An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Ramo]

If you mean a "fatal blow," criticizing some statistical techniques while upholding its key findings, yes that's correct.

From the recent NAS report:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

Really what does this mean then?

Many who are of this opinion are on the take. Gore did not specifically accuse these two scientists since he obviously didn't know anything about them.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Many who are of this opinion are on the take. Gore did not specifically accuse these two scientists since he obviously didn't know anything about them.

Funny his immediate reaction was to imply this after discussing these scientists in question. No mention of their work credentials etc. merely a broad brush attack on any who dare contradict his mantra. It doesn't take a climatologist to figure out he was implicating those two as well.

The fact you choose not to ackowledge this obvious implication is not in anyway startling.


As for the MBH discreditting the fact that NAS has backed away and only acknowledged data of 400 years past says volumes. The attempt to link CO2 levels as a primary cause of global warming is indeed very much discredited as a consequence. Only additional and hopefully this time thoroughly examined proxy data will shed further light on the CO2 effects of global warming. My guess is in 8-10 years as we go through a solar cool cycle much of this will be bunked. But I could be wrong.

[Ramo]

No. If someone were to say that two politicians supported some program that that happens to benefit certain industries, and you were to say, many politicians are corrupt, that is not a smear on the two politicians specifically. That you cannot recognize this simple idea is not in anyway suprising.

And no, the NAS certainly hasn't backed away to only 400 years. Again:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

[Thedrin]

Funny his immediate reaction was to imply this after discussing these scientists in question. No mention of their work credentials etc. merely a broad brush attack on any who dare contradict his mantra. It doesn't take a climatologist to figure out he was implicating those two as well.

How was Gore able to discuss their work credentials etc. if he wasn't given any information about them other than what their opinion was, and quite possibly had never heard of them before?

[Ramo]

And more importantly, Gore isn't qualified to analyze either of these guys research. If they wanted a debate on the merits of various climate models, they should've brought on someone familiar with these guys' work. What Gore pointed out, and what he was qualified in pointing out, is that the consensus of the climate modeling community is that humans have a significant impact on global warming.

[chequita guevara]

Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

From AP

By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer

June 27,2006 | WASHINGTON -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

You can admit you were completely and totally wrong now, Berz.

[Gibsie]

But the point is, that Al Gore did not demonstrate there and then the validity of his claims. Did he pull out a contract of employment between the scientists and the oil companies? No! Therefore it was nothing but baseless slander, although on a technicality it seems t obe true. But that's not important. And sure he went on to explain why the other two were wrong and that most all of the scientific community disagrees with them, but that's not important either, because uhhhhh someone carry on

[Theseus]

I don't have time to delineate all of the flaws in common thinking about this issue... for the moment, let's hear from Dr. Lindzen at MIT:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

[Ramo]

A lot of that's bull****. Pretty much what one expects from WSJ Op/Eds. To pick the most important part of the article:

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist [Naomi] 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 905 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 905 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually
opposed it.

Peisner, in a letter to Science, had a response to Orsekes so shoddy, Science declined to publish it. A fella named Tim Lambert asked him for the abstracts that supposedly opposed the consensus view, and they were generally not in real scientific journals or not opposed to the consensus. For more info, see:

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

[Berzerker]

VG

Holding views that were arrived at honestly doesn't make them right either.

But I dont see Gore (or anyone here) proving them wrong, just a bunch of smears about their alleged dishonesty. So refute them using science, dont smear them and pretend you're a champion of letting the science lead us.

Except most of that funding isn't targetted to people who agree with their views since it's indirectly spent, i.e. given to say the NIH first.

Yeah, that removes the stench of politics. Any news on those unbiased gov't studies about medicinal marijuana?

But global warming can cause calving just like other natural causes. What, do you want him to only use imagery of stuff that can't possibly happen any other way?

The calving shown in Gore's movie is caused by gravity and the conveyor action of ice flows which is also caused by gravity.

But wouldn't the tilt just affect the variation in temperatures between the tropics and the poles and seasonal variations in the poles?

The tilt determines how much sunlight hits different latitudes, as the tilt decreases less sun hits the northern latitudes where ice sheets grow and expand.

Ramo

No. It can't be checked out. For the umpteenth time, Olbermann didn't cite references. Science does not work by making bald assertions.

Scientists cant check out the claim of higher CO2 levels? Wtf are you talking about? Gore didn't even have the decency to say he would look into the issue because he didn't know, instead he did what? Made a bald assertion about the integrity of his critics.

No, Gore didn't. I just read the transcript and he did not accuse the two guys cited of either thing.

I saw him do it twice, Ramo. Where is this transcript showing what Gore said in total? Nm, Ogie posted it. You were saying?

Many who are of this opinion are on the take. Gore did not specifically accuse these two scientists since he obviously didn't know anything about them.

Stop spinning, he was asked to respond to these particular scientists and their claims and he did it by accusing them of being industry lackeys on the take.

Gore isn't qualified to analyze either of these guys research.

But that ignorance qualifies him to smear his critics? He's a ******* phony.

che

You can admit you were completely and totally wrong now, Berz.

Oh, some scientists say Gore's movie is "mostly" accurate and this proves Gore didn't smear these 2 scientists? Try to remember what this is about...

[Solly]

"There is no season on record that ever had 26 frikkin' tropical cyclones. Furthermore, hurricane data from that period is rather unreliable."

On record? We could only record things a while ago when they reached land.

"Really, I would say the part we understand least is what the earth would be doing right now if humans weren't around. I've seen studies suggesting that our activities are overpowering a global cooling and some saying our activities are augmenting a natural global warming."

Models that try to forecast "scenarios" can't even back-cast correctly the progression of climate in the 20th centruy, unless of course they are the very latest models and are over-fitted to the past data. let's see if they correctly predict when El Ninos or la Ninas will arrive in the next 20 years.

And how about updating the proxy measurements..

"I think you are ignoring the fact that Berz is basing his rebuttal on faulty science, inspired in large part by the energy industry's payroll."

it seems to me like he's basing it on the lack of science, and the complete lack of understanding of the complexity of the climate system.

" don't really think the sky is falling when it comes to global warming. I think the amount of crap that gets spewed into our atmosphere is disturbing, but there is really no way of knowing what effects it is going to have."

Sava

[Solly]

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/316.pdf is a set of slides that looks into the falseness of some of the "evidence" into climate change. Quite an interesting view.

[Solly]

Bring the proxies up to date:

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

Surely given the recent fast warming, the proxies should also be off-the-scale..?

[mactbone]

The calving shown in Gore's movie is caused by gravity and the conveyor action of ice flows which is also caused by gravity.

That bullet wound was caused by gravity. The bullet exited the gun because of Physics. Therefore, the Natural Laws of Science have conspired to commit murder.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The calving shown in Gore's movie is caused by gravity and the conveyor action of ice flows which is also caused by gravity.

That's like claiming the WTC collapsed due to gravity on 9/11.

The tilt determines how much sunlight hits different latitudes, as the tilt decreases less sun hits the northern latitudes where ice sheets grow and expand.

In summer yes, but in winter, the northern latitudes get more sunlight than they do now. Less tilt = less pronounced seasons. In summer, things are tilted towards the sun, and in winter away. Regardless of the ammount of tilt, the average sunlight recieved by our planet is the same.