely UNscientific canvasing by CNN for a article at their website. The 19 respondants all generallly supported the science behind the film. Yes, that impresses me. If you walked into a Climatology convention, and the first 19 people you met told you opinion A, I think you would be highly reassured that opinion A is widely shared by the larger group. Not a scientific study, but I certainly accept it as supporting evidence. Make your own judgement.

It sounds like your statements about Gore. You go on about how he is NOBLE and SINCERE, then you trash him too. Are you just admitting that no matter how junky the "science" behind all this, you'll believe whatever is tossed your way by an angry politician in tight pants? Your thin smoke screen of supposed political neutrality isn't very convincing.

Well, I'm very conflicted about Gore. I do believe he is noble and sincere. And I also am angry at him for turning his film into such a personal/political statement. VEry selfish. Yes it's an odd mix. Sometimes people have deeply conflicting qualities.

As far as my "political neutrality", I don't beleive I've voted for a Republican in my entire life! But that is because of our crappy two-party system.
I'm not a political person. I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show and agree with him about half the time. I am an unusually open-minded person, I take things I like from people of all political stripes, from commies to Dick Cheney.